It's laughable that people purport to 'support the railway' because they support HS2, whilst espousing sub-Beeching nonsense.
I’m not sure I understand by “sub-Beeching nonsense” (?) but I am confused by the attitude that we should focus on building heavy rail to rural towns instead of focussing on linking large cities (which is the market where heavy rail is most competitive).
I could understand the “build more lines to all places” approach, or the “don’t build any new lines” approach, but the idea of focussing on areas of low population density and ignoring the biggest conurbations confuses me.
I’m also not certain what you mean by “supporting the railway” – is this some kind of purity test to assess whether someone is a proper enthusiast?
Surely wanting a new line like HS2 *is* supporting the railway? Or can we only truly be considered to “support the railway” if we agree to permanently subsidising every quiet branchline?
Can I be considered to “support the railway” if I think that a new line linking our biggest cities is A Good Thing but am relaxed about closing rural backwaters like Knottingley – Goole?
(as I’ve said before though, if HS2 only followed lines closed in the 1960s, people on here would
love it!)
Furthermore, the next generation of travel threatens to render HS2 useless. The next generation could be faster air travel with innovative security, it could be autonomous road vehicles, the hyperloop or anything else. At the same time, ticket prices on HS2 will be prohibitive, whilst it will be possible to do most things on the internet
Funny how the “autonomous road vehicles/ everyone working from home/ doing everything online/ never having to leave the house” arguments are only used against HS2 – presumably these advances in technology won’t affect (say) the Woodhead line any of the other Usual Suspects that people want us to re-open?
(ignoring the fact that most people having been online for twenty years or more and rail use has roughly doubled in that time, so the idea that doing most things on the internet will mean we don’t need trains seems… thin)
We could also stop HSTs from going off-lease by giving them secondary expresses. The 140mph expresses would be run by 390s, with 221s and HSTs running the 125mph expresses.
So your solution for the WCML would be
- 110mph HSTs (they can’t tilt so would be restricted to this top speed)
- 125mph 221s
- 140mph 390s
…can you see how poor a use of paths that would be? Lines with uniform speeds can achieve many more trains per hour - the killer is when you try to mix 75mph/ 100mph trains with 125mph trains (or faster) - which is why the Victorian lines are struggling at the moment.
To be fair to Peter, he doesn't have to prove anything, but as the upper budget of HS2 is still unknown and unconfirmed, and as supporters of HS2 rarely answer me when I ask them "how much is too much?", it could be validly argued that any scheme which offers an alternative to HS2 is demonstrably cheaper than it.
At least Peter is coming up with some ideas – rather than just stirring the pot and asking unanswerable questions (the kind of questions which aren’t levelled against other schemes).
For example, you’ve suggested a Preston – Southport line in another thread – I don’t remember anyone dismissing this with scare stories about how tickets
might be £100 (because nobody has specified ticket prices so it’d be impossible to categorically state that they wouldn’t be)…
…or suggesting that because the construction costs aren’t guaranteed that we shouldn’t commit to a project until the entire costs can be quantified?
There is no upper limit to the current budget. You know that. You know that the current budget could be breached because no ceiling has been put in place
…so just like every other rail project (see above)?
The same arguments can be said of Transpennine electrification or EGIP or redeveloping New Street but the “no upper limit” argument only seems to affect HS2 threads. Strange that…
Has any rail infrastructure scheme ever "paid for itself" purely through fares? If not, then requiring that of HS2 seems unfair.
I don’t think so – again, another thing that people only bash HS2 for (just like the “but how will this benefit somewhere hundreds of miles from the project” argument that isn’t applied to other projects).
As far as I’m concerned, one of my benchmarks would be that new routes ought to require no operational subsidy – that seems a reasonable starting point – but I wouldn’t expect everything to repay construction costs over a twenty/fifty year period.
Marylebone Station could be double decked. Uch cheaper than Euston.
Double decking Marylebone?
Above or low-level? Where would the new lines join the existing infrastructure? In the current throat or further out?
Hang on a minute. Yes ticket prices will.
HS2 is sold as not just being for rich commuters going to London Euston. It's for ordinary passengers too, apparently.
In that case, we need to know how affordable the tickets are going to be.
Again, dodging, weaving, distracting, asking questions that you know cannot be answered.
Yet with every other project, people manage to form an opinion of the feasibility without needing such assurances.
Personally, I think that the operating costs on a 400m train (on non-Victorian lines) mean that it should be much cheaper per seat, so ticket prices may be lower because we can dump seats.
But even if someone could guarantee the price, you’d find a different reason to be against it. Be honest, eh?
(and the idea that eighteen 400m long trains per hour will only be used by the wealthiest 1% of society and no "ordinary" people?)
OK, I'm pretty certain that PR1Berske is a satirical account run by a supporter of HS2. Fair play, some of it is actually quite funny.
This isn't a particularly witty post, but it shows the technique. PR1Berske asks a ridiculous question about ticket prices in full knowledge that no-one can answer it yet. A baby could destroy this as an anti-HS2 argument. This deliberately makes the questioner - and by extension those that oppose HS2 - look silly. The end result is that more people support HS2. I'm a good example. I'm actually somewhat sceptical about HS2, given the benefits versus the costs, and I wonder whether it is the best way to spend so much money. But the arguments posted by those claiming to oppose HS2 are so idiotic and easy to see through that I find myself instinctively supporting the project after reading this forum.
That’s similar to me – I was against it but the reasons given were so threadbare/ disingenuous/ weak that I came round to supporting it (even though it won’t personally benefit me – it might have if there was still going to be a stop at Meadowhall though!).
I’m not saying it’s perfect, I don't think anyone is saying it's perfect, but there’s a clear problem (main lines north out of London at/approaching capacity, increased population, current routes unable to cope with much more tinkering) and HS2 will solve much of that.
It’s not the answer to everything but it looks like being the only option on the table, so it’s a case of backing it or struggling on with existing infrastructure – in which case I back it.
It's taken over a decade to get this far - getting the crayons out and trying to create an alternative "perfect" high speed railway would be a waste of time now - I think we have to accept HS2.
Oh God. So from that image, they want to re-open Sheffield Victoria, which breaks connectivity with existing services. Fix that problem by building a 3rd station in Sheffield - which from geography would almost certainly have to be a mega-expensive tunneled station. Then they want to run a 'high speed' line along the very curvy existing line out from Victoria towards Woodhead (good luck with that)
It’s funny how people are against HS2 for not integrating with the conventional railway (e.g. there would be platforms at Leeds/ Manchester Piccadilly, but not within the current station footprint/ not connected to existing lines) but were happy for HS2 to serve a whole separate station at Sheffield.
Victoria to Midland isn’t a short walk (like Curzon Street to Moor Street / New Street would be in Birmingham) but a whole other site (on a viaduct, no tram integration etc)…
...best part of a twenty minute walk along a fairly grotty route on the edge of the city centre (negotiating the various overpasses/ dual carriageways)...
…but, hey, Victoria was part of the 1960s railway so it gets an automatic pass (whereas building HS2 platforms on a brand new alignment into Leeds - where the buffer stops are within touching distance of the current platforms 16/17 would be A Bad Thing because it’s a new route and only things listed in Bradshaws can be accepted!).
One of the complaints about HS2 is that Coventry would loose out on the service frequency that it's got
Coventry is a funny one.
One justified criticism of HS2 is that it won’t directly serve some places that currently punch above their weight in terms of the London service that they get because they are an intermediate stop on a longer service – Wakefield/ Stockport/ Coventry (and Chesterfield, in the days when the plan was for HS2 to serve Meadowhall).
They wouldn’t justify the London frequency/lengths that they currently get if it wasn’t because they are a stop on the line from Leeds/ Manchester/ Birmingham etc. Run the Leeds/ Manchester/ Birmingham services on a new faster alignment to London and you don’t need to run it via these “secondary” places (maybe that’s why someone from Preston is so against it?).
On the one hand, that frees up more space for local trains on those lines (e.g. the discrepancy between the Intercity services and the local ones timed for 75mph DMUs through Wakefield) but I accept that it probably means that some places won’t enjoy the frequency/current journey times to London that they get right now.
However, if the anti-HS2 argument is that “we should upgrade the Chiltern line to take more of the London – Birmingham passengers to free up more capacity on the WCML for Manchester/ Scottish services”, that seems to be agreeing with the idea of relegating Coventry to poorer services… anti-HS2 people can’t have it both ways!
