The Brexit part doesn't want it because we managed without it in 1976.
I'd better not stand as a candidate for them then as I'm unlikely to get any votes (I was born after then).
The Brexit part doesn't want it because we managed without it in 1976.
Brexit Party because they only like roads and hate public transport. Green Party because.. Umm haven't quite worked that one out yet.
andTR233 The Green Party will give high priority to introducing new rail services and increasing the capacity of existing services, by:
- Adding more tracks and grade separated junctions to existing lines.
- Reintroducing passengers to lines that at present are used only for freight. (see TR351)
- Major investment in new rail infrastructure, either along disused lines where applicable, or by building new lines where these would serve perceived demand.
- Opening additional stations to give all communities reasonable access to the rail service.
- Building more rolling stock to relieve overcrowding and handle increasing demand.
TR244 The Green Party believes that long-distance service provision should not concentrate on high speeds where this will affect local service provision or take up an excessive amount of limited resources. The Green Party supports the principle of a new north-south high speed line which would reduce the number of short-haul flights within the UK.
There are times when you despair of this country - and this is one of them.
Whatever the costs and merits of this particular project, we are decades behind the other major industrial countries (except the USA) who have all deployed this technology long ago.
The French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Swiss, the Japanese all have this technology and the Chinese over the last 20 years have built more high-speed track than all the conventional rail track we have.
Even if it were to go ahead, then England would get a few hundred miles of high speed rail 60 years (count them folks) after the TGV came into service. Now that's an incredible record for a supposedly advanced economy.
What is wrong with us ?
Their libertarian paymasters are allergic to all forms of public transport, and especially those requiring any form of public expenditure, or threatening to reduce the demand for petroleum products. Not all right wingers are anti-rail of course. Salvini is very supportive of the proposed new high speed line through the mountains between Italy and France, Orban rebuilt the little steam train in his Hungarian hometown, and Mussolini famously made the trains run on time. Doesn't detract much from them all being very nasty populist demagogues though.The Brexit part doesn't want it because we managed without it in 1976.
They dislike anything that carves up the countryside. They seem to think adding more tracks to existing rail routes and upgrading freight lines to passenger will do the trick.
Their libertarian paymasters are allergic to all forms of public transport, and especially those requiring any form of public expenditure, or threatening to reduce the demand for petroleum products. Not all right wingers are anti-rail of course. Salvini is very supportive of the proposed new high speed line through the mountains between Italy and France, Orban rebuilt the little steam train in his Hungarian hometown, and Mussolini famously made the trains run on time. Doesn't detract much from them all being very nasty populist demagogues though.
Perhaps he thought so because all the trains HE travelled on were punctual. Like the Queen assuming the world naturally smells of fresh paint and polish!Urban myth. He didn't.
"Me too" is an unconvincing argument (deployed by Adonis and others to "justify" the scheme).
We should have HSR in the UK if it's appropriate, not because others have it.
Urban myth. He didn't.
I understand that the Green Party opposition was because HS2, as (over-)specified, is a far less environmentally friendly plan than other ways of expanding capacity; and also that it is indeed destructive, not only of the countryside but of communities too - eg the homes and businesses that have already been trashed around Euston. Additionally, I've heard them complain about it being an elitist project, of special value to rich people for whom a small time saving is "valuable", when the same resources - put into improving less "sexy" local transport all over the country - would be of immense value to millions of ordinary people (whose time savings don't seem to count ... eg bus passengers' time not being counted as part of the "value" of speeding up bus services). Their fear about some of these aspects has, I think, been exacerbated by the fact that HS2 wouldn't tie in fully with existing rail infrastructure, instead having out-of-town "parkway" stations planned (thereby encouraging car use), and by the expectation that use of it would be priced as a premium product, leaving poorer people getting a worse-than-now service on the existing lines (like Domestic HS1 only much more so).
I believe the Green Party are very pro the expansion and improvement of pubic transport, certainly including railways ... but just not this particular scheme. I quite understand that "train fans" seem not to like any rail development to be questioned, especially something as snazzy as HS2. But that shouldn't be a reason to misunderstand or misrepresent the views of the Green Party over this. (NB - I'm not a Green Party member!)
Yeah, what a crime. Wanting a train network instead of three lines all running in the same bloody direction. How terribly terribly Victorian.If anything HS2 and modern HSR doesn’t seem to be popular with rail enthusiasts. They prefer to contemplate the reopening of Victorian branch lines serviced by 50 year old locos pulling rakes of coaches
The Green Party don’t seem to have anything sensible to say about HS2. Just vague stuff about upgrading existing lines and opening freight lines for passengers. No detail about how they’d upgrade the WCML or how much it would cost. No detail about which current freight only lines would be useful.
If anything HS2 and modern HSR doesn’t seem to be popular with rail enthusiasts. They prefer to contemplate the reopening of Victorian branch lines serviced by 50 year old locos pulling rakes of coaches
"Me too" is very convincing when the country is decades behind in 21st century infrastructure, has roads and railways that have severe capacity constraints, a population of 60m plus that is forecast to hit 70m in the years ahead and needs substantial investment in transport to enable people and goods to get around, and quite frankly, looks very silly compared to its neighbours and competitors.
Isn’t the TGV a massive debt millstone for the French?
We will have to disagree. Why not apply "me too" to other overseas infrastructure? Trolleybuses (like the French), toll roads (France again), trams (the Dutch) etc etc
HSR might be appropriate for the UK, but not just because others have it.
That depends on what accounting tricks you use.Isn’t the TGV a massive debt millstone for the French?
I think they've partly covered it by not investing in regional lines, which are pretty infrequent in some areas.
I don't deny it's not justified passenger-wise,just,if we're spending this much on HS2 already, let's do it properly and build the whole lot in tunnel apart from the stations and if that means cutting it back to OOC and postponing the Birmingham-Manchester of Phase 2a with provision for future building as this corridor is already pretty well served by classic rail, then that's a price worse paying. The environment is what I care about and that must be protected at all costs. You could argue HS2 will reduce emissions by a large amount but it doesn't have to be at the expense of the rest of the environment.If you build you phase 2b first either you have to build Curzon Street anyway (which would push the costs up for phase 2b and reduce the costs for phase 1) as I'm not sure what extra services you could run without it, or you would be limited to running Leeds/York to the East Midlands.
Now it could be that phase 2b could be started to be built sooner and/or faster so that it opens sooner. Although given the size of the project doing this could be difficult and run the risk of costs being higher than you would otherwise need.
This would be supply and demand, if HS2 had more works at the same time then there would be a need for more construction resources. Let's say that there's a limit of 100 of HS2 is taking 15 then there's still lots left for other works. However if it requires 30 then sky-high there's still a lot left that's likely to mean that the cost will have gone up to use them as there would be more other projects bidding to use them.
There is the risk to fall into the HS2 paradox, we want HS2 in the North more than in the South, that's not on the table and so we don't want HS2 at all.
Clearly it's better to get HS2 in 2040, or even 2060, than not have it at all. Yes there'll be less of us around to see it, but actually what does it matter if we can use it. The question should be, would the country be better off of HS2 existed? Part of that requires you to answer other questions including:
Do we need or not more rail capacity?
How will this help with carbon neutral goals?
What's the alternative if we don't?
Are there better value ways (these may not be just the cheaper ones) to achieve this?
I know I keep harping on about it, but rail growth has it performed what it should have done to justify HS2, which then results in it being better value than it otherwise would be. This also allows it to absorb some of the additional costs.
View media item 3340
In 2009 rail usage between London and the North West had 6,576,000 passenger movements per year. Based on predictions (2.5% growth per year) the target passenger movements per year for future years would have been:
2018 - 8,213,000
2026 - 10,280,000
2027 - 10,537,000
2033 - 11,894,000
Well in 2018 the actual figure was 11,213,000 which is:
36.5% higher than predicted for 2018
9.1% higher than predicted for the opening of Phase 1
6.4% higher than predicted for the opening of Phase 2a
5.7% lower than predicted for the opening of Phase 2a
If growth continues at an average of 2.5% per year then there's a 1/3 extra passenger movements to cover the post of the increases in costs.
If growth broadly results in passenger movements being the same then there could be problems with the increased costs. However when has that ever happened when you've provided extra capacity? As such that's a fairly unlikely outcome, which makes the outcome that passenger numbers will fall even less likely.
However another possible outcome is that there would be faster than 2.5% per year growth. If that happens then it could be that by 2040 could have seen growth, assuming 2.75% growth per year, to 20,366,000 (81.6% higher than today).
Assuming that the average loading of trains today was currently the first figures then the second figure would be the loadings in 2040 without building HS2:
40% / 72%
50% / 90%
60% / 109%
70% / 127%
80% / 145%
90% / 163%
Now if we build HS2 with its trains axle to carry 1,100 passengers then those loadings drop from/to:
72% / 38%
90% / 48%
109% / 58%
127% / 68%
145% / 77%
163% / 87%
That would mean that in 2040 comparable HS2 services could be almost as busy as they are now in passenger loading terms. The above is based on the assumption that we are comparing 11 coach trains with the new HS2 services.
That's with 2.75% growth per year, which is hardly a large amount. If it is lower growth then we'll hit those capacity figures a bit later. If it's higher than we got then sooner:
1.5% growth then 2060
2% growth then 2050
3% growth then 2038
4% growth then 2033
Now that higher figures are fairly unlikely, and is unlikely to be achieved, mostly because there'd be so little time after any part of HS2 is built for you to see growth because of the extra capacity.
However the opposite is also true, that growth of as little of 1.5% is also unlikely because of the big capacity improvements from HS2 attracting more users.
Either way, comparable services could be as well loaded by about the middle of this century with HS2 as they are now without it.
You could argue HS2 will reduce emissions by a large amount but it doesn't have to be at the expense of the rest of the environment.
Isn’t the TGV a massive debt millstone for the French?
The problem with a metropolitan area as large as London, (or even Birmingham and Manchester)is that a parkway station woulld be in the sector that the line heads out through, thus potential passengers from London and the Home Counties, particularly south-east London/Kent and east London/Essex would then drive some way around the M25 to get the train. With the current plan, almost every passenger wanting to use the service would use existing rail services into central London. These provide easy access from almost every area in the home counties. Birminham and Manchester would have similar issues with passengers getting across the region by car to likely parkway stations.Interesting but I wonder why they came to the conclusion that carbon would be reduced by "Constructing city centre stations rather than parkway stations". Are there so many people living in cities with good transport now that is true.
On a recent visit I made to San Jose in California the locals were making claims that by running commuter trains along the freeway and allowing people to park and go by car that had saved lots of carbon being generated.
For many people driving to a parkway station will be easier than driving into a local town which causes more traffic and pollution. I have lived in an area with poor local transport links most of my life so the choice is to drive to the station or stay at home. I have a car that runs on electricity and so will most others by the time HS2 is complete.
Yes, no, yes.We will have to disagree. Why not apply "me too" to other overseas infrastructure? Trolleybuses (like the French), toll roads (France again), trams (the Dutch) etc etc
The problem with a metropolitan area as large as London, (or even Birmingham and Manchester)is that a parkway station woulld be in the sector that the line heads out through, thus potential passengers from London and the Home Counties, particularly south-east London/Kent and east London/Essex would then drive some way around the M25 to get the train. With the current plan, almost every passenger wanting to use the service would use existing rail services into central London. These provide easy access from almost every area in the home counties. Birmingham and Manchester would have similar issues with passengers getting across the region by car to likely parkway stations.
I don't deny it's not justified passenger-wise,just,if we're spending this much on HS2 already, let's do it properly and build the whole lot in tunnel apart from the stations and if that means cutting it back to OOC and postponing the Birmingham-Manchester of Phase 2a with provision for future building as this corridor is already pretty well served by classic rail, then that's a price worse paying. The environment is what I care about and that must be protected at all costs. You could argue HS2 will reduce emissions by a large amount but it doesn't have to be at the expense of the rest of the environment.
Well they hardly run any short distance air flights between places where TGV goes, so carbon wise it is not debt but gain.Isn’t the TGV a massive debt millstone for the French?
Interesting but I wonder why they came to the conclusion that carbon would be reduced by "Constructing city centre stations rather than parkway stations". Are there so many people living in cities with good transport now that is true.
On a recent visit I made to San Jose in California the locals were making claims that by running commuter trains along the freeway and allowing people to park and go by car that had saved lots of carbon being generated.
For many people driving to a parkway station will be easier than driving into a local town which causes more traffic and pollution. I have lived in an area with poor local transport links most of my life so the choice is to drive to the station or stay at home. I have a car that runs on electricity and so will most others by the time HS2 is complete.
Similar arguments apply to other things which seem superficially to be helpful - like "offsetting" flights with investment into planting trees that will only soak up the damage caused by flying when it's all too late. If we face an emergency, then we have to do things that have a more immediate effect, and which don't make things even worse in the short term. That means reining in massive projects like HS2 and stopping most flying and car transport (amongst other things of course).
Emissions for concrete are negligible, there will not be that much concrete involved in the tunnel linings, compared to emissions from operations of the railway over decades to centuries.The other thing to consider is that concrete is very bad environmental, and you'd need a lot of it for the tunnel linings, which would increase the emissions for the construction of the project.
How is that different from simply having the government undertake to perpetually deny planning permission on that land?There's even the potential that HS2 would provide additional protection to the ancient woodland near to it, in that few would want to build close to it (few would want to own a house close to it). As such it could reduce the likelihood of development in the areas near it and so provide indirect protection.