Polarbear
Established Member
Ah, didn’t appreciate the load factors had gone up by that much! If that sort of increase continues, I’d probably argue for a connection at Curzon St to the XC network.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)
- Thread starter ABB125
- Start date
- Status
Ah, didn’t appreciate the load factors had gone up by that much! If that sort of increase continues, I’d probably argue for a connection at Curzon St to the XC network.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Esker-pades
Established Member
What @Ianno87 said.Good oh, I was talking to someone else.
Indeed.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Is there really a issue with the name though? HS1 has been in use for a few years now and I don’t see the demand for it to be renamed at all so why change the name HS2?
Northern Powerhouse is HS3 in all but name.
Simple a reduction in journey times with extra services being able to call at intermediate stations but obviously as it’s just London to Birmingham, it won’t benefit me when I travel to the aforementioned destinations.
Northern Powerhouse is HS3 in all but name.
Simple a reduction in journey times with extra services being able to call at intermediate stations but obviously as it’s just London to Birmingham, it won’t benefit me when I travel to the aforementioned destinations.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The truth is that HS2 will not go to Liverpool. At best, it will get to within about 40 miles of Liverpool. At worst, HS2 will stop in a field just outside Lichfield.
Some HS2 trains- though notably not the originally planned bespoke HS2 trains that won't fit the loading gauge- might enter the classic network and eventually get to Liverpool. But that really isn't the same thing at all. Trying to pretend it is the same is over-optimistic at best.
That assumes that a) inflation is a constant across all sectors of the economy and b) that the cost rises are attributable to inflation.
I think b) is a stretch; in my view, most of the cost rises have more to do with hopelessly flawed budget estimates to start with. I'm cynical enough to think the cost was deliberately underestimated in order to get it through Parliament, but it could just be appalling project management by HS2. Either way, the cost rises but the benefit doesn't.
As for a), inflation is not a constant. Wages are rising faster in Liverpool than in London, for instance; this actually reduces the savings of relocation that HS2 will supposedly bring.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
You could get a Eurostar to Paris long before HS1 was built. It took forever because the high speed line ended at Calais, which is kind of my point about HS2 not going within 40 miles of Liverpool.
Esker-pades
Established Member
The project is designed to alleviate capacity from the most congested parts of the WCML. Not every project has to benefit everyone. I the same way that the recent electrification programme on the E2G and SDA routes (Edinburgh to Glasgow, Glasgow/Edinburgh to Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa) didn't benefit commuters in Woking. If the basis for building things was "it has to benefit everyone", then nothing would ever get built. For the record, the locations listed will get some small benefits. Liverpool's will be the most noticeable.
But the existing infrastructure is faster and more direct. Compare the route from Crewe to Liverpool, and that from Waterloo International to the Channel Tunnel boundary.
One already has paths that can accommodate high speed services to/from Liverpool (see the current timetable). The Eurostar services did not have those paths, and had to very slowly weave between numerous high-intensity and frequency SE Metro services.
Further, the distance from Waterloo to the Channel Tunnel boundary is, at best, 70 miles.
The average speed of the routes is also very different (125mph max compared to 90/100).
To sum up: Shorter distance, faster existing infrastructure, existing fast paths in the timetable. Thus, the limiting factors don't apply in the case of HS2.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Really?
If that WAS true then can you please explain how come LGV Nord opened in 1993 and Eurostar started operations in 1994 using said line?
If the line ended at Calais like you said then it’s a tad selective to say what you did!
The only reason Eurostar took much longer then it does today is nothing to do with the French infrastructure but rather the fact that Eurostar had to use existing infrastructure between London Waterloo and the Channel Tunnel which meant having to fit in between existing services and also restricted to a 100mph running speed.
So your point is worthless especially as HS2 trains will serve Liverpool no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.
It's clear that Paris-Calais high speed railway was what was meant, even with the confused directionality of "to Paris" coupled with "ended at Calais".
However, the point that Liverpool won't be served by HS2 is generally silly as it's like saying that Crossrail won't serve Reading, or that Thameslink doesn't serve Cambridge.
HS2 will serve Liverpool - 40 minutes quicker than now.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
LGV Nord finished at Calais, with 60mph running from there to Waterloo.
Or, if you're Anglo-centric, it was 60mph running to the start of LGV Nord at Calais.
Esker-pades
Established Member
Which the WCML is not. As I said before, the existing infrastructure that HS2 is supplementing is much faster.
jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 894
Is the speed of Eurostars through the Channel Tunnel speed really only 60mph?
EDIT: Is it because they have to slip inbetween Shuttles?
EDIT: Is it because they have to slip inbetween Shuttles?
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Actually it was a average running of 62.14mph between London and the Channel Tunnel simply because of a lack of HS lines in the South East of England with a maximum speed of 100mph.
This is because and I quote directly from the report that the DfT commissioned on why the existing lines was not upgraded for Channel Tunnel operations that:
Eurostar operations shared the existing domestic track with local commuter trains that were restricted to regional speed limits. The problem of Channel Tunnel services continuing to share the track, with an expanding number of local services, would inevitably lead to capacity problems that would affect the performance of all services. In comparison, on the continent high-speed railway lines already existed to allow trains to travel at speeds of up to 300km/h.
https://web.archive.org/web/2008061.../rail/pi/ctrl/theneedforachanneltunnelrailli1
No, the linespeed is up to 99mph or 160kph - this doesn't mean they are restricted to 60mph in the tunnel in question.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-channel-tunnel-traveling-under-the-sea-18461.html
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Line speed is 100mph (well 99mph due to rounding from 160km/h) but IIRC Eurostars don't run at linespeed in order to create more paths for Shuttle. It's why Eurostars are flighted through the tunnel too. It is slightly faster than 60mph, to be fair, but not by much.
My point was more about the 60mph from Cheriton to Waterloo before HS1.
I do agree, the line from Weaver Jcn isn't exactly a branch line with 50mph running. But it's also not High Speed.
Polarbear
Established Member
Eurostar travels at 100mph through the Channel Tunnel. Yes, the services are flighted between the Euro Shuttle services, but a Eurostar typically takes 19 minutes to travel through the tunnel for a distance of 31.5 miles, an average of around 94mph.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I stand corrected, I always thought it was a bit longer, about 23-24 mins. Goes to show.
My point was more about the trundle from Cheriton to Waterloo though
Taking what you are saying and using the above example; we shouldn't have built the Channel Tunnel because no Eurostar trains would serve London.
What others are saying is that even without the CTRL it was worth building the Channel Tunnel so we get the services, and then in time build the better infrastructure to serve London better.
The problem with citing Liverpool as somewhere which needs the missing ~20% of high speed line is that even if you provided that you'd then find another city which claims that it needs it. Where do we stop? Newcastle? Cardiff? Edinburgh? Plymouth? Belfast? St. Ives (any of them)? Shetland Islands?
Whilst it is right that the likes of Liverpool are kept in the mind of those who are looking at future schemes, as it clearly should be better served than it is, there does need to be a limit to what HS2 does. Unfortunately that does have an impact, however Liverpool will see faster journey times to London by being able to run faster over the ~80% of the distance which the trains will be running on HS2.
The proportion of Crewe-Liverpool distance is relatively small compared to the overall distance from Euston, *and* most of that distance is travelled at a sustained high speeed of 100-110mph or more. Comparing it with pre-HS1 Eurostars trundling throuh Herne Hill isn't particularly fair (though it didn't stop E* becoming popular!)
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Going back a few pages, I brought up Liverpool precisely because HS2- on their website- were using the city as an example of how amazing HS2 will be for the country. It started off as a throwaway comment that HS2 are claiming nebulous benefits for cities that HS2 won't even go to.
Not really.
Though it should be noted the Channel Tunnel was also built on hopelessly inflated passenger numbers and nebulous regional benefits that have never come to fruition.
Let's assume that for some reason that trains which run on the infrastructure created by HS2 do not serve Liverpool, why do you think that would be the case?
Do those existing services to Liverpool call at stations which would mean that they couldn't use HS2? For instance do the call at Milton Keynes or Coventry?
If they don't stop before they get to, say, Crewe then why would you route them along the WCML rather than along HS2?
Whilst I agree that the CTRL was based on inflated passenger numbers, we've had 9 years of passenger numbers since HS2 was announced so we can compare how actual growth is performing compared to the predictions.
As some find big numbers and percentages hard to understand we'll compare 2009 to other numbers by using 2009 as a baseline of 100:
2009 actual 100
2018 predicted 125
2018 actual 150
2028 predicted 160
2036 predicted 195
As such the actual growth rate is much higher than the prediction of 2.5% year so far.
It's actually far enough ahead that rather than 2.5% per year we'd only need 2% growth each year for the next 18 years to hour the target in 2036.
Now whilst there's those who have pointed out that long distance rail travel is seeing a slowing of growth there's only been a couple of years where growth had been less than 2%.
You also need to consider what's likely to happen once there's faster journey times and extra capacity with the opening of Phase 1?
Will it buck the trend of every other project and see a slowing of growth or is it likely that there would be a significant amount of growth?
If it sees significant growth then within 8 years of 5% growth, assuming zero growth between 2018 and 2026, it would still be on target at the opening of Phase 2.
Unless you have any evidence which shows that the predictions on HS2 passenger numbers are way off target then please share them so we can all see them.
In the meantime here's the numbers from the ORR showing regional travel between London and the regions which will benefit from HS2:
View media item 3340
This is just wibble of the first order. Passengers for Liverpool will board HS2 trains at Euston. About 90 minutes after departure, they will arrive at Liverpool. The fact that 20% of the journey will be on conventional lines, and only half of that will be at speeds lower than 200km/h is irrelevant. Passengers will be on an HS2 service going from London to Liverpool, around 40 minutes quicker than today. That is a fact.
Do you think that HS1 services don’t serve Folkestone because 20% of the journey from St Pancras isn’t on HS1? And therefore Folkestone doesn’t benefit?
I’m struggling to see what your point is.
You are really struggling with your HS2 PR-waffle.
Already reduced in speed because there was no way to get HS2 out of Euston at the original planned "High speed", Liverpool is fobbed off with conventional lines and at an even slower speed!
HS2 has gone from being genuinely high speed to not quite but still, and if you're in Liverpool, you've not even got high speed at all. Just a sad annex to high speed. A gesture.
Bald Rick, you are good at spinning it but admit defeat here. Liverpool does not get HS2. It gets an apology of a service, at a lower speed, at on conventional, non-HS lines.
So, what's your point? It still reduces journey times and increases capacity. Plus your more likely to get high speed rail all the way to Liverpool if we build to Birmingham first.
All the initial fleet will be 'classic compatible' and they will all be able to run at full speed on the new infrastructure and reasonable speeds elsewhere, just as mini-shinkansen trains do in Japan today and as high speed trains do in nearly every other country that has high speed rail, as the networks have developed over decades. In the early days, there was much criticism of HS2 for it being completely segregated from the existing railway. While that remains the case at the London end, as the scheme has developed more integration with the rest of network has been introduced in the north, but some of the same critics now claim the through running of services to classic destination is 'not really high speed'. Inconsistency in arguments suggests there may be other reasons behind such opposition.
Did you miss my post, if so I'll provide it below, if you can please provide a response to the questions provided to explain your reasoning above:
I do have one further question, after HS2 is the existing line to Liverpool going to retain its speed or does it see the speed of the line reduced? The reason for asking is that from your post it does appear that Liverpool would be seeing a slowing of services, if this is the case can you provide details of where this has been confirmed.
From the same crew that brings the argument "HS2 should be reduced in speed to save money".
So...the speed gets reduced* as per your wishes and....that then becomes the anti-argument? Doesn't make sense much sense, does it?
*Actually, given that all trains, including Liverpool trains, will stop at Euston and Old Oak Common, not an awful lot of point in designing for a high speed. That's just sensible engineering.
Also interesting that those that compain that Birmingham Curzon Street is too far from New Street (even though its not), simultaneously complain about HS2 trains serving the existing Lime Street station as being "not HS2". Lime Street probably rivalling New Street in terms of central location and onward connections. Feels like whichever one it is, the argument is *always* on the other foot....
With Phase 2a, Liverpool-Euston services see an acceleration of something in the order of 30-35 minutes compared to today.
If (and it is only an "if", but at least does show serious consideration, time, effort and money is being thrown at the idea) the passive provision for the junctions in Cheshire translates into a new route to Liverpool, the journey time reduction will be even better *and* potentially give a high speed or segregated route all the way to Liverpool city centre.
HS2 can't all be built in one go, but Liverpool is probably the biggest single beneficiary from Day 1. It gets High Speed services (in any shape) many, many years sooner than Leeds, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh will. That says something about how important Liverpool is to HS2.
Last edited:
Bald Rick more or less confirms that Liverpool gets a slower service, or at least nothing which improves on what they have now.
The phrasing of your first question isn't clear, sorry, if you could rephrase it I'll try my best.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
So by your own comments, the likes of Ramsgate, Dover and Margate don’t even have anything resembling a High Speed service because the services operate over conventional infrastructure between there and Ashford International then despite operating as such for a number of years.
The fact remains that Liverpool will see HS services even if 20% of the route is over conventional infrastructure as it still means that 80% of the route would be over HS2 meaning in layman terms, a decrease in journey times for those travelling to/from Liverpool.
I did absolutely nothing of the sort, and yet again you are deliberately writing falsehoods.
Let me make it abundundantly clear in simple English.
Liverpool gets a much faster service than today, with more capacity than today.
Manchester gets a much faster service than today, with more capacity than today.
Preston gets a much faster service than today, with more capacity than today.
This is not spin. This is fact. Liverpool is not being ‘fobbed off’. Neither is anywhere else that is proposed to be served by HS2 services.
Other facts:
It was never planned to come out of Euston at ‘high speed’ whatever that means. In the same way that no rail line out of a London terminal has a high speed immediately on departure. The linespeeds planned within the London area are as they have always been proposed, and more or less meet the speeds able to be achieved by the rolling stock. Which is more than can be said for ‘high speed’ services departing termini stations almost everywhere else in Europe.
I know you don’t support the principle of HS2, that’s fine as it’s your opinion. But I’m genuinely at a loss to understand how you interpreted my or any other comments to mean that Liverpool gets ‘a slower service’. Why you write this stuff in full knowledge that it is incorrect is beyond me. Frankly it just makes you look silly.
So I will ask you a simple question. Why do you write these things that you must know to be false?
Because I know the truth about HS2. You only have PR and spin.
- Status