An alternative to HS2 route, follow the M40?

[brianthegiant]

I think the big question about the M40 route is: What is the difference in terms of:
1) No. of households within say a few miles of the route
2) Acres of designated land (AONB / SSSI ) aesthetically / materially affected by route.
I think there would need to be a significant saving of 1 or 2 to justify the cost of reworking the route at the level of detail theyre now working & put the project back 6-12 months in the process. Project rework is a costly game.

 

[vtiman]

i think we have to consider alternatives to the current route and maybe the top speed of hs2. i am a fervent believer in hs2 as we have an opportunity to not only increase the railway network but also provide a viable alternative to cars and short haul european flights. maybe hs2 should be just fast enough to temp modal change. would 160 to 185 mph be sufficient or would that scupper any modal transfer of passengers.

however i would rather make compromises and have the line built then stick to hs2 as it is and have it defeated and never built. discussing these would also possibly draw out the critics real reasons for opposition to hs2. if they were offered say a lower speed and other mitigations and still were opposed then it could be seen that the top speed is not an issue.

 

[asylumxl]

I don't really understand how HS2 is going to cox people out of their cars. Travelling long distance in a car, particularly in groups, is always going to be cheaper even than the current WCML fares. How is a service that will charge an even higher premium ever going to draw people out?

 

[brianthegiant]

If that were the case then passenger numbers wouldnt have doubled in the last 15 years ( which they have )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif

and be the highest since 1928 (which they are):
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/news/story?id=7407.

I think a big factor in that growth is the ability to get work done on a train with laptop & dongle/wifi which you cant do whilst driving.

It is by no means decided that HS2 fares will be at a premium, though it is one of many 'facts' propagated by the anti HS2 crowd. HS2 will have to operate in a more competitive north -south rail market with WCML, if they're too expensive no-one will use it and they wont be successful. so in fact HS2 will increase competition in ticket prices not reduce it.

 

[YesToHS2]

As an advocate of HS2 you would expect me to support the route so it will come as no surprise when I say that I think the current route is the best route.

I’m not one for blindly supporting projects especially one that is as controversial as HS2 so I have spent hours looking over maps and even had a go at creating my own routes, all of which end up looking the same as the ones looked into by HS2 Ltd.

I don’t believe that there should be any compromise when it comes to the route, HS2 will be around long after we are all gone, so to limit the speed to 186mph would be extremely short sighted, especially given that new lines are already being built to support trains travelling at 220mph.

This isn’t a line for today, it’s a line for 2025 when the economic climate will be very different, in order to compete with air travel it has to be as fast as possible. A straight line is more direct and faster which means journey times can be as short as possible.

I honestly believe with the use of tunnels and deep cuttings that residents from the Chilterns will hardly even notice the line once it is up and running. It will soon blend into the background like the WCML, M40, M1, and Chilterns line.

 

[vtiman]

i think that in general no matter what the maximum service speed of hs2 the current route is probably more or less the best one with as much environmental mitigation as possible even if it puts the project costs up.

any other route might be through less contentious countryside then the chilterns but would affect more people. when hs2 critics say upgrade the exisiting network that still means more lines that would effect more people, cause more pollution and disruption and likely as the wcml cost more !

the idea that people will travel less is a possibility but not very likely on current trends i.e. todays news that even more passengers are using the uk railways

i live near the ecml and welwyn viaduct and these are closer to me then is the a1m but i hear the motorway more you dont even really notice the trains much.
i am a rail and hs2 supporter and i also look cars and driving but recognize that for short to medium journeys the train is more efficient and less polluting then cars or short haul flights. i can see more business people using hs2 then regular rail for domestic trips as they can work onboard and the door to door journey might be quicker due to the huge time savings of hs2. we need a gamechanger

 

[jon0844]

I do agree that travel by public transport has probably become popular over driving for the very reasons mentioned above; laptops, wireless Internet, smartphones, Angry Birds and whatever. Instead of driving, you can be relaxing, playing a game, watching a movie and generally letting the train take the strain.

To be honest, while commuters will tut when there's a delay, most aren't really that bothered. If something bad happens, it brings out the Dunkirk spirit and gives people something to talk about!

I can see train travel continuing to be very popular, especially if people can justify the higher cost (possibly) of using a train over a car because of the perceived benefits.

Yes we will have more fuel efficient cars in the future, but I believe driving will still continue to get more expensive - so in 10+ years, things like HS2, HS3 and more lines joining them all up will be required - and it's all considerably greener.

 

[YesToHS2]

Yes To High Speed 2, HS2. for the economic and green future of the UK

 

[dalmahoyhill]

why will people choose HS2 over cars when its built? oil prices, oil prices are never going to go back to 80p a litre with peak oil coming and asia's economic growth sucking up demand. our transport strategy is going to involve more public transport and less car use (and yes that goes for electric cars).

As for building it for 186mph,that is pretty short sited, most new lines are now being built for 220mph top speed. all the new generations of high speed trains, velaros, agv's etc are all capable of this speed. well it only saves a few minutes to Birmingham above 186mph running but the idea is this is it is the 1st stage of a larger network north. The times coming tumbling down the further the line is extended. In fact the press have irked me a little. all the reports have said how the line will shave 30mins off the current WCML journey time to Birmingham. Funnily enough people have said 30mins is a lot for £18bill. Not one has mentioned its part of a total network and it adds vital capacity.
As the president of sncf said with hind-site they would have made the TGV sud est 4 track. good design involves planning for future developments and faster speeds is likely. the design is also supposed to secure a corridor for future 4 tracking.

As for the land take, there wont be a significant difference between 186mph with a curve radii of 4000m and 250mph and 7000m in the dense south east. both will impact on plenty of properties. so i think planning wise it would still get the same extent of opposition. I am not sure any route would get any less. looking at the snaking route of the m40 i am not sure it could follow it as closely as hs1 follows the m3&m20

I appreciate that people dont want it near them that's understandable but nimbyism isn't a justification in planning law. so people have to dig and try and find technical and economic reasons to try and block it. as some posters have said if you go to the anti HS2 sites they make all sorts of economic rationale about its un-viability. you look at all the members and they live along the route. its simple nimbyism. they will get compensation for the loss of value but the detriment to the quality of life it much overstated, it wont be that noticeable. it shows what a affluent country we live in that people would think its so terrible. i live next to the ECML (due to house prices not due to choice) and i dont notice it.

The north of england and scotland have suffered economically for the last 30 years, HS2 goes some way to rebalancing this, i dont want to see it blocked. at least with all 3 parties supporting it, it should get built.

 

[Striker]

and generally letting the train take the strain.

I can't believe you wrote that. Seriously.

 

[vtiman]

funnily enough i think that the critics might be better off concentrating on the issues of where the line will go and how it will effect the local environment. that is supposed to be the main reason for a planning inspector and a public enquiry really it is not to state that the figures dont add up without any real supporting documentation or indeed the even more spurious suggestions that have been made !

but the reason this is done is very deliberate. they are trying to sow the seeds of doubt onto the public with the hope that if they keep saying them over and over that their version of events will be accepted. so we will see plenty of "the sums do not add up for this white elephant vanity project for fat cats that will cut an armageddon like massive swathe of concrete bombs through the virgin countryside that will only save 10 minutes"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't believe you wrote that. Seriously.

well it is the age of the train and we are getting there !!!

 

[Geezertronic]

I can't believe you wrote that. Seriously.

I was watching Die Hard 2 the other day and I must admit I had forgotten about the cheeky comment in it when a Stewardess on a plane says something like (in a poor English accent): "Don't worry love, we're like British Rail - we get there in the end!"

Back on topic, I don't hear 186mph mentioned as the speed of HS2 trains but the media does seem to vary the speed they report from between that and 250mph. Reports such as the Taxpayers Alliance report are just more of the usual guff that appears every so often. I've read sections of it and it's nothing new...

 

[jon0844]

I can't believe you wrote that. Seriously.

Well, glad some people got it.

Anyway, I don't give a stuff about what you think about anything on here. Seriously.

I was watching Die Hard 2 the other day and I must admit I had forgotten about the cheeky comment in it when a Stewardess on a plane says something like (in a poor English accent): "Don't worry love, we're like British Rail - we get there in the end!"

Yes, that's incredibly cheesy!! Only thing that spoils an otherwise awesome film.

 

[Striker]

Anyway, I don't give a stuff about what you think about anything on here. Seriously.

And yet you still replied. Hmmm.......interesting.

You really should lighten up.

 

[jon0844]

Hey, I'm super chilled - sitting in first class on an EC train back from Leeds as I speak. I have accepted rather too many cups of tea and shortbread biscuits though!

 

[Harry_Seager]

Hello There,

I am producing a doccumentary regarding the HS2 Project. I would like all people who have an opinon on the matter to come foward. Anyone who would like to be interviewed, voice their opinion, pass on information or anything else, please speak now.

I will be at the convention this weekend.

Regards,

Harry

 

[Dai.]

Hello guys!

I was reading the news and saw this website:

http://stophs2.org/

What do you guys think about the org?

 

[WatcherZero]

That they would make crap accountants, theyve just produced a report saying the WCML could be upgraded to 140mph frequency doubled to 90 12 car train sets of a new 140mph design (replacing pendolino), 3 new platforms at Man Pic and Euston as well as extending all others on the WCML to 12 car length (Sorry Liverpool they say yours cant be done but they dont care), replacing all the Desiros from the WCML with 125mph versions and install ERTMS level 2 across the lengh of the WCML, all that for only £2bn.

They based their report on a consultation for them from Atkins but afterwards went through cutting costs in a 'Wings, why does a plane need wings when a helicopter doesnt?' style approach to reach their final figure.

 

[Chris125]

£2bn! Hahahahaha!

 

[rb311]

Well even if they got it 100% wrong, that's still only £4 billion, a fraction of the cost of the HS2 proposal.

And I raised the issue of environmental credentials on another thread and this was greeted with deafening silence. What is the CO2/km per seat of one of these wunder trains? Does anyone know? Or is it actually too embarrassingly high to promote?

 

[Clip]

Well even if they got it 100% wrong, that's still only £4 billion, a fraction of the cost of the HS2 proposal.

Even that figure is way wrong by many many billions.. Just getting new platforms at Manc and Euston would probably cost that much alone I reckon

 

[Chafford1]

Well even if they got it 100% wrong, that's still only £4 billion, a fraction of the cost of the HS2 proposal.

And I raised the issue of environmental credentials on another thread and this was greeted with deafening silence. What is the CO2/km per seat of one of these wunder trains? Does anyone know? Or is it actually too embarrassingly high to promote?

That would depend on the power source being used - the point with HS2 is that, given investment in nuclear power, it could be CO2 free. In addition, it will be sustainable in the long term, when oil prices rocket due to scarcity.

 

[rb311]

Well, according to a website that calculates carbon footprints, a current rail journey between London and Edinburgh would produce a CO2/km figure of 57g.

Compare that to the figure I calculated of 36g per passenger in a flight between the same and I would wager that new trains travelling at twice the speed are not likely to use less CO2.

What is also certain is that the UK will not be a single source power generation country, there will always be a mix of nuclear and fossil making up 100% of the generation requirements, as windmills can't be relied on.

So.... Will High speed trains have a nuclear generated electricity only selection switch?

I'm afraid the inconvenient truth is that railways are nowhere near as green as the environmentalist crusaders claim, so ripping up large areas of virgin countryside, next to a motorway or not, is not going to provide a green transport solution for the future.

As I have said before, railways are best for mass transit over short distances, so improving the existing infra structure, by increasing capacity, by providing new and larger trains, and filling in the removed links is a far better way to invest billions of taxpayers' money.

 

[tbtc]

Well, according to a website that calculates carbon footprints, a current rail journey between London and Edinburgh would produce a CO2/km figure of 57g.

Compare that to the figure I calculated of 36g per passenger in a flight between the same

Funny you should say that... the East Coast website claims that a return from London to Edinburgh is 148kg by plane and 66kg by train (so a return train journey uses less CO2 than a single plane journey)

http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/about-us/CarbonCalcPopup/?miles=786

(Train = 0.052kg CO2 / pass km. This is derived from the DEFRA CO2 emissions factor)

 

[jon0844]

I can't believe we're still comparing train travel with flying*. Ignoring the emissions for a minute, or even the cost; there simply isn't going to be a network of planes that can offer walk up fares and the flexibility that trains do.

Flying will only get more expensive, and while an A380 can be very fuel efficient per passenger, how many airlines have configured the plane to hold the maximum number of passengers? I am sure if we needed to, we could squeeze more seats into a train to reduce the figure too - but does anyone want that?

And, while it isn't environmentally friendly, a train can (and will) run near empty at certain times - if only moving a handful of passengers about. How many airlines will fly near empty before the service is cut?

Are timetables regulated and airlines forced to run all planes to cater for everyone? And how many planes are needed for the sake of trains that could, in theory, run every 3 minutes to the same destination?

I am hoping to be able to fly for many, many years. I just got back from Barcelona at Heathrow at 2.35pm today in fact, but if flying is going to get more expensive due to fuel issues - I'd rather concentrate on those longer flight routes than trying to use air over rail.

We lost Concorde and life goes on, with people accepting a doubling (or more) of flight time to New York.. and I am sure that people will accept a reduction of speed to go by train in the coming years. Those who can enjoy paying top dollar can still fly when there's a flight, or charter a plane/air taxi. Most of us won't.

* Actually, I can't believe we're arguing against a network of high speed railway lines! I'd love to suggest moving the route entirely and then seeing what all the anti-HS2 people said then. I bet they'd suddenly 'come round' to the idea.

 

[Geezertronic]

Hello guys!

I was reading the news and saw this website:

http://stophs2.org/

What do you guys think about the org?

Some of the older "articles" on that site must have been written as a joke, especially the "Prepare your ark" article

 

[Metroland]

Well, according to a website that calculates carbon footprints, a current rail journey between London and Edinburgh would produce a CO2/km figure of 57g.

Compare that to the figure I calculated of 36g per passenger in a flight between the same and I would wager that new trains travelling at twice the speed are not likely to use less CO2.

What is also certain is that the UK will not be a single source power generation country, there will always be a mix of nuclear and fossil making up 100% of the generation requirements, as windmills can't be relied on.

So.... Will High speed trains have a nuclear generated electricity only selection switch?

I'm afraid the inconvenient truth is that railways are nowhere near as green as the environmentalist crusaders claim, so ripping up large areas of virgin countryside, next to a motorway or not, is not going to provide a green transport solution for the future.

As I have said before, railways are best for mass transit over short distances, so improving the existing infra structure, by increasing capacity, by providing new and larger trains, and filling in the removed links is a far better way to invest billions of taxpayers' money.

57g is the average per the rail network which is falling. Intercity trains are nearer 27g because of their loads, such as the Pendolino and IC225. (domestic aviation is nearer 120g without adding the effects of radiative forcing)

The old chestnut of whole life emmisions just doesn't hold water either, it's only a few percent extra and rail infrastructure has a very long life, especially compared to private cars.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T913_rpt_final.pdf

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Energy-Consumption-and-CO2-impacts.pdf

As for using a of lot of land, the line would be 22 meters across. If it's 200km long, excluding tunnels, the land take is 22 x 200,000 = 4,400,000m2 or 1.69 miles of land or 4.4sq km, about the same size as a large village. As a comparison Heathrow is 12km2.

There may well be better ways to spend the money, but as it stands HSR is greener than the alternatives.

 

[vtiman]

57g is the average per the rail network which is falling. Intercity trains are nearer 27g because of their loads, such as the Pendolino and IC225. (domestic aviation is nearer 120g without adding the effects of radiative forcing)

The old chestnut of whole life emmisions just doesn't hold water either, it's only a few percent extra and rail infrastructure has a very long life, especially compared to private cars.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T913_rpt_final.pdf

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Energy-Consumption-and-CO2-impacts.pdf

As for using a of lot of land, the line would be 22 meters across. If it's 200km long, excluding tunnels, the land take is 22 x 200,000 = 4,400,000m2 or 1.69 miles of land or 4.4sq km, about the same size as a large village. As a comparison Heathrow is 12km2.

There may well be better ways to spend the money, but as it stands HSR is greener than the alternatives.

thanks for your comments and for working out the total area to put things into perspective. there are so many comments about vast or large areas or countryside which will be devestated by hs2 but the truth is somewhat less !

as for virgin countryside that is debatable. the line will enter the area in tunnel and will then follow a road and then the disused railway course for some distance. also originally the area would have been mostly wooded there wouldnt have been farmland or much in the way of settlements, roads, buildings or people for that matter !

as far as emissions are concerned, eurostar (300kmh) has calculated their emissions as being 1/10th of air and that short haul flights emit 160 grams not 60 !

http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/travel_information/before_you_go/Green_Eurostar.jsp

and as far as whole life emissions including manufacture or construction are concerned, until electric cars and wind farms and high speed rail were so much in the public forum, I had never heard this argument before.

interestingly the well to wheel of emissions are such that the us doe has calculated that this effectively reduces the mpg by a factor of .83 on a combustion engined car. daimler have also calculated that well to wheel adds 23g/km co2 for a petrol and 25g/km for a diesel engined car ! electrics are not a whole lot better at the moment because of the current (lol!) us electricity power generation mix - multiply mpg by .3 to get the equivalent.

thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_cycle_assessment#Well-to-wheel

in the future cars and trains and planes may run on hydrogen. but you will need electricity to create this hydrogen although it can also be used as a electricity energy store as a fuel cell. so all forms of transport will still generate pollution but electric rail less so then the alternatives. so unless we all stay at home with candles and hand cranked laptops then we need electricity and if we need to travel to use the least polluting means.

 

[Clip]

I think the real issue is how good the first class service will be and the buffet car

 

[TGV]

rb311 - please show us the workings for your own calculations that you have done and state your sources that contradict independant reports by established organisations that contradict your conclusion.

Rail is a mode of transport that can suit short distance travel through highly urbanised and/or densely built up areas where traffic congestion is high and parking space at a premium. But high speed rail in particular importantly has an optimal long distance role for routes between 100 and 400 miles where it is faster than driving and air travel when city centre to city centre times are concerned. In the UK the largest cities - London, B'ham, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester... etc... Are all nicely spaced within that bracket for such travel to thrive.

Someone on this thread has nicely worked out the land area required is favourable too - plus a few extra acres for junctions, sidings and new stations and its an interesting stat that is not used enough.

People are afraid of what they don't understand and I don't think many people fully understand high speed rail. They get brainwashed by those against it who make simplistic arguments that are constructed to be politically correct and easy to understand. The others have a harder job because their points take a more open mind to accept but often the truth is harder to accept especially when it's regarding something "new". A lot of people are cocncerned that something new will be worse and high speed rail is often mentioned in the same breath as widening motorways, extra runways etc... Usually by people that don't travel anywhere or only use local roads or railways and can't see how anyone else would ever need to go faster.