An alternative to HS2 route, follow the M40?

[Jonny]

Also there are a lot of "single-issue" people out there, according to a local councillor who happens to be a relative. I think the opposition to HS2 is just that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Some people, especially countryside dwellers, just want to slow everyone else down and then wonder why some of us get upset when we are effectively disrupted by their messing around.

 

[Invincibles]

I sometimes wonder if we have chosen the wrong route to start HS

Maybe it would be better to construct a triangular junction near Thurrock and send HS northwards from there. It has been mentioned on here how boring the ECML is in its southern section and that is because of the large amount of flat land (not sure I agree that it is boring, but the land is flat)

So I am thinking a sweeping curve (possibly via Stansted) and up past Cambridge towards Retford and in to Sheffield and Manchester via Woodhead could work. It would make a branch north to Newcastle fairly straightforward.

In terms of terminus in London I think it would be possible to use HS Domestic at St Pancras for the few trains that would initially operate through and let most terminate at Stratford (it is where the main business interest is). Through operation to the continent could easily be achieved by the triangle junction and so avoid London totally.

To relieve pressure on the WCML other works could be considered, especially 4 track between Wolverhampton and Birmingham to allow Pendolinos to operate at 140 mph through there.

As soon as the network is up and running properly they will be desperate for a Chilterns Parkway station and getting the route through there should be easier.

Is this project designed to be slow and potentially fail?

 

[Jonny]

I sometimes wonder if we have chosen the wrong route to start HS

Maybe it would be better to construct a triangular junction near Thurrock and send HS northwards from there. It has been mentioned on here how boring the ECML is in its southern section and that is because of the large amount of flat land (not sure I agree that it is boring, but the land is flat)

So I am thinking a sweeping curve (possibly via Stansted) and up past Cambridge towards Retford and in to Sheffield and Manchester via Woodhead could work. It would make a branch north to Newcastle fairly straightforward.

In terms of terminus in London I think it would be possible to use HS Domestic at St Pancras for the few trains that would initially operate through and let most terminate at Stratford (it is where the main business interest is). Through operation to the continent could easily be achieved by the triangle junction and so avoid London totally.

To relieve pressure on the WCML other works could be considered, especially 4 track between Wolverhampton and Birmingham to allow Pendolinos to operate at 140 mph through there.

As soon as the network is up and running properly they will be desperate for a Chilterns Parkway station and getting the route through there should be easier.

Is this project designed to be slow and potentially fail?

I mostly agree, as someone from the North-East, however I think it should be HS3 start from somewhere near Liverpool Street, head for Cambridge/Peterborough and then follow an existing corridor (such as the A1/A1(M) road or the ECML (which could be used in the interim N. of Peterborough); with the long-term intention of covering the current ECML/MML-Midlands and North destinations. If ERTMS/ECTS is implemented successfully, it could even be overlaid on the ECML to enable faster running on the existing lines - either interim or permanent.

 

[TDK]

HS 2 is a waste of money whatever way you look at it, the UK is just too small and built up to merit a high speed line - in 2026 communications will have improved to the level where business people in Birmingham won't need to go to London for a meeting or to work - the money should be spent elsewhere upgrading the existing lines. For HS2 to work the route needs to be straight, 220mph with no station stops between the major cities, then what happens to all the people who want to travel say from Reading, Oxford etc. Standard rail travel.

The figure quoted will double or even treble and the country just won't be able to afford it.

Here is a scenario, Chester to London via Manchester or Birmingham using HS2? It can be done now direct on the WCML in 2 hours so how long will it take from these 2 points. You can duplicate this all over the country.

I haven't looked into HS2 a great deal but the cost quoted is well low on what the real cost will be and how many Major or Minor cities will it serve?

 

[tbtc]

the UK is just too small and built up to merit a high speed line

For HS2 to work the route needs to be straight, 220mph with no station stops between the major cities

So you're saying that we don't need a High Speed line *and* the proposed line isn't fast enough? Which is it?

in 2026 communications will have improved to the level where business people in Birmingham won't need to go to London for a meeting or to work

Communications are already good enough, what with video conferencing even available on mobile phones, yet business travel hasn't halted. People often trot out the "technology will evolve meaning we can all work from home, never need to travel..." etc, yet we still do

what happens to all the people who want to travel say from Reading, Oxford etc

On the existing lines. HS2 isn't instead of, its as well as (but it will take some passengers off these lines, saving some capacity, freeing up paths and seats on existing routes)

 

[TGV]

HS 2 is a waste of money whatever way you look at it, the UK is just too small and built up to merit a high speed line .... I haven't looked into HS2 a great deal

Evidently. I suppose Japan is also too small and built up for high speed rail? Yeah, that'll never work.

Some facts for those who keep saying the UK is too small for high speed rail:


Tōkaidō Shinkansen - Length: 515km (Tokyo to Kōriyama - 220km)
Sanyō Shinkansen - Length: 554km
Tōhoku Shinkansen - Length: 674km
Jōetsu Shinkansen - Length: 270km
LGV Nord (France) - Length: 333km (to Channel Tunnel) 492km (to London)
LGV Sud-Est (France) - Length: 409km

London to:
Glasgow - 642km
Edinburgh - 628km
Newcastle - 430km
Manchester - 300km
Leeds - 309km
Birmingham - 180km (Birmingham is the same size as Shizuoka in Japan, and the same distance from London as Shizuoka is from Tokyo)

The UK is an ideal size for high speed rail. It's the attitudes that aren't ideal for it.

 

[WatcherZero]

Government this week will announce an extra £215m will be spent on noise suppression methods such as grass covered roofed cuttings, embankments and trees/fences that will reduce the number of properties affected by 90%.

 

[LE Greys]

Evidently. I suppose Japan is also too small and built up for high speed rail? Yeah, that'll never work.

Some facts for those who keep saying the UK is too small for high speed rail:


Tōkaidō Shinkansen - Length: 515km (Tokyo to Kōriyama - 220km)
Sanyō Shinkansen - Length: 554km
Tōhoku Shinkansen - Length: 674km
Jōetsu Shinkansen - Length: 270km
LGV Nord (France) - Length: 333km (to Channel Tunnel) 492km (to London)
LGV Sud-Est (France) - Length: 409km

London to:
Glasgow - 642km
Edinburgh - 628km
Newcastle - 430km
Manchester - 300km
Leeds - 309km
Birmingham - 180km (Birmingham is the same size as Shizuoka in Japan, and the same distance from London as Shizuoka is from Tokyo)

The UK is an ideal size for high speed rail. It's the attitudes that aren't ideal for it.

Japan happens to be extremely mountainous, meaning that 90% of the population lives in extremely densely-packed cities. France has a much lower population density than us, so lots of empty countryside. Britain happens to be more like Germany in terms of population density and levels of urbanisation, so many small towns relatively close together. That's why I generally lean towards the German model for high-speed rail, basically a faster addition to the existing network rather than a series of special services requiring advance-booking (France) or a separate network (Japan - also a wider gauge). I'm not saying it won't work, but it would probably be a mistake for it to be a separate system. I hope that I will be able to turn up at Euston with an OPR, and choose HS2 or WCML without the need to book.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I sometimes wonder if we have chosen the wrong route to start HS

Maybe it would be better to construct a triangular junction near Thurrock and send HS northwards from there. It has been mentioned on here how boring the ECML is in its southern section and that is because of the large amount of flat land (not sure I agree that it is boring, but the land is flat)

So I am thinking a sweeping curve (possibly via Stansted) and up past Cambridge towards Retford and in to Sheffield and Manchester via Woodhead could work. It would make a branch north to Newcastle fairly straightforward.

In terms of terminus in London I think it would be possible to use HS Domestic at St Pancras for the few trains that would initially operate through and let most terminate at Stratford (it is where the main business interest is). Through operation to the continent could easily be achieved by the triangle junction and so avoid London totally.

To relieve pressure on the WCML other works could be considered, especially 4 track between Wolverhampton and Birmingham to allow Pendolinos to operate at 140 mph through there.

As soon as the network is up and running properly they will be desperate for a Chilterns Parkway station and getting the route through there should be easier.

Is this project designed to be slow and potentially fail?

I mostly agree, as someone from the North-East, however I think it should be HS3 start from somewhere near Liverpool Street, head for Cambridge/Peterborough and then follow an existing corridor (such as the A1/A1(M) road or the ECML (which could be used in the interim N. of Peterborough); with the long-term intention of covering the current ECML/MML-Midlands and North destinations. If ERTMS/ECTS is implemented successfully, it could even be overlaid on the ECML to enable faster running on the existing lines - either interim or permanent.

I'd be looking at Stratford for the junction, then following the Central Line to somewhere near Leyton, then the M11 to Stansted and the railway from there to Cambridge. Building accross the Fens might be a bad idea if there is any risk that they might flood in the near future, but running roughly along the Cambridge-St Ives route ought to work. ECML/A1 from there northwards with connections to the classic line at Peterborough, Grantham and Doncaster (mostly for infrastructure trains to get on and off). Finally, join HS2b (or whatever it's called) at Colton Junction or Darlington, depending on whether or not it runs via York.

I believe that Greengauge 21 also proposed this.

 

[TGV]

Agreed. The UK high speed network should not be isolated from the classic one. Through trains are essential that use part of the high speed network to cover the long distances then continue on classic lines to the ultimate destination.

My main point was that the distances involved fall very neatly into the bracket that makes high speed rail competitive with other modes.

 

[TDK]

So you're saying that we don't need a High Speed line *and* the proposed line isn't fast enough? Which is it?



Communications are already good enough, what with video conferencing even available on mobile phones, yet business travel hasn't halted. People often trot out the "technology will evolve meaning we can all work from home, never need to travel..." etc, yet we still do



On the existing lines. HS2 isn't instead of, its as well as (but it will take some passengers off these lines, saving some capacity, freeing up paths and seats on existing routes)

Yes - I am saying we don't need a High Speed Line - the proposals are to link major cities such as London - Birmingham - Liverpool - Manchester - Glasgow, to be honest the times currently are not too bacd to Birmingham and Manchester and does the amount of money to be be spent merit 30 minutes odd off the journey time? No I think it does not, for instance what would be the journey time from Euston to Manchester non stop currently and what would it be on HS2? Then work out the cost per million per minute saved - surely the money should be spent on exisiting infrastructure

 

[Invincibles]

Japan happens to be extremely mountainous, meaning that 90% of the population lives in extremely densely-packed cities. France has a much lower population density than us, so lots of empty countryside. Britain happens to be more like Germany in terms of population density and levels of urbanisation, so many small towns relatively close together. That's why I generally lean towards the German model for high-speed rail, basically a faster addition to the existing network rather than a series of special services requiring advance-booking (France) or a separate network (Japan - also a wider gauge). I'm not saying it won't work, but it would probably be a mistake for it to be a separate system. I hope that I will be able to turn up at Euston with an OPR, and choose HS2 or WCML without the need to book.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




I'd be looking at Stratford for the junction, then following the Central Line to somewhere near Leyton, then the M11 to Stansted and the railway from there to Cambridge. Building accross the Fens might be a bad idea if there is any risk that they might flood in the near future, but running roughly along the Cambridge-St Ives route ought to work. ECML/A1 from there northwards with connections to the classic line at Peterborough, Grantham and Doncaster (mostly for infrastructure trains to get on and off). Finally, join HS2b (or whatever it's called) at Colton Junction or Darlington, depending on whether or not it runs via York.

I believe that Greengauge 21 also proposed this.

I would use a viaduct method of construction with simple concrete, particularly where flooding was a potential issue. Not aesthetically pleasing but it would prevent flooding and allow any development underneath to proceed unhindered.

Indeed such a method would create obvious areas for the expansion of housing to cope with the increased demand that the rising population places on the exisiting stock. Yes you lose countryside but you solve many problems (no houses where flooding would be at its worst obviously)

I know that this would bring a lot of protest from people, but something has to be done about all the potential problems.

 

[tbtc]

Yes - I am saying we don't need a High Speed Line - the proposals are to link major cities such as London - Birmingham - Liverpool - Manchester - Glasgow, to be honest the times currently are not too bacd to Birmingham and Manchester and does the amount of money to be be spent merit 30 minutes odd off the journey time? No I think it does not, for instance what would be the journey time from Euston to Manchester non stop currently and what would it be on HS2? Then work out the cost per million per minute saved - surely the money should be spent on exisiting infrastructure

There are no paths to do a journey like that limited stop, the WCML is full up.

Demand is expected to grow, but there's no way you can provide a significant number of new paths on the current network.

The only way to increase supply is to build a new line, either to segregate the fastest services over the busy sections or to segragate the slowest services (freight etc). Whilst I can see the logic in taking freight off some main lines, that's not what is being proposed, and the decision has been taken to set up a new line to deal with the fastest trains (which will free up a lot of paths on existing lines).

We could spend money on existing infrastructure as you suggest, and I'm not against that. But given the number of pinch-points/ flat junctions/ freight conflicts/ bottle-necks, it's going to cost BILLIONS to do that. Plus, you end up disrupting existing services over a long period (look at how long the WCML was closed at weekends between London and Glasgow when it was upgraded). Much easier to build a brand new line that can be constructed without disrupting current train services.

I have to be honest and admit that I was against HS2 until a few months ago, but realistically its the only way to grow rail capacity in significant enough numbers to meet future demands

 

[gordonthemoron]

Britain happens to be more like Germany in terms of population density and levels of urbanisation, so many small towns relatively close together.

No it's not, Germany is a much bigger country with a lower population density than the UK

 

[The Planner]

No I think it does not, for instance what would be the journey time from Euston to Manchester non stop currently and what would it be on HS2?

Based on the current MK, Stoke and Stockport stops, taking all those out would save 9 minutes assuming you could path it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Simple economics suggests that HS2 has to go where the economic activity, thus demand (i.e. money) is. And that is London - West Mids - Greater Manchester - Scotland central belt. Okay so we have to wait another decade or so for the latter bits.

 

[LE Greys]

No it's not, Germany is a much bigger country with a lower population density than the UK

Well, yes and no. If you exclude the South East, then the population density and settlement patterns are similar. Clusters of cities and towns around river basins (the Ruhr is roughly the same size and density as the West Midlands) with spaces between them of lower density, but not empty, countryside. The point of high speed rail is to cover the low-density areas fast, while travelling more slowly around the high-density areas to pick up and set down passengers. Both France and Germany use existing lines, but Germany much more so. The fact that DB doesn't insist on advance booking is a great help, which is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Adamw5433]

I'm pro-HS2.


Slightly off topic.

When the A1 road widing was proposed not too long ago, hardly anyone batted an eye lid.
They are happy with a wider A1 that you can travel at 70mph+ on.
BUT WAIT!
Once it was mentioned large sections would include average speed camera on all 3 lanes, there was an up-roar (only from reading local news, County Durham area)

People want THINK they want infracture investment, they want to travel at speed (mostly above the speed limit) with no traffic jams.

Do we really want to be where the US is now, in 10 years time.
Clogged motorways, failing inner city roads.
Crying out of high speed rail, but no one is brave enough to foot the bill.

Lets not forget the American Acela was designed for 200mph, in service of 150mph. Due to extremely poor track conditions its limited to 70mph, with only a few short lengths cleared for 100'ish running.

So why is it. That once the goverment starts to cut road investment, people start to grumble.

Railways have been kicked in the groin, by the press and hate mongers at every given chance.
Only going on personal experience...
The most common reason i hear for people when they grumble about the railway is; under-investment

The goverment mentions rail investment on a massive scale, that should have been done years ago. Instead of the 'Beeching Axe'
Years ago instead of HSR, it should have been spent on bringing the network upto the Continental gauge.


Once they mention the under investment, they then mention how many people are killed in various train crashes.
How many people are killed per day on the roads vs people killed on rail per year?

Back in 2000 a eurostar derailed at (roughly) 200mph, no one was seriously hurt. There was no disaster movie flipping of carriages, ect...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/779027.stm


There have been the very sad case of a DB service that derailed and hit a bridge support (Eschede Disaster)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster

Generaly, HSR has a better safety case than classic rail.
Assuming that the UK HSR is built with the TGVs system of detecting things falling from bridges ect..

Classic rail is fine for now, what about in 10 years?
NRs budget is cut again and again every year, could things get really bad?
We end up with a mainline network reduced to 70mph maximum.

The goverment would like the private rail companies to invest the moeny, but with 15 year franchises i still don't think its enough time from a TOCs point of view to invest. A 40 year franchise, reviewed every 5 years for standards and quality. If standards drop then so does the length of the Franchise.

If standards are good through-out the franchise length, apon renewal they are automaticly shortlisted. Incouraging investment so they can hold onto the franchise time after time.

(off topic i think now)

Back to HSR.
Classic rail good for 140mph running? but even now we have 140mph stock limited to track speeds of 125mph.
To bring classic rail upto 140mph after the disruption to services, ect... may cost more or the same as the proposed HSR.

I'm happy to support HS2 assuming the line is built to be future proof.
Meaning i'd be happy to see 180mph line speeds. Built from scratch to accomodate future improvements to easily raise the line speed to 200 - 225 - 250 - 300mph running as traction and stock technologies progress.

In the future, 300mph running London to Edinburgh?
It would certainly kick low cost airlines in the teeth, as long as rail fares for HSR are kept comparatively low vs low cost airlines.

(sorry for the wall of text, and the somewhat disjointed arguement)

Adam

 

[LE Greys]

"If I were you, I wouldn't start from here."

Perhaps that sums a lot of it up.

The problem goes back as far as the 1860s. Broad gauge was clearly superior, but it simply wasn't convenient to widen everything, so the government of the time insisted that the Great Western narrow all their lines. Visualise a 7ft gauge HST for a while, and think just how fast it might go. We can't correct all the mistakes of the past, this included, but we can learn from them to make the future better. Stop accepting second best because it's cheaper, and build the best railway in the world.

 

[Adamw5433]

Stop accepting second best because it's cheaper, and build the best railway in the world.

Just a year or 2 before BR was sold if, it was getting its act together and was making head way.
Just think if BR existed today, with todays funding. I recall someone in the rail press saying that todays funding is x3 times that of BR days.

BR with x3 times the funding to spend on APT, maybe we'd be exporting APT / TGV hybrids today.

Oh well times move on...

If HS2 does get the green light, i can only hope that the goverment doesn't cut investment. Again and again during building, so we only end up with a west coast HSR.

In a perfect world i'd like to see an East and West coast HSR.
Although the current ECML and WCML, might end up being glorified frieght and semi fast routes.

And as for 7ft gauge HSTs, that would be a massive Valenta that could be shoved in there.
The Japs had a 9ft loading gauge? the Jap car in the NRM is 2 + 3 seating and they are more spacious than some current UK stock.

Adam

 

[Invincibles]

Simple economics suggests that HS2 has to go where the economic activity, thus demand (i.e. money) is. And that is London - West Mids - Greater Manchester - Scotland central belt. Okay so we have to wait another decade or so for the latter bits.

Is this right?

What actually happens in the West Midlands now?

Surely a Pendolino running to Euston every 20 minutes is enough. This could go to 10 minutes when you take the Manchester trains off the WCML (and 4 track to Coventry/Rugby) Surely that would be enough.

In terms of location of activity stations at:

Cambridge
South Yorkshire Parkway
Manchester Piccadilly

Would be ample and permit enough fast trains to operate.

Within a short time of this opening I would be looking to get the line from South Yorkshire Parkway to West Yorkshire Parkway / Leeds (Essentially closing the line through Wakefield Westgate and running all classic trains into through an improved Kirkgate. Smaller stations on the Doncaster to Wakefield line would be closed from wherever it was necessary to merge the high speed line in unless sufficient space could be found to squeeze conventional and HS tracks together.

Beyond that, the line can go up the East to Newcastle. Up the west to Glasgow and of course HS2 as is can be added when people see what a good thing High Speed rail is.

 

[j0hn0]

Is this right?

What actually happens in the West Midlands now?

Surely a Pendolino running to Euston every 20 minutes is enough. This could go to 10 minutes when you take the Manchester trains off the WCML (and 4 track to Coventry/Rugby) Surely that would be enough.

In terms of location of activity stations at:

Cambridge
South Yorkshire Parkway
Manchester Piccadilly

Would be ample and permit enough fast trains to operate.

Within a short time of this opening I would be looking to get the line from South Yorkshire Parkway to West Yorkshire Parkway / Leeds (Essentially closing the line through Wakefield Westgate and running all classic trains into through an improved Kirkgate. Smaller stations on the Doncaster to Wakefield line would be closed from wherever it was necessary to merge the high speed line in unless sufficient space could be found to squeeze conventional and HS tracks together.

Beyond that, the line can go up the East to Newcastle. Up the west to Glasgow and of course HS2 as is can be added when people see what a good thing High Speed rail is.

Why on earth would 4 tracking rugby to cov help? Perhaps cov to brum but there are no sstations and pendos already overtake desiros at rugby anyway

Anyone who catches the peak service to new street knows that they are always full, and isnt wcml supposed to be close to capacity? So no, trains every 20 minutes isnt enough even now, especially when the train you want is late getting in from glasgow, like today, and there is rubbish strewn across the whole train

Hs2 means reliability, wcml clearly is not.
Moving to berko next month, i thought that driver shortages on LM was less of a risk than living in st albans and relying on thameslink.

 

[TGV]

I'm pro-HS2.

Back in 2000 a eurostar derailed at (roughly) 200mph, no one was seriously hurt. There was no disaster movie flipping of carriages, ect...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/779027.stm

This was because of the articulated bogie design of the train. One area where TGV is clearly and measurably better than other high speed train designs. There is an IMechE report into this kind of thing which I have a copy of. I've also worked on the designs of TGV bogies and suspension myself.

There are many many incidents where trains in the TGV family have derailed but remained upright and in-line at incredible speeds with wheels on ballast or sleepers.

The success in that case was not really because it was a high speed line - if a TGV or Eurostar derailed at 125mph or less on a classic (non-high speed) line, it would perform equally as well.

 

[Invincibles]

Why on earth would 4 tracking rugby to cov help? Perhaps cov to brum but there are no sstations and pendos already overtake desiros at rugby anyway

Anyone who catches the peak service to new street knows that they are always full, and isnt wcml supposed to be close to capacity? So no, trains every 20 minutes isnt enough even now, especially when the train you want is late getting in from glasgow, like today, and there is rubbish strewn across the whole train

Hs2 means reliability, wcml clearly is not.
Moving to berko next month, i thought that driver shortages on LM was less of a risk than living in st albans and relying on thameslink.

Firstly it says "to Coventry/Rugby" because I thought that there are no stops between Coventry and Rugby so going all the way to Rugby would be excessive (bit of extra capacity though)

I also said when you take the 3 Manchester trains out there would be a possibility to go to every 10 minutes on the Birmingham line (which is more trains than the current 3 per hour), although some may then continue to Manchester, Liverpool, Scotland or whatever.

I think you should have read the post a little more carefully. The cleanliness of the trains will not be helped by anything though. Only option there is staff.

 

[Adamw5433]

I've also worked on the designs of TGV bogies and suspension myself.

Then i thank you for your hard work.

Adam

 

[digitaltoast]

This HS2 project is a complete nonsense.
£60,000,000,000,000 pounds.
Sixty BILLION pounds (I'm basing that on realistic figures - you can safely double any quoted project price and it's already jumped from £20bn to £33bn). For what. 19 minutes off a journey (or "nearly half an hour" as its fanatics like to tell you).

The main problem I have is that no-one, not one single person who I've argued this with, is truthful about it.

"It'll cut down air travel", they say. What, between London and Birmingham?!
There are no direct scheduled flights between these two cities!

Some mumbling and bumbling....

"It'll be greener!", they say.
"Sure, what's the fuel use and drag of a train travelling at 250mph vs current speeds, and what's the total embedded energy and carbon emmision of all that new steel and concrete, vs upgrading the current line?".

More mumbling about job creation and other things irrelevant to the question.

HS2 is the travel equivalent of the current solar PV feed-in tariff* nonsense.
It doesn't make sense from an environmental perspective and it will never pay for itself either financially or with carbon emissions.

You don't have to be a nimby not to want this, you just have to engage your brain.

(*the solar PV feed-in tariff is a scheme where the government has decided that one of the world's most inefficient (13%) methods of generating electricity should be massively subsidised by everyone, so that a select few with the right roofs facing the right direction can earn a few quid each year generating small amounts of electricity at exactly the time of day it's least needed.)

 

[Sapphire Blue]

This HS2 project is a complete nonsense.
£60,000,000,000,000 pounds.
Sixty BILLION pounds (I'm basing that on realistic figures - you can safely double any quoted project price and it's already jumped from £20bn to £33bn). For what. 19 minutes off a journey (or "nearly half an hour" as its fanatics like to tell you).

The main problem I have is that no-one, not one single person who I've argued this with, is truthful about it.

"It'll cut down air travel", they say. What, between London and Birmingham?!
There are no direct scheduled flights between these two cities!

Some mumbling and bumbling....

"It'll be greener!", they say.
"Sure, what's the fuel use and drag of a train travelling at 250mph vs current speeds, and what's the total embedded energy and carbon emmision of all that new steel and concrete, vs upgrading the current line?".

More mumbling about job creation and other things irrelevant to the question.

HS2 is the travel equivalent of the current solar PV feed-in tariff* nonsense.
It doesn't make sense from an environmental perspective and it will never pay for itself either financially or with carbon emissions.

You don't have to be a nimby not to want this, you just have to engage your brain.

(*the solar PV feed-in tariff is a scheme where the government has decided that one of the world's most inefficient (13%) methods of generating electricity should be massively subsidised by everyone, so that a select few with the right roofs facing the right direction can earn a few quid each year generating small amounts of electricity at exactly the time of day it's least needed.)

Sixty Billion pounds is

£60,000,000,000.

We brits lost the argument quite a few years ago.

 

[digitaltoast]

Sixty Billion pounds is

£60,000,000,000.

We brits lost the argument quite a few years ago.

Bah, I checked before my earlier post and I googled "define billion" and "pages from the UK", and it came back with: "the number that is represented as a one followed by 12 zeros".

I stand corrected. Either way, it's still a whole load of cash.

 

[jon0844]

But quite a lot less than it was.

Anyway;

The line isn't just about speed. Even if they built a slower line that went alongside the WCML, it would still add vital capacity.

The line isn't intended to only just go to Birmingham, in which case you could argue it is perhaps a bit pointless. It will extend to OTHER high speed lines, which might also be called high CAPACITY lines. Straighter track, modern signalling, more reliable (hopefully) wiring and so on.

And I never thought I'd see the day that people would argue trains aren't green, or make comparisons to air travel. I always figured the people most againt HS2 would be the road industry, including hauliers, but I am sure they're actually for it just like most people - as taking more people off the roads actually frees up road space for those who have to drive.

I can't see any negatives, bar the people disrupted by the construction work - either temporarily or permanently. And as for the cost, how much does building a huge road network cost? Yet we need cars, vans and lorries to get about. Basic infrastructure like roads and rail are essential to the economy.

 

[tbtc]

This HS2 project is a complete nonsense.
£60,000,000,000,000 pounds.
Sixty BILLION pounds (I'm basing that on realistic figures - you can safely double any quoted project price and it's already jumped from £20bn to £33bn). For what. 19 minutes off a journey (or "nearly half an hour" as its fanatics like to tell you).

The main problem I have is that no-one, not one single person who I've argued this with, is truthful about it.

"It'll cut down air travel", they say. What, between London and Birmingham?!
There are no direct scheduled flights between these two cities!

You don't have to be a nimby not to want this, you just have to engage your brain

Okay, a few simple things:

1. HS2 is not intended as a just shuttle from London to Birmingham. This is the most common myth about it. From opening, it is intended to be the route for trains from Glasgow/ Manchester/ Newcastle/ Sheffield/ Liverpool etc to London, all running on this new fast line. In the same way that the M6 isn't just for people travelling from Rugby to Carlisle, this new fast line will connect at both ends allowing direct links such as Manchester - Paris

2. By running some of the Glasgow/ Manchester/ Newcastle/ Sheffield/ Liverpool to London trains via this new route, that frees up capacity on the WCML/ MML/ ECML. This therefore allows existing stations to benefit (e.g. from May the fast trains from London to Edinburgh will be non-stop from London to York... to provide a fast path like this takes up a lot of capacity on the ECML... if this fast service is running via the HS2 line then that means there's more scope for additional trains at intermediate stations)

3. Once the London - Birmingham section is up and running, there are then plans for two further lines going north (one via Manchester towards Glasgow, one via Leeds towards Newcastle). This will then provide additional capacity on the railways by freeing up more paths

4. By cutting journey times from Glasgow etc to London it will make rail more competative with air. Improvements to rail has already cut significantly into the Manchester - London air market. HS2 should do the same for other cities (and be a lot greener)

5. If it helps, think of HS2 as being for capacity (rather than speed). To get space for more trains to/from London, we need a new line to take pressure off existing railways (e.g. bottlenecks like Welwyn Viaduct). If you are building a brand new line to relieve this pressure then why not build one capable of faster journeys?

6. Almost all big projects go over budget, be they state funded or private funded, be they "rail" based or "air" based or "road" based. Fact of life, unfortunately. Can't help you there.

7. What is the alternative? The main three lines from London northwards are already pretty full up. Intercity trains have to share track with slow freight and "all stop" passenger services. An easy way to deal with this would be to put the Intercity services on a new railway (for at least part of their journey), which gives more space for freight and "all stop" passenger services

8. Another advantage of doing this on a brand new line is that it can be built without disrupting millions of journeys. Look at how long it took to upgrade the WCML a few years ago, how many weekends the railway was closed for, how many diversions/ disruptions people had to put up with. Is it worth doing that every few years? Or do we need to take the bull by the horns and build a brand new route?

9. The money could be spent elsewhere (though it may not be available to be spent elsewhere), and there are a lot of improvements which could be made to existing railways. But all of these are going to cause disruption to existing passengers and are only going to tackle local problems (sometimes tackling one bottleneck will only push the problem a few miles up the line). I'm not saying "don't spend anything on the existing routes" or that HS2 will cure all our problems. But its the best way of tackling a lot of problems (since we can;t start from scratch)

10. Lastly, if it helps, think of HS2 as being a bit like Crossrail in London. A brand new line intended to take pressure of existing ones, which will extend beyond the new section onto existing routes. Crossrail won't solve all the overcrowding on the "tube", but it will make things easier and divert a lot of "through" passengers onto a new line.

 

[digitaltoast]

Would love to argue about this all day, but can't and most of the points I was going to make have been made before in this thread but...

5. If it helps, think of HS2 as being for capacity (rather than speed).

Perhaps someone should tell the marketing company. Here's the front page of HS2 Limited:

High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd) is the company set up by the Government to consider the case for new high speed rail services between London and Scotland.

HS2 Ltd was established in January 2009 to look at the feasibility of, and business case for, a new high speed rail line between London and the West Midlands; and to consider the case for high speed rail services linking London, northern England and Scotland.

On 28 February 2011 the Secretary of State for Transport launched the consultation on Governments proposed high speed rail strategy and the recommended route for an initial high speed line from London to the West Midlands.

The Government has now launched the consultation on its proposed high speed rail strategy and the recommended route for an initial high speed line from London to the West Midlands.

No, can't see why anyone would get the idea this was about speed!

9. The money could be spent elsewhere

Much better spent. Consider a journey I only have to do 6 or so times a year.
Aberystwyth to a destination a short £8 taxi ride from Bristol Parkway. That's pretty much a straight line due south-east down through Wales.

Here are my choices for that journey:

8h 30 min total travel time, a 4:30am start, 2 changes each way, and £68.90
Aber > Shrew > Newport > Bristol

-OR-

6 hours total driving, a 6am start, and £30 in fuel (I rather smugly drive an Ibiza Ecomotive and average a geniune 80mpg across that whole journey so admittedly the fuel/ticket difference is even greater for me than most).

Oh, and then there's the joy of the connection inevitably being missed on the return journey so I can add another 2 hours on.
Had too many (Arriva funded) £130 taxi journeys from Shrewsbury...

Oh, and of course, they're on strike today...

Strikes aside, if there was a north-south Wales line, it'd be a no-brainer to take the train. As it is, guess which one I'm forced to go for?

10. Lastly, if it helps, think of HS2 as being a bit like Crossrail in London. A brand new line intended to take pressure of existing ones, which will extend beyond the new section onto existing routes. Crossrail won't solve all the overcrowding on the "tube", but it will make things easier and divert a lot of "through" passengers onto a new line.

OK, build something faster, increase capacity, and people will use it, eh?

The M6 toll road was supposed to be the answer to everyone's problems. Increase capacity and traffic jams will be a thing of the past!

In fact, journey times on the M6 are only slightly better than before the toll opened nearly seven years ago and the operator is losing more than £25m a year on the vastly underused road.