sprinterguy
Established Member
That need not be the case. High Speed 1 was delivered on time and within budget as far as I remember, and worked "out of the box". It's upgrading our existing lines that we seem to have a problem with getting right!
-
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!
High Speed Two (HS2) discussion
- Thread starter deltic
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tbtc
Veteran Member
...which makes the case eloquently for why a brand new line (HS2) is much more effective than trying to upgrade other routes (with months of weekend "bustitution" etc).
Comparing the problems of the WCML upgrade to the smoother building of HS1 is one of the reasons why I came round to the idea of a brand new line.
sprinterguy
Established Member
It's not just the commitment of the present coalition Government that we need be worried about. Construction work will not be taking place in earnest until two Governmental terms time - Although hopefully some preparatory works will begin during the next term of Government, making it harder to backtrack on the continued development of HS2.
I believe that the major political parties all agreed to cross-party support for HS2 though, whether they keep to their word is another matter entirely and there is still the very real risk that HS2 might never get beyond an operational first phase, with phase 2 to Manchester and Leeds abandoned and the high speed line never ever achieving it's full potential.
If we agree that 2033 is the latest possible year for the northern spurs to be open, that suggests maybe 2040 or even 2050 for the Scottish spurs, never mind anything built off either HS2 North or South in other directions.
I mean no offence, but a significant percentage of regular posters on this site won't be alive to see the lines being used!
I mean no offence, but a significant percentage of regular posters on this site won't be alive to see the lines being used!
33Hz
Member
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 513
So did I really just see some woman on the 10 O'Clock news say "I'm terminally I'll and I probably won't be around when they build it so therefore they shouldn't build it"?
The people against it have some very odd reasons... and being bad for the environment certainly seems the weirdest one of all. Compared to what? Flying, cars?
I am sure it will be built, but there will be a lot of money wasted in multiple appeals, inquiries and concessions. No doubt most anti-HS2 people will change their minds if the route changes or a bit of extra compensation is offered...
Fortunately all the leading parties want HS2 and Labour, to its credit, was pushing for it - so whatever happens in 2015 or 2020, I expect the Government will force it through. I was a bit surprised that Labour didn't back the coalition 100% today, instead of suggesting they're faffing about. I know they have to attack everything, but suggesting any weakness just plays into the hands of the anti brigade.
I am sure it will be built, but there will be a lot of money wasted in multiple appeals, inquiries and concessions. No doubt most anti-HS2 people will change their minds if the route changes or a bit of extra compensation is offered...
Fortunately all the leading parties want HS2 and Labour, to its credit, was pushing for it - so whatever happens in 2015 or 2020, I expect the Government will force it through. I was a bit surprised that Labour didn't back the coalition 100% today, instead of suggesting they're faffing about. I know they have to attack everything, but suggesting any weakness just plays into the hands of the anti brigade.
Manchester77
Established Member
I'm not anti HS2, I'm just anti HS2's current form...
Harbon 1
Member
I'm anti ridiculously wasted money...
I was quite surprised by this as well. For once they have actually commended the govt on something instead of attacking absolutely everything.
Anyway, if fear the dreaded 51M group will launch legal challenge after legal challenge to delay the project as much as they can. I heard one person commenting today "Im not going to get any benefit from it". Some people are so short sighted in this. They dont seem to see that once is is built there will be no need for any short haul flights any more so it will be more environmentally friendly. And this will free up capacity at Heathrow. Lets just hope this project does go through as there simply isnt any other way of creating extra capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In what way is it "wasted" money. If you are going to make a statement like that please provide some facts as to why.
hawaii2468
Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 103
I do agree that some railway upgrades and improvements are needed in this country. The HS2 claimed that it would halve the journey time from London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and in between.
Let's talk about London, from Manchester it saved 60 minute, 52 minutes from Leeds, 35 minutes from Birminghams but then maginal for further destinations such as Liverpool, York, Glaslow etc.
The thing is , there are more than 15 Terminals in London and most of them are connected by London Underground. Compared to many modern metro systems in the world, most London Underground lines are very deep with only one escalator accessible, no lift for large baggage, small platform and very narrow and low trains with no suitcase shelves or air conditioners. Passengers are usually suggested allow at least 30 minutes connecting to another London railway terminals by tubes.
I would very doubt that such an expensive high speed rail would be only for commuting purpose for London only. I am sure that many people will use it for longer distance travel / access to Heathrow or Gatwick airport etc. If the rest of the UK would like to share the benefits from this high speed rail investment, inevitably they have to change from many big London Terminals such as Paddington, Waterloo, Liverpool street stations etc to Euston but then the journeys on tubes usually take 30 minutes and very uncomfortable and inconvinient.
I wonder, will it be better to spend the money on upgrading railway signals which allows more trains running on the current rail lines and building new railways connecting to some busiest London railway terminals such as direct service from Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham to London Paddington, Waterloo,Waterloo east / Charing Cross, Victoria, Liverpool street etc? So from Southwest passengers can change at Waterloo, from South East such as Kent they can change at Waterloo East , From South such as Gatwick Airport or Brighton, can change at Victoria or Clapham Junction? Although all these involves changes, they are level changes within the same stations to avoid the 30 minutes, climbing up and down tubes especially when one has big bags.
That will be wonderful to imagine one can travel to Scotland from Waterloo direct, or to Liverpool from Liverpool Street Stn .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The distances between 2 stops are so short, does it really need speed of 250 mph (400 kmh), the maximum speed of Sinkansen is just 186 mph.
Let's talk about London, from Manchester it saved 60 minute, 52 minutes from Leeds, 35 minutes from Birminghams but then maginal for further destinations such as Liverpool, York, Glaslow etc.
The thing is , there are more than 15 Terminals in London and most of them are connected by London Underground. Compared to many modern metro systems in the world, most London Underground lines are very deep with only one escalator accessible, no lift for large baggage, small platform and very narrow and low trains with no suitcase shelves or air conditioners. Passengers are usually suggested allow at least 30 minutes connecting to another London railway terminals by tubes.
I would very doubt that such an expensive high speed rail would be only for commuting purpose for London only. I am sure that many people will use it for longer distance travel / access to Heathrow or Gatwick airport etc. If the rest of the UK would like to share the benefits from this high speed rail investment, inevitably they have to change from many big London Terminals such as Paddington, Waterloo, Liverpool street stations etc to Euston but then the journeys on tubes usually take 30 minutes and very uncomfortable and inconvinient.
I wonder, will it be better to spend the money on upgrading railway signals which allows more trains running on the current rail lines and building new railways connecting to some busiest London railway terminals such as direct service from Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham to London Paddington, Waterloo,Waterloo east / Charing Cross, Victoria, Liverpool street etc? So from Southwest passengers can change at Waterloo, from South East such as Kent they can change at Waterloo East , From South such as Gatwick Airport or Brighton, can change at Victoria or Clapham Junction? Although all these involves changes, they are level changes within the same stations to avoid the 30 minutes, climbing up and down tubes especially when one has big bags.
That will be wonderful to imagine one can travel to Scotland from Waterloo direct, or to Liverpool from Liverpool Street Stn .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The distances between 2 stops are so short, does it really need speed of 250 mph (400 kmh), the maximum speed of Sinkansen is just 186 mph.
Harbon 1
Member
It's £33bn for a rail link that is not needed. Does anyone really need to get to the north that quickly? As far as I can see with the MML upgrade and with it taking 1hr40 to get to Doncaster and around 2hrs to get to York, it's wasted money that could be spent on track, rolling stock and signalling. Aren't we meant to be getting ERTMS within the next 20 years? That can lead to increased speeds and increased journey times. Even more so with existing stock capable of 140mph on the east and west.
For the same problem of capacity, what happens when a motorway becomes to congested? They don't plough a new one through the country, they add an extra lane, upgrade it with variable speed limits etc. I know this will be more difficult (if taken literally) on rails because of the extra junctions needed, and more point work, with the likely hood of remodelled stations. But isn't that the trend anyway? A fair few stations are getting 'St Pancras-afied' and there is bound to be more to follow. And if network rail or the TOC want to invest in that, why not re model the station in the space possible. Obviously stations like New St. are going to be a problem to expand, but capacity can be increased other ways. There will obviously need to be a hell of a lot more wiring for signalling systems etc, and more power for overhead lines, but this won't come near to the sum of a new line.
Why not spend the money to get schemes going that are nearly ready to go? Like the east-west rail link? Surely re-building on already closed lines, and moving some stopper services away from the core main lines would increase capacity?
And how would it 'increase business'? I don't see how getting a businessman from London to birmingham 20 minutes quicker would increase the business between two cities when we can be in two places at once with the increasing availability of webcams and conference calls. I know for a fact if my dad could get from Doncaster to Glasgow on a Monday morning any quicker, all it would mean is longer in bed.
If HS2 is built (and let's be honest, it will be at least started), the capacity problems will still remain on the west coast, and out of kings cross. The only thing it could do, is downgrade the existing services for regular travellers of other parts of the network. The only way capacity problems could be sorted out is if this new line wasn't high speed and stopped where it needed to, not just big cities, and missing out every single place between. They try to please people with another station, but this will only cause the capacity busting line to develop its own capacity problems.
Rant over
I think that once it's got through parliament future governments could speed up the building. Even if they don't they could then start announcements like today on extensions to Scotland,Newcastle, Cardiff etc. I guess the problem is that if you try to build high speed rail in to many places at one the nimbies get more difficult to deal with than if you can build one bit at a time.
tbtc
Veteran Member
We are doing those things though.
One of the criticisms of HS2 was that it'd starve the current network of any investment. Then, when the CP5 announcement included 900 miles of electrification and re-opening lines/ new chords etc, they changed their tune to "we don't need HS2 because we are spending so much on the current network"...
If you want to increase capacity between London/ Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds then it's either a brand new line (in which case why not a faster one?) or it's months of closing the railway down every weekend and expecting people to use replacement buses instead (like we saw on the WCML). What would you prefer?
The Decapod
Member
Aren't we all nimbies, though? As railway enthusiasts, we on this forum might not mind a new railway being built near our home, but supposing it was an airport runway extension or perhaps a football stadium - would we feel the same then?
tbtc
Veteran Member
Even worse, our attitude (as a country) seems to be "Not in my back yard, but I'll complain if it's built too far away so that I won't get any benefit from it either"
Harbon 1
Member
I would never have thought that a new line would starve the rest of the network of investment, but it's £33bn to spend on more viable solutions that will be easier to plan and complete. Such as widening of existing bottlenecks where possible.
I would much prefer to endure a bus for months on end than have massive construction works for 10+yrs and a new line ploughing needlessly through the country to save 20 minutes for rich businessmen and their companies. And surely a huge problem is that the plan is to hand over a chunk of Euston for HS2 (unless the plan is to extend Euston?), which is where the problem is. Why disrupt and put more pressure on the line that it is intended to replace for the longer journeys for years on end?
Quite.
Harbon 1
Member
What did they do when the A roads got to busy or were likely to? They built new roads (ploughing them through the country) and as they were building new roads they built them to the newest and fastest standards (no sharp bends, no flat junctions and three lanes plus hard shoulder). This meant they didn't have to have months of roadworks on the existing roads
The capacity problem on the railways (well the future problems but given the time it takes it needs to be started before we run out completely out of capacity) will be solved the same way by building brand new lines. As we are building brand new we will future proof them by building them to the newest fastest standards.
DDB
Manchester77
Established Member
There are actually very few central London terminals with such poor tube conditions. Lets look at each one in turn:-
Blackfriars - tube station recently been extensively re modernised providing step free access. Major upgrade coming to circle and district lines. By 2020 7 car air conditioned trains will run the two lines.
Cannon Street - tube station been modernised as the mainline station has. Again served by circle and district lines who's upgrade is mentioned in Blackfriars summery.
Charring Cross - re modernised and remodelled in 1970s in preparation for the jubilee line. Served by northern and Bakerloo lines. Northern line set to get improved frequencies by 2014 as well as all trains refreshed by 2014. Trains have areas where buggies and luggage items can be placed. Bakerloo line set to get new 'Evo' concept trains around 2020.
City Thameslink - not served by the tube
Euston - served by two stations over two sites. Euston station and Euston Square. At Euston, served by Victoria and northern lines, passengers can interchange with all four northern line main branches. Northern line upgrade detailed in Charring Cross summery. Victoria line got new modern trains with areas for push chairs and luggage. They have modern cooling systems and have cut journey times. At Euston square, one platform has step free access. All trains are going become air conditioned and longer by 2015. There are also proposals to incorporate the two stations under the HS2 remodelling of Euston plans providing full step free access.
Fenchurch Street - not served by the tube
Kings Cross - served by Circle, Hammersmith and City, Metropolian, Victoria, Northern and Piccadilly. SSL are set to get the new trains detailed (air conditioned), Victoria and northern already mentioned, Piccadilly has trains designed for large luggage ( as it serves Heathrow)
Liverpool Street - served by central, circle, Hammersmith and city, metropolitan. SSL mentioned, central line trains refreshed recently
...
I'd continue but my arm hurts :cry:
My point is all terminals have good tube connections which are being improved dramatically. By the time Hs2 arrives (2026) the vast majority of the 18 London railway terminals with have step free tube access. Additionally, all lines will have higher frequencies, cooler journeys (new coolers like at Oxford Circus), cooler trains with AC on SSL, the list could go on.
FYI - SSL = sub surface lines (circle, Hammersmith and city, district and metropolitan)
Harbon 1
Member
Saying what they did when A roads were getting too busy is like saying what did they do to the canals. Create a whole new way of getting the same contents to the same place, but more of it, quicker and more efficiently. Okay they reinvented the whole mode of transport with railways, but it was for the same reason. More recently, A roads are being upgraded like the A1; get rid of level junctions, reduce the curves and make the traffic flow more efficient. Roadworks for months, but no one was effected.
hawaii2468
Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 103
even so it still involves changes on the tubes, to Euston where HS2 terminates:
From Waterloo ,6 stops on Northern line waterloo branch. 2 levels down in Waterloo and up in Euston, what do you think if one has big suitcases?
From Paddington, 4 stops to Euston square on circle or hammersmith & city line
From Liverpool street, 5 stops to Euston square on 3 lines.
From Victoria, 4 stops on Victoria line
From London bridge,6 stops on Northern line Bank branch.
Ignoring the inconvenient and uncomfortability of the tube travelling, it still takes time (30minutes at least). However much the tubes will be upgraded in the future, it is still a mass rapid trasit system and still will be a hassle for long distance travellers.
From Waterloo ,6 stops on Northern line waterloo branch. 2 levels down in Waterloo and up in Euston, what do you think if one has big suitcases?
From Paddington, 4 stops to Euston square on circle or hammersmith & city line
From Liverpool street, 5 stops to Euston square on 3 lines.
From Victoria, 4 stops on Victoria line
From London bridge,6 stops on Northern line Bank branch.
Ignoring the inconvenient and uncomfortability of the tube travelling, it still takes time (30minutes at least). However much the tubes will be upgraded in the future, it is still a mass rapid trasit system and still will be a hassle for long distance travellers.
GazUk
Member
Hello all
All this talk about hs2, the routes it's going to take, the opposition from locals,councils and mps who threat about having their precious green belt land ripped up has me thinking that atm its all talk and its going nowhere slowly!
If its a case of people not wanting in their backyard, why don't the hs2 bigwigs try and do their ideas on the old lines that are closed now (the Gcr is a prime example are there more?) if not why not reopen a lot of the old branches and local lines and add local stoppers and ice services on them which in theory would free up spaces for hs2 to be ran on various mainlines throughout the uk, or is it not that simple?
All this talk about hs2, the routes it's going to take, the opposition from locals,councils and mps who threat about having their precious green belt land ripped up has me thinking that atm its all talk and its going nowhere slowly!
If its a case of people not wanting in their backyard, why don't the hs2 bigwigs try and do their ideas on the old lines that are closed now (the Gcr is a prime example are there more?) if not why not reopen a lot of the old branches and local lines and add local stoppers and ice services on them which in theory would free up spaces for hs2 to be ran on various mainlines throughout the uk, or is it not that simple?
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,449
There's still going to be NIMBYs on old alignments, sections will have been built over and the bed may not be suitable for the new railway. HS2 is supposed to use at least part of the GCR alignment, which coincidentally was built to Berne Gauge itself. It will never be that simple though!
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 790
Your post is so wrong on so many counts.
1. it's not £33bn to spend on more viable solutions as HS2 will generate significant additional economic activity and income, and the alternatives have been looked at and are not as viable
2. After the experience of improving the West Coast Main Line, it's clear the alternatives of upgrading existing railway infrastrucure is not easier to plan and complete as you suggest - the sort of upgrades needed would be hugely disruptive that it's easier to start from scratch with a brand new route.
3. Your view is you would much prefer to endure a bus for months on end than have massive construction works for 10+yrs - that may be your view, but bus substitutions for hours on end, days on end, weeks on end, months on end are hugely unpopular and damaging to the ecomony. I suggest, with respect, that most regular passengers would not agree with you.
4. HS2 is not just to save 20 minutes for rich businessmen and their companies. It makes possible new journeys such as Birmingham to Leeds that are simply not possible at the moment - with time savings of over an hour on many routes. If HS2 simply relies on rich businessmen, it will not make any money. It will need to attract from a much wider base to fill the trains and make money. HS2 significantly adds to the network in terms of new routes, new journeys and therefore adds to the ecomomy.
5. handing over a chunk of Euston for HS2 again misses the point. Euston is not fit for purpose and in need of totally rebuilding anyway. The additional income from HS2 will make this more viable. Additional tube or cross London capacity is needed too, so this could be planned for by enabling cross-London trains to travel through or underneath Euston
I'm not sure how many of the HS2 documents, or transport studies you have read, but perhaps you need to read them again?
Nym
Established Member
Waterloo is either 11mins via CX with a maximum off peak wait time of 6mins or via the Victoria Line to Oxford Circus and change to the Bakerloo by cross platform interchange. Off peak with luggage isnt a significant challenge. Alternatively there are two direct bus routes, each every ten minutes and step free from the starion forecourt, taking between 20 and 40 mins.
Before I go through how easy each terminal interchange already is at Euston, need I remind you that HS2 will make Euston fully intergrated, ready for Crossrail 2, likely include rapid transit to kgx, have significantly improved flow managment and be fully step free from platform to street (all platforms and lines are already level boarding.) and that you should try interchanging at EUS before slating it so very quickly...
NSEFAN
Established Member
The "£33 billion to save 20 mins" argument really grinds my gears. There's a reason we're building a high-speed line compared to a conventional one.
HS2 could be built as a conventional railway at a cheaper price, however this would not give the same capacity increase. By having a higher line speed and no intermediate stations, the number of trains per hour is increased dramatically. This in turn means the current WCML passenger trains can stop more often, so the intermediate stations between Birmingham and Euston can get a better service as well.
Even though this capacity isn't needed right now, we'll be kicking ourselves in 20 years if we don't build it! The southern WCML is steadily getting busier and busier. In short, HS2 is future-proofing the busiest section of mainline in the country.
HS2 could be built as a conventional railway at a cheaper price, however this would not give the same capacity increase. By having a higher line speed and no intermediate stations, the number of trains per hour is increased dramatically. This in turn means the current WCML passenger trains can stop more often, so the intermediate stations between Birmingham and Euston can get a better service as well.
Even though this capacity isn't needed right now, we'll be kicking ourselves in 20 years if we don't build it! The southern WCML is steadily getting busier and busier. In short, HS2 is future-proofing the busiest section of mainline in the country.
joeykins82
Member
As I see it, the primary reason for HS2 is capacity; the journey time reductions are just a bonus. Unfortunately capacity isn't sexy so the politicians and journalists just talk about the speed of the line which gives the anti brigade plenty of "meeeeeeh do we really need this?" ammunition.
AndyLandy
Established Member
Quite.
HS2 is not being built to improve journey times. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's necessary to deal with the capacity demands for the huge volumes of people who travel on the London-Birmingham corridor and the expected increase in demand as time goes on.
But if you're going to build a new railway, why would you do anything other than future-proof it? Anything else is false economy. So yes, we're building it as a high speed line. You can put more trains down it and it'll be good for a very long time. Otherwise we'd end up re-engineering it every decade or so and it'd be perpetually disrupted and cost orders of magnitude more in the long run than the current proposal.
Personally, I think it's fantastic that this country is currently investing in some decent, proper infrastructure projects like HS2.
- Status