Never forget what we have...

[EWS 58038]

Never forget what we have.

Capacity, one of those words most heard if we talk about our railways. It dominates the rail press, it is required by TOC’s and passengers are continuously shouting for it. With clogging roads, polluting cheap short haul air and ever increasing demand our government decided that a third mainline to Scotland is needed.
To battle short haul air, the line will be build to allow speeds up to 250 mph. This brings the advantage of a London to Glasgow travel time in under two and a half hours. Yes I do support this new way forward and I hope that other high speed rail projects in the UK will follow which might allow a Penzance to London day trip to become a reality for many.

But before HS2 is build and Glasgow is just two hours from London away we will be a roughly thirty years older. Yes, this mainline will be delivered in stages in a thirty year lifespan. How long that is… well, we probably have children by then, and some of us might even have the joy to have grand children. Some of us might be retired by then.

But one thing has been spinning across my mind for a long time… What will be done to make sure capacity is in place to move England until High Speed two is fully operational?

Only recently the Hitchin fly-over was approved increasing throughput on Cambridge Junction and allowing many trains to remain at speed when thundering through the station on their way to the north. According to NetworkRail the number of passengers who pass this junction has been increased by 53% in the last decade alone and the amount of freight has seen an impressive increase of over 60%.
NetworkRail also claims it reduces the number of delays to train services by nearly 30,000 minutes every year.

If the numbers above are correct then we might expect a further increase in rail travel over this decade by at least another fifty percent, simply because the economy will recover, roads will be even more congested, petrol prices will rise even further and one particular airline will lose the confidence of it’s passengers which will no longer accept the terms and conditions, lack of customer service and no form of compensation if something goes wrong and people find themselves stranded on an airport.

The Hichin Fly-over is indeed a warm welcome to the East Coast mainline to improve the reliability of the services and to speed up the journeys for those passengers otherwise affected by late running trains to and from Cambridge.
But this won’t be enough to cope with future demand and drastic changes are required a few miles south if we want to increase the number of services using the railway whilst maintaining a good reliability.

The biggest challenge ahead of us is to eliminate the bottleneck called Welwyn viaduct and tunnels. Imagine what would happen if there was a four track mainline over the valley and through the hills. More commuter trains could be seen between London and Cambridge, Ely and Kings Lynn. City’s like Lincoln, Boston, Grimsby/Cleethorpes and Skegness could be connected to London with three to four trains a day. Other destinations already served by open access operators might see an increase in the number of trains. In all these cases local economies would benefit from better connections and boost property development and increase the number of jobs.

High Speed two is a big project and it will help to move the UK in future, but before that to happen we must seek for alternatives to cope with the expected demand before the project is finished in thirty years from now. Demand will most likely increase by another fifty percent or more in just one decade. After the West Coast mainline upgrade the East Coast is in desperate need of some big improvements.


Debate....

 

[mumrar]

You make a lot of sound points, and I too support HS2, I just wish they's build it quicker!

As for other projects required, there is plenty being done nationwide. There's the freight upgrade for the Helpston Jcn to Nuneaton route, it's not all about the passengers remember. One thing about that concerns me though, more freight on the Nuneaton-Leicester section. Currently if a freight gets signalles infront of a Stansted at Daw Mill (or Ham Hall), and it's annoyingly frequent, with the exception of the platforms at Nuneaton, there is nowhere to put freights out of the way of passenger services until Wigston Jcn joins with the MML. It's a big distance without any form of goods loop.

 

[The Planner]

That scheme does seem all arse about face in my opinion. Like you say, the whole Helpston to Nuneaton section is a torrid mixture of AB sections and highish headways. South of Wigston there is nowhere to hide a freight and messing about with them at Nuneaton isnt the best thing to do either. The only section that is really getting anything do to it is from Abbey Jn to Water Orton as part of the re-sig !! bit too far by then to be of any help !

 

[Invincibles]

If they had opted to electrify the MML then Thameslink could have been extended to serve Derby/Nottingham taking the stoppers on those routes out of St Pancras Domestic. The result would have been 2 gaps from the current timetable and presumably one or two other gaps could be created with clever timetabling.

The next part of the daft plan would be to upgrade Kettering through Corby and round through Stamford to the ECML to allow "slower" services from Leeds/York/Grimsby/Hull could run over that. I think the journey would be a bit longer but the extra capacity would be useful to speed up the other ECML services through Welwyn.

Another potential upgrade would be Nottingham to Newark so that some trains could route that way and open up journey opportunities accordingly.

I think the point about expanding capacity is a very valid one though.

 

[Kneedown]

I may come across to many as being staunchly anti-HS2, but as i've said elsewhere this is not the case. I too believe that our existing house needs to be put in order before spending any money on new lines, no matter how exciting they may be.
The point is often made about cutting down on "polluting" domestic air travel. No one seems to consider the amount of pollution put out by our vast fleet of diesel trains that are constantly churing out fumes 24/7.
Another point seems to be that more capacity is needed between London and Birmingham/Northwest, and the WCML cannot be economically expanded further. Fine, upgrade the Chiltern line then.
The message in general seems to be that the new line is needed to link the, so called, major economic centres of Britain so they can continue to expand. I disagree, and believe that the railways and rolling stock in the rest of the country should be upgraded, making other locations more attractive to business's, and also placating long suffering passengers, who's complaints seem to fall on deaf ears unless they live in the South or along the WCML corridor.
In short, shelve HS2, and spend the money on mass electrification and line upgrades, thus increasing capacity for all, as well as reducing journey times for all, slashing pollution massively and benefitting the whole Country's economy, not just a few "trendy" cities.

 

[Chris125]

As is so often pointed out, the money for HS2, like Crossrail, is seperate from other rail funding - cutting it wont release more funds. What you, i, or anyone else thinks about that is irrelevant; thats how it is.

If you want those projects, instead of arguing against HS2 it would surely be better to campaign for a CP5 settlement which includes them and keep rail investment at or above its current levels for the next control period. I've seen no suggestion that its either HS2 or MML+Chiltern upgrades, so if HS2 doesnt erode their business cases to any great degree there's no reason why they wont be considered for the next funding settlement with a pretty healthy chance of going ahead - especially electrifying the MML.

Chris

 

[moonrakerz]

No one seems to consider the amount of pollution put out by our vast fleet of diesel trains that are constantly churing out fumes 24/7.

Quite right ! and no one seems to consider the amount of pollution put out by our vast fleet of oil/gas/coal fired power stations that provide all this wonderful "pollution free" electricity :roll::roll::roll:

PS: We've got diesels on our line and they shut them down at the terminus stations ..................24/7 ????

 

[swt_passenger]

Never forget what we have.
The biggest challenge ahead of us is to eliminate the bottleneck called Welwyn viaduct and tunnels. Imagine what would happen if there was a four track mainline over the valley and through the hills.

Network Rail have just finalised the draft ECML 2016 Capacity review. They explain why they aren't going to do anything about it - so presumably it isn't their biggest challenge anymore...

 

[Trog]

In short, shelve HS2, and spend the money on mass electrification and line upgrades, thus increasing capacity for all, as well as reducing journey times for all, slashing pollution massively and benefitting the whole Country's economy, not just a few "trendy" cities.

The thing is that HS2 and upgrading other routes do not do the same thing.

One of the advantages of the new HS line is that it seperates out different speeds of traffic. So you have a new high speed line running trains nice and evenly spaced at high speed, and your classic line running trains at a lower speed again nice and evenly spaced. So both lines can be run at close to their maximum capacity.

If instead you upgrade an existing line, as the WCML upgrade proved it is an expensive logistical nightmare. That in the end provides a line on which trains want to run at a range of different speeds. This wastes capacity, as you have to leave a gap behind a slower train so the following fast train does not catch it up and end up running on double yellows. Then as the fast train uses up this gap, it then creates a gap with no train in it as it leaves the following slower train behind. You can mitigate this to some extent by running your fast trains in flights, with the slower trains grouped together in the gaps. As was done on the WCML in BR days, but this makes an even service more difficult to achive.

Also the identified shortage of capacity is on the WCML, which has already had the upgrade investment you recomend. So while removing bottle necks on the rest of the network to improve throughput would be a good thing. Giving maximum benefit for a limited expenditure. The main government spending has to follow demand, and the bums on seats want to go from London to Birmingham and the north. So what we need is WCML2 AKA HS2.

 

[Geezertronic]

Another point seems to be that more capacity is needed between London and Birmingham/Northwest, and the WCML cannot be economically expanded further. Fine, upgrade the Chiltern line then.

The Chiltern Line only goes as far as Birmingham so how does this help the North West and Scotland? Also, the track alignment does not appear to allow HS type speeds as the Evergreen upgrades have shown. Also again, if upgrading the WCML further would cause severe disruption to existing services, this would also be true if the Chiltern Line was also upgraded to a higher standard. As it is, the Evergreen work is not causing too much disruption whereas any upgrade on the scale you are referring to would

In short, shelve HS2, and spend the money on mass electrification and line upgrades, thus increasing capacity for all, as well as reducing journey times for all, slashing pollution massively and benefitting the whole Country's economy, not just a few "trendy" cities.

No HS2 = No pot of money no matter what you say. Upgrading existing lines to a HS standard = severe disruption to existing services (WCML Upgrade is a prime example). Comments like "trendy cities" does not help your comments.

 

[Kneedown]

Quite right ! and no one seems to consider the amount of pollution put out by our vast fleet of oil/gas/coal fired power stations that provide all this wonderful "pollution free" electricity :roll::roll::roll:

PS: We've got diesels on our line and they shut them down at the terminus stations ..................24/7 ????

One word........ Nuclear.
As regards the second point. EMT local units tend not to shut down at termini. Partly due to quick turnround and partly reliability. Remember also a lot of extra pollution is produced on start up.
The only time our units regularly shut down for any length of time is when on shed for maintenance.

 

[Trog]

The benefit pollution wise of power stations, is that all the pollution is created in one place so it becomes possible to do a clean up of the worst elements in the exhuast.

Myself I would like to see some large scale tidal, generation capacity installed. Such as the proposed Severn Barrage, as I feel this would provide electricity that was both green and reliable. A really big civil engineering project like that would also be a good way of putting money into the ecconomy, in a way that efficiently created jobs, and provided a worthwhile asset at the end of it.

 

[Kneedown]

The Chiltern Line only goes as far as Birmingham so how does this help the North West and Scotland?

Quite simple really. If an upgraded Chiltern Line becomes the main London - B'ham route, then capacity is created on the existing WCML for NW and Scotland services.

No HS2 = No pot of money no matter what you say.

Not this old tired argument again!
Simple facts, No HS2 for the time being = £+30 billion burning hole in treasuries pocket.

Option A = Use it to modernise existing rail network thereby creating better connections and business opportunities between ALL areas of the Country.

Option B = Put it towards clearing the UK's deficit.

I prefer A, but either will do for me and, i suspect, countless others.

Upgrading existing lines to a HS standard = severe disruption to existing services (WCML Upgrade is a prime example).

But disruption is a fact of life with major rail projects. You can bet your bottom Dollar that the construction of even a brand new route such as HS2 will cause major and lengthy disruptions somewhere along the line. Just because the majority of it will be built on what is currently fields and green countryside doesn't mean that it will cause any less chaos. Think of the major construction sites that will have to be built, think of the endless lorries bring materials in to them.
Hopefully lessons have been learnt from the previous WCML fiasco and a repeat could be avoided.

Comments like "trendy cities" does not help your comments.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here?
Would you deny that the "trend" is for business's and people to locate in places such as London or Manchester, thereby boosting these cities economies at the expense of other parts of the country?

 

[Geezertronic]

Quite simple really. If an upgraded Chiltern Line becomes the main London - B'ham route, then capacity is created on the existing WCML for NW and Scotland services.

So what happens to Coventry, Birmingham International and Wolverhampton services which cannot be served by the Chiltern Line?

Not this old tired argument again!
Simple facts, No HS2 for the time being = £+30 billion burning hole in treasuries pocket.

It's not a tired argument, it appears to be a fact that No HS2 = No pot of money.

But disruption is a fact of life with major rail projects. You can bet your bottom Dollar that the construction of even a brand new route such as HS2 will cause major and lengthy disruptions somewhere along the line. Just because the majority of it will be built on what is currently fields and green countryside doesn't mean that it will cause any less chaos. Think of the major construction sites that will have to be built, think of the endless lorries bring materials in to them.
Hopefully lessons have been learnt from the previous WCML fiasco and a repeat could be avoided.

It would seem better to disrupt sections than a whole line wouldn't you say? If the Chiltern Line was upgraded from Marylebone to Moor Street, that would cause significant disruption for a period I suggest longer than the WCML upgrade did

 

[Kneedown]

So what happens to Coventry, Birmingham International and Wolverhampton services which cannot be served by the Chiltern Line?

Two words= London Midland.
Probably the same as would happen to places like Kettering, Mkt Harboro and Chesterfield which would become glorified extentions of Thameslink if HS2 were to siphon off inter city services from the MML.

It's not a tired argument, it appears to be a fact that No HS2 = No pot of money.

It IS a tired old argument. £30bil isn't simply going to vanish in a puff of smoke if HS2 is shelved (although it might well do so if it goes ahead! )
IF they won't use it for improving rail travel in general, then use it to towards clearing the country's deficit.

It would seem better to disrupt sections than a whole line wouldn't you say? If the Chiltern Line was upgraded from Marylebone to Moor Street, that would cause significant disruption for a period I suggest longer than the WCML upgrade did

Maybe, maybe not. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but disruption is inevitable either way. We can't just shy away from improving the current infrastructure, and doing the job right first time at the expense of a little extra short term inconvenience is far better than doing it partially and quickly on the cheap.

 

[asylumxl]

Personally, I'd like to see investment in the MML (beyond the current plans), and various other (almost secondary lines) such as the B&H line.

 

[tbtc]

Not this old tired argument again!
Simple facts, No HS2 for the time being = £+30 billion burning hole in treasuries pocket.

Option A = Use it to modernise existing rail network thereby creating better connections and business opportunities between ALL areas of the Country.

What's a realistic level of investment for your £30 billion (if we don't build HS2 with it)?

A lot of investment would only create bottle necks further up the line. For example, quadruple Welwyn (which would cost a crazy amount and mean no ECML service at the weekend for months on end) and you craete more capacity there, but then all these fresh new paths hit a problem on the route to Peterborough (not all four tracked), lack of platforms/paths at Peterborough, the two track part north of Grantham, the flat crossing at Newark... and resolving any of these is going to cause a lot of disruption to existing services.

One big advantage of HS2 is that you could build the railway from London to Birmingham without having to close any main lines for any prolonged period. I can't see how you could squeeze more paths easily into existing lines, and how you'd do that without turning the railway into a "five day a week" service for a few years (like happened on the WCML).

 

[Geezertronic]

It IS a tired old argument. £30bil isn't simply going to vanish in a puff of smoke if HS2 is shelved (although it might well do so if it goes ahead! )
IF they won't use it for improving rail travel in general, then use it to towards clearing the country's deficit.

You keep mentioning £30billion like that is the amount it has been quoted to create the line from London to Birmingham, which it isn't. Even taking into consideration the 1/3 of the cost of the London to Birminghanm link that is to be privately funded, you're still well short of a £30billion pot. And since the funding will be made in quite a few parts, it's not like the Government has that sort of money sitting in a pot waiting to be used. Funding for HS2 north of Birmingham has not been mentioned as I can see either.

 

[Kneedown]

You keep mentioning £30billion like that is the amount it has been quoted to create the line from London to Birmingham, which it isn't. Even taking into consideration the 1/3 of the cost of the London to Birminghanm link that is to be privately funded, you're still well short of a £30billion pot. And since the funding will be made in quite a few parts, it's not like the Government has that sort of money sitting in a pot waiting to be used. Funding for HS2 north of Birmingham has not been mentioned as I can see either.

£30bil is the figure that was being bandied about on the "HS2, Do we need it" thread, bandied about by the supporters. £17bil to Brum, £30bil to Leeds.
Of course no one can definitively say how much the final cost is going to be, but in these tough times it makes more sense to get our house in order before spending money on extravagent projects.

 

[Geezertronic]

I wouldn't say that considerably improving South/North journey times and increasing capacity vastly more than a classic upgrade could ever do is an "extravagent project" ?!

The Olympics is an extravagent project.

 

[Chris125]

It IS a tired old argument. £30bil isn't simply going to vanish in a puff of smoke if HS2 is shelved (although it might well do so if it goes ahead! )
IF they won't use it for improving rail travel in general, then use it to towards clearing the country's deficit.

Kneedown, government spending doesnt work like that. There is no £30bn pound pot to vanish because without HS2 the money wont have been borrowed, i.e. added to the national debt, in the first place.

Remember that the argument for why it can and should be funded seperately from Department for Transport - its wider social and economic importance to the country - also explains why simply giving it to the DfT to spend on smaller local schemes wont justify the expense.

Indeed, perhaps the biggest reason for why such funding couldnt be used for 'general improvements' is also the simplest one - the major capacity problems that face our most economically important transport arteries such as the WCML will still remain. If the government didnt commit to £30bn over 15+ years for HS2, they would end up committing large funds to other big capacity relief schemes instead.

Chris

 

[Kneedown]

Kneedown, government spending doesnt work like that. There is no £30bn pound pot to vanish because without HS2 the money wont have been borrowed, i.e. added to the national debt, in the first place.

Worst case scenario then, it's £30bil less on the national debt.

Remember that the argument for why it can and should be funded seperately from Department for Transport - its wider social and economic importance to the country - also explains why simply giving it to the DfT to spend on smaller local schemes wont justify the expense.

Upgrading existing, worn out infrastructure would be of wider social and economic benefit to the country. Building HS2 would benefit only London, Birmingham, Leeds and the NW. Maybe eventually Scotland.

Indeed, perhaps the biggest reason for why such funding couldnt be used for 'general improvements' is also the simplest one - the major capacity problems that face our most economically important transport arteries such as the WCML will still remain.

So the capacity problems that other parts of the country have been suffering for years should be ignored? As i said earlier, upgrade the Chiltern line so it can handle longer, faster and more frequent trains to Birmingham, and capacity is created on the WCML for the NW and Scotland. You'd have plenty of money left over to electrify the MML.
More bang for the buck!

If the government didnt commit to £30bn over 15+ years for HS2, they would end up committing large funds to other big capacity relief schemes instead.

Chris

Which is what they should be doing.
The whole country isn't just going to grind to a halt if HS2 doesn't get built in the immediate future, but it just might if the existing infrastructure is left to go to seed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wouldn't say that considerably improving South/North journey times and increasing capacity vastly more than a classic upgrade could ever do is an "extravagent project" ?!

It's extravagent because there are more pressing needs.
It's extravagent if you take a big loan out for a new car whilst your house roof is leaking and the central heating needs replacing..... Hang on, thats not extravagent, thats downright dumb.

 

[The Planner]

So the capacity problems that other parts of the country have been suffering for years should be ignored? As i said earlier, upgrade the Chiltern line so it can handle longer, faster and more frequent trains to Birmingham

There isn't a lot else you can do to the Chiltern route as it is anyway. EG3 gets a lot of it South of Aynho to 100mph, the headways apart from Risborough to Aynho are all 3 minutes to Tyseley. Chiltern has a fairly intensive stopping pattern at the southern end, and LM at the top end. How do you get around that short of 4 tracking ?? Which if you do intend doing then you might aswell build a new line.

 

[YorkshireBear]

you can see points on both sides but for me i support it. HS2 would not only benefit london brum manchester and leeds...

you keep forgetting one of the key arguements for it.... the freed up capcity on WCML MML and ECML....

ECML to leeds. you could maybe remove one of the london services and replace with some sort of semi fast to maybe peterbrough or east anglia... cambridge so services to east maintained but not taken into london.... not to mention platform cpacity at leeds this could help not having an express on through route...

MML could have something very similar done with it... from sheffield to well i cant think right now but im sure somethin similar could be done....

WCML some places services will be enhanced beyond recognition without so many fast services some stations will see services improved vastly...

and im sure the XC network may benefit too... leeds birmingham provides alot of their capacity problems as does manchester birmingham......

so kneedown while i can agree with some points i strongly disagree that it only benfits the cities it serves strongly disagree

 

[Geezertronic]

Worst case scenario then, it's £30bil less on the national debt.

It's not £30billion... read up on how HS2 will be funded. I have and according to what I have read 1/3 will be privately funded. So that leaves £20bil if your figures are correct

Upgrading existing, worn out infrastructure would be of wider social and economic benefit to the country. Building HS2 would benefit only London, Birmingham, Leeds and the NW. Maybe eventually Scotland.

There's no "eventually" about Scotland. If London to Scotland services use HS2 from day one of opening, there will apparently be a good time saving to be had. And as said before, the WCML Upgrade is a good case and point of the disruption a "classic" line upgrade can cause. Just because HS2 will be built, it doesn't mean that existing lines won't get any funding - it's a different pot of cash.

So the capacity problems that other parts of the country have been suffering for years should be ignored? As i said earlier, upgrade the Chiltern line so it can handle longer, faster and more frequent trains to Birmingham, and capacity is created on the WCML for the NW and Scotland. You'd have plenty of money left over to electrify the MML.
More bang for the buck!

How will that affect users north of Birmingham? It doesn't. Whether this frees up capacity on the WCML, it won't be much and you're still stuck with the same journey times to those destinations north of Birmingham. You get more capacity from a new line than you ever will from upgrading the WCML & ECML for example. Upgrading the Chiltern line from London to Birmingham to meet the standard you are on about would be a nightmare for users of that line over a considerable period of time. As it is, the Evergreen projects seem to be doing quite well.

It's extravagent if you take a big loan out for a new car whilst your house roof is leaking and the central heating needs replacing..... Hang on, thats not extravagent, thats downright dumb.

Your example is not a fair comparison by any stretch of the imagination. What is dumb is not addressing what will become a serious capacity problem for both of the countries main South/North railway lines. What is dumb is expecting that you can still bolt on more "upgrades" throughout the length of these lines without vast and disruptive work over a long period of time.

Any planned improvements to bottlenecks on the WCML (Norton Bridge for example) & ECML will still continue as their funding is not directly affected by any decision on HS2 or not

 

[The Planner]

As it is, the Evergreen projects seem to be doing quite well.

quite being the operative word, it isnt all plain sailing from what Ive heard, some of it is behind schedule.

 

[Geezertronic]

quite being the operative word, it isnt all plain sailing from what Ive heard, some of it is behind schedule.

My point being that the work does not appear to be causing the disruption seen on the WCML during that work

 

[Kneedown]

It's not £30billion... read up on how HS2 will be funded. I have and according to what I have read 1/3 will be privately funded. So that leaves £20bil if your figures are correct

Ok then, £20bil, thats still £20bil that could be invested in the current network or used to keep the deficit down.

There's no "eventually" about Scotland. If London to Scotland services use HS2 from day one of opening, there will apparently be a good time saving to be had.

But time isn't really an issue. It's much more about capacity isn't it?

How will that affect users north of Birmingham? It doesn't. Whether this frees up capacity on the WCML, it won't be much and you're still stuck with the same journey times to those destinations north of Birmingham. You get more capacity from a new line than you ever will from upgrading the WCML & ECML for example

It does ease things for passengers north of B'ham quite simply because more, if not most, B'ham trains using an upgraded Chiltern line = more capacity on the existing WCML for NW and Scotland trains.
I hardly think the term "stuck" with the same journey times is is fair. 125mph running compares favorably with most other parts of the network.

Your example is not a fair comparison by any stretch of the imagination. What is dumb is not addressing what will become a serious capacity problem for both of the countries main South/North railway lines. What is dumb is expecting that you can still bolt on more "upgrades" throughout the length of these lines without vast and disruptive work over a long period of time.

"What will become a serious capacity problem" My point exactly. There are many other areas of the country that already have serious capacity problems. Why should billions be spent addressing a projected problem that hasn't manifested itself yet, when nothing is being done elsewhere where the problems are only too real day in day out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ECML to leeds. you could maybe remove one of the london services and replace with some sort of semi fast to maybe peterbrough or east anglia... cambridge so services to east maintained but not taken into london.... not to mention platform cpacity at leeds this could help not having an express on through route...

MML could have something very similar done with it... from sheffield to well i cant think right now but im sure somethin similar could be done....

WCML some places services will be enhanced beyond recognition without so many fast services some stations will see services improved vastly...

I hardly think that reducing the status of some of our mainlines, to that of glorified FCC routes is progress.



I get the impression that this whole argument is now just going round in circles.
Whilst i like the idea of HS2, no one has been able to convince me that it should be a priority over our existing network, especially when the country is in such a financial mess. Neither has anyone been able to convince me that there are not feasible alternatives that are more cost effective and more beneficial to all.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I hardly think that reducing the status of some of our mainlines, to that of glorified FCC routes is progress.

i never did that i simply removed one express from timetable and replaced it with a service to east anglia...... the other would still remain a competeitve express train.....

 

[tbtc]

Ok then, £20bil, thats still £20bil that could be invested in the current network

I asked earlier in this thread what the "£30bn" could buy - and nobody answered.

The WCML upgrade cost around £10bn (depending on sources), and added some capacity to a line which was already fast and already "four tracked" on long sections. You're talking around £2,500,000 for each new coach (based on Pendolino prices)

Building another two tracks over Welwyn would be a significant cost. Replacing flat crossings/ adding loops etc would all add up.

So, if HS2 only benefits a minority of the UK, what would the "anti HS2" brigade rather it was spent on instead? I'm serious - give some examples.