Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by ABB125, 24 Jan 2019.
However the extra coaches/new trains for Chiltern could happen as well as HS2.
@The Ham , if there are more passengers on the railways, how will building a railway with no intermediate stations help get them on it?
I live in a line where my local station is has lots of fast trains going past. I know that when I travel out takes longer than from the fast trains at the stations further away.
However, if I get on a train in the morning peak I can be sure of a seat. In fact I can choose from lots of seats. However from the stations with fast stations seats are much harder to find.
Now if the faster trains were to stop everywhere the lack of peak time seats would impact more people.
Now scale that up so that there's even faster trains and those fast trains would have less people on them as those traveling from further away would no longer be on those trains freeing up seats.
How would HS2 not help?
By removing the trains from the existing railways that don't stop at intermediate stations (eg London to Scotland, first call Warrington), creating room on the line for trains that do...
The WCML upgrade, that scheme that would cost at least £25bn in today's money, only managed to produce additional paths, and journey time improvements, south of Rugby by significantly reducing the number of stops ICWC services would make on that bit of line. Now, sure, they could stop all the intercity trains at all the intercity stops, but that would have wiped out an awful lot of the small journey time improvements made along the whole line...
And may have resulted in egg on their faces to a certain extent, if the fast trains made 4 or 5 stops and journey times were unimpressive.
In my mind, the West Coast Mainline upgrade was at the time basically an attempt at a mini HS2 type operation just on the existing route. It turned out that couldn't get to 140mph and that the new timetable would soon result in some full trains such as a Friday evening and freight would come and fill most of the other paths.
Since then globalisation has really kicked in and due to so many people wanting to be mobile at the drop of a hat and get from London to wherever as quickly as possible, passenger numbers have continued to grow. And of they continue to grow at this rate there will be few seats by say 2035. Liverpool would only be guaranteed it's one train per hour to and from London within the franchise committments. Glasgow realistically at some point in the future is going to need two trains per hour to and from London imo. Even if that's in 2035. HS2 gives the scope to do things such as that.
Ummm, have you actually been reading what anyone else has written on this thread? I've lost count of the number of times that particular point has been addressed. (Putting all the fastest trains on HS2 means you free up space for more stopping trains on all the other lines).
But the claim made numerous times is that the money would produce better value if spent on upgrading existing lines or opening new (not high speed) lines. That clearly implies that the same money would (allegedly) produce benefits greater than those from HS2. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for some analysis to back that claim up - and counting the number of passenger miles of additional rail usage that you get from the investment seems a pretty good start in that regard (although I realise it's not the only possible measure of value).
I have, and it always follows that HS2 means a faster service for those with stations built on it, and slower, inconvenient services for the rest of us.
That sounds like "one rule for the rich, another for the poor" to me.
Agreed, I think all those against HS2 should be asked to state how they would spend the 55 billion on the railway so we can evaluate the benefits. I suspect they would only be a fraction of those achieved by HS2
Where have you dragged this statement from this time then? Do you know the ticket prices for HS2 before us and everyone involved in the project do ?
Maybe because we don't think spending £55bn is a good idea in the first place? That's a mammoth amount of money, and its use should be properly audited and justified.
If we are living in a world where £55bn is somehow available, I'd like to see it deployed in regional hotspots, where it truly would benefit ordinary people. New stations, modernise signalling, that sort of thing.
I do wonder if pro-HS2 people truly believe that they are going to spend so much money on a line with no intermediate stations. Just think what that means!
But surely that is a political question which none of us are qualified to properly answer ? My point simply is that of those opposing many make the assumption that this money could be diverted to the existing railway and a series of upgrades and I would like to point out how little relatively to HS2 would be achieved by doing so. It would help the debate if we knew that for 55 billion we could have certainb upgrades OR HS2
Over the life time of the project it works out roughly the same as what we are spending per year now - and who says it isnt being properly audited or justified - just you.
These projects are already on going and more to come if the press releases are to be believed - thats alongside HS2
Once again - there are intermediate stations you are just to ignorant to see this nor listen to the project as a whole and are trotting out the same old tired nonfactual arguments time and time again.
If you don't build HS2 and do nothing else, existing services will get worse as remaining capacity is eaten up.
If you don't build HS2 and also spend money and time on trying to squeeze even more capacity out of the existing mainlines, existing services get worse while you're building new infrastructure, then the small capacity gain gets quickly eaten anyway.
If you build HS2, the average journey time on the train for certain journeys on the existing mainlines might increase. But also the stopping frequency at any one station can be increased, so door-to-door time for a particular journey could improve overall.
That's my understanding of the structure of the post-HS2 railway from reading this thread. I don't think "slower, inconvenient" is accurate.
You know what, I do feel sorry the poor who live in Cheshire and the Chilterns (those well known areas of deprivation) who will only be able to watch with envy those from Manchester (where practically everyone is a millionaire) sail by in their high speed trains.
P.S. I'm still awaiting an alternative to HS2....
£55 billion is a lot of money, however not when compared to the annual spend of the UK government, then it's about 7%.
To put that in perspective that would be like someone earning £25,000 spending £1,800.
However it's less than that, in that the spend will be over a period of time. If we assume £5bn a year is like spending £165 a year.
So.... tell me which services will *definitely* be slower and less convenient as a direct consequence of HS2?
If my answer is, "we don't need a penny for penny alternative to HS2, we could just spend money where it's needed in specific regional areas.", an answer I've given repeatedly, would that be enough?
I've answered this question before and I know advocates have admitted that they cannot guarantee that existing services will remain as they are now, and cannot guarantee that services won't survive as they are now.
Lancaster and Oxenholme, for two examples, will lose direct London services.
By the very definition you and others have given me, the WCML will be for stoppers (because HS2 has no intermediate stations) and so will be slower.
...and ask them at what point in the next 100 years that Britain should have a proper high-speed (by world standards) line or Network from north to south?
If the answer is sometime, then build it now, while the preliminary work has been done,.land acquired, and it won't triple in cost because it was put in hold and picked back up in 2030.
OK, let's try extra capacity for North West to London, which has seen growth since 2009 of 70% (remember by the opening of Phase 2 it was due to be circa 95%)?
(Edit: corrected to North West)
For Lancaster and Oxenholme...
-There is quite literally nothing to stop a future HS2 operator *choosing* to stop at them in future if they so wish. The infrastructure will be there to do so. Non-stopping is not necessarily a given for something some years in the future (its just an assumption for the purposes of a business case)
-There is nothing to stop the DfT specifying retention of a direct classic WCML service if it so wishes, that will also be useful for passengers accessing places like Milton Keynes, that is currently very difficult. So those journeys will be much, much faster.
That is what HS2 is about - future choice in these matters. Without it there definitely won't be any.
I don't know what answer you expect me to give.
I would look at where money could be spent on specific pinch points and extra trains and whatever else, rather than asking the North East to wait until a new line is built into Birmingham.
I'm an office worker from Preston, I don't have industry knowledge, I don't know how many answers I can give to you. You keep rejecting my responses, I can only answer to the best of my knowledge!
If you can tell us what is needed where that will release as much capacity across the network as HS2 will, then yes it would be enough.
Yet numerous people who do have industry knowledge have said why HS2 is the best solution.
It (HS2)seems the most suitable option long term.
If we just look at the specific route of the West Coast Mainline. One of the most used lines in the whole country, probably still is the most used long distance route with the most amount of traffic in terms of trains.
It's been squeezed and squeezed, resignaled, to make it possible to have a train pass every 3 minutes, which there often is. The latest enhancements during 2017 enabled one more possible train per hour to leave Euston. An open access operator has the rights for 5/6 of those paths and Virgin are applying for rights to five others. After that, the line is pretty full.
So what to do about the West Coast Mainline. The main trunk of Britain?
It's got 4 tracks. Do we six track it? Imagine how disruptive that would be closing the lines constantly for construction. Buying up buildings or houses close to the line because you dont have the land. It just doesn't look viable common sense wise.
Or build a new railway shadowing the same end to end route. Build it through the quietest areas, use tunnels, minimise the number of homes to be knocked down. And build it to 2020 standards so it can go faster and more safely and is more modern than anything we've ever had before.
There is no guarantee that HS2 will be so wonderful, glorious, fault--free, as advocates believe.
I notice that I'm expected to "prove it" with response while pro-voices tend to just claim faultless bounty. Why is that?
Because experience with high speed rail across the world shows that it works.
Most people who object to HS2 couldn't be expected to stipulate which specific rail projects they wish to spend the money on. They do have the right to disagree with the plans.
The point is how viable is not building it, abandoning it, and leaving the current trunk route just as it is for the indefinite future, a lifetime. Don't forget many politicians say freight is an important part of the need for it. Making way for much more freight on the existing classic West Coast Mainline to help keep more lorries off the roads.
Sorry typo in my post it was the North WEST.