Why wasn't HS2 phase 1 four-tracked to Birmingham?

[mmh]

Strange that Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool councils all disagree with your view. They are all pushing very strongly for HS2 - Sheffield City Council pushed hard to change the route to serve their city centre and fell out with surrounding towns in the process.

Of course they are - given HS2 was given the go-ahead they'd be daft to not lobby for the best connection to it they can get. That doesn't change whether or not it's a sensible idea or not.

 

[mmh]

That might not have the desired effect. What is a commercial vehicle? Until fairly recently, it was something that was obviously a lorry or a van. Now, with the dawn of the 'gig economy' it can include people's normal everyday vehicles, being used for simple delivery work. While there are plenty goods which can't avoid being carried in a large and obvious commercial vehicle, there are plenty others which are on the border line where the imposition of regulations for one type of vehicle makes it worthwhile to switch to a less regulated vehicle. If you started road charging for normal transit-style vans, it'd push the balance in favour of these 'gig economy' delivery services, just as vans are currently used to move larger goods, avoiding the tachometer and other lorry-specific regulations.

I think that paints a false picture of why different sized commercial vehicles are used. The trunk/branch model for delivery is hardly new. The "last mile" is the relevant part here though. Worth noting that "gig economy" workers delivering in their cars are often uninsured, too.

 

[Clayton]

I'd suggest it'd need to be significantly cheaper than the current prices to have any significant effect on road traffic, and I really don't imagine it will be!

It won’t be about cheapness, but speed and convenience. Business people and foreign visitors, I guess, not ordinary Joe from the suburbs

 

[The Ham]

We better agree to disagree as we are way off topic, but I will just point out that even if you could find a technically practicable solution it would be political suicide. Just look at how petrified Government’s are of increasing fuel duty

The £50 charge was only for vehicles found along the full length of a road rather than closing said road at a fixed point, so that residents could get to their property fi from either end but would all but stop rat running traffic.

 

[mmh]

It won’t be about cheapness, but speed and convenience. Business people and foreign visitors, I guess, not ordinary Joe from the suburbs

It's all about suburbs. Both making more of the midlands and north west suburbs of London for rich people, and allowing the inefficient use of the existing southern west coast mainline to carry on so everywhere has a fast train to London. Nobody seriously believes a high speed line to Birmingham is for anything else, surely?

 

[The Planner]

Seen any timetables for the WCML that prove that yet? No? Ok, carry on.

 

[mmh]

Explain what you think it is for then, and what benefit it will bring to Stafford, Crewe, Macclesfield, Manchester, Warrington, Preston, Liverpool etc etc

 

[Clayton]

Seen any timetables for the WCML that prove that yet? No? Ok, carry on.

This is just a fun discussion board, he was speculating and doesn’t have to give proof! Neither of you know. TBH it isn’t clear to me what HS2 is for, apart from increasing capacity and copying France

 

[edwin_m]

Explain what you think it is for then, and what benefit it will bring to Stafford, Crewe, Macclesfield, Manchester, Warrington, Preston, Liverpool etc etc

If you're referring to HS2 then all those stations will have faster London services and some will have faster Birmingham services too.

 

[mmh]

If you're referring to HS2 then all those stations will have faster London services and some will have faster Birmingham services too.

So I'll ask again, what will the benefit be for all those towns?

 

[flierfy]

Toton is effectively Parkway.
The new Commuters will buy houses where they can drive to Birmingham Interchange.

I don't think that driving to any HS2 station will be a practical option. There probably won't be parking spaces in significant numbers of cars. Parking requires plenty of cheap space. The area around the station won't be cheap though. Any parking facility competes with housing and commercial developments in the immediate area around the stations. I honestly can't see the parking winning.

Surely if you reduce the average vehicle length significantly then you reduce traffic jams ...

One doesn't get significantly more cars through a road-section just because they are shorter. It would only shorten the length of the tailback slightly and could at best avoid some secondary congestions.

 

[edwin_m]

So I'll ask again, what will the benefit be for all those towns?

The intention is that fast and frequent links to the main cities will benefit local businesses and thereby spread prosperity outwards from the south-east. So for example a company in Stafford might be able to do business in London without having an office there, because it would be quick and relatively cheap for staff based in Stafford to visit customers/suppliers/partners in London and vice versal. This is difficult if the journey is slow or very expensive.

In my view to achieve this they should change the fare structure so that business travel is cheaper and commuting is more expensive.

 

[33Hz]

I’d say Frankfurt Flughafen (Fernbf) is in almost exactly the same situation.

And Schiphol / Amsterdam.

 

[Meerkat]

So for example a company in Stafford might be able to do business in London without having an office there

Or a company can have one office in London and shut down all the regional ones as they can be reached from London easily via HS2. Or at least deskill the regional offices, pulling more work into the London HQ.

 

[The Planner]

Explain what you think it is for then, and what benefit it will bring to Stafford, Crewe, Macclesfield, Manchester, Warrington, Preston, Liverpool etc etc

By removing the "inefficient" (though Id like to see how you could get a much better timetable in terms of use on the WCML than what you have now, answers on a postcard to the DfT.) working on the fasts you get more stopping trains and connectivity as Edwin says but this has been done ad-infinitum, HS2 is just 6 tracking the WCML 30 miles to the east.

 

[mmh]

By removing the "inefficient" (though Id like to see how you could get a much better timetable in terms of use on the WCML than what you have now, answers on a postcard to the DfT.) working on the fasts you get more stopping trains and connectivity as Edwin says but this has been done ad-infinitum, HS2 is just 6 tracking the WCML 30 miles to the east.

So you agree with me? I didn't say I thought the WCML fast lines were underused. The slow lines are, mostly because of so many different stopping patterns because everywhere must have a fast train to London. It's far from full.

 

[The Planner]

You also didnt say the slow lines were under used either. The slow lines may look far from full but look at a planning graph and the story is different. Under utilised and strategic freight paths being an issue, but do you remove them and limit any growth there?

 

[mmh]

You also didnt say the slow lines were under used either. The slow lines may look far from full but look at a planning graph and the story is different. Under utilised and strategic freight paths being an issue, but do you remove them and limit any growth there?

I'm all in favour of freight, and I'll admit it's not unusual as a passenger to pass freight trains on the southern WCML.

If freight is getting in the way of passenger service perhaps we should build a freight line from the south to the midlands and north west. It could skirt Birmingham and join the WCML somewhere south of Crewe

 

[Bald Rick]

If freight is getting in the way of passenger service perhaps we should build a freight line from the south to the midlands and north west. It could skirt Birmingham and join the WCML somewhere south of Crewe

How much do you think a mile of all new freight railway costs compare to a mile of all new passenger railway?

 

[mmh]

How much do you think a mile of all new freight railway costs compare to a mile of all new passenger railway?

No idea at all, just like you. Considerably less than a high speed line and the trains to run on it though, especially as it would't happen.

 

[Ianno87]

No idea at all, just like you. Considerably less than a high speed line and the trains to run on it though, especially as it would't happen.

Even if you did build a new freight line, if you actually wanted to run more passenger trains on the WCML as a result, you'd still need more rolling stock, so same ££££. In fact you'd need more of it as the trains are slower end-to-end, which also means bigger depots, sidings, etc....

 

[33Hz]

If freight is getting in the way of passenger service perhaps we should build a freight line from the south to the midlands and north west. It could skirt Birmingham and join the WCML somewhere south of Crewe

That was proposed 15 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Railway_(UK) - even using some of the same route as HS2. £8bn in 2003 money.

 

[WideRanger]

No idea at all, just like you. Considerably less than a high speed line and the trains to run on it though, especially as it would't happen.

If I'm not mistaken, Bald Rick is an infrastructure expert. So while 'No idea at all' may or may not apply to you, I'm pretty confident he has at least some idea.

 

[The Ham]

That was proposed 15 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Railway_(UK) - even using some of the same route as HS2. £8bn in 2003 money.

Which would probably have been about £10 billion in 2012 (first time HS2 was announced) prices. Chances are it didn't have the same contiguity amounts, which would have pushed costs higher still.

Then I would argue that HS2 probably has several times the benefits of a freight line.

 

[33Hz]

Which would probably have been about £10 billion in 2012 (first time HS2 was announced) prices.

Bank of England says £10,711,409,395.97

Kind of funny that one of the backers of that scheme became a UKIP councillor in Great Missenden and his twitter feed is full of anti-HS2 stuff.

 

[swt_passenger]

That was proposed 15 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Railway_(UK) - even using some of the same route as HS2. £8bn in 2003 money.

As publicised it went via Sheffield. Missing most of the West Midlands completely, which I think was a major downside. But wasn’t their route round SW London deemed completely unaffordable?

 

[Bald Rick]

No idea at all, just like you. Considerably less than a high speed line and the trains to run on it though, especially as it would't happen.

Ah, well actually I do. A mile of brand new electrified freight railway costs essentially the same as a mile of brand new high speed railway.

What differs is that high speed rail has to be straighter, but freight railways have to have easier gradients. This makes freight railways a little longer, and in hilly areas need more tunnels. But they can avoid the more difficult obstacles.

Then, of course, new freight railways don’t need expensive new stations in city centres. But they do need new freight facilities, which are typically much larger than a passenger station, located in or very close to, the edge of the cities it serves.

All told, a new freight railway from London to the north would cost in the region of 60-80% of HS2. But have very little of the benefit.

 

[The Ham]

Bank of England says £10,711,409,395.97

Kind of funny that one of the backers of that scheme became a UKIP councillor in Great Missenden and his twitter feed is full of anti-HS2 stuff.

Thanks that's not bad on my part as a rough guess.

 

[RLBH]

can't remember the exact equation but I recall that damage done to the road surface is proportional to the square or cube of the vehicle mass - hence why cycle lanes essentially never need to be re-surfaced.

The damage done to the road surface by each axle is proportional to the fourth power of axle load. You then need to sum across the number of axles. And to be fair, also multiply by the mileage driven.

Incidentally, the same law ought to apply to rail vehicles, illustrating why keeping axle load down keeps the permanent way people happy.

Just based on weight and average mileage, I worked out a while ago that under such a system cars would be liable for about £25 of tax a year, while a 44-tonne articulated lorry would be liable for a six-figure sum. There probably ought to be a flat-rate registration fee and a length-based element too (which would not be mileage-dependent - you take up the same road space whether static or moving) making for something like;

Road User Charge = A + B * length + C * sum(axle load^4) * annual mileage

Pollution is probably best taken care of by fuel taxes; anything that goes in the tank can be assumed to come out of the other end eventually. Doing this fairly means differential rates on diesel/petrol/LPG, and electric cars mean that the same system needs to be applied to electrical generation and home heating.

Rationalising the tax system turns out to be rather complicated, who would have thought it!

 

[LAX54]

Think of the improvements to the Main Rail Network if, instead of this line that no one really seems to want! , that could be done !