HS2 under review

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

The current business case provides for trains running at a maximum line speed of 225 mph.

 

I would have thought the business case would not be fatally undermined by a reduction to a maximum of 186mph in he open air (or 200mph if not extra costs were incurred) as per French practice.

 

This would generate some cost savings surely while preserving the much needed project.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, lmsforever said:

There are far more antis than pro for HS2 some people on here are really rude to those who do not agree with you should  understand that many are directly affected by HS2 and therefore have a right to put there views forward.

 

Which you have steadfastly refused to do!

 

Let me ask for what seems like the Thousandth time....

 

Tell us how you would massively increase capacity of the WCML so that HS2 is not needed!

 

Simply complaining about HS2s effects on you personally is NOT AN ANSWER.

 

If Ravenser can successfully come up with an answer then  so can you!

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by phil-b259

[brianusa]

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Ode to HS2 !

Or more likely -----

Oh Mr Grant Shapps what shall I do
I want to go to Birmingham
And they're taking me on to Crewe
Send me back to London as quickly as you can
Oh Mr Porter what a silly girl I am.

 

Brit15

 

Certainly makes a break from HS2which is getting a bit adversarial and us -v- them.

   Brian.

[lmsforever]

Okay Phil  Firstly the signalling can be ugraded to cope with faster and more trains,secondly also utilise the Midland line more for new services to the north ,obviously the wires would have to go up.Once Sheffield is reached links to Leeds and all points north are already extant.The current long distance services on the wcml cope with the passengers on offer.Two services to Glasgow an hour ,plus extra services to Liverpool ,Manchester .Marylebone to Brum also offers an excellent service that is accessible to many many people along the route of high speed something that can be achieved on HS2.      All this can be achieved by spending money that is being diverted to HS.  DAFT have restricted NR,s  budget and that should be stopped also they should leave running trains to the pro,s.Doubtless this will not meet your approval but it could work given the will .

[locoholic]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Because HS2 will also connect with the ECML

 

Last time I looked Birmingham - Sheffield (Midland) York and Newcastle trains were known as 'cross country services.

 

You like many others are choosing to ignore the fact that HS2 will be connected to the existing rail network at:-

 

The WCML at Litchfield Trent Valley

The WCML at Crewe

The WCML at Wigan

The MML at Sheffield (south)

The MML at Sheffield (North)

The ECML Church Fenton

 

These are in ADDITION to the city centre HS2 stations of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds - plus the intermediate stations at Birmingham Parkway, East Midlands Parkway and Manchester Airport

 

These allow for many services to be provided to destinations many miles away from HS2 proper (even more come into play if a fleet of HS2 bi-modes is eventually procured) - just as the French have been doing for decades with their TGVs - which initially spent more time running on the classic network than they did on the Paris to Lyon LGV

 

Personally I would have added a connection at Birmingham so that services from the likes of Bristol could gain access to HS2 in the Washford Heath area and another pair to allow trains to loop via Derby or terminate at Nottingham - however as these routes lack overhead electrification then I guess there is a certain amount of logic n leaving them out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you point out, HS2 is not going to be properly integrated into the national rail network. To me, that is a major design flaw. In a scheme with such a massive price tag, that is inexcusable.

[runs as required]

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Which you ave steadfastly refused to do!

 

Let me ask for what seems like the Thousandth time....

 

Tell us how you would massively increase capacity of the WCML so that HS2 is not needed!

 

Simply complaining about HS2s effects on you personally is NOT AN ANSWER.

 

If Ravenser can successfully come up with an answer then  so can you!

 

Would you be as rude as this face to face , rather than on 'social media' ?

i think this kind of ranting in front of your own screen one of the most distressing aspects of the It revolution and ought to be monitored by the mods.

dh

[AY Mod]

42 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

There are far more antis than pro for HS2

 

What is your data source for this?

[4630]

And does that data source also identify regional differences for pro and anti HS2?

[phil-b259]

17 minutes ago, locoholic said:

As you point out, HS2 is not going to be properly integrated into the national rail network. To me, that is a major design flaw. In a scheme with such a massive price tag, that is inexcusable.

 

 

Please explain to me how a HS2 train that goes to Liverpool from Euston via HS2, stops at Runcorn, Crewe Stafford as well as Birmingham Parkway for which I can book a through ticket from Burgess Hill is NOT fully integrated into the national rail network!

 

 

[Ravenser]

41 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

We might be - but thats the problem, when attempting to compare things - it is essential to ensure you are comparing like with like.

 

To my mind the challenge is clear - HS2 have done lots of work on the benefits that would accrue if the eastern branch was built so any upgrade to the existing MML / ECML or a new build following their corridors out of London needs to deliver the same benefits for at the same or lower cost.

 

You have expressed opposition to the maximum top speed used for HS2 (which is fine) - but to perform a proper comparison any alternatives you need to either:-

 

(i) construct you alternative to HS2 standards, including maximum linespeeds.

 

(ii) Chose a compromise set of standards like a max speed of 186mph for open air and 140mph for tunnels (effectively HS1 spec) and use this to recalculate the benefits of HS2 using these figures as well as the benefits of the alternative .

 

(iii) reduce HS2 to conventional UK speeds and perform, an analysis of both options as in (ii)

 

The problem is, the lower the speed, the lower the time savings and the lower the benefits are. Now don't get me wrong additional capacity would still be of benefit to rail users - but would that on its own be sufficient to outweigh the considerable construction costs?

 

There is a correlation which holds true for all modes of transport in that the shorter the journey time the more attractive it is for users. to take a rather extreme example, the once thriving Ocean liner traffic dried up pretty quickly as soon as international air travel became available to the masses - not only did previous ship users value the time saving, but others for whom a long sea voyage was impractical time wise suddenly found they could travel with ease.

 

The ultimate question with HS2 is therefore not really should we be doing more of the same - rather its a question of how much quicker is reasonable. We have long planned for higher speeds on our domestic network (the only thing preventing 140mph is the fact that drivers have difficulty seeing lineside signals at such speeds so in cab signalling must be installed first) and it would therefore be sensible to ensure any new build matches this speed (which also means it must have an in cab singling system). Again I point out that although HS1 was designed as a 140mph railway - it turned out that much of the open air alignment was actually good enough for 186mph.

 

Yes it is certainly the case that 200moh or rater is pushing the boundaries (or indeed going well beyond what is economic based on what the study of detailed aerodynamics tells us about energy consumption versus speed) but the principle that we should look for improvements when building new is still sound.

 

As highlighted before, 186mph is used by most high speed railway operators in Europe as representing the optimum trade off between energy consumption and speed so why not use it for HS2? Again it wouldn't change the alignement of the route but it would certainly bring about savings while preserving the reduction in journey times humans have prized throughout history from the packhorse to canals to railways and the stagecoach through to the motor car.

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

The current business case provides for trains running at a maximum line speed of 225 mph.

 

I didn't oppose 250mph per se. But clearly it must come at a cost over 187mph. As an English graduate working in the commercial side of freight transport I have no feel for that cost premium. 

 

But if people are going green around the gills about the cost of HS2 and calling for it to be scrapped on cost grounds, then de-scoping to 225mph or 200mph or 187mph would be a cost-cutting option. The question is - how much money would reducing line-speed cost , and what benefits does it actually lose? I certainly think the exercise should be done to establish the numbers - but I have no idea what the answer would be. Why are we going for 250mph? Is it political vanity or is there a real benefit from the higher speed? Does a cost/benefit analysis stack up. If not drop the speed to the optimum figure.

 

In terms of alternatives :

 

the alternative to the Eastern leg would seem to be a "push it as far as you can go" conventional railway upgrade. That implies a line limit of 125-140mph on any ECML/MML southern relief line : 140 mph may be possible on parts of the ECML with suitable signal systems and any new construction should not impose a restriction below that .

 

However I had always understood the tunnels on CTRL are 100mph limit , not 140mph ? Certainly I think that's the case for the London tunnels and the Thames tunnel. Given that a new relief line for KX/SP would have to be in tunnel from the edge of London, I think you would be looking at 100mph in tunnel/ 140mph in the open. That only gives you a limited time gain in the tunnels against the current ECML , which from memory is 30/60 as far as Finsbury Park then 105mph to Knebworth; and probably even less of a gain against the current route out of St Pancras. You might also have to live with 4 platforms in tunnel at London

 

Alternatively you would have to rejoin the current ECML between Potters Bar and New Barnet, and try to rejoin the MML around Scratchwood services (Somehow) . That's the SNCF approach, but we had to take a more drastic approach with CTRL and tunnel under London , and it might be necessary here

 

So the comparison is HS2 Eastern leg v "push it as far as you can" conventional upgrade with a 140/100mph southern relief line at the London end 

 

(And if we're really spending tens of billions here and tens of billions there on major new lines , then maybe someone should take a serious look at putting a new main line from Sheffield /HS2 into Bradford Interchange from the south - in conjunction with "HS3 " .

 

I wouldn't normally float ideas like that , but if we're spending £55-100 billion on 350 miles of new mainline railway, well Bradford is the major city with no mainline railway to London, and this is probably the only opportunity in 150 years (1925-2075) to fix that. It would potentially relieve some pressure on Leeds and the ECML)

[Ravenser]

7 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

What is your data source for this?

The comments section on Conservative Home??

[dibber25]

Can't say I've ever taken much interest in HS2, largely because I'll be dead long before it's built. I certainly sympathise with those whose homes will be blighted or bulldozed by it, just as I would if it was a motorway or an airport expansion. I think many of us with railway interests (and some who don't have railway interests) view it simply from  a rail perspective and the 'what would you do about WCML capacity?' questions reflect that. I think that whether it stands or falls should be based on much wider assessment of its usefulness. For instance, if it is to take the lion's share of inter-city traffic so that internal flights could be largely eliminated and Heathrow expansion scrapped, then HS2 would be worthwhile. If it is just another vanity project that never fulfils its promise and struggles to compete with Heathrow's increased capacity for internal flights, then everyone loses. So far, I see projects like HS2 viewed in isolation when , in fact, there needs to be a coherent transport policy that is sustainable in terms of environmental damage and takes into account a future in which people are unlikely to have the freedom of movement that we enjoy today, because the planet simply will not stand it.

[phil-b259]

17 minutes ago, runs as required said:

Would you be as rude as this face to face , rather than on 'social media' ?

 

 

Quite possibly, yes.

 

For over two years now I have been attempting to get LMSForever to provide an answer. Yes my requests probably have got less polite with time - but thats not surprising when somebody constantly refuses to answer a sensible reply.

 

Its the same question I ask everyone who is anti-HS2 - be it on forums in the real world - its not hard! Even if they are anti-HS2 they usually accept that (i) more capacity is needed and (ii) can work out a solution which answers the need.

 

As LMSForever himself pointed out with his comments about the M40 - there is always an alternative course of action which can be taken rather than "Scrap it"  (e.g divert the motorway round the SSI) and it doesn't take a genius to work that out.

 

There is reams and reams of data out there that show the WCML is full up - yet the demand for rail travel is increasing - something has got to give!

 

While HS2 is the Governments (and my prefered solution) to the problem LMSForever could argue that...

 

....Massive hikes in train fares would suppress demand for rail travel

 

....Mass road building would provide more road space to soak up the demand

 

....Massive tax hikes on companies that employ people living more than 5 miles from where they work

 

....Moving Government from London to Manchester would alter the patterns of trade to suppress demand

 

....big taxes on companies who employ people in the south East might mean more companies move northwards

 

...etc

 

But he doesn't - all he usually* does is pop up now and then, complaining its all a terrible waste of money while steadfastly refusing to say what he would do instead.

 

* He has made valid points in the past about the behaviour of HS2 contractors - and if you look at my response you will see that I was perfectly OK with that as contractors / officials should be held to account if they are behaving irresponsibly regardless of whether they work for Aylesbury Council, Highways England, the National Grid or HS2.

 

[melmerby]

35 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

Okay Phil  Firstly the signalling can be ugraded to cope with faster and more trains,secondly also utilise the Midland line more for new services to the north ,obviously the wires would have to go up.Once Sheffield is reached links to Leeds and all points north are already extant.The current long distance services on the wcml cope with the passengers on offer.Two services to Glasgow an hour ,plus extra services to Liverpool ,Manchester .Marylebone to Brum also offers an excellent service that is accessible to many many people along the route of high speed something that can be achieved on HS2.      All this can be achieved by spending money that is being diverted to HS.  DAFT have restricted NR,s  budget and that should be stopped also they should leave running trains to the pro,s.Doubtless this will not meet your approval but it could work given the will .

Once again the same disproved arguments are put forward.

Signalling upgrades alone cannot provide the necessary capacity increases (especially at the southern end) for the WCML, that was discounted early on, but you choose to revive it again as a viable solution.

The MML is fully utilized at the southern end with the constriction of 4 platforms at St Pancras, with little scope for enhancement.

Marylebone to Birmingham would need big money to increase it's capacity, which I believe is near it's limit using the current infrastructure, which is little changed from the days of the GWR (&GCR).

Most spending on this route has been to replace capacity removed by BR's cost cutting.

 

HS2 covers all those problems with one project.

 

[Allegheny1600]

1 hour ago, lmsforever said:

I can assure you that everyone on here knows about overpopulation in the UK that is why our countryside is being covered in houses to say we don't is stupid and typical of the attitude towards anyone who doesn't want this white elephant built.

 

1 hour ago, lmsforever said:

There are far more antis than pro for HS2 some people on here are really rude to those who do not agree with you should  understand that many are directly affected by HS2 and therefore have a right to put there views forward.

I hope you see the irony in these two posts!?!

Thank you.

[lmsforever]

3 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

 

I hope you see the irony in these two posts!?!

Thank you.

Actualy no

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

Can't say I've ever taken much interest in HS2, largely because I'll be dead long before it's built. I certainly sympathise with those whose homes will be blighted or bulldozed by it, just as I would if it was a motorway or an airport expansion. I think many of us with railway interests (and some who don't have railway interests) view it simply from  a rail perspective and the 'what would you do about WCML capacity?' questions reflect that. I think that whether it stands or falls should be based on much wider assessment of its usefulness. For instance, if it is to take the lion's share of inter-city traffic so that internal flights could be largely eliminated and Heathrow expansion scrapped, then HS2 would be worthwhile. If it is just another vanity project that never fulfils its promise and struggles to compete with Heathrow's increased capacity for internal flights, then everyone loses. So far, I see projects like HS2 viewed in isolation when , in fact, there needs to be a coherent transport policy that is sustainable in terms of environmental damage and takes into account a future in which people are unlikely to have the freedom of movement that we enjoy today, because the planet simply will not stand it.

 

The problem with the whole 'internal flights thing is a lot of those  are actually feeder flights into long hauls ones. The remaining London to Manchester flights for example are not there because of domestic passengers - even without HS2 the train has taken most of that market (hence why the WCML is struggling to cope capacity wise)

 

For the rest even with high speed rail London to Scotland is always going to be quicker so the rail market is going to be smaller and largely made up of folk who are not bothered by journey time.

 

Of course the big problem is the British built their principle London Airport in the wrong place (the bulk of the UK population lives to the North West of London and protests in later years from the Chilterns prevented it being moved to the more logical location - i.e. North West of London. Had that happened then HS2 would have been able to easily replicate the situation at Paris CDG where the High Speed rail station is integrated into the airport and folk can stop from plane to train with the minimum of fuss.

 

As things stand however sending HS2 via Heathrow or diverting a proportion of services there instead of the centre of London wrecks the BCR figures so its unlikely HS2 will be able to make much of a dent in internal flights.

 

What HS2 could do is try and prise more folk from their cars - with road congestion getting worse (and elctric cars won't help this aspect of motoring) even turning the rest of the M1, M6 and M40 into 'Smart motorways' is unlikely to provide enough capacity. This is n arena where there is still plenty of room for modal shift - which has duly been factored in to the HS2 BCR calculations

 

 

[woodenhead]

There is talk in The Times that BoJo is considering a North to South build of HS2 starting in Manchester and postponing the southern end.

 

This is an interesting angle, I believe it is the same approach taken by BR with the WCML electrification scheme - by starting in the North it ensured it would reach London (the difficult part) as it would be too much of an embarrassment not to complete the 'premier' line, whereas as northward build could be stopped at Rugby, Birmingham, Crewe etc. 

[Grovenor]

Quote

Journey times to Manchester will be just over 2 hrs at 250mph.

No one seems to have picked up on this statement but if true then it really is pathetic. When first electrified in the '60s the Manchester Pullman managed it in 2hrs and 5 minutes IIRC. Its only 186 miles so 2hrs is an average under 100. Not what is expected of a 250 mph train on a dedicated high speed line.

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, lmsforever said:

I can assure you that everyone on here knows about overpopulation in the UK that is why our countryside is being covered in houses to say we don't is stupid and typical of the attitude towards anyone who doesn't want this white elephant built.

 

Yet, a quick search (OK, I remembered reading this when it came out, but Google found it for me) brings up a report with actual numbers:

 

Short version: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

 

Full Report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_06_12_uk_national_ecosystem.pdf

 

Really short version: The proportion of England's landscape which is built on is 2.27%

 

So although it looks like there is massive building taking place (it certainly does around me) most of the countryside is not covered in anything other than plants. You can see this for yourself from the train where even from Birmingham to London, you spend most of the time travelling through the countryside. 

 

Part of the perceived problem is that the UK is very London-centric. The policy has been to encourage growth in the South-East at the cost of the rest of the country where some cities have been losing population. Why do you think it's possible to buy houses in Liverpool for a pound? Ideally you would look to spread the employment and opportunities around the country, but as no government has shown serious interest in doing this for decades, the next best thing is to move people around, and the most efficient way to move large numbers in to a small area such as a city, is a railway system. If you live in London and some of the SE, then it seems there is less countryside and lots more housing, but the numbers tell a different story.

[phil-b259]

16 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Okay Phil  Firstly the signalling can be ugraded to cope with faster and more trains,secondly also utilise the Midland line more for new services to the north ,obviously the wires would have to go up.Once Sheffield is reached links to Leeds and all points north are already extant.The current long distance services on the wcml cope with the passengers on offer.Two services to Glasgow an hour ,plus extra services to Liverpool ,Manchester .Marylebone to Brum also offers an excellent service that is accessible to many many people along the route of high speed something that can be achieved on HS2.      All this can be achieved by spending money that is being diverted to HS.  DAFT have restricted NR,s  budget and that should be stopped also they should leave running trains to the pro,s.Doubtless this will not meet your approval but it could work given the will .

 

Thank you for answering.

 

You have addressed the capacity issue and at a 'high level 'outline concept' sort of way and it is a perfectly valid initial answer to the question.

 

As others have ,these sort of interventions were considered way back before HS2 was created and expert analysis at the time proved it would not be sufficient.

 

However its possible things have changed in the interim - and you can indeed argue that is the case or that certain other additional infrastructure interventions would bridge the gap. If you wish to elaborate further then it would be very interesting to hear your ideas and the more detail you can give the better.

 

Its not a case of whether I 'approve of your ideas - I merely take them and test them against the publicly available evidence. As with anyone else if I find holes in them I will challenge you - and you can challenge me back as to sources of my evidence.

 

HS2 is a building / construction project - not a religion and as such decisions about it must be based on hard facts / statistics not emotions. Yes like all building projects there will be some short term disruption during construction that will cause a degree of misery to those living along its route - but those sorts of things also occurred when the M40 or the Metropolitan / Great Central railway was built through the Chilterns. In that respect HS2 must not be picked out for special treatment and temporary disruption used to determine its fate. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

19 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

There is talk in The Times that BoJo is considering a North to South build of HS2 starting in Manchester and postponing the southern end.

 

This is an interesting angle, I believe it is the same approach taken by BR with the WCML electrification scheme - by starting in the North it ensured it would reach London (the difficult part) as it would be too much of an embarrassment not to complete the 'premier' line, whereas as northward build could be stopped at Rugby, Birmingham, Crewe etc. 

 

As has been highlighted the problem with this is that the most congested bit of the WCML is south of Rugby!

 

There is some spare capacity between Rugby and the North West still available if only you could get trains up there to use it .

 

Its all very well having a fast new line between Manchester and Birmingham - but if no extra trains can be run to London then its quite probable that it won't be heavily used.

 

The Politicians can then go round and can the thing saying its poor value for money, when in fact they have deliberately sabotaged it from the beginning.

 

By stating from London you get a big boost in useable capacity straight away - going to Litchfield means that spare capacity north of Rugby can immediately be harnessed which means trains to Birmingham AND more trains to the North West.

 

 

Down here in Sussex there are plans to add an extra platform at Gatwick, add a dive under at Keymer Junc for the Lewes branch, remodel Redhill, Reigate , Haywards Heath, etc - and while all such schemes would improve reliability they will do NOTHING for capacity because you can't squeeze any more trains through East Croydon!

 

Rebuild East Croydon and suddenly it unlocks the potential of further BML improvements as you can now run more trains through them!

 

Its the same with HS2 - until the London to Birmingham leg is completed anything else simply won't make a big enough difference to be viable.

[Ron Ron Ron]

39 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

No one seems to have picked up on this statement but if true then it really is pathetic. When first electrified in the '60s the Manchester Pullman managed it in 2hrs and 5 minutes IIRC. Its only 186 miles so 2hrs is an average under 100. Not what is expected of a 250 mph train on a dedicated high speed line.

 

I noticed that too.

It’s not correct by the way.

The current journey from Euston to Piccadilly takes about 2hr 7mins

HS2 forecast that when the new line is fully open, that’ll be reduced to 67 mins.

A saving of one hour.

 

By the way, unless downgraded to save money (as suggested by others, above), the current planned max speed is 225mph, not 250mph,, although the line is being designed with the capability of 250mph (max) running, i.e. future proofing.

 

Cynic hat warning !!!

Who knows, that may be a deliberate sacrificial lamb for the inevitable cost cutting that’s always demanded once such large projects get under way?

 

 

Ron

[locoholic]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

Please explain to me how a HS2 train that goes to Liverpool from Euston via HS2, stops at Runcorn, Crewe Stafford as well as Birmingham Parkway for which I can book a through ticket from Burgess Hill is NOT fully integrated into the national rail network!

 

 

Because trains on HS2 have only two destinations south of the Trent Valley: Birmingham and London.

 

in BR days if a potential new traffic flow was identified like, say, Gatwick airport, through trains could be run without any engineering work. HS2 does not have that flexibility. Booking a through ticket is not the same as actually being a proper railway network - the latter word implies a complex system, not just one line with no junctions. HS2 replicates all the problems that Brunel created with the Broad Gauge. We have learned nothing.

[phil-b259]

37 minutes ago, locoholic said:

Because trains on HS2 have only two destinations south of the Trent Valley: Birmingham and London.

 

in BR days if a potential new traffic flow was identified like, say, Gatwick airport, through trains could be run without any engineering work. HS2 does not have that flexibility. Booking a through ticket is not the same as actually being a proper railway network - the latter word implies a complex system, not just one line with no junctions. HS2 replicates all the problems that Brunel created with the Broad Gauge. We have learned nothing.

 

Thats an interesting point of view - I was going to say by your own definition HS1 is also not integrated into the national rail system but then  i remembered about the unused connection to the NLL just by St Pancras.

 

If HS2 had a similar connection to the WLL / NLL at old Oak would you still say it wasn't integrated into the national system?

 

Also while such connections in theory provide flexibility - that flexibility is only relevant if there is a realistic chance of it being used . The one between HS1 and the NLL has never been used by any revenue earning train - and the abandonment of regional Eurostars killed off any chance of it being used.

 

If course at one time there was a plan to link HS2 to HS1 at St Pancras via a short section of the NLL - if it had been built would that make HS2 more 'integrated'

 

The comparison with Brunel is rather far fetched - Brunel's broad gauge was confined to the  GWR system - while a train from  Euston via HS2 could in theory end up at Thurso or Penzance (assuming a diesel drag away from the wires) thanks it HS2 being standard gauge.

 

In reality though most of the public take the view of whether its 'integrated or not by things like through ticketing and railcards being accepted, trains running beyond HS2 to destinations in the North, etc. Claiming that HS2 ib not integrated plays into the hands of those anti-HS2 people who cite things like HS2 fares being 'separate from ordinary ones  and that railcards won't be valid, etc

Edited August 22, 2019 by phil-b259