HS2 under review

[APOLLO]

Regarding Chat Moss, it's still a moss, still a wild windswept and boggy place, and the railway still floats across it. A bit undulating and it is noticeable on an EMU at 60mph. (The ride down from Wigan to Parkside on the WCML is smooth & rock solid at high speed). They also had problems putting the electrification masts in, using very long foundation posts I believe. More interesting info here

 

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2012/11/28/electrifying-liverpool-manchester/

 

Whilst the NW leg of HS2 to Bamfurlong won't cross the moss, it will be close to it and cross boggy land where it crosses the Manchester Ship canal / River Mersey. Doubt it will need to float though !!

 

The Chinese built a railway to Tibet floating on the frozen Tundra - different problem though it was solved. Where there is a will there is a way.

 

Brit15

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, Pandora said:

 

From the report,  the public have beem kept in the dark for some time on costs and late delivery,  I have heard enough,  I have no issues if HS2 is cancelled provided the  £56 bn goes to    rail and public transport projects  in the North

From that single comment you have shown how completely out of touch you are with future rail transport needs in the UK and where the priorities greatest needs are.

Edited January 25, 2020 by melmerby
better phrasing

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

The underlying argument seems to be that travel between the southern and northern parts of Britain is socially undesirable , and all transport projects of all kinds are simply a waste of money and should always be blocked. Give me strength. If those are the fundamental arguments against HS2 - rev up the bulldozers

Why are HS2 supporters taking increasingly hysterical positions, as if cancellation of HS2 is the end of the world and no one will build anything ever again? And attributing to others things that are just silly? The idea that anyone who wants stop HS2 also wants to stop all projects is the sort of halfwitted nonsense we saw with Project Fear - and that failed spectacularly by alienating much of the non-hysterical public. It is delusional twaddle and smacks of desperation.

 

Time to accept HS2 is a basket case of a project and its demise, if it happens, will be in part a direct result of poor management and appalling comms - even on here none of its supporters can make a simple, clear and coherent case for HS2 that actually makes sense. The fact some have resorted to insults shows just how badly the argument has been lost. Nothing helps kill a project in the public mind than its supporters going publicly batty and abusive. Ultimately it is a political decision that will cover a much bigger picture than being discussed on here.

 

There are other pressing needs for investment across the UK , and the £15bn £36bn £56bn £80-100bn on this may well be better allocated elsewhere. Do we need to get north and south quicker, frankly no IMHO because all it will do is draw more people and resource towards the economic and political overcrowded centre of gravity of London and the SE. What areas north of Watford need first is proper investment in their local infrastructure so they can work more effectively. And more investment in core public services where £5bn is not "chicken feed" as some on here have suggested. Whether that happens is another matter.

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, letterspider said:

 

By this logic the motorway top speed should be reduced to save energy consumption and pollution, wear on the tarmac, dangers of death from high speed accidents compared to slow.

I suppose you could fly London to Edinburgh in 45 minutes (assuming HS2 will get that far one day), in which case we should go for turbo prop aeroplanes - less speed is less energy consumption and pollution, shorter runways would be cheaper.

 

You have to propose a viable alternative for rapidly and safely moving people between large population centres in a way desirable by the consumer and which is at least possible in theory to achieve with a zero carbon footprint and which is also sustainable economically. It will also allow scope to get more lorries off the roads by freeing other lines.

What would YOU suggest as an alternative?

 

When first built UK motorways had no speed limit - just as many German autobahns are today.

 

During the 1970s oil criss speed limits were applied to try and get motorists to conserve fuel. After the crisis was over it was decided that keeping a slightly higher limit was desirable for all the reasons you say.

 

The point is laws of physics relating to aerodynamic forces do not scale linearly with speed. At lower speeds the extra energy required to give each mph of extra speed is very low - however you get to a point where the energy increase starts to go up exponentially (even with the most wonderfully streamlined front end.

 

This is specifically why the French have made it very clear that they will NOT timetable any of their TGV services to travel faster than 186mph - the economics simply don't stack up when the extra energy requirements are factored in to go faster. The only exception to this is where service disruption means drivers need to make up time - hence the actually line speed is 200mph for the most recent builds.

 

Given the distances between UK cities are generally shorter than those served by the French LGV network there is no need for HS2 to go faster than the established European norms which have been found to be a good compromise between energy usage and travel time.

[phil-b259]

7 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

There are other pressing needs for investment across the UK , and the £15bn £36bn £56bn £80-100bn on this may well be better allocated elsewhere. Do we need to get north and south quicker, frankly no IMHO because all it will do is draw more people and resource towards the economic and political overcrowded centre of gravity of London and the SE. What areas north of Watford need first is proper investment in their local infrastructure so they can work more effectively. And more investment in core public services where £5bn is not "chicken feed" as some on here have suggested. Whether that happens is another matter.

 

This is classic sticking your head in the sand  mentality.

 

OK so you think HS2 is a waste of money - please tell me how you are going to significantly increase rail capacity on the WCML, MML and to a limited extent the XC networks without spending any money then?

 

HS2 is NOT some sort of vanity project - it arises from the need for more capacity along said corridors and the recognition that its cheaper (not to mention less disruptive to rail users) to build a brand new railway to provide said capacity than spend years upgrading existing routes.

 

There are plenty of valid criticisms that can be made of HS2 - but pretending that the project is not needed at all in some shape or form is quite simply delusional. The only way that would ever be true is if you could come up with some sort of radical tax / economic policy which actively penalised travel without also completely ruining the economy of the UK.

[phil-b259]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Most of that "fuss and opposition" comes from a very vocal and well-organised minority who live on/close to HS2 but get no benefit from it. A sensibly designed new high speed line for the East Midlands and Yorkshire might not attract anywhere near the same opposition.

 

I was not really suggesting that more platforms can be shoehorned in at Euston (which would not have been my destination of choice) but that, given the limitations of platform capacity, 18tph is probably not going to be possible if the service is to be reliable. At anything much less than 18tph, there may not be enough capacity to be taking trains from the East Midlands and Yorkshire.

 

Taking someone else's point about lack of space at St Pancras, that is only significant if one insists that because the East Midlands has always been served by a terminus at St Pancras, the new station would have to be there too. That's the same woolly thought process that has brought HS2 to Euston at huge extra cost (probably 30% of the budget that could have been saved).  There are other options for a London terminal.

 

That opposition would still be there!

 

Even if you ignored Birmingham and ran up between the MML and ECML the first place you would put a station would be Leicester! The whole point of any high speed line is it is primarily there for LONG DISTANCE travel. Filling it up with stations to pacify short / medium distance travel severely compromises the capacity available for said long distance trains.

 

7 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I was not really suggesting that more platforms can be shoehorned in at Euston (which would not have been my destination of choice) but that, given the limitations of platform capacity, 18tph is probably not going to be possible if the service is to be reliable. At anything much less than 18tph, there may not be enough capacity to be taking trains from the East Midlands and Yorkshire.

 

Taking someone else's point about lack of space at St Pancras, that is only significant if one insists that because the East Midlands has always been served by a terminus at St Pancras, the new station would have to be there too. That's the same woolly thought process that has brought HS2 to Euston at huge extra cost (probably 30% of the budget that could have been saved).  There are other options for a London terminal.

 

 where would you put the London terminal?

 

Given there are not any large plots of land available around the LU circle line for such a station you would need to spend many, many times more than that being spent at Euston to provide facilities.

 

Plonking a terminal in the suburbs is deeply unattractive for users - and its foolish to not have alternative options available in case a station has to close due to an emergency or if one of your onward distribution nodes is suspended.

 

Euston also makes sense in that the initial phase will only serve WCML destinations - all of whose trains currently terminate at, er Euston! This means regular passengers will not suddenly be dumped in another bit of London less convenient for them (as is the initial  criticism of HS1 going to St Pancras when most SE folk had jibs within easy reach of the traditional SR London terminals).

[Northmoor]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Most of that "fuss and opposition" comes from a very vocal and well-organised minority who live on/close to HS2 but get no benefit from it. A sensibly designed new high speed line for the East Midlands and Yorkshire might not attract anywhere near the same opposition.

 

I was not really suggesting that more platforms can be shoehorned in at Euston (which would not have been my destination of choice) but that, given the limitations of platform capacity, 18tph is probably not going to be possible if the service is to be reliable. At anything much less than 18tph, there may not be enough capacity to be taking trains from the East Midlands and Yorkshire.

 

Taking someone else's point about lack of space at St Pancras, that is only significant if one insists that because the East Midlands has always been served by a terminus at St Pancras, the new station would have to be there too. That's the same woolly thought process that has brought HS2 to Euston at huge extra cost (probably 30% of the budget that could have been saved).  There are other options for a London terminal.

1st point: I think you're being very charitable.  A "sensibly-designed" line is what, one that includes local stops?  That tends to work against rapid journey times.........  HS2's problem with the public is that - perhaps as a function of an ageing and increasingly, a retired population - is not that the protesters are NIMBYs, but that if THEY don't want or need something, then no-one should have it.  There are many examples of this all over the UK, local to me has been the complaints about the growth of Farnborough Airport, frequently from retired people who didn't care about flight noise when they were at work all day (in an area with lots of aviation-based employment).  Now they are at home in the garden, aircraft noise is intolerable.

 

3rd point: I'm not sure what the other terminal options are, other than Euston.  I have heard many say it should be Old Oak Common, but I've never heard that from anyone who lives anywhere near London.  Those from outside London often treat the capital as one small uniform area.  If you consider the City of London to be the centre (and there are huge numbers who work well East of that), dropping people in Old Oak is the same as making Stockport the terminus for Manchester.

[phil-b259]

6 hours ago, Pandora said:

A link to the National Audit Office Report for HS2

 

http://stophs2.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/NAO-report-HS2-a-progresss-update.pdf

 

From the report,  the public have beem kept in the dark for some time on costs and late delivery,  I have heard enough,  I have no issues if HS2 is cancelled provided the  £56 bn goes to    rail and public transport projects  in the North

 

Which will do NOTHING to provide any help to the place in greatest need capacity wise when looked at nationally!

 

Yes the rail network in the north has issues that need solving and HS2 cash would help enormously with that - but all that does is reinforce the north south divide because you end up with two good areas rail wise linked by very bad ones!

 

From an economic perspective you want to bringing areas closer together not reinforcing separation. What you are proposing is the equivalent of widening / SMARTifying every single motorway round Manchester but leave the M6 as a overcrowded 3 lane motorway heading south. Yes in such a situation you can proudly pat yourself on the back and say the North West has had a wonderful transport boast - but that rather ignores the fact that economic activity is still suppressed because its so difficult to travel south.

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, Northmoor said:

3rd point: I'm not sure what the other terminal options are, other than Euston.  I have heard many say it should be Old Oak Common, but I've never heard that from anyone who lives anywhere near London.  Those from outside London often treat the capital as one small uniform area.  If you consider the City of London to be the centre (and there are huge numbers who work well East of that), dropping people in Old Oak is the same as making Stockport the terminus for Manchester.

 

With regard to HS2, I think that Old Oak Common probably was (or still is) the right place to have built the terminus (in fact through platforms to detrain, sidings to service the train, platforms for people to embark). Plenty of space and an area of London that would have benefited from the regeneration caused. The trains will be stopping there any way for Heathrow passengers. It would put too much of a burden on Crossrail 1 in terms of people getting off to go to Central London and Docklands, so there would need to be additional facilities by way of extended/diverted LUL lines (Bakerloo/Hammersmith & City).

 

For a further terminal in London to serve a second HS line to the North, I suspect that the best route is via the Lea Valley with terminus in the Stratford area.

[jchinuk]

On 20/12/2010 at 20:02, Guest Belgian said:

Why call it HS2

 

JE

 

It is called HS2 because what is now called the "Channel Tunnel Rail Link" was originally HS1.

 

The next will be HS3, if there is one.

 

jh

[iands]

1 minute ago, jchinuk said:

.......... was originally HS1.

 

It still is - well, within the industry anyway.

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 minutes ago, jchinuk said:

 

 

 

The next will be HS3, if there is one.

 

 

I do hope not. It is the focus on speed rather than capacity which has made HS2 such an easy target.

[phil-b259]

Just now, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

With regard to HS2, I think that Old Oak Common probably was (or still is) the right place to have built the terminus (in fact through platforms to detrain, sidings to service the train, platforms for people to embark). Plenty of space and an area of London that would have benefited from the regeneration caused. The trains will be stopping there any way for Heathrow passengers. It would put too much of a burden on Crossrail 1 in terms of people getting off to go to Central London and Docklands, so there would need to be additional facilities by way of extended/diverted LUL lines (Bakerloo/Hammersmith & City).

 

For a further terminal in London to serve a second HS line to the North, I suspect that the best route is via the Lea Valley with terminus in the Stratford area.

 

Having a single terminal at Old Oak is fine if everything works - but your logic falls apart the moment you have problems.

 

For example the only decent onward connection is Crossrail - so what do you do if a fire alarm at Paddington causes Crossrail to be suspended? - you are left with large numbers of people with no way of getting into London proper.

Then what if there is an emergency at Old Oak - a bomb scare say. Your HS2 trains in the Chilterns face having to take people all the way back to Birmingham rather than dropping them off in London someplace.

 

Having Old Oak in  addition to Euston thus provides flexibility to cope with the above - much like Stratford does for South Eastern services to St Pancras and Ebsfleet does for Eurostar (though the latter does have poor onward connections)

 

More broadly to make Old Oak large enough to terminate everything (18 - 20 platforms) you need to takle in lots more land. Yes some of that would be the Crossrail depot (which would need replicating somewhere else in London - and the whole reason it was put at Old Oak was there wasn't anywhere else it could be built without mass property demolition and / or the removal of parks / open space in otherwise built up urban areas.

 

Finally you mention Stratford - have you even looked at satellite imaginary of the place in the last decade before making your suggestion?

 

Back in the 1990s when the area was a sprawling industrial area then yes, it could have easily hosted some sort of high speed terminal. Since then however we have seen the site extensively redeveloped for the 2012 Olympics and it is now covered by a well used park, lots of housing and a big shopping centre. Public opposition to removing ANY of those things - particularly the park makes it a complete non starter!

[Joseph_Pestell]

21 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

1st point: I think you're being very charitable.  A "sensibly-designed" line is what, one that includes local stops?  That tends to work against rapid journey times.........

 

Well, being a bit of a cynic, look at some of the stations on LGVs in France. Skeleton service and very few passengers. But the idea that they were getting a new station and services meant that there was political backing at local level for the LGVs.

What intermediate stops do, above all, is lose paths on the timetable graph.

If a branch had been built to Heathrow (note not a loop), the Chilterns station could have been on that branch and not caused issues for the timetable. A Heathrow station would have been useful to lots of folk in the Thames Valley, not just airport users and four platforms at Heathrow would have relieved the pressure on Euston.

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Having a single terminal at Old Oak is fine if everything works - but your logic falls apart the moment you have problems.

 

 

 

Back in the 1990s when the area was a sprawling industrial area then yes, it could have easily hosted some sort of high speed terminal. Since then however we have seen the site extensively redeveloped for the 2012 Olympics and it is now covered by a well used park, lots of housing and a big shopping centre. Public opposition to removing ANY of those things - particularly the park makes it a complete non starter!

 

As someone who campaigned vigorously for the London Olympics, I am well aware of the changes in that area. But, for instance, one could build a station there and then reinstate the park over the top of it.

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I do hope not. It is the focus on speed rather than capacity which has made HS2 such an easy target.

 

Then what do you call it?

 

The railways the French built for their Train à Grande Vitesse,  (whic translates literally as high-speed train) to use were unsurprisingly called "Ligne à Grande Vitesse" which translates precisely as "high-speed line"

 

They have no problems using that for each subsequent build - e.g. LGV Nord, LGV Rhin-Rhône, LGV Est.

 

HS2 is a prefectly reasonable description - as would be HS3, HS4, etc as it accurately describes what will physically be built.

 

The ONLY reason HS as a name has become so polarised is the politicians kept banging on about the speed angle when the project was announced rather than the capacity angle which is the REAL reason for the whole thing being needed.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

As someone who campaigned vigorously for the London Olympics, I am well aware of the changes in that area. But, for instance, one could build a station there and then reinstate the park over the top of it.

 

Unlikely at any reasonable cost due to the watercourses and low lying nature of the area. To be clear we are not talking about a long narrow box here (as per the HS1 station) - an 18 platform station capable of taking 400m trains is going to be massive.

 

That in itself would also cause problems in that its not as if you could temporarily take just a small section of the park - you would pretty much close the whole thing while construction was underway - and that park is a very well used + appreciated local amenity these days. Protests would be immense....

 

So, Yes even though it could be done - it would make the cost of Euston look like chicken feed and the protests over that more like a minor disagreement amongst friends.

 

 

[Northmoor]

Ok so you've dropped 18(?) carriages full in Stratford, most of whom are heading for Central London.  How do they get there?  The existing Metro/LU services are already close to capacity, so are you expecting to tell the rest of Britain that as well as HS4, London now needs even more massive infrastructure schemes (although actually, Crossrail 2 IS needed)? 

 

44 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

With regard to HS2, I think that Old Oak Common probably was (or still is) the right place to have built the terminus (in fact through platforms to detrain, sidings to service the train, platforms for people to embark). Plenty of space and an area of London that would have benefited from the regeneration caused. The trains will be stopping there any way for Heathrow passengers. It would put too much of a burden on Crossrail 1 in terms of people getting off to go to Central London and Docklands, so there would need to be additional facilities by way of extended/diverted LUL lines (Bakerloo/Hammersmith & City).

 

For a further terminal in London to serve a second HS line to the North, I suspect that the best route is via the Lea Valley with terminus in the Stratford area.

So by saving the cost of not building Euston you are proposing pretty major infrastructure changes to London Underground.  They aren't going to be cheap. Remember a lot of passengers on HS2 are long distance and occasional travellers, which means they are likely to have luggage.  This is one of the reasons why Euston was chosen, because it's close-ish to St.Pancras for pedestrian transfer without everyone overloading the tube.  People don't want to transfer to the tube (or even the vastly better S-stock) with lots of luggage.  Notice how many people use the Heathrow Express or even taxis to West London, rather than the Piccadilly Line.  

Crossrail can cope with a proportion transferring from HS2 at OOC - those who do not want to go to Euston and including many who want Heathrow, but has never been intended to take up to 18000/hr.

[Bernard Lamb]

Two articles in The Times today on the subject of HS2.

Mathew Parris. We owe it to the next generation to build HS2.

Graeme Paton. Ditching HS2 could mean years of weekend closures.

I would suggest that both articles should be essential reading whatever your views on the subject.

As for cost. There is also a piece on pension contribution tax relief. A subject that has to be tackled sooner or later whatever your political leanings.

At current projected costs HS2 would be covered by the pension tax relief claimed in just two years.

Bernard

 

[letterspider]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

When first built UK motorways had no speed limit - just as many German autobahns are today.

 

During the 1970s oil criss speed limits were applied to try and get motorists to conserve fuel. After the crisis was over it was decided that keeping a slightly higher limit was desirable for all the reasons you say.

 

The point is laws of physics relating to aerodynamic forces do not scale linearly with speed. At lower speeds the extra energy required to give each mph of extra speed is very low - however you get to a point where the energy increase starts to go up exponentially (even with the most wonderfully streamlined front end.

 

This is specifically why the French have made it very clear that they will NOT timetable any of their TGV services to travel faster than 186mph - the economics simply don't stack up when the extra energy requirements are factored in to go faster. The only exception to this is where service disruption means drivers need to make up time - hence the actually line speed is 200mph for the most recent builds.

 

Given the distances between UK cities are generally shorter than those served by the French LGV network there is no need for HS2 to go faster than the established European norms which have been found to be a good compromise between energy usage and travel time.

 

Firstly I wouldn't call London Glasgow a short distance. It still takes about 8 hours when you factor in road works and rest stops. Doing it in 2.5 hours would be fantastic

Secondly you are neglecting to explain why higher train speed is desirable...to compete with air travel. At this time TGV comfortably beats the Autoroute speed limit but cannot compete with aeroplane fares

That could quickly change if fuel prices rise.

 

 

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Why are HS2 supporters taking increasingly hysterical positions, as if cancellation of HS2 is the end of the world and no one will build anything ever again?

 

Because all large infrastructure projects are of the nature of HS2 - increasing budgets, delays, and organized resistance both from local people to the project and some national people.  Doesn't matter where in the world you go, as long as it is a free and democratic society these issues exist - the only places they don't exist will have a combination of a society that is not allowed to protest and a lack of transparency in the costs due to an unaccountable authoritarian regime.

 

It's the nature of what is being attempted - the size of the project is such that it is impossible to discover every obstacle and have a fully fleshed out design before the start of the project.

 

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

And attributing to others things that are just silly? The idea that anyone who wants stop HS2 also wants to stop all projects is the sort of halfwitted nonsense we saw with Project Fear

 

It's reflected in the reality that every infrastructure project has opposition (just like most private development also end up with opposition) - it's the nature of society that many don't want change.

 

So while the same people who want HS2 stopped may not be the same people who will want the next project stopped, there will be people against the next project.

 

And if you actually research the history of the industrial revolution era you soon discover that much of the infrastructure we all currently accept as an important part of society was put in place over the objections of many.

 

So if the government becomes spooked by the realities of building major infrastructure, then the government ceases to be able to build major infrastructure.

 

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Time to accept HS2 is a basket case of a project and its demise, if it happens, will be in part a direct result of poor management and appalling comms - even on here none of its supporters can make a simple, clear and coherent case for HS2 that actually makes sense.

 

I do feel sorry for people on here like Mike Storey, who have devoted a lot of time in this thread making a clear and coherent case for HS2 only to have people like yourself continue to ignore it.

 

But again, the case for HS2 is simple - there is a very real lack of further capacity for further growth in rail service, both on the lower end of the WCML and in the major stations serving London and Birmingham (and elsewhere).

 

HS2 tackles both of these problems - it adds extra capacity between Birmingham and London (which services from farther north of Birmingham can then take advantage of) and it deals with the station capacity problems in London and Birmingham by building new stations.

 

Simple, clear, and coherent - if anyone cares to actually read it.

 

The alternative is a WCML where prices go up significantly to reduce demand (and to a less extent on the MML/ECML as they then suffer from people trying to shift from the WCML), and the harm to northern economies this will cause.

 

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

There are other pressing needs for investment across the UK , and the £15bn £36bn £56bn £80-100bn on this may well be better allocated elsewhere.

 

If it is £100 billion (and there is some doubt on that given nobody official has seemed to have confirmed that), that is only £5 billion a year on a 20 year project.

 

£5 billion isn't going to buy a lot, so it isn't going to somehow magically solve all the other problems if reallocated - and the public won't be happy if HS2 is cancelled and they get told yes we will fund your pet issue, but not for another 15 years because that is when your allocation of that money finally becomes available.

 

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Do we need to get north and south quicker, frankly no IMHO because all it will do is draw more people and resource towards the economic and political overcrowded centre of gravity of London and the SE. What areas north of Watford need first is proper investment in their local infrastructure so they can work more effectively.

 

All around the world jobs are moving from rural / lower population cities to the major cities.  This is causing much of the current political excitement, and there is little that governments can do to stop this.  It is the nature of the private sector and the shift to almost exclusively office jobs, where "location, location, location" really does matter.

 

But the one thing government can do to try and help spread the jobs (in the case of the UK from London) is to improve transportation connections to make "satellite" locations more attractive to business.

 

And this is exactly what HS2 does, hence the reason why the primary supporters of HS2 aren't the local London councils but the local governments of Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds/etc.  They are all aware if they are to expand their employment base with good paying jobs they need good connections to London so that the executives and others can easily visit branch location, so sales people from firms in their cities can quickly and easily (and reliably) get to potential clients in London, etc.

 

Simply redirecting funding to local infrastructure achieves none of those needs.  You can give Leeds the best local train service in the world, but if Leeds/Crewe/Manchester remain cut off from London then few businesses will move there or being created there.

 

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

And more investment in core public services where £5bn is not "chicken feed" as some on here have suggested. Whether that happens is another matter.

 

The current party in power, having created much of those problems with "core public services" for ideological reasons, aren't suddenly going to reverse them - just like the review of local council funding is apparently going to take money from the north and give it to those loyal SE Tory councils https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/25/former-red-wall-areas-could-lose-millions-in-council-funding-review

[royaloak]

6 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

The current party in power, having created much of those problems with "core public services" for ideological reasons, aren't suddenly going to reverse them - just like the review of local council funding is apparently going to take money from the north and give it to those loyal SE Tory councils https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/25/former-red-wall-areas-could-lose-millions-in-council-funding-review

Lots of 'could' effect or 'might' effect in there but rather short on 'will' effect so unless they can actually provide any evidence its nothing more than click bait and scaremongering.

[phil-b259]

30 minutes ago, letterspider said:

 

Firstly I wouldn't call London Glasgow a short distance. It still takes about 8 hours when you factor in road works and rest stops. Doing it in 2.5 hours would be fantastic

Secondly you are neglecting to explain why higher train speed is desirable...to compete with air travel. At this time TGV comfortably beats the Autoroute speed limit but cannot compete with aeroplane fares

That could quickly change if fuel prices rise.

 

 

 

Firstly, HS2 doesn't go to Scotland! Yes the trains may do so via the links to the classic rail network near Warrington and York but in terms of the actual new build networkHS2 itself doesn't.

 

Secondly, it has long been proved that the sort of distances where High Speed rail is best poised to capture a large chunk of the travel is those routes which the train can do in 3hrs or less. In UK terms that means the likes of Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle to London.

 

One of the key drivers for HS2 is that Virgin have secured something like 70% of the London to Manchester journeys - but at the expense of using up every possible train path on the existing WCML. There is scope to increase this further if additional infrastructure is provided.

 

Trains to Scotland by contrast have not increased patronage by nearly as much in the same period - because flying is always significantly quicker. Thus those travelling by train from London north of Lancaster tend to be those for whom time is not a pressing concern.

 

Competition on the London to Scotland route is not the car - its the plane and even with HS2 it will still be significantly quicker to fly. This means that the BCR for HS2 from a London to Scotland angle is poor (it won't beat the plane) - just as the BCR for London to Birmingham ONLY is also poor - though in that case its because the time savings are not worth the high infrastructure costs associated with very high speeds.

 

By contrast the when it comes to journeys from Manchester and Leeds to London, the BCR looks quite good - the time savings are actually useful and the train will definatly be quicker than the plane.

 

 

All this rather illustrates how HS2 is a PACKAGE of measures and reliance on any one particular aspect (e.g. a very high speed will allow much faster journeys to Scotland) is flawed. Yes faster Scottish trains will be welcomed - and will no doubt increase rail use slightly, but such benefits are relatively small compared to those which accrue to passengers from Manchester, etc ( or even Birmingham when we talk of train capacity as in time a 400m double decked train will give far more seats thann any amount of tinkering with the classic network).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by phil-b259

[mdvle]

1 minute ago, royaloak said:

Lots of 'could' effect or 'might' effect in there but rather short on 'will' effect so unless they can actually provide any evidence its nothing more than click bait and scaremongering.

 

It's like any of the "trial balloons" of government policy that hit the media, but with the added feature that the review was started/completed prior to the election which will have likely changed the opinion of the government regarding some of those areas that might have been proposed to lose in the new funding proposal.

 

But it also likely demonstrates that they government isn't interested in solving the funding issue, but rather tinker with it to decrease any political fall out to the party in power.

[caradoc]

5 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Time to accept HS2 is a basket case of a project and its demise, if it happens, will be in part a direct result of poor management and appalling comms - even on here none of its supporters can make a simple, clear and coherent case for HS2 that actually makes sense.

 

I have lost count of the number of times contributors to RMWeb have made a simple, clear and coherent case for HS2; But if people don't want or can't be bothered to read it, they were wasting their time.