Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

 

If the problem is congestion on the southern part of the WCML, so I would have built a new railway from the Rugby area to London, as well as four-tracking the section from Coventry to Birmingham and building a link to Leicester to link up with the MML, and also four-track the Welwyn bottleneck on the ECML. The new railway would have been four tracks in places to enable a local service south of Rugby, an area due for big housing developments that currently and after HS2 has no train service to London. The new railway would not have had a signalling system and loading gauge that means ordinary trains can't use it. Brunel tried that kind of "future-proofing" on the GWR. It didn't "end well" to use a phrase popular on here.

 

But that isn't the point. The point is that one group of people on here shout down and belittle anyone who doesn't conform to their thinking. I meet plenty of railway enthusiasts who think HS2 is wrong, but they're not on here because they don't want to be the target of derisive comments. 

Where exactly would you put these extra tracks, south of Rugby?

Where would you put these extra tracks between Rugby/Coventry and Birmingham?

That is exactly the starting point of the discussions on upgrading the WCML that led to HS2

 

The amount of demolition required to put extra tracks on both routes is greater than that required for the plans for HS2 and would cost more.

That shows why you haven't a clue on what's being going on for the last 15 years or so.

 

EDIT BTW the whole route between Rugby & Birmingham needs more capacity

 

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
57 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

Please show me the "half-baked" solutions I have proposed.

 

By the way, the use of the phrase "half-baked" is just the kind of derogatory comment that I was referring to. So thanks for making my point for me.

 

 

An example of a half baked suggestion would be 'reopen the Great Central' - which I believe is what you have called for before.

 

Its 'half baked' because it ignores the fact that there is no spare capacity south of Aylesbury or at Marylebone to terminate extra trains, it ignores the fact that the GC has been extensively built over north of Rugby, it ignores the fact that the GC doesn't serve Birmingham.

 

Its not a completely foolish idea that part of the GC route might be helpful, BUT...

 

To correct the very real issue outlined above requires lots of new construction or massive disruption to existing rail users while current rail corridors are widened.

 

A 'properly baked' suggestion would be new construction south of Aylesbury and north of Rugby with the reuse of the middle bit of the GC - which is basically what HS2 does anyway.

 

See - once you start actually looking at things in detail - it becomes apparent that the principle of HS2, and its general alignment between London and Birmingham is perfectly logical, all you are effectively objecting to is the exact build standard!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

 

The point is that one group of people on here shout down and belittle anyone who doesn't conform to their thinking. I meet plenty of railway enthusiasts who think HS2 is wrong, but they're not on here because they don't want to be the target of derisive comments. 

Not at all.

There seem to be lots of opposers who come up with the same ideas which have been aired many times before.

Do you really believe they didn't bother looking at widening the current routes? Of course they have. The issues have been investigated by people with years of experience & they feel that other options which may seem more simple all have their drawbacks.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

Also, in order to point out a flaw in an argument it is not necessary to propose an alternative. If the flaw exists, it exists.

 

I shan't comment any further. But if HS2 does get built, rest assured that every time a train failure or OHLE problem brings the whole show grinding to a halt, heaping further public derision on our rail industry, I shall be quietly laughing to myself and feeling very fortunate that I don't have to use it.

 

I would agree with that except whenever we then reply and demolish your 'flaw' you complain its somehow a giant conspiracy to silence you!

 

You can't have it both ways!

 

As for your final sentence - do grow up! This is supposed by be a forum of intelligent adults discussing a serious project - no railway line in the world has EVER claimed it will be perfect and never suffer from breakdowns or faults.  Just as with the French TGV network, or the GWML here in the UK there will undoubtedly be train failures and OLE failures on HS2*. What is expected however is that thanks to the brand new infrastructure (including things like cuttings / embankments with nice shallow slopes) plus new trains, it performs significantly better than the classic network of which you are so enamoured.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the existing (and closed) network would ever have been built if was subject to the scrutiny projects get today. Imagine the outcry on the environmental and visual harm if a major rail project today involved building  a viaduct across the Nidd Gorge at Knaresborough which no doubt would have been the subject of lengthy and costly public inquiries.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said:

I wonder how much of the existing (and closed) network would ever have been built if was subject to the scrutiny projects get today. Imagine the outcry on the environmental and visual harm if a major rail project today involved building  a viaduct across the Nidd Gorge at Knaresborough which no doubt would have been the subject of lengthy and costly public inquiries.

 

It would have been built as it was foretold by Old Mother Shipton years before, the end of world is another matter!

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

Then you believe wrong. But why let facts get in the way of your ill-informed comments?

 

In which case I am happy to be corrected.

 

I haven't the time to go through everything you have said right now - but will do so later to ensure I correctly quote you in future.

 

 

I however stand by my comments that many of the simplistic assertions made on this (and indeed the previous locked thread) simply wouldn't be made if the proposers actually bothered to consider HS2 properly rather than relying on press sound bytes or lies spread by the various 'anti HS2' campaigns.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Where exactly would you put these extra tracks, south of Rugby?

Where would you put these extra tracks between Rugby/Coventry and Birmingham?

That is exactly the starting point of the discussions on upgrading the WCML that led to HS2

 

The amount of demolition required to put extra tracks on both routes is greater than that required for the plans for HS2 and would cost more.

That shows why you haven't a clue on what's being going on for the last 15 years or so.

 

EDIT BTW the whole route between Rugby & Birmingham needs more capacity

 

You haven't even read what I wrote properly. A NEW RAILWAY from the Rugby area to London, not extra tracks adjacent to the WCML. So you haven't even got "a clue" what I actually wrote a few hours ago!

 

Extra tracks from Coventry to Brum is doable with some demolition (& if demolition is acceptable on the way into Eustion, why not in the West Midlands?) - just look out of the window when you're next on that route.

 

I'm out of here. Life's too short for any more of this nonsense.

  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

You haven't even read what I wrote properly. A NEW RAILWAY from the Rugby area to London, not extra tracks adjacent to the WCML. So you haven't even got "a clue" what I actually wrote a few hours ago!

 

Extra tracks from Coventry to Brum is doable with some demolition (& if demolition is acceptable on the way into Eustion, why not in the West Midlands?) - just look out of the window when you're next on that route.

 

I'm out of here. Life's too short for any more of this nonsense.

 

I drive trains on the route and trust me it is not doable, there would still be a bottleneck through Beechwood Tunnel and on the line north of Birmingham International. Building a 'new' railway from Rugby to London would not address the capacity issue north of Rugby, I drive on the WCML from London to Crewe via the Trent Valley and West Mids lines north of Rugby, HS2 is needed because there is no way to improve the capacity on these existing routes without building it on the route it is now planned to take. Yesterday I drove a freight train from London to Crewe with trains of varying speeds passing me on the other three lines constantly, with very little headway between them - this is the overriding issue.

 

I also drive on the MML from London to Toton and capacity is on there is a problem, thankfully it is being partially addressed by the re-quadrupling of the line using the existing trackbed.

Edited by Rugd1022
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

You haven't even read what I wrote properly. A NEW RAILWAY from the Rugby area to London, not extra tracks adjacent to the WCML. So you haven't even got "a clue" what I actually wrote a few hours ago!

 

 

No we understood you very clearly - you said a new railway - which is exactly what HS2 is!

 

Yes HS2 will have a high top speed and feature in cab signalling - but it still uses the same type of rails as the WCML and the same basic power supply as the WCML and still uses multiple unit trains like the WCML.....

 

.... HS2 is not a Maglev or a monorail!

 

26 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

 

Extra tracks from Coventry to Brum is doable with some demolition (& if demolition is acceptable on the way into Eustion, why not in the West Midlands?) - just look out of the window when you're next on that route.

 

 

The demolition at Euston is relatively limited and HS2 disappears into a tunnel as soon as possible - if you don't want to cause mass demolition alongside the WCML as it leaves London then your new conventional railway would have to do the same.

 

In the Birmingham area demolition has been mainly confined to ex industrial land and not housing (if you try and widen the Rugby to Birmingham bit then there is rather a lot of housing which needs to be torn down instead).

 

Finally a lot of HS2 has been put in tunnels to avoid demolition - much of that will still be necessary even were it built to conventional standards.

 

26 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

I'm out of here. Life's too short for any more of this nonsense.

 

 

Your choice - but don't go crying about anti HS2 bias when you run away from debate or are shown up as actually having to propose a lower spec HS2 variant because there is no other practical solution.

 

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

If you REALLY want to know what will happen to fares policy, then in the absence of a time machine, any sane forecaster would look at what we currently do for HS1.

 

Yes there is a small price premium paid on every HS1 ticket - but beyond that the full range of tickets including cheap day returns, travelcards, etc as well as discounts like young persons railcard, groupsave, etc are valid. There is zero reason to believe that HS2 will be any different (unless you are an anti HS2 person desperate to make up lies to support your stance)

Many people use HS1 as a precedent to argue that HS2 fares will be higher, and this line has been pushed by the anti-HS2 camp despite HS2 saying (very quietly!) that isn't what is assumed.  I fact I believe the purposes of the two routes are very different so what was done on HS1 doesn't really indicate what will be done on HS2.  

 

HS1 was essentially built for international traffic, but this was insufficient to justify building it.  But there was an opportunity to re-generate some run-down parts of Kent and enable more housing for London commuters by providing fast regional trains into London from various Kent destinations, all of which already had much slower London services.  However capacity on HS1 was and is fairly limited because of the need for 140mph commuter trains making intermediate stops to share with 186mph Eurostars with few or no stops.  So it was necessary to ration this capacity by charging a significant fare premium (about 20% on a peak single from Ashford), as having most of the existing Kent commuter market decanting onto the new trains would have left none for the intended regeneration of the area.  Anyone encouraged to move into the area by the new fast train service would have considered the higher fare in their decision to move there, and existing residents could carry on using the existing service if they didn't want to pay more.  

 

The whole purpose of HS2 is about relieving capacity on the existing main lines north from London, and (unless someone starts putting in ill-though-out extra stops for political reasons) its own capacity for domestic journeys will be far higher than on HS1.  So HS2 will not serve its purpose unless it attracts large numbers of people off the existing routes between the big cities and thereby releases capacity for use by passengers from intermediate stations, both in terms of space on existing trains and by being able to run more of them.  It seems to me that this objective is best achieved by ensuring that prices via HS2 are similar to those on existing routes.  

 

As I posted above, I would make an exception for season tickets because I don't think we should be encouraging long-distance daily commuting via HS2.  Unlike the regeneration of Kent, the regeneration of the Midlands and North needs to be about more self-contained places where people live and work, encouraged by excellent transport links within and between those regions.  

Edited by Edwin_m
  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Flittersnoop said:

You haven't even read what I wrote properly. A NEW RAILWAY from the Rugby area to London, not extra tracks adjacent to the WCML. So you haven't even got "a clue" what I actually wrote a few hours ago!

 

Extra tracks from Coventry to Brum is doable with some demolition (& if demolition is acceptable on the way into Eustion, why not in the West Midlands?) - just look out of the window when you're next on that route.

 

I'm out of here. Life's too short for any more of this nonsense.

 

I have a clue regarding what you wrote:

 

New tracks between London and Rugby - what is the difference between that and HS2 please? (except that it doesn't solve half the problems and would still require the re-building of Euston)

 

Quadrupling into New Street - even if that were possible without extreme demolition and disruption for many, many years, how would you fit all the extra trains in New Street?

 

Quadrupling of Welwyn Viaduct - that has been looked at so many times, and rejected so many times, as improbably expensive as well as anything else, but the key question would be - what does it solve? There is no more room for extra trains at Kings Cross (Platform 0 was the last gasp of extra capacity) in the peaks.

 

Link from Birmingham to Leicester - already a plan under the Midlands Engine proposals, but again, what does it solve?

 

 

Edited by Mike Storey
speeling
  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who HAD a similar viewpoint to Mr 'fittersnoop' who thought HS2 a waste of money, inefficient and over-specified etc - until I pointed out that his "alternatives" for example, double decking trains and quadrupling tracks would be equally expensive AND massively disruptive to passengers now and for the long term.

There really is no alternative to building a new railway and if you're going to do that, why not make it a line capable of high speed?

Okay, not necessarily one capable of 250Mph but certainly 200Mph, simply because that is pretty much how fast all current new builds are being engineered for. See the Bordeaux extension of TGV Atlantique for example.

I've spent quite a fair bit of time travelling on and observing Europe's HS lines and from my experience, they are pretty reliable, probably because they are relatively new so I don't see regular delays on HS2, after it opens.

Cheers,

John.

 

PS My friend and I are still good friends, I hasten to add - it's just that he now sees things from more of an informed railway perspective than from the typical media viewpoint.

Edited by Allegheny1600
Additional info
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

 

Quadrupling of Welwyn Viaduct - that has been looked at so many times, and rejected so many times, as improbably expensive as well as anything else, but the key question would be - what does it solve? There is no more room for extra trains at Kings Cross (Platform 0 was the last gasp of extra capacity) in the peaks.

 

 

If there's no more room for trains at King's Cross, why are they restoring the extra pair of tracks through Gasworks Tunnel?

 

And you regard a new viaduct at Welwyn as "improbably expensive", yet apparently regard £100 billion for HS2 as good value for money? A large measure of inconsistency there, I fear!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who isn't particularly happy about HS2, especially in espect of the ecological consequences, I do have to ask why is this thread still discussing its future and alternatives?

 

The decision has been made, to Birmingham at least, and this is going to happen whether we like it or not. Even if Boris and his mates all fall under a bus at the same time, the other main party is in favour of the scheme in full, as are the LibDems (remember them?). Hindsight may judge the thing to have been a marvel or a catastrophe, but that will be for commentators well into the future.

 

What might be up for grabs in a few years time is what happens after the first stage. If the costs escalate per the GWML electrification then in 5-10 years time the government of the day might or might not have a rethink. But that's for then not now, and as has been said many times on here, the net returns on the project are maximised by completion in full, not stopping somewhere in the Midlands.

 

John.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

If there's no more room for trains at King's Cross, why are they restoring the extra pair of tracks through Gasworks Tunnel?

 

And you regard a new viaduct at Welwyn as "improbably expensive", yet apparently regard £100 billion for HS2 as good value for money? A large measure of inconsistency there, I fear!

No inconsistency there, sorry.

A new viaduct at Welwyn would cost a lot and improve matters locally, HS2 costs even more but improves the larger part of the nation, now and for the foreseeable future.

 

That's one of the things I cannot understand about the naysayers - what do they think about the future?

Not just when HS2 opens but say, fifty years after that? Most of us writing here will be gone by then but there will still be people wanting to travel and unless something like 'Hyperloop' is perfected by then, rail will still be the most efficient means of transport available.

Future generations will surely curse us for NOT building these lines.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

As someone who isn't particularly happy about HS2, especially in espect of the ecological consequences, I do have to ask why is this thread still discussing its future and alternatives?

 

The decision has been made, to Birmingham at least, and this is going to happen whether we like it or not. Even if Boris and his mates all fall under a bus at the same time, the other main party is in favour of the scheme in full, as are the LibDems (remember them?). Hindsight may judge the thing to have been a marvel or a catastrophe, but that will be for commentators well into the future.

 

What might be up for grabs in a few years time is what happens after the first stage. If the costs escalate per the GWML electrification then in 5-10 years time the government of the day might or might not have a rethink. But that's for then not now, and as has been said many times on here, the net returns on the project are maximised by completion in full, not stopping somewhere in the Midlands.

 

John.

 

 

How funny ironic that you posted this just as I was asking the above question!!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

If there's no more room for trains at King's Cross, why are they restoring the extra pair of tracks through Gasworks Tunnel?

 

And you regard a new viaduct at Welwyn as "improbably expensive", yet apparently regard £100 billion for HS2 as good value for money? A large measure of inconsistency there, I fear!

As far as i know, and  Mike Storey probably knows far better due to having been a manager at Kigs Cross, the main problem at Kings  Cross is platform capacity. Long distance trains take longer to turn round than suburban services. This is due to several factors which include train cleaning, dealing with passenger luggage, seat reservations and loading catering supplies. Another factor is the slow exit speeds from the platforms that mean it takes a long time for the route into a recently vacated platform to be available.  

 

As I understand it the reasoning behind the reopening of the third tunnel is to make the station throat a lot faster so that trains clear the area quicker. This still leaves the problem of there being no room for extra platforms.  

 

Welwyn works quite well but as  Mike pointed out there is no point in spending a huge amount of money quadrupling it unless there is somewhere to put the xtra trains at The Cross.  However as far as I know, the real problem at Welwyn is the stretch north of the viaduct with two tunnels which have a heavily used commuter station between them. It is sorting that bottleneck where most of the money would be spent.

 

Jamie

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

 

If the problem is congestion on the southern part of the WCML, so I would have built a new railway from the Rugby area to London, as well as four-tracking the section from Coventry to Birmingham and building a link to Leicester to link up with the MML, and also four-track the Welwyn bottleneck on the ECML. The new railway would have been four tracks in places to enable a local service south of Rugby, an area due for big housing developments that currently and after HS2 has no train service to London. The new railway would not have had a signalling system and loading gauge that means ordinary trains can't use it. Brunel tried that kind of "future-proofing" on the GWR. It didn't "end well" to use a phrase popular on here.

 

Brilliant!  If only someone had thought of building a new railway into London.   We could call it, er, HS2...

  • Like 6
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

You haven't even read what I wrote properly. A NEW RAILWAY from the Rugby area to London, not extra tracks adjacent to the WCML. So you haven't even got "a clue" what I actually wrote a few hours ago!

 

Extra tracks from Coventry to Brum is doable with some demolition (& if demolition is acceptable on the way into Eustion, why not in the West Midlands?) - just look out of the window when you're next on that route.

 

I'm out of here. Life's too short for any more of this nonsense.?

Boy you are touchy.

Where on earth do you think HS2 is going? It gets within 8 or 10 miles from Rugby then instead of following the GCR route into Rugby it carries on NW to go between Warwick & Coventry

 

I was pointing out that's how HS2 was arrived at, as your posts appear to be arguing against a new railway.

However you then suggest it's a new railway you do want but you are totally against HS2 just because it isn't where you think it should be.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
14 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

So only one (pro-HS2) viewpoint is acceptable on RMWeb, and anyone who "battles" (i.e. disagrees)  and sticks their head above the parapet is fair game, despite many pro-HS2 voices admitting that the project has serious design flaws?

 

If you read the threads, you'll see that this is patently untrue. There are many divergent views on this project. Some are countered with facts because we have people who work in the industry with a greater understanding of the background to decisions taken.

 

You appear to have come on here just to stick your head above the parapet and expect to be able to pronounce without anyone being allowed to respond. That's not how a forum works. It seems that you consider than only your opinion on this topic (and it's the only one you seem to be interested in) is acceptable.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...