Jump to content
 

HS2 under review


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, locoholic said:

Road traffic has increased in the same way. The "thinking" that providing extra capacity stimulates extra demand also applies to railways, or didn't you realise that? It is your logic that is completedly flawed, due, I suspect, to an understandable sentimental bias in favour of anything that runs on rails.

It does, but the consequences are very different. 

 

In conditions of suppressed demand, such as exist in most of the UK, improving a section of road reduces road journey times and more people decide to drive who would previously have used public transport or not make the journey at all.  This causes the unimproved sections of road nearby to become congested, increasing pollution and other downsides, and creating pressure for those sections of road to be upgraded as well. 

 

In similar conditions improving the train service will cause some people to make the journey by train who would otherwise have driven or not made the journey at all.  However this has much less of a downside as the railway has less impact on its neighbours.  Also the train service will be planned to take advantage of the available infrastructure and won't lead to uncontrolled congestion of the type that happens on the roads, so people's journeys will be much more predictable than if they had driven. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, locoholic said:

Road traffic has increased in the same way. The "thinking" that providing extra capacity stimulates extra demand also applies to railways, or didn't you realise that? It is your logic that is completedly flawed, due, I suspect, to an understandable sentimental bias in favour of anything that runs on rails.

 

I am not sure I could have been clearer in stating the difference in causation between the historic growth of road traffic and the growth of rail passenger numbers, and the relevance of extra capacity provided to one and not to the other. These are not my "views". This is data, indisputably supported by the annual publication of Transport Statistics for Great Britain, previously published by the TRRL, and now by the ONS, and a whole series of independent and governmental/ngo studies on future transport options, which draw the same conclusions.

 

If you choose to ignore the key sentence, summarised as - rail growth has doubled without significant extra capacity  - which rather suggests you are right about me not realising the application of the same "thinking" to railways: I did not realise that, as it is almost completely untrue, to date in the UK. But that won't matter to you, will it?

 

I do sometimes enjoy your interventions, but I have lost interest now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I am not sure I could have been clearer in stating the difference in causation between the historic growth of road traffic and the growth of rail passenger numbers, and the relevance of extra capacity provided to one and not to the other. These are not my "views". This is data, indisputably supported by the annual publication of Transport Statistics for Great Britain, previously published by the TRRL, and now by the ONS, and a whole series of independent and governmental/ngo studies on future transport options, which draw the same conclusions.

 

If you choose to ignore the key sentence, summarised as - rail growth has doubled without significant extra capacity  - which rather suggests you are right about me not realising the application of the same "thinking" to railways: I did not realise that, as it is almost completely untrue, to date in the UK. But that won't matter to you, will it?

 

I do sometimes enjoy your interventions, but I have lost interest now.

I'm sorry, but your comments above simply do not constitute a coherent argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

It does, but the consequences are very different. 

 

In conditions of suppressed demand, such as exist in most of the UK, improving a section of road reduces road journey times and more people decide to drive who would previously have used public transport or not make the journey at all.  This causes the unimproved sections of road nearby to become congested, increasing pollution and other downsides, and creating pressure for those sections of road to be upgraded as well. 

 

In similar conditions improving the train service will cause some people to make the journey by train who would otherwise have driven or not made the journey at all.  However this has much less of a downside as the railway has less impact on its neighbours.  Also the train service will be planned to take advantage of the available infrastructure and won't lead to uncontrolled congestion of the type that happens on the roads, so people's journeys will be much more predictable than if they had driven. 

It is true that new rail capacity has less of an impact than road, but new rail, especially high speed, is much more expensive, less flexible and prone to disruption. It is also debateable whether rail is immune from "uncontrolled congestion" - travellers on South West Rail know what happens when anything goes awry, however apparently trivial, because the rail infrastructure is operating at capacity, just like the road network.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, locoholic said:

because the rail infrastructure is operating at capacity, just like the road network.

 

And there you are, in your own words you have admitted that the rail network is operating at capacity - ergo we should logically increase that capacity. As I said before the debate really is around upgrading Victorian infrastructure (akin to widening a road but leaving all the bends and junctions in place) or building a new line (realigned road or bypass). Which we do rather depends on where the pinch points are and why they exist.

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

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, locoholic said:

 new rail, especially high speed, is much more expensive, less flexible and prone to disruption.

Why is high speed rail especially prone to disruption?

It is on a dedicated network where there are less outside forces impacting on the train service.

No slow freight trains, no overcrowded commuter trains where station dwell times are knocking the timetable sideways.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, locoholic said:

It is true that new rail capacity has less of an impact than road, but new rail, especially high speed, is much more expensive, less flexible and prone to disruption. It is also debateable whether rail is immune from "uncontrolled congestion" - travellers on South West Rail know what happens when anything goes awry, however apparently trivial, because the rail infrastructure is operating at capacity, just like the road network.

 

The WCML in particular is as you say operating at capacity, however if upgrading the existing route, as opposed to HS2, was to be adopted the resulting disruption would make this Easter's line closures pale into utter significance and would last for years, if not decades; Remember how much chaos was caused last time the WCML was upgraded ? And we still only have a 125mph (max, less in places) railway, with double track sections mixing 60mph freights with 125mph passengers.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

The WCML in particular is as you say operating at capacity, however if upgrading the existing route, as opposed to HS2, was to be adopted the resulting disruption would make this Easter's line closures pale into utter significance and would last for years, if not decades; Remember how much chaos was caused last time the WCML was upgraded ? And we still only have a 125mph (max, less in places) railway, with double track sections mixing 60mph freights with 125mph passengers.

I agree. I just take issue with the received wisdom on here that new roads are unjustifiable, whereas new rail is always good. My recent experiences of rail travel has not been positive, and the road network provides a cheaper, more reliable, convenient and flexible alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Richard E said:

 

And there you are, in your own words you have admitted that the rail network is operating at capacity - ergo we should logically increase that capacity. As I said before the debate really is around upgrading Victorian infrastructure (akin to widening a road but leaving all the bends and junctions in place) or building a new line (realigned road or bypass). Which we do rather depends on where the pinch points are and why they exist.

And there we go back to square one! If the road network is at capacity, we are told that building more roads will just generate new traffic. But when a rail enthusiast sees a rail line at capacity, building a new railway is the automatic solution. Can't you see the contradiction? "Oh, but a new railway line has less impact" - maybe, a bit, perhaps.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, locoholic said:

It is true that new rail capacity has less of an impact than road, but new rail, especially high speed, is much more expensive, less flexible and prone to disruption. It is also debateable whether rail is immune from "uncontrolled congestion" - travellers on South West Rail know what happens when anything goes awry, however apparently trivial, because the rail infrastructure is operating at capacity, just like the road network.

How much would the M1 and M6 cost if they were built today?  Between them they provide a network about the same in extent and throughput as HS2. 

 

The railway timetable is planned to stay within the capacity of the network in normal circumstances, so trains only grind to a halt if there is a major problem such as train or infrastructure failure.  Much of the road network routinely comes to a near-standstill during peak travel times, and if there is a major problem delays can last for hours.  In the last five years or so I've encountered two or three multi-hour delays on the motorway and only one on rail, despite doing probably three quarters of my non-local travel by train. 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

HS2 is accused of destroying wildlife locally as they are said to be creating a bioypical.diverse area near Aylesbury not good plus the new housing being demolished in the midland not good is it?Lets hope its all cancelled,

The route of HS2 was planned long before those houses were built. I wonder if its the same as occurred with the Lower Thames crossing. The local authority had turned down the planning application only for it to be granted by the Minister. Now some new properties are in the way of the access roads to the new crossing and will have to be demolished.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
39 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

HS2 is accused of destroying wildlife locally as they are said to be creating a bioypical.diverse area near Aylesbury not good plus the new housing being demolished in the midland not good is it?Lets hope its all cancelled,

Don't see many badgers, foxes, pheasants, deer, hedgehogs, squirrels, partridges, kites etc. laying alongside the railway lines, whereas the Bucks roads are littered with them.........

  • Like 7
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lmsforever said:

HS2 is accused of destroying wildlife locally as they are said to be creating a bioypical.diverse area near Aylesbury not good plus the new housing being demolished in the midland not good is it?Lets hope its all cancelled,

 

 

Perhaps it is as well we have different opinions.

It took me a while to be convinced about HS2, and if it were all built as planned it would be very useful.

However, the utter shambles that is Crossrail and the Great Western electrification delays and cancellations lead me to conclude that British civil engineering in the transport sector is failing us. 

 

I believe that any new railway has to be electrified, and yes, HS2 is planned to be, but how on earth can the UK plan a brand new railway (EWR) in 2019 and not electrifiy it ? Our grandchildren will look back in horror at what our politicians and civil servants chose to do. 

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

  • RMweb Premium

I am afraid that if HS2 is cancelled the almost certain result will in time be the building of an extra six lane motorway from London to the Midlands through the Chilterns, and not in tunnel for the sensitive parts either - and probaby costing more than HS2. Finished just as oil runs out. Such is the way our political system - fails to - work.

Jonathan

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

No motorway through the chilterns  but the basic roads need to be refettled urgently they are falling to pieces quickly ,HS2 is a project that will not help us one bit rebuilt roads will help the locals move about without our cars being battered by potholes.The government and DAFT have completely cocked up the provision of transport to the country,high fares because of a greedy treasury ,inability to listen even when they ask us for our opinions ,and the disaster that is electrification will haunt us for the next one hundred years.In short stop HS2 now and work to put the wires up to Sheffied and Leeds ,also on EWR, plus get the overall transport policy back to one of benefit to the people .A sector that requires urgent help is the bus industry routes are disappearing daily companies are going bust at an alarming rate.If this carries on the bus will be a thing of the past outside of towns leaving many people stranded this is bound up with the rail policy and needs urgent attention.          If HS2 goes ahead I hope that it will not be another Cross Rail as this project has been a disaster from the start ,are there enough rail engineers available to carry out the work and will costs be monitored properly.Okay rant over its very hard to believe anything in the media now so lets hope somewhere someone knows what they are doing.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the answer to the problem is not to build a new railway, but just improve the original, we could logically take that back to the beginning, and say there was no need for the London Birmingham Railway or the M1. just widen the Oxford Canal.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, locoholic said:

And there we go back to square one! If the road network is at capacity, we are told that building more roads will just generate new traffic. But when a rail enthusiast sees a rail line at capacity, building a new railway is the automatic solution. Can't you see the contradiction? "Oh, but a new railway line has less impact" - maybe, a bit, perhaps.

 

https://bettertransport.org.uk/roads-nowhere/induced-traffic

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, Sheffield said:

If the answer to the problem is not to build a new railway, but just improve the original, we could logically take that back to the beginning, and say there was no need for the London Birmingham Railway or the M1. just widen the Oxford Canal.

Why build the Oxford canal in the first place?

Why not just widen the cart tracks?

 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

No motorway through the chilterns  but the basic roads need to be refettled urgently they are falling to pieces quickly ,HS2 is a project that will not help us one bit rebuilt roads will help the locals move about without our cars being battered by potholes.The government and DAFT have completely cocked up the provision of transport to the country,high fares because of a greedy treasury ,inability to listen even when they ask us for our opinions ,and the disaster that is electrification will haunt us for the next one hundred years.In short stop HS2 now and work to put the wires up to Sheffied and Leeds ,also on EWR, plus get the overall transport policy back to one of benefit to the people .A sector that requires urgent help is the bus industry routes are disappearing daily companies are going bust at an alarming rate.If this carries on the bus will be a thing of the past outside of towns leaving many people stranded this is bound up with the rail policy and needs urgent attention.          If HS2 goes ahead I hope that it will not be another Cross Rail as this project has been a disaster from the start ,are there enough rail engineers available to carry out the work and will costs be monitored properly.Okay rant over its very hard to believe anything in the media now so lets hope somewhere someone knows what they are doing.

 

The Government claims (2017):

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-investment-strategy

 

Much of this is certainly not happening outside the Strategic Road Network. Allocation of responsibility of A-roads to local authorities has been accompanied by an overall reduction in funding to those same authorities, naturally, which is also meant to repair and maintain all roads in their area. The proposed extra money, a transfer of part of the VED income, recently announced, (not yet fully allocated anyway) to be made available to them, only replaces about 25% of that loss (according to the NALC and LGA).

 

Stopping HS2 will not make any of your wish list happen. It will merely allow the Treasury to balance their books a bit better and enable further tax cuts for the next election.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, lmsforever said:

Have you been watching the commitees in parliament it could well happen.

There is a difference between "If it goes ahead" and "Cancellation" which you obviously do not comprehend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...