HS2 under review

[phil-b259]

There goes your blood pressure again!

 

Some of what you say is total "b******cks" and comes nowhere near dealing with anything "properly".

 

The idea that HS2 gives the UK the fastest trains in Europe for free (which is the logical conclusion of your argument that it is not over-engineered), for a start. Everything from noise abatement to power supply is made much more expensive when the line speed is increased. That comes from the laws of physics. It's not some Nimby conspiracy.

 

 

The point is that the design would not be radically different in alignment terms nor cost any less had the top design speed been limited to 186mph (the standard for all TGV lines built in the 1990s). As such suggestions that going for high speeds have somehow made a significant difference to the alignment is nonsense. The same is true for much of the rest of the infrastructure installed - the higher design speed makes very little difference over matters like OLE design, soundproofing, electrical distribution, etc.

 

On speed more generally, you are indeed correct that once you get to around 200mph, the increased power consumption necessary to get over air resistance makes it unwise to go much faster. However again I draw your attention to the fact that although the latest TGV lines have an increased design speed, operationally 186mph is still the maximum timetabled speed so it does not follow that everything has to be run at absolute maximum speed.

 

 

Then there's the idea that future-proofing HS2 by building it to a big loading gauge is good value for money. You are spending money based on pure speculation. This isn't "magic money" - it's real.

 

 

Firstly, if you are going for high speeds then increased clearances save you energy due to the reduced need for trains to fight air pressure through tunnels - this is just as true for 40mph as it is for 200mph and is why the new Northern line extension tunnels to Battersea are significantly larger than those on the existing line. As such even if HS2 was being built as a 'conventional' 100mph line, it would still be large enough to take double deck stock.

 

Secondly double deck stock is not that much larger than single deck stock - it only needs the UK loading gauge to be a foot or so higher (and for us to get rid of high level platforms) for it to fit on the conventional network. The cost (way in excess of the HS2 budget) and potential disruption while this is undertaken is why its not viable for the classic network

 

Thirdly with HS2 the clearances deemed necessary for high speed operation through tunnels, etc double deck stock can be accommodated with no alterations necessary to the design

 

 

The idea that by over-engineering to "international" standards we can make savings by buying off-the shelf trains is a joke. The current trend is for more and more incompatibility, both from physical things like couplings, and from computer control and signalling.

 

 

Nope its not a joke - have you forgotten about the German ICE train that was displayed at St Pancras or the French postal TGV that made an appearance there? This was possible precisely because HS1 is a carbon copy of the French TGV lines and uses exactly the same kit rather than some bespoke 'British' solution.

 

True the initial batch of trains will have to be bespoke - but that is because we wish to run them onto the Victorian era railway network with low bridges, short platforms, constrained city centre stations and legacy signalling equipment. The big cost is not the HS2 element of any such trains - as will be seen when the full Y network is in operation and off the shelf French / German / Spanish / Dutch, etc designs can be purchased for use on HS2 only services.

 

 

The design brief for HS2 is wrong for the UK, and it represents poor value for money and a massive missed opportunity. But hey, it provides something for tunnel vision HS2 worshippers to get triggered over.

 

The HS2 design brief is a perfectly adequate way of addressing the critical problem. True some specific elements (like the top design speed) may be slightly too high - but as has been explained this makes zero difference to 99% of the project - particularly things like alignment and the presence of that embankment which will apparently 'ruin' the views from your window.

 

I have yet to see you put forward a rational proposal that...

 

(i) costs less than HS2 once ALL factors (including costs associated with lost hours / lower productivity incurred users of the current network due to line closures and slower journey times during line upgrades)

(ii) Avoids causing massive disruption to users of the existing rail network

(iii) Avoids mass demolition within urban areas as much as possible

 

....but completely addresses* the problem** HS2 is being built to solve.

 

I change you to do this - but warn you that until I see such a coherent and viable plan put forward, your winging and ill-informed nonsense will continue to be exposed for what it is - plain NIMBYism / BANANA of the first order.

 

* This could include significant changes to fiscal / tax policy or other measures which seek to depress economic activity in our major cities and reduce the need to travel in the first place - or even building a brand new motorway between said cities if thats what you want

.

** The problem is that the WCML (and also the ECML, MML, the XC core, plus the M1, M6 and M40 motorways) are running at full capacity for most / all of the day and additional capacity which provides the equivalent of 2 additional railway tracks between our major cities is required.

[lmsforever]

It might help of you actually answered the questions properly rather than talking b******ks

 

Let me have a go for you shall I?

 

Pro: HS2 isn't about getting to Birmingham a few minutes earlier

Anti: Then why does HS stand for High Speed?

Pro:- It's all about capacity Because compared to the current WCML which only just about manages 130mph in places, HS2 will have a design speed comparable with the best High speed lines in Europe (200mph approx). The point of HS2 is to remove fast express services starting or finishing in the North West from the WCML - not cater for slow moving freight or semi-fast / commuter services!

 

Anti: Then why are we paying for it to be be over-engineered so that trains can spend a few minutes going really fast?

Pro: It's essential because the WCML is full. We are not! Firstly from an engineering perspective there is practically zero difference between the land take, cost, minimum curvature, etc between a 250mph design spec or a 186mph design spec. Secondly the international convention is that brand new passenger only lines linking major cities are built with a 150mph plus design speed. Thirdly by adopting current best practice / international thinking then more 'off the shelf' kit can be used thus reducing costs over bespoke requirements.

 

Anti: OK, so just build a new normal railway line with a couple of extra stations to benefit the areas it traverses?

Pro: But we need it to be High Speed, because that's the future. What part of 'removing fast express trains to / from the North West (note they generally only stop at stations south of Crewe / Stafford because there is insufficient line capacity to provide enough services) from the existing WCML is so hard to understand? The deign brief is NOT how to improve connectivity to the Chilterns - nor is it actually about improving journeys between London & Birmingham. Birmingham only comes into the picture with HS2 as it happens to lie slap bang on the route to the North West so it makes economic sense to include it in the list of places served by HS2 even though it has no need for a shorter journey time to London.

 

Anti: But you just said it's all about capacity. Why bother building it to accomodate big trains that won't fit along normal lines, when the design has now been altered to include lots of links to normal railway lines?

Pro: Stop being a Nimby. Because in 30 years, if HS2 trains become full we can then use off the shelf double deck EU gauge trains to shift folk between the key destinations. Have a look at what the French did when their first TGV line became full and they couldn't add any more services - they went and double decked the trains. We already have a major problem where our current Victorian era network cannot accommodate double deck stock as a solution to overcrowding so why would any sane railway designer repeat that with a new build line?

 

Hmm, not so supportive of you attitude now that questions have been dealt with properly is it?

 

What an exceptionaly rude reply as usual ,you will have to realise that not everybody is as won over by this dubious project ,companies in the UK and abroad do not have a good track record in the UK on rail construction.DFT / NR cannot even electrify lines and complete projects causing real problems ,the same companies responsible for these fiascos will be building HS2.You do not live close to the route so will not be inconvienced by construction and actual running so I suggest you calm down and take a step back before you berate anyone.

[phil-b259]

What an exceptionaly rude reply as usual ,you will have to realise that not everybody is as won over by this dubious project .....

 

I expect those who have a genuine objection to the project to behave like adults and state their case in the normal manor. For the avoidance of doubt I would expect the same from the pro side given how decisive HS2 can be. Much like Brexit it is important to stick to facts and not peddle lies / misinformation to further arguments.

 

However it has to be said the 'answers' in Melmerby's pretend conversation were far more of an accurate in terms of what might be said by either party than Locoholic's pretend conversation - hence my post. No engineer involved in drawing up the scheme has ever said HS2 had any justification on speed alone for example - it was the politicians / media / the PR firm chosen by HM Government who latched onto it as a good thing to push to the public.

 

Those who oppose HS2 are of course free to state their case - but I expect them to have better arguments that "it spoils the view from my window" - particularly as that was the objection from several wealthy landowners around the time the WCML was first constructed and the sky hasn't fallen in as a result.

 

if you oppose HS2 then, as with any official Government project that has passed through more than a few inquiries over the years (and which has produced large quantities of documentary evidence as to why it has been progressed) I expect objections to be based on things like.

 

The need or not (if you think that the current congestion, etc will reverse by itself over the next few decades) for additional transport capacity (in particular rail) along the WCML corridor,

That other realistic solutions can remove the need for significant new infrastructure,

That above approaches can be carried out for a lower cost while not being any more disruptive than HS2 to existing transport.

 

Even as a member of the pro-camp I can come up with some alternatives to the main problem HS2 says it will solve (I can also demolish them pretty quickly though) so its not as if the anti-camp cannot present a coherent set of objections is it?

Edited October 6, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

DFT / NR cannot even electrify lines and complete projects causing real problems ,the same companies responsible for these fiascos will be building HS2.You do not live close to the route so will not be inconvienced by construction and actual running so I suggest you calm down and take a step back before you berate anyone.

 

I am fully aware of NRs trouble when it comes to delivering projects - but that is precisely why the Government is taking forward things like HS2 as a separate entity. NRs remit is / should be maintenance, renewal and small scale enhancement of the existing network only- asking it to electrify hundreds of miles of railway when it had no experience in such a massive task (thanks to the Government ignoring electrification for the previous two decades) was always going to end in tears.....

 

No I'm not going to be inconvenienced by all the HS2 construction traffic etc - but let me tell you I would be quite happy for that to be the case as this country has been penny pinching when it comes to infrastructure provision for decades. As individuals 99% of Brits I encounter have far too much of an obsession with money and the short term - be it high house prices, low taxes, cheapest goods,etc.

Edited October 6, 2018 by phil-b259

[locoholic]

 

 

 

 

Firstly, if you are going for high speeds then increased clearances save you energy due to the reduced need for trains to fight air pressure through tunnels - this is just as true for 40mph as it is for 200mph and is why the new Northern line extension tunnels to Battersea are significantly larger than those on the existing line. As such even if HS2 was being built as a 'conventional' 100mph line, it would still be large enough to take double deck stock.

 

Secondly double deck stock is not that much larger than single deck stock - it only needs the UK loading gauge to be a foot or so higher (and for us to get rid of high level platforms) for it to fit on the conventional network. The cost (way in excess of the HS2 budget) and potential disruption while this is undertaken is why its not viable for the classic network

 

Thirdly with HS2 the clearances deemed necessary for high speed operation through tunnels, etc double deck stock can be accommodated with no alterations necessary to the design.

This part of your argument really makes no sense. Larger tunnels decreases air resistance - yes, fine. But that also applies to double-deck trains, so are you saying that HS2 tunnels will be large enough for double-deck trains to pass through efficiently? If so, the tunnel dimensions will be massive, with much higher tunnelling costs. And a lot of the route is in tunnels.

 

I'm all in favour of a new rail route through the Home Counties, but the opportunity should have been taken to make the new route part of the national rail network, since it passes through an area of the UK earmarked for very significant population growth, but which has no rail lines at all. That is why the HS2 design brief is wrong. It is too narrow. By making the line speed so high, it would be very difficult to have it as a dual-purpose line. Instead, you have the absurd situation where a railway is built through an area which has no rail service, and when the line is complete, it still has no rail service! It therefore follows that the whole project represents poor value and a missed opportunity.

[phil-b259]

This part of your argument really makes no sense. Larger tunnels decreases air resistance - yes, fine. But that also applies to double-deck trains, so are you saying that HS2 tunnels will be large enough for double-deck trains to pass through efficiently? If so, the tunnel dimensions will be massive, with much higher tunnelling costs. And a lot of the route is in tunnels.

 

 

Once you have a sufficiently large tunnel to mitigate the air pressures encountered by 186mph running the extra size of a double deck train versus a single deck one is insignificant. To see what I mean do a search for the 'North Downs Tunnel' on HS1 - which has been designed to French TGV standards (including the potential use by double deck TGVs in future)

 

If you compare the loading gauge between the UK and most other European countries they are not that much taller (certainly nowhere near the USA for example) but raising bridges even as much as 6 inches is a complex and expensive task (especially in built up areas to to the number of utilities or where locals are sufficiently motivated - e.g.Stevenson on the GWML)

 

 

I'm all in favour of a new rail route through the Home Counties, but the opportunity should have been taken to make the new route part of the national rail network, since it passes through an area of the UK earmarked for very significant population growth, but which has no rail lines at all. That is why the HS2 design brief is wrong. It is too narrow. By making the line speed so high, it would be very difficult to have it as a dual-purpose line. Instead, you have the absurd situation where a railway is built through an area which has no rail service, and when the line is complete, it still has no rail service! It therefore follows that the whole project represents poor value and a missed opportunity.

 

Please don't confuse two separate issues.

 

(1) The lack of capacity on the WCML, M1 motorway etc to cater for long distance journeys

 

(2) Connectivity / Commuter provision for the Chilterns.

 

While on the surface HS2 looks like it could do both the reality is that in atempting to full fill both these functions it ends up being a jack of all trades but a master of none!

 

Just look at some of the problems NR face on the current network trying to juggle 75mph freight, 110mph commuter and 125mph fast services. The problem is generally not high speeds per say its high speed differentials between different traffic types - if everything on the WCML ran at 50mph and had identical performance characteristics then the TPH it could cope with would increase significantly.

 

HS2 is specifically designed to cure with problem (1) by removing / augmenting London - Manchester / Liverpool / Sheffield / Leeds / Scotland express traffic from currently congested lines or increasing overall provision.

 

You will note that Birmingham is missing from this list - that is deliberate as I technically agree it does not need High speed services (its too close to London and you still need fast services to Coventry & Wolverhampton) BUT given its status, size and economic activity it is foolish not to serve it. Put it this way, if Birmingham didn't exist HS-2 would have no stations south of Crewe.

 

HS-2 will have 18tph - only 4 of which will start / originate in Birmingham once the Y shaped network is open. As with the current WCML express services,slowing down express services from the North West slowing down to make station calls in the Chilterns is undesirable for long distance travellers so the only services that would stop at a Chiltern HS2 station would be the trains from Birmingham. However as soon as you start stopping some trains, but not others you start needing loops - and if you want to ensure fast trains are not delayed they need to be very long so that the divergence / rejoining the main line can be taken at linespeed. You then need to consider that that trains may need to pause at said station for 15 minutes so they can then rejoin the necessary path in the timetable which doesn't sound attractive. This gets added to your acceleration / deceleration time so the entire time penalty for a station call has taken the journey time up from London - Birmingham to nearly an hour - not much better than the current WCML. Would that matter? - I don't honestly know but I'm sure it has been looked at and was one of the reasons an intermediate station was rejected.

 

Now turning to issue (2) - connectivity in the Chilterns for these new developments, it is a little difficult to suggest solutions when the development sites are not listed, but from what I know we are mainly talking about Wilnslow and ex MOD land at Bicester. In the case of Wilmslow it is due to be served by Oxford - Milton Keynes and also an extension of the Chiltern service from Aylesbury to Milton Keynes. Investment in the Chiltern main line to remove pinch points further south through some more loops would also allow for a speeding up of services (as would electrification). If further connectivity is required then a link could be made to the Chiltern line heading to Bicester and Banbury while the ex MOD sites could be linked to the Chiltern line in the vicinity of Piddington to form a loop via Bicester Town.

Edited October 6, 2018 by phil-b259

[jjb1970]

Something that HS2 might consider is perception management. Now don't shoot the messenger here as what I'm about to say is just an observation and there may be perfectly valid reasons for what HS2 are doing, but over the last week there have been about 6 or 7 people on average each evening acting as pedestrian crossing wardens for the crossing as you leave Euston via Melton Street which is now a single lane in one direction and not especially busy (certainly not by London street standards). In the mornings I've noticed a similar or greater number of people outside the main entrance directing people as they closed off the route towards Euston Road towards the Euston Road/Melton Street Junction. The message it sends as evidenced by several conversations I've eave dropped on the concourse and on the train is basically "no wonder things cost a fortune if it takes 6 people to be lollipop men at a pedestrian crossing" etc. Nowadays most large construction projects take a much more visible approach to traffic and pedestrian management but what I've been observing around Euston over the last week is a bit ridiculous and I can understand why it might cause people to start questioning what is going on to see so many people in HS2 high viz vests milling around where one or two (if any) would have been sufficient.

[Richard E]

One thing that crops up regularly when  I do hear conversations about HS2 is the suggestion that we merely lay a couple of extra tracks alongside the existing lines. That fails to address several things:

 

1. by laying existing track alongside our Victorian infrastructure we are building the new lines to Victorian standards, at least as far as alignment goes,

 

2. existing alignment is severely constrained in many places, especially in built up areas, by development alongside, and right up to, the boundary of the existing lines. Just how much extra width is needed, especially at stations, and how much would that cost. How much disruption would it cause,

 

3. arising from my previous point is the very large cost of buying, sometimes compulsorily, that extra land at building land rates rather than agricultural land rates,

 

4. how much disruption is caused by the necessary remodelling that will arise at every station en-route. That will not only be to local residents but to passengers as well,

 

5. how much longer will the build take when trying to work around maintaining existing services

 

Look at how long the WCML upgrade took and how much it was over budget. Indeed I believe it was barely completed and it was running at capacity yet again because of passenger numbers growth.

 

As for the argument that folk don't want the railway spoiling their view or not running through their land there is a prime example of the impact that can have. The ECML was originally going to run via Stamford and not Peterborough until the local land owner objected. Stamford is still a relative backwater and, by contrast, Peterborough has seen massive growth (which is still happening even now) changing it from, a farming city to one that has a major engineering history.

 

I agree that the idea has been badly mis-sold by concentrating on speed but life nowadays always seems to be about getting something or somewhere more quickly, and often more cheaply, than we have in the past. Whilst cost is undoubtedly an issue it is the increase in capacity elsewhere on the network that is created by 'persuading' the longer distance traveller to switch to the new line that will be invaluable. And it is that increase which will improve local travel both by rail and, hopefully, on the roads too.

[locoholic]

Please don't confuse two separate issues.

 

(1) The lack of capacity on the WCML, M1 motorway etc to cater for long distance journeys

 

(2) Connectivity / Commuter provision for the Chilterns.

 

While on the surface HS2 looks like it could do both the reality is that in atempting to full fill both these functions it ends up being a jack of all trades but a master of none!

Two things:

 

The "jack of all trades" WCML has managed just fine for the last 150 years. If the problem is capacity, adding a new line of similar characteristics wouldn't be such a bad thing. Every motorway is a jack of all trades, too.

 

The "two separate issues" shouldn't be separate - that's my point. All the processes that are required to create a modern railway - the legal stuff, land acquisition, then all the engineering - could have been used to create a railway line for (say) 140 mph expresses, with provision along the section north of Aylesbury for ordinary trains to serve the big area that has no access to a rail service. Then the line could also have been used for diversions at weekends, and also freight. But instead, the usual silo thinking in the Dept of Transport means that all the disruption, all the construction plant, will only provide one thing, when there is actually a need for two.

[phil-b259]

Two things:

 

The "jack of all trades" WCML has managed just fine for the last 150 years. If the problem is capacity, adding a new line of similar characteristics wouldn't be such a bad thing. Every motorway is a jack of all trades, too.

 

 

Except they haven't!

 

Stand on a bridge over the M1 during peak hours and you will find it heavily congested - similarly peak time trains arriving / departing from Euston to the Northwest are equally well loaded! Both the motorway and the WCML have been subjected to upgrade works (at different times) over the past two decades yet the problem persists. This is why tinkering is not enough two extra tracks are needed right from the heart of London to beyond Birmingham.

 

Yes the introduction of high quality Chiltern trains to Birmingham and before that completion of the M40 from Oxford to Warrick provided alternative ways of getting to Birmingham - but HS2 actually has nothing to do with Birmingham - its all about trains that start or finish the journeys further north.

 

 

The "two separate issues" shouldn't be separate - that's my point.

 

They are separate because the two flows are different. Express trains to and from the North West of England are very different from commuter trains in the home counties - just look at how the 700s on Thameslink are slated by Home counties commuters because they have to try and behave like tube trains in the centre of London. Similarly on the GWML we have complaints that passengers are getting overgrown tube trains with longitudinal seats and no toilets so they can cope with the crowds in the centre of London.

 

One of the problems with our motorway network is the way the UK Government has allowed them to be used as by-passes for towns - compared to France where the tolled nature of most sections outside major cities means that local traffic gets its own by-pass and there is only a single motorway junction. Again mixing long distance flows and short 'junction hoppers' is a recipe for chaos and peak time congestion

 

 

Two things:

 

All the processes that are required to create a modern railway - the legal stuff, land acquisition, then all the engineering - could have been used to create a railway line for (say) 140 mph expresses, with provision along the section north of Aylesbury for ordinary trains to serve the big area that has no access to a rail service. Then the line could also have been used for diversions at weekends, and also freight. But instead, the usual silo thinking in the Dept of Transport means that all the disruption, all the construction plant, will only provide one thing, when there is actually a need for two.

 

 

I'm still waiting for info as to where this massive demand for travel in areas beyond Aylesbury is coming from. You say the Government are planning 'massive development' in the area yet have not given any details as to what that would involve. I repeat the only information I have is that areas around Wilmslow (to be served by the reopened Oxford / Aylesbury - Bletchley line) and ex MOD areas around Bicester (well served by Chiltern).

 

I fully agree that development needs to be accompanied by transport infrastructure - but that infrastructure must be appropriate for the needs of the inhabitants - which will include people wishing to access neighbouring towns for employment / shopping / leisure, not just commuting to London or Birmingham.

 

Its also worth noting that the opening of the Great Central through the area did nothing to instigate grater prosperity which still remained relatively undeveloped. Compare that to the effects of the WCML, MML or ECML where significant population centres emerged after they were built. I have yet to see any convincing case that the inhabitants of Brackley are going to need access to HS2 in future for example or that the residents of Aylesbury will be significant disadvantaged because they cannot quickly get to Birmingham

 

If you are able to show me where HM Government are planning to build a new Milton Keynes sized place then you might have a point - but I would suggest that if HS2 is opposed that much by locals then there is no chance that they will accept a massive 'new town' being plonked near them either.

 

 

 

 

 

Please show me where there is big demand for travel northward of Aylesbury! I acept that the Government have 'big plans' for development in some places but so far as I am awere they are all around areas where

Edited October 6, 2018 by phil-b259

[locoholic]

Except they haven't!

 

Stand on a bridge over the M1 during peak hours and you will find it heavily congested - similarly peak time trains arriving / departing from Euston to the Northwest are equally well loaded! Both the motorway and the WCML have been subjected to upgrade works (at different times) over the past two decades yet the problem persists. This is why tinkering is not enough two extra tracks are needed right from the heart of London to beyond Birmingham.

 

Yes the introduction of high quality Chiltern trains to Birmingham and before that completion of the M40 from Oxford to Warrick provided alternative ways of getting to Birmingham - but HS2 actually has nothing to do with Birmingham - its all about trains that start or finish the journeys further north.

 

 

 

 

They are separate because the two flows are different. Express trains to and from the North West of England are very different from commuter trains in the home counties - just look at how the 700s on Thameslink are slated by Home counties commuters because they have to try and behave like tube trains in the centre of London. Similarly on the GWML we have complaints that passengers are getting overgrown tube trains with longitudinal seats and no toilets so they can cope with the crowds in the centre of London.

 

One of the problems with our motorway network is the way the UK Government has allowed them to be used as by-passes for towns - compared to France where the tolled nature of most sections outside major cities means that local traffic gets its own by-pass and there is only a single motorway junction. Again mixing long distance flows and short 'junction hoppers' is a recipe for chaos and peak time congestion

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for info as to where this massive demand for travel in areas beyond Aylesbury is coming from. You say the Government are planning 'massive development' in the area yet have not given any details as to what that would involve. I repeat the only information I have is that areas around Wilmslow (to be served by the reopened Oxford / Aylesbury - Bletchley line) and ex MOD areas around Bicester (well served by Chiltern).

 

I fully agree that development needs to be accompanied by transport infrastructure - but that infrastructure must be appropriate for the needs of the inhabitants - which will include people wishing to access neighbouring towns for employment / shopping / leisure, not just commuting to London or Birmingham.

 

Its also worth noting that the opening of the Great Central through the area did nothing to instigate grater prosperity which still remained relatively undeveloped. Compare that to the effects of the WCML, MML or ECML where significant population centres emerged after they were built. I have yet to see any convincing case that the inhabitants of Brackley are going to need access to HS2 in future for example or that the residents of Aylesbury will be significant disadvantaged because they cannot quickly get to Birmingham

 

If you are able to show me where HM Government are planning to build a new Milton Keynes sized place then you might have a point - but I would suggest that if HS2 is opposed that much by locals then there is no chance that they will accept a massive 'new town' being plonked near them either.

 

 

 

 

 

Please show me where there is big demand for travel northward of Aylesbury! I acept that the Government have 'big plans' for development in some places but so far as I am awere they are all around areas where

You seem perfectly happy to fantasise about future demand for passengers on HS2 that will require double-deck trains, and yet the existence of towns like Buckingham, Brackley and Winslow has no significance to you at all. You are obviously one of those people who can't tell the difference between their opinion and facts. It's pointless trying to persuade you, especially since your responses are often so discourteous. Alternative, more "normal" behaviour patterns can be learnt, but either no-one has told you, or you can't be bothered.

[caradoc]

Two things:

 

The "jack of all trades" WCML has managed just fine for the last 150 years. If the problem is capacity, adding a new line of similar characteristics wouldn't be such a bad thing. Every motorway is a jack of all trades, too.

 

The "two separate issues" shouldn't be separate - that's my point. All the processes that are required to create a modern railway - the legal stuff, land acquisition, then all the engineering - could have been used to create a railway line for (say) 140 mph expresses, with provision along the section north of Aylesbury for ordinary trains to serve the big area that has no access to a rail service. Then the line could also have been used for diversions at weekends, and also freight. But instead, the usual silo thinking in the Dept of Transport means that all the disruption, all the construction plant, will only provide one thing, when there is actually a need for two.

 

The WCML has not managed 'just fine' for the last 150 years without repeated major upgrading; Quadrupling, and south of Watford Jc sextupling, electrifying with both 3rd rail and overhead systems, resignalling and finally the WCRM project. HS2 is just the latest stage in that development.

 

And there may well be a big area north of Aylesbury with no access to rail service, but that is largely because not many people live there ! And in any case, Winslow will soon (eventually) be reconnected to the national rail network.

[phil-b259]

You seem perfectly happy to fantasise about future demand for passengers on HS2 that will require double-deck trains, and yet the existence of towns like Buckingham, Brackley and Winslow has no significance to you at all. You are obviously one of those people who can't tell the difference between their opinion and facts. It's pointless trying to persuade you, especially since your responses are often so discourteous. Alternative, more "normal" behaviour patterns can be learnt, but either no-one has told you, or you can't be bothered.

 

I don’t need to ‘fantasise’ as you put it - if you can be bothered to do your research you will find lots of analysis, facts, figures and modelling present in the documentary evidence which led to HS2 being developed in the first place. If you disagree with such expert anylsis then you sholud say why and where they have got it wrong - it would greatly help your cause.

 

You cannot ignore facts - Buckingham, Brackley and Wilmslow are tiny in population terms compared to Mancheste, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham and London. As such the it’s only right that HS2 seeks to serve these major cities rather than what are small towns.

 

I note you still haven’t provided any evidence that the ‘massive’ development you fear will expand Buckingham Brackley or Wilmslow such that they come close to any of the aforementioned cities - and thus could reasonably be expected to generate a significant need for long distance travel.

 

Show me that their are serious plans for a Milton Keynes type new town to be dumped around Brackley say then you might have more of a point about HS2 connectivity being needed.

 

I make no apologies for taking people to task for peddling nonsense over HS2 - thus far the only legitimate concern you have been able to raise thus far is the energy consumption at very high speeds (which can easily be solved by dropping the maximum so it matches those used by the French).

 

Complaints that it spoils your view and will make your life a misery are no different to those expressed in the 1880s when the classic network was started and the evidence of the past two centuries shows that such fears are unfounded in the long term.

 

Part of living in a society is putting up with decisions that you personally disagree with but which those our elected representatives believe is in the best interests of the country. I personally am opposed to spending money on Trident, think that pulling out of the EU is a mistake of Titanic proportions and dislike the low tax regime which is causing such problems for local authorities. I am however prepared to accept that society as a whole seems to think differently and thus accept my personal views on these subjects are out of step with Governmrnt policy.

 

You are entitled to be opposed to HS2 - but if you want others to come round to your opinion then you need to be able to present a convincing case. I’m quite willing to present a case against Trident which will have nothing to do with ‘world peace’ type arguments and everything to do with a factual analysis of the types of missions the British military actually have been involved in over the past three decades. Objectors to HS2 need to do the same and not use NIMBY style arguments that it will ‘spoil my view’

[locoholic]

The WCML has not managed 'just fine' for the last 150 years without repeated major upgrading; Quadrupling, and south of Watford Jc sextupling, electrifying with both 3rd rail and overhead systems, resignalling and finally the WCRM project. HS2 is just the latest stage in that development.

 

And there may well be a big area north of Aylesbury with no access to rail service, but that is largely because not many people live there ! And in any case, Winslow will soon (eventually) be reconnected to the national rail network.

The need for upgrading work is a sign of success, but you're arguing it's a sign of failure. That is symptomatic of the blinkered thinking of many HS2 fans. Just like the idea that building a railway through an area but not taking the chance to actually serve that area is a good idea, especially when that area is close to one of the most densely populated areas in Europe, and almost certain to see rapid population growth over the next decade.

[Edwin_m]

This part of your argument really makes no sense. Larger tunnels decreases air resistance - yes, fine. But that also applies to double-deck trains, so are you saying that HS2 tunnels will be large enough for double-deck trains to pass through efficiently? If so, the tunnel dimensions will be massive, with much higher tunnelling costs. And a lot of the route is in tunnels.

 

I'm all in favour of a new rail route through the Home Counties, but the opportunity should have been taken to make the new route part of the national rail network, since it passes through an area of the UK earmarked for very significant population growth, but which has no rail lines at all. That is why the HS2 design brief is wrong. It is too narrow. By making the line speed so high, it would be very difficult to have it as a dual-purpose line. Instead, you have the absurd situation where a railway is built through an area which has no rail service, and when the line is complete, it still has no rail service! It therefore follows that the whole project represents poor value and a missed opportunity.

 

 

Two things:

 

The "jack of all trades" WCML has managed just fine for the last 150 years. If the problem is capacity, adding a new line of similar characteristics wouldn't be such a bad thing. Every motorway is a jack of all trades, too.

 

The "two separate issues" shouldn't be separate - that's my point. All the processes that are required to create a modern railway - the legal stuff, land acquisition, then all the engineering - could have been used to create a railway line for (say) 140 mph expresses, with provision along the section north of Aylesbury for ordinary trains to serve the big area that has no access to a rail service. Then the line could also have been used for diversions at weekends, and also freight. But instead, the usual silo thinking in the Dept of Transport means that all the disruption, all the construction plant, will only provide one thing, when there is actually a need for two.

To justify stations a railway has to serve populated areas.  The French have tried putting parkway stops in beetroot fields and it just doesn't work (and if it did it would generate large amounts of traffic on the often poor roads nearby). 

 

The area north of Aylesbury has a station now at Aylesbury Vale Parkway and will get one at Winslow with services to Oxford, MK and Aylesbury (probably running through to London).  If the demand was there then it would be reasonably straightforward to reinstate a line from Verney Junction to Buckingham and beyond, or even to build some slow tracks alongside HS2 which follows the old Great Central in this area.  The fact it hasn't been done suggests that the provision now being made is adequate to meet the demand. 

 

The fastest trains on the ECML and WCML don't stop for anything less than 100,000 population (Stevenage is an exception but is a railhead for significantly more population in the surrounding area).  So two reasons might justify stopping HS2 service between London and Birmingham:

• Running through an existing large settlement with all the disruption that entails - an impact the HS2 alignment was chosen specifically to minimise.  Whichever place is chosen would probably get a better service on its existing railway anyway once HS2 replaced the non-stop trains, so the benefit of a HS2 stop would be no more than a few minutes saving travelling into London and Birmingham.  But according to the HS2 antis a few minutes saving isn't a worthwhile benefit...
• Building a new city or perhaps the main London airport in this relatively unpopulated area.  I'm entirely happy to concede that there should be an HS2 stop if the locals wish to have development of this scale. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Edwin_m

[The Great Bear]

 

 

If you are able to show me where HM Government are planning to build a new Milton Keynes sized place then you might have a point - but I would suggest that if HS2 is opposed that much by locals then there is no chance that they will accept a massive 'new town' being plonked near them either.

 

 

 

A whole new city the size of Milton Keynes is one of the ideas being considered by the government/authorities. See work done for the National Infrastructure Commission as part of the Oxford-Cambridge arc of growth.

 

Section 3.9 in this report for instance shows a new "City in the vale" at Calvert

 

https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/171122-NIC-Final-Report-5th-Studio-optimised.pdf

 

Whilst at that location the hs2 trains will thunder through, there is in addition to East West Rail, the branch from that down to Aylesbury. It is only one of a series of options being considered but if the government aspiration is for a million new homes that is going to be a lot easier to do in big chunks such as this. 

 

Edit - PS: as someone who has worked on large infrastructure projects including hs2 I am not anti them, but there is a lack of joined up thinking about the arc of growth. For instance there is an Oxford-Cambridge Expressway (Motorway) being planned which is supposed to connect all this stuff, bit difficult to do if you don't know where all the dots (and how big) you are trying to link,

Edited October 7, 2018 by The Great Bear

[locoholic]

I don’t need to ‘fantasise’ as you put it - if you can be bothered to do your research you will find lots of analysis, facts, figures and modelling present in the documentary evidence which led to HS2 being developed in the first place. If you disagree with such expert anylsis then you sholud say why and where they have got it wrong - it would greatly help your cause.

You cannot ignore facts - Buckingham, Brackley and Wilmslow are tiny in population terms compared to Mancheste, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham and London. As such the it’s only right that HS2 seeks to serve these major cities rather than what are small towns.

I note you still haven’t provided any evidence that the ‘massive’ development you fear will expand Buckingham Brackley or Wilmslow such that they come close to any of the aforementioned cities - and thus could reasonably be expected to generate a significant need for long distance travel.

Show me that their are serious plans for a Milton Keynes type new town to be dumped around Brackley say then you might have more of a point about HS2 connectivity being needed.

I make no apologies for taking people to task for peddling nonsense over HS2 - thus far the only legitimate concern you have been able to raise thus far is the energy consumption at very high speeds (which can easily be solved by dropping the maximum so it matches those used by the French).

Complaints that it spoils your view and will make your life a misery are no different to those expressed in the 1880s when the classic network was started and the evidence of the past two centuries shows that such fears are unfounded in the long term.

Part of living in a society is putting up with decisions that you personally disagree with but which those our elected representatives believe is in the best interests of the country. I personally am opposed to spending money on Trident, think that pulling out of the EU is a mistake of Titanic proportions and dislike the low tax regime which is causing such problems for local authorities. I am however prepared to accept that society as a whole seems to think differently and thus accept my personal views on these subjects are out of step with Governmrnt policy.

You are entitled to be opposed to HS2 - but if you want others to come round to your opinion then you need to be able to present a convincing case. I’m quite willing to present a case against Trident which will have nothing to do with ‘world peace’ type arguments and everything to do with a factual analysis of the types of missions the British military actually have been involved in over the past three decades. Objectors to HS2 need to do the same and not use NIMBY style arguments that it will ‘spoil my view’

There is recent "evidence" that the growth in rail passenger numbers has stopped. Let's hope that doesn't continue, otherwise HS2 will look very stupid.

 

There is also evidence over the last 150 years that rapid population growth happens at the edge of London. The area north of Aylesbury is now the front line for this.

 

You are an excellent case study in confirmation bias. You ignore what doesn't support your opinion and, most ridiculous, you feel free to insult anyone who holds a different opinion to you.

Edited October 7, 2018 by locoholic

[The Stationmaster]

The need for upgrading work is a sign of success, but you're arguing it's a sign of failure. That is symptomatic of the blinkered thinking of many HS2 fans. Just like the idea that building a railway through an area but not taking the chance to actually serve that area is a good idea, especially when that area is close to one of the most densely populated areas in Europe, and almost certain to see rapid population growth over the next decade.

 

Not blinkered thinking but fairly cool and rational comparison of one case with another.  The WCML capacity problems could be addressed by providing an additional pair of running all the way from Euston to Hanslope and between Rugby and Birmingham and by providing additional platforms at Euston (and probably by providing them between Hanslope and Rugby by one route or the other).  So it is a relatively simple matter of comparing the cost of doing that with the cost of building that new pair of running lines somewhere else - and 'somewhere else' came out cheaper and has resulted in what is called HS2.

 

Logically if you build a new railway it makes sense to build it for very high speed running - the additional basic infrastructure costs are not great with the possible exception of power supplies (it can have steeper gradients than existing lines as the French LGVs do) and in the longer run higher speed can and does reduce resource costs.  The effect on existing trains let alone the considerably greater impact outside the railway fence of widening an existing rail footprint through heavily built up areas is what adds massively to the costs of adding additional track on the existing route and in any case the situation at Euston would probably differ little whichever option was chosen.  The other advantage of building a nr ew route is that it can be designed from the outset to take longer trains and thus build in growth capacity for the future.  Overall a far better solution than fiddling with what is there. 

There is recent "evidence" that the growth in rail passenger numbers has stopped. Let's hope that doesn't continue, otherwise HS2 will look very stupid.

 

There is also evidence over the last 150 years that rapid population growth happens at the edge of London. The area north of Aylesbury is now the front line for this.

 

You are an excellent case study in confirmation bias. You ignore what doesn't support your opinion and, most ridiculous, you feel free to insult anyone who holds a different opinion to you.

 

Once source said recently that growth in passenger numbers had resumed,  But it isn't all about passenger numbers but also about the number of trains (the real killer on the WCML), the mix of train speeds and the frequency of station stops - the real problems when it comes to efficient or even effective use of line capacity.  Anything which tackles those problems is going to be of benefit to the WCML and those who, and will continue to, use it.

[Ron Ron Ron]

......the only information I have is that areas around Wilmslow (to be served by the reopened Oxford / Aylesbury - Bletchley line) and ex MOD areas around Bicester (well served by Chiltern).

 

....You cannot ignore facts - Buckingham, Brackley and Wilmslow are tiny in population terms.....

 

......the ‘massive’ development you fear will expand Buckingham Brackley or Wilmslow....

 

 

 

 

You might need to go back and edit a few of your posts Phil.

 

Wilmslow is in Cheshire and is due to be served by a HS2 station.......at Manchester Airport.

 

   

[caradoc]

The need for upgrading work is a sign of success, but you're arguing it's a sign of failure. That is symptomatic of the blinkered thinking of many HS2 fans. Just like the idea that building a railway through an area but not taking the chance to actually serve that area is a good idea, especially when that area is close to one of the most densely populated areas in Europe, and almost certain to see rapid population growth over the next decade.

 

No, I'm just saying that as transport needs and technology have changed so has the WCML, and it must continue to develop. And one of the main justifications for HS2 is to take long distance traffic off the WCML giving that route additional capacity, some if not much of which will benefit the area it serves.

[Christopher125]

There is recent "evidence" that the growth in rail passenger numbers has stopped. Let's hope that doesn't continue, otherwise HS2 will look very stupid.

 

While there's a clear trend away from traditional season tickets, passenger journeys have returned to growth - 3.1% in Q1 (April-June).

 

Long distance was particularly healthy, increasing 4.7% for Virgin West Coast and 7.8% for East Coast.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Christopher125

[adanapress]

Someone mentioned that development of ex-MOD land at Bicester will call for rail connection in the form of a loop.  I would observe that there are MOD tracks in existence

now on that site (unhappy memories of Ordnance Depot Bicester) or recently were so, that form an almost complete loop complete with a small loco shed! and two stations.

[Trog]

 

And there may well be a big area north of Aylesbury with no access to rail service, but that is largely because not many people live there ! And in any case, Winslow will soon (eventually) be reconnected to the national rail network.

 

I have worked on the remaining section of the GC & GC & Met Joint north of Aylesbury and if you look over the lineside hedges even the cows look lonely.

[lmsforever]

The area around Calvert is reasonably quiet in terms of population    but I cannot see BCC spending a fortune they don't have on link roads to centres of population ,there is already building  in progress but it is of high value homes no  use to the young people of the vale .Talking of centres of population Bicester is the nearest and it is overflowing with new houses ,it has excellent links to London,Oxford,Aylesbury and north to Brum via extremely comfortable loco hauled trains.Aylesbury is rapidly being subsumed by ill planned housing and it seems this is what is planned around Winslow plus a new six lane highway plus EWR which actually will benefit the town.The wcml needs resignalling to decrease headways and surburban traffic kept off the fast lines,this could help with the need for more services. This line already provides fast services to the north with plenty of stops were needed on the way ,HS2 will not provide proper connectivity and before people shout me down the existing line is accesable at reasonable prices for millions unlike this other line which is for the privileged few.  

[lmsforever]

A friend of mine who worked for a ministry found himself in charge of MOD Bicester railways he always said it was a perfect system designed to deliver goods to every building ,shame the redundant brick built sheds could not have been sold off for business complete with rail connections.But this dose not make sense housing is the new buzz world god knows who will afford them here plus lots of roads and cars with little employment.There is still a rail connection off the the line to Oxford with container trains thank goodness but doubtless the builders will be lobbying for closure and buy the land cheaply.