RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted January 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2012 Now the 'antis' are saying that they'll be seeking a judicial revue to "have it thrown into the long grass". Apparantly it's 'unpopular' in three quarters of the population. By seeking this it could further delay the project and increase costs. Perhaps if they were required to pay for the enquiry if they lost....? If they do succeed when the roads and railways are at capacity and that supermarkets can't get their freight onto rail because path capacity and traffic gridlock and shoppers can't get their stuff, twenty years down the line we will all know who to blame, the lawyers and the priveliged sitting in their Chilton houses. A doomsday scenario, I know but who can predict...? I await with interest to see what is said on Vine's programme. At the moment there's the usual sniggering/giggling and references to the 'train line' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) For the students of the actual proposal, new revised maps of the proposed route have been posted today. Some are the same as before and others take into account the revisions announced a few weeks ago (December). Index of revised routes On the mee-ja they're still pushing the story of a station at Birmingham Airport. Someone needs to point out that it'll be nearly 2 miles away, on the other side of the M42. Birmingham Interchange The Euston diagram is still showing the layout for the former proposal of a completely re-built station, with all the current platforms relocated to a lower level, extending out beneath what is currently the present day concourse. I was under the impression the current government had ordered a scaling back of this project ? There have been at least 7 documents relating to this announcement released by the DafT today. Some of the information contained in them is unchanged from the last version, but there are a number of revisions and changes. A large part of the recent "review" seems to have been taken up by the Civil Servants and Consultants proving what they came up with the last time round. Well they wouldn't want to change anything, would they? No doubt a very costly exercise for no real purpose? Masochists who wish to read these documents can find them here. . Edited January 10, 2012 by Ron Ron Ron 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Natalie Graham Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 A 90 mile link on current estimates that wil cost £32bn - the cost per mile is astronomical The cost overruns are going to be enormous on a fourteen year project - it will make the overun cost of the recently rebuilt Wembley stadium seem like child's play. The completion date for this probably needs to be extended to 2030 in any case. The money would be better spent on the development of a true transport policy... dilbert It seems like an awful lot of money, not to mention digging up an awful lot of countryside, to save maybe 30 minutes on what is already not a particularly long journey. I wonder how many of the passengers on this route will start and finish their journeys at New Street and Euston. Not many, and for the rest a good proportion of their travel time will be taken up getting to and from the two termini on slow connecting trains, or on busses or in cars fighting through congested roads. I think there are many more improvements to the UK transport system which could be made with this money than this high speed rail link. A return to thinking of the transport network as a means to allow people to travel to and from all points, rather than an opportunity to sell tickets between two points would be a start. As to capacity. how do the passenger numbers compare to those of, say, 100 years ago, when the railways were also transporting considerable quantities of goods traffic? It seems as if, for all the new technologies, transport has gone backwards know it takes me twice as long to get to Glasgow from where I live than it would have done at the end of the nineteenth century, (3 hours on the current timetables as compared with 90 minutes in those of the 1890s) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted January 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2012 I await with interest to see what is said on Vine's programme. At the moment there's the usual sniggering/giggling and references to the 'train line' Apparantly Anthony Warrell-Thompson's dificulties (1st item) seem to be more important the the HS2 issue............another deep sigh..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I think that spending £32B for a small reduction in journey time is unacceptable. British cities are far too close to make 200mph running worthwhile, 125-140mph is quite fast enough and can be done using existing, but re-engineered, Victorian infrastructure. It is worth noting that HS1 is a long way from achieving its projected benefits, this railway is very much underused. Excuse me? 125mph running is JUST possible with the reengineered Victorian infrastructure that we have. Speaking as someone up in Scotland, 200mph running to get me down to London would be incredibly worthwhile; as it stands, why can we justify air services from London to Manchester at the moment for instance, you could surely walk that distance? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I wonder how the anti's get to their assumption that 2/3 of the population don't want HS2? Have they any survey figures to prove their point? They also spout on about the cost, yet we hear nothing about the cost of motorway building! I agree with some earlier sentiments about it not being considered as part of a longer term transport strategy, but then this country is renowned for lack of forward thinking when it comes to transport. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 10, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 10, 2012 I agree with some earlier sentiments about it not being considered as part of a longer term transport strategy, but then this country is renowned for lack of forward thinking when it comes to transport. I suspect much of this perceived lack of long term planning is because of the media focusing on just one area so other parts get forgotten. I suspect that there is far more planed than we are ever told simply because the politicians don't want to announce everything in one go - what would they do with the rest of their time? and people would simply say that the time scales being talked about were so longterm that it wasn't credible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ess1uk Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 There are already enough complaints that it is too "London-centric", building straight to the north won't make high speed journeys from Birmingham to Manchester possible. And as for Scotland finding the cash for such a project, they can't even complete a city tram line.... that's not what i meant i think instead of doing it in phases it should be built to Brum, Manchester, Leeds AND Scotland at the same time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 There is no doubt that the railway network needs to be improved for the future but HS2 is not the way forward. But neither is a further upgrade to the WCML, there are limits to how much you can 'upgrade' a railway. There are underused railways from London to the north and midlands ie Marylebone to Birmingham and the MML to Leeds. These railways could and should be 'upgraded' to perform the function, there is already enough land for four tracks on both these to allow the necessary works to be made for 125-140mph running. There is? Have you been to High Wycombe, just to pluck one location from the ether....continuous curvature, the existing double track line perched half way up a hillside through the middle of a town centre, i'd love to see your idea's for fitting a 4 track 140mph railway on the same land. Even if you then upgrade that enough (and you will have to be adding two new tracks through virgin countryside to most of it - apart from platform loops the 4-track section of the Chiltern line stopped inside the M25!) to be able to take the current very frequent commuter service plus a 140mph high speed service, how will you fit the 140mph service in between the frequent freight trains, stopping passenger trains and cross country services on the double track between Aynho and Leamington without quadding that as well.....and from there do you continue along busy double track towards Birmingham directly, or nip up to Coventry and join one of the bits of line which has been bumping along at capacity for a few years now....? Either way, if you're quadding most of that including going right through the middle of various towns and cities you'll be spending a similar amount or more i'm sure compared to the present scheme plus you'll be trying to build it on a live piece of railway - adding disruption and more cost... 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 And as for Scotland ... they can't even complete a city tram line. Larkhall branch, SAK, A-B. How many new railways have been built on YOUR side, pal? (that serve something other than London) Presumably news from the colonies hasn't reached that part of Middle England. Apparantly Anthony Warrell-Thompson's dificulties (1st item) seem to be more important the the HS2 issue............another deep sigh..... Jeremy Vine and considered current affairs analysis/discussion don't really go together. This evening's PM and tomorrow's Today on BBC R4 should hopefully cover the issue. I suspect much of this perceived lack of long term planning is because of the media focusing on just one area so other parts get forgotten. I suspect that there is far more planed than we are ever told simply because the politicians don't want to announce everything in one go - what would they do with the rest of their time? and people would simply say that the time scales being talked about were so longterm that it wasn't credible. More to do with the length of parliamentary terms IMO. If the gov.t changes colour, anything could happen policywise rendering plans worthless. So much of Britain's lack of long term vision is because of focus on tomorrow's headlines and proximity of the next election date. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I would like to learn from one of the opponents to HS2 just how they would plan for growth in usage of the existing rail network. Let them consider how long it took to upgrade the West Coast main line and how quickly it is filling up. Adding a coach here and declassifying a coach there is just tinkering and IMHO will not work. I think it would work in the short term....but ultimately as you say it's tinkering and eventually you will need to do something major - either something like HS2 or a massive capacity project on an existing line in 10 years time and you will have effectively wasted all the money you spend in the interim. Lets get this done and done right - with the Leeds and Manchester extensions detail-planned and agreed by the time construction of HS2 is underway. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Now the 'antis' are saying that they'll be seeking a judicial revue to "have it thrown into the long grass". Apparantly it's 'unpopular' in three quarters of the population. By seeking this it could further delay the project and increase costs. Perhaps if they were required to pay for the enquiry if they lost....? If they do succeed when the roads and railways are at capacity and that supermarkets can't get their freight onto rail because path capacity and traffic gridlock and shoppers can't get their stuff, twenty years down the line we will all know who to blame, the lawyers and the priveliged sitting in their Chilton houses. A doomsday scenario, I know but who can predict...? I await with interest to see what is said on Vine's programme. At the moment there's the usual sniggering/giggling and references to the 'train line' At ~€350m per route mile, this is a ridiculous cost. It's the benefits piece that is woolly. Does this means the revitalisation of the Midlands industrial heartlands ? This needs something more substantial than 'soft' cost savings based on a trip reduction time of 30 mins. A sixty year investment payback period ???Try getting a sixty year mortgage from your bank by stating that your yet to be unborn grandchildren will continue repayments if necessary. This type of project regardless of the nature of the infrastructure, rail, motorway, canal will always attract attention. I think that reactions would be different it this had been announced as motorway development. If this is part of a long term transport policy then it certainly is being embargoed successfully... dilbert Edited January 10, 2012 by dilbert 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It should be remembered that the LGV network in France wasn't built in one fell swoop, but over thirty or more years. The initial section started some twenty or so miles east of Paris (Lieusaint), and ended ten or so miles north of central Lyon (Sathonany). Lines towards Paris, and south of Lyon, and including the Lyon by-pass, were built over a further two decades. South of Avignon, and east of Marseille, the route remains to be built. Part of the reason for building something in this way is to spread the cost, but there is also the idea of establishing teams of people with specific expertise for long periods, rather than dumping them after a couple of years. Many of my wife's former French colleagues on CTRL had been involved on the original PSE line, then Atlantique and Nord, before crossing the Channel for CTRL. When that was running down, they went off to other high-speed projects in Taiwan and China. This was very much the way that BR's electrification programme worked, using both equipment and human capital over an extended period. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted January 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2012 Jeremy Vine and considered current affairs analysis/discussion don't really go together. This evening's PM and tomorrow's Today on BBC R4 should hopefully cover the issue. You're right there! He was as flippant as ever. The 'anti' spokesman that he had on was that ranting 'Stop HS2' campaign again Joe Rookin?Rudkin?. According to him, "trains will be blown off the tracks when they pass each other at high speed" and that "Euston Station will have to be demolished" (not challenged on air) and droned on about longer trains will cure everything. Obviously this twit doesn't have a clue about the operation of railways. An uninformed prat. If I were an 'anti' I'd be cringing at this moron speaking for me! I'm giving up with JV's programme. Yet again on another matter, what with his ignorance regarding the Spitfire yesterday, I could hear the exasperation in an interviewee as Vine clearly hadn't listened. Perhaps more concerned about his next 'witty' remark. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The spin on the story enacted by MiniTruth Broadcasting Corporation suggests to me that some of the execs live in the path of the route. Dave. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mike Bellamy Posted January 10, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 10, 2012 I don't know if it is a coincidence, but plans for a new rail hub between Derby and Burton, just over the road from the Toyota factory at the junction of A50 & A38, are back in the local headlines. Severn Trent Water are the land owners and perhaps they feel that now is the right time to cash in on the publicity and push for their development to be given the go ahead. http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/2-000-job-rail-freight-depot-deal-just-weeks-away/story-14354429-detail/story.html This follows on from the news last year that Marks and Spencer are building a huge distribution werehouse at Castle Donington which again is to be rail served. Seeing this building from the main road you don't appreciate how big 900,000sqft is but it's half a mile long and 100ft tall http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Rail-hub-M-S-centre-track-create-huge-number-jobs/story-11647526-detail/story.html http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Vast-warehouse-s-half-mile-long-handed-retail/story-14207814-detail/story.html Hopefully both of these projects will take up some of the increased rail capacity and reduce HGVs Mike 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidH Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Obviously this twit doesn't have a clue about the operation of railways. An uninformed prat. If I were an 'anti' I'd be cringing at this moron speaking for me! Except for the probable fact that many of them believe exactly the same: longer trains are the answer; no one outside of London and Birmingham will benefit; it's a waste of money; teachers etc. will have to be sacked ... But I don't blame them all sounding the same: it's pretty standard behaviour nowadays for lobby groups to make sure as many people are given briefing sheets (even if they exaggerate and make up "facts"). It's great when it's something you personally believe in, but if you don't it doesn't automatically become an evil conspiracy that should be stopped. This is the point of government though. Long-term planning about things that will benefit the country. We can't stay still, we can't prevent development, and I'm afraid change is inevitable. You've just got to trust that out of the arguments for and against (heard in more reputable places than a radio phone-in!) are listened to by sensible people, and that the final decision is the best one. One hopes, anyway. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold lakeview770 Posted January 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2012 I found it odd reading on Yahoo this morning all the negative comments about this project. Surely a project like this would help your economy by speeding transportation times? Also theres the green issue must be better for the enviroment? I saw one comment say were supposed to be moving forwards not backward which made me laugh or should we widen the roads instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Trevellan Posted January 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2012 It seems like an awful lot of money, not to mention digging up an awful lot of countryside, to save maybe 30 minutes on what is already not a particularly long journey. I wonder how many of the passengers on this route will start and finish their journeys at New Street and Euston. Not many, and for the rest a good proportion of their travel time will be taken up getting to and from the two termini on slow connecting trains, or on busses or in cars fighting through congested roads. Could we please stop fixating on the time savings for passengers as being the sole raison d'etre for HS2? It is the capacity freed up on the classic network that offers some of the greatest benefits. Having served in the public sector (local government and DfT) I am used to hearing arguments against projects which look at issues in a very narrow way. In local government I had Local Transport Plan schemes which attracted DfT funding, yet no matter how many times I explained to politicians and the public that the money could not be used for health or education, the same tired old arguments were trotted out. I concede that is very difficult for people to envisage the benefits of a project which is so many years away, but that is the nature of infrastructure planning. A classic example is Crossrail. The Central line has been horrendously overcrowded for several years now, yet relief in the form of Crossrail is still several years away - and still people complain it is unnecessary. There is something about the British psyche that focuses on the short term and finds it difficult to consider the future needs of the population. That sort of long term planning is not irresponsible - it is essential. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Natalie Graham Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Could we please stop fixating on the time savings for passengers as being the sole raison d'etre for HS2? It is the capacity freed up on the classic network that offers some of the greatest benefits. Having served in the public sector (local government and DfT) I am used to hearing arguments against projects which look at issues in a very narrow way. In local government I had Local Transport Plan schemes which attracted DfT funding, yet no matter how many times I explained to politicians and the public that the money could not be used for health or education, the same tired old arguments were trotted out. I concede that is very difficult for people to envisage the benefits of a project which is so many years away, but that is the nature of infrastructure planning. A classic example is Crossrail. The Central line has been horrendously overcrowded for several years now, yet relief in the form of Crossrail is still several years away - and still people complain it is unnecessary. There is something about the British psyche that focuses on the short term and finds it difficult to consider the future needs of the population. That sort of long term planning is not irresponsible - it is essential. Could we please stop fixating on the time savings for passengers as being the sole raison d'etre for HS2? It is the capacity freed up on the classic network that offers some of the greatest benefits. So why is it called a high speed line and not an extra capacity line then? What is the point of having trains going at 200mph if it isn't to speed up journey times. I will post about what I want to post about, you post about what you want to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Trevellan Posted January 10, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2012 So why is it called a high speed line and not an extra capacity line then? What is the point of having trains going at 200mph if it isn't to speed up journey times. I will post about what I want to post about, you post about what you want to. It is called HS2 because it is being built to high speed standards, just as HS1 was. And yes, faster journey timnes will be one benefit. I am not denigrating your views Natalie, simply asking that people take all the facts into account rather than concentrate on those which make good soundbites. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) ....I wonder how many of the passengers on this route will start and finish their journeys at New Street and Euston. Not many, and for the rest a good proportion of their travel time will be taken up getting to and from the two termini... Just picking up on this earlier question. New St. - Wrong station. The Birmingham HS terminus (currently being referred to as Curzon St.) is situated right alongside Birmingham Moor St. station. Moor St. will be joined to the new station complex and will share its concourse, effectively making one combined station. Euston - which is to be redeveloped, is expected to account for around two thirds or less of the London terminating or departing passengers. Old Oak Common is expected to take a third or more, because of its proposed connections to Crossrail, the GWML, West London line and possibly the Tube. As to capacity. how do the passenger numbers compare to those of, say, 100 years ago, when the railways were also transporting considerable quantities of goods traffic? Passenger numbers today are almost double those at the start of the century, which were similar to what they were at the low point in the 1970's and early 80's. . Edited January 10, 2012 by Ron Ron Ron 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmthtrains - David Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Very pleased this has been finally approved - though it was probably 99% certain anyway. For once in this country we have built cross-party concensus on improving our national infrastructure, and credit must go to Andrew Adonis for starting the ball rolling on this, and for Cameron and Hammond for keeping it going. There will be plenty of objections, using a variety of arguements (just as those who support it will use different arguements to state their case), but there are 3 important things to remember: 1, HS2 is designed to solve tomorrow's problems so is a rare piece of forward planning, 2, its purpose is about capacity - shifting as many passengers per hour as you can, and long fast trains are best at doing this, and 3, many of the objections around HS2 are the same levelled against HS1 (will ruin the countryside, birds will stop singing, badgers will explode, etc), and as anyone who has visited the line through Kent will testify, it has settled in nicely, the cows graze next to the line without curdling their milk, and everyone has forgotten what all the fuss was about. Much the same will be said about HS2 once its has been built, as they did when every railway, road and building was constructed up and down the land throughout history. A great piece of infrastructure that will have a hugely positive benefit to the country in many ways. A pitty that we are so used to being negative in this country that when something grand actually gets approved, we still want to have a moan... David 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 One snippet from the news... Flybe shares fell by X amount on the news of HS2 being approved. Considering that not one single route of that airlines network will be affected by HS2 and that it opens up the possibility of more business for Flybe, as they operate quite a number of flights from Birmingham, it just demonstrates how the wheeler dealers in the city run around like headless chickens, panicking and making spurious decisions based largely on ignorance and fear. To think our pension funds (for those of us who still have them) have been entrusted to these people. . 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Here's hoping for Ryanair then...! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts