HS2

[KingEdwardII]

10 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Most cars only have 1 person inside. That is a waste

That all depends on the journey involved. Trains are fine if the journey is city-to-city along an established route. But there are many journeys where the train rapidly becomes a pain and the car is easier.

 

Our own journey from Hampshire to Northumberland to visit family is an example. We can get a train from Winchester to Alnmouth - either the faster route via London with the hassle of the Tube or a taxi, or the slower route via Birmingham New Street. However, this leaves us with the problem of getting from home to Winchester and from Alnmouth to our relations' place. Expensive taxis or having to rely on our relatives to pick us up. We have always driven there as a result. 

 

We have used Alnmouth and the train once in Northumberland - to travel to Newcastle and to Edinburgh, but used our own car to get to Alnmouth station from where we were staying.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Edwin_m]

5 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

That all depends on the journey involved. Trains are fine if the journey is city-to-city along an established route. But there are many journeys where the train rapidly becomes a pain and the car is easier.

 

Our own journey from Hampshire to Northumberland to visit family is an example. We can get a train from Winchester to Alnmouth - either the faster route via London with the hassle of the Tube or a taxi, or the slower route via Birmingham New Street. However, this leaves us with the problem of getting from home to Winchester and from Alnmouth to our relations' place. Expensive taxis or having to rely on our relatives to pick us up. We have always driven there as a result. 

 

We have used Alnmouth and the train once in Northumberland - to travel to Newcastle and to Edinburgh, but used our own car to get to Alnmouth station from where we were staying.

 

Yours, Mike.

That illustrates how HS2 will only be successful if stations are "fed" by other public transport links, so as many people as possible can leave the car at home or not need one in the first place.  By serving city centres near the existing stations, it can take advantage of the existing feeder services (not that they are always very good!), but public transport in rural areas is always going to be much more sparse.  That's why HS2 also provides park-and-ride near Birmingham and Manchester, so someone can park there and get to the centre of another city where a lot of people have their destinations.  But most journeys from one rural location to another one are probably always going to be easier by car, because someone trying to use public transport will probably need a car to reach their final destination.  

[rogerzilla]

Trains are only economic if someone else is paying (business) or it's a single person.  As soon as you put two people or more in a car, the train starts to look incredibly expensive.   The problem is that the marginal cost of using a car is low, as most of the costs are incurred whether you use it or not: depreciation or finance, insurance, VED, annual servicing.

 

I wouldn't drive into central London for the day, though.

[Solderpete]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

That illustrates how HS2 will only be successful if stations are "fed" by other public transport links, so as many people as possible can leave the car at home or not need one in the first place.  By serving city centres near the existing stations, it can take advantage of the existing feeder services (not that they are always very good!), but public transport in rural areas is always going to be much more sparse.  That's why HS2 also provides park-and-ride near Birmingham and Manchester, so someone can park there and get to the centre of another city where a lot of people have their destinations.  But most journeys from one rural location to another one are probably always going to be easier by car, because someone trying to use public transport will probably need a car to reach their final destination.  

Sadly it's very true that railways cannot serve every hamlet or village in the country.  Buses are infrequent outside of cities which mean most people living in such circumstances prefer to use their cars.
Undoubtably good railway systems best serve those living in urban areas where there is usually better public transport to and from railway hubs.
However governments could do far more to encourage people to use public transport, rather than their cars, by lowering prices and ensuring that ALL new major shopping centres, sports stadiums, exhibition halls etc. are within a short walk of a good railway hub.
No new public facility should be given planning consent unless it is served well by ideally a station or secondly a good regular bus service to and from a rail hub.
One of the main benefits of living in a London suburb is that I rarely need to use my car.  Trains, tubes, trams, buses all serve the 9 million people living here well, but I recognise that not all UK cities have such good facilities.  HS2 will do much to promote public transport once it starts running, but if people have long journeys to get to an HS2 station it's popularity will not be fully realised.
 

[Solderpete]

9 minutes ago, rogerzilla said:

Trains are only economic if someone else is paying (business) or it's a single person.  As soon as you put two people or more in a car, the train starts to look incredibly expensive.   The problem is that the marginal cost of using a car is low, as most of the costs are incurred whether you use it or not: depreciation or finance, insurance, VED, annual servicing.

 

I wouldn't drive into central London for the day, though.

Not everyone owns a car so trains can be lifelines to many.  However I agree, fares need to reflect other options that are available to some. I.e. be more competitive. Fare structures and support are a government decision and remember we elect governments. 
Up until the pandemic fares were used as a way of discouraging rail travel in peak periods on some routes, simply because there wasn't the seat capacity to meet the demand on those congested routes.
HS2 will add around 40% seat capacity on the main north/south routes and that should allow for more competitive fare structures, if only to fill the extra seats.

[woodenhead]

HS2 will do a good job of mass transporting people between big cities, it will also benefit people living nearby the line where park and ride facilities allow them to drive a shortish distance and hop on a train to (and lets face where else) London.  People in London will do what they have been able to do for years and pick and choose various public transport options to get to Euston and speed north to whatever city is is they wish to visit but probably not onward travel anywhere else.

 

Covid19 seemed to be a springboard for people to use bikes more - ask the citizens of Manchester who use the A56/Chester Road how that worked out.  Even today there is a ridiculous coned 2 metre bike lane that takes out a lane of road at a junction that forces traffic to merge only to immediately unmerge to take a left fork in the road.  Sometimes the cones get moved to the side of the road before they come back....

 

But anyway back to public transport, what is really in trouble and I don't see anyone proposing a fix, although Andy Burnham is doing something, are buses.  Whilst trains and HS2 can help move people away from cars when travelling inter city, it is buses (and before them trams) that move people around short distances and in the rural communities, trains went to remote places in the past but many stations were nowhere near the towns and people had to walk several miles into the country to get a train.  Reading this week about more cuts to services for rural communities and it is clear that they are being left to rely on private personal transport like cars and if you don't have one then it is even more expensive taxis to get from A-B or move to a larger town or city.

[rogerzilla]

I ride a bike a lot and (pre-Covid) rode to work on one.  But even I don't think they're the solution for most people.  It's not the effort (that's a good thing - avoids the need to do any other exercise).  It's the weather and dangerous/impatient driving.  I can only cope because I've been doing it for so long and I still have days when I don't feel lucky, so take a slower and safer route home.

[KingEdwardII]

4 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

I wouldn't drive into central London for the day

We drive to the outskirts, park up and catch train/tube. Richmond/Kew is one location, while the new Elizabeth line means we also use Hayes & Harlington, depending on where we're going. Using the train all the way, e.g. from Winchester, is very expensive by contrast, and still requires us to use the car to get to the station...

 

Yours,  Mike.

[RJS1977]

On 27/10/2022 at 18:35, Pete the Elaner said:

 

A trick the government has used for roads is to build grade-separated dual carriageways: Slightly cheaper than motorways & almost as good but don't carry the 'M' prefix so attract less publicity.

 

 

Perhaps the most major difference is that bicycles are allowed to pootle along at 20mph on a 70mph dual carriageway, but not on a motorway!

[corneliuslundie]

I went from Newtown, mid Wales, to a funeral in Chislehurst on Wednesday. By train and finally by bus it was easily feasible in a day. A friend considered going by car from Llandrindod, a few miles nearer, but found that it was just about do-able, but decided not to risk it, ie the train was decidedly faster. For one person the car would have been slightly more than the train fare (with 30% off the full fare of course).

But as has been said the marginal cost of using a car is small compared with the total annual cost. It was suggested to me some years ago that it was typically half the total cost once one had taken into account maintenance, insurance, depreciation etc. 

So rather like the question earlier about how much does it cost to build a railway, one needs to take an overall view of how much driving costs, not just the cost of the petrol/diesel. But of course people don't.

I have to declare that I don't drive, so use taxis when I have to get to somewhere without public transport. They have got much more expensive recently but it would still be cheaper for me to go that way rather than run a car. However, if I had to pay bus fares the sums might be very different.

So this shows again that there is no one answer simply on cost grounds.

Which is why I thought we introduced the concept of cost/benefit calculations for public sector capital projects. Have they been abandoned for HS2?

Jonathan

[rogerzilla]

12 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Perhaps the most major difference is that bicycles are allowed to pootle along at 20mph on a 70mph dual carriageway, but not on a motorway!

True, but only headbanging time-triallists take advantage, usually at 6am on a Sunday.  Tractors are a more common cause of holdups, or lorries trying to overtake each other because one is limited to 56mph and the other is limited to 55.9mph.

[Pete the Elaner]

12 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Perhaps the most major difference is that bicycles are allowed to pootle along at 20mph on a 70mph dual carriageway, but not on a motorway!

 

I thought the same until they upgraded the A120 between Stansted & Braintree. There are signs prohibiting cyclists from using it. It makes me wonder how many other new dual carriageways have the same restriction?

[Mark Saunders]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I thought the same until they upgraded the A120 between Stansted & Braintree. There are signs prohibiting cyclists from using it. It makes me wonder how many other new dual carriageways have the same restriction?

Part of the A19 north of the Yarm Turn to north of Stockton on Tees!

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I thought the same until they upgraded the A120 between Stansted & Braintree. There are signs prohibiting cyclists from using it. It makes me wonder how many other new dual carriageways have the same restriction?

Don't know about new, but the Edinburgh bypass has been a no cycling zone since it was first built many years ago.

I think technically the difference between a motor way and a HA DC is that local authorities and utility companies are banned from digging holes in motor ways.

Bernard

[Kris]

2 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

True, but only headbanging time-triallists take advantage, usually at 6am on a Sunday.  

 

One of the local cycle clubs believes that it is sensible to run races on the A30 in Cornwall at weekends over the summer months. These seem to be mid morning / lunchtime on Sundays. 

[APOLLO]

The west coast main line service is absolutely abysmal at the moment.

 

My daughter travels daily from Wigan to Lancaster to attend university. She looks on realtime trains to see which (usually late running) train to catch, or if it is cancelled, a (usually late running) alternative. The timetable is a joke. She is busy at times claiming delay repay !!

 

Luckily there is a choice of four services, London Glasgow, London Birmingham Edinburgh (Avanti), Man Airport to Barrow and Man Airport to Windemere (Northern). She says the Northern are mostly reliable albeit with cancellations at short notice. Trans Pennine Express is - well - lets say she NEVER uses them (The rare as rocking horse poo Liverpool service that is, the TPE Man airport service goes via Bolton - both are totally unreliable). She reports most trains at capacity.

 

As to HS2 and the current financial situation, I think it will go to Birmingham only, with perhaps a connection to the WCML a bit further north. The Crewe Manchester bit will get canned / postponed like the Golborne spur. We cannot afford it now, perhaps in 5 years or so.

 

Time will tell, quickly I think.

 

Brit15

[corneliuslundie]

Presumably the Chancellor would much rather spend the money on dole for those who no longer have jobs on or as a result of the project.

Jonathan

[APOLLO]

Yes the subject is very political indeed. I am a supporter of the whole HS2 / Northern Powerhouse rail or indeed any spending on railway infrastructure - but Covid and Ukraine, amongst other things have changed everything recently, and those affects will be long felt by all.

 

Some are calling for HS2 to be scrapped, but we are too far in now, and the London Birmingham bit IS needed.

 

I am started to get concerned with some of the news / thoughts etc I read in the press. The current rail strikes / abysmal service (WCML etc) is doing our railways (and their future) no good at all.

 

Lets at least get what we have working correctly and efficiently, we have lots of new trains (some hardly used) - we need sufficient trained staff who (dare I say it) are content and ready to provide a full service day in day out as per timetable.

 

People (passengers) are getting rapidly pi$$ed of with our railway, many are leaving rail and will not return.

 

So sad.

 

Brit15

 

[Mark Saunders]

2 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Yes the subject is very political indeed. I am a supporter of the whole HS2 / Northern Powerhouse rail or indeed any spending on railway infrastructure - but Covid and Ukraine, amongst other things have changed everything recently, and those affects will be long felt by all.

 

Some are calling for HS2 to be scrapped, but we are too far in now, and the London Birmingham bit IS needed.

 

I am started to get concerned with some of the news / thoughts etc I read in the press. The current rail strikes / abysmal service (WCML etc) is doing our railways (and their future) no good at all.

 

Lets at least get what we have working correctly and efficiently, we have lots of new trains (some hardly used) - we need sufficient trained staff who (dare I say it) are content and ready to provide a full service day in day out as per timetable.

 

People (passengers) are getting rapidly pi$$ed of with our railway, many are leaving rail and will not return.

 

So sad.

 

Brit15

 

The problem is people who can’t see don’t care it’s only when you can see a problem first hand it doesn’t exist!

[phil-b259]

18 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Perhaps the most major difference is that bicycles are allowed to pootle along at 20mph on a 70mph dual carriageway, but not on a motorway!

 

Which is why the UK fetish for building offline all-purpose dual carriageways just so they don't use the M word (and can make the infrastructure slightly smaller due to no shoulders) is pathetic.

 

In the rest of Europe, they have not only been quite happy to build short lengths of motorway (sometimes even single carriageway ones) but they also are not afraid to have a 'expressway' standard (which falls mid-way between motorway and all-purpose which uses the 'happy car' symbol to designate the restrictions in force (in stark contrast to the wordy signs with lots of prohibition roundels we have to use on the rare occasion officialdom decides they can't get away with doing nothing)

 

(For the record this is not a new observation. Take a look at the 1960s upgrades to the A1 - Doncaster got its bypass built as a motorway (only 2 lanes wide + HS) while Grantham got plain D2 despite being part of the same strategic corridor).

Edited October 29, 2022 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

As to HS2 and the current financial situation, I think it will go to Birmingham only, with perhaps a connection to the WCML a bit further north. The Crewe Manchester bit will get canned / postponed like the Golborne spur.

 

 

The Crewe - Manchester bit is I agree at risk. The onward extension of HS2 from Lichfield to Crewe is on much safer ground as that can hoover up Liverpool, Preston and Scottish as well as Manchester services.

 

 

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 We cannot afford it now, perhaps in 5 years or so.

 

 

Infrastructure projects like this take years to come to fruition. You don't just 'pause them for 5 years - if it gets paused then that will be it for a decade or more. You forget that unlike Europe our politicians are far too concerned with short term interests and 'quick wins' - all the while pretending to the voters there are 'easy' fixes like cancelling infrastructure projects while at the same time giving developers carte-blache to throw up as many new houses and retail parks as they want (which will further overload our current creaking road infrastructure)

 

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by phil-b259

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

Take a look at the 1960s upgrades to the A1 - Doncaster got its bypass built as a motorway (only 2 lanes wide + HS) while Grantham got plain D2 despite being part of the same strategic corridor

Sounds just like the piecemeal A74 upgrade, except it is all officially Motorway now albeit some designated A74(M) and some M74. (What's the difference?)

 

There is a photo on the web of a sign where a M74 sticker has fallen off a sign showing M6 underneath!

That suggests it was originally going to be a full blown extension of the M6 to Glasgow

 

[Fat Controller]

19 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Perhaps the most major difference is that bicycles are allowed to pootle along at 20mph on a 70mph dual carriageway, but not on a motorway!

More alarming than the cyclists, to my mind, are those instances where there are flat crossings by minor roads  and farm accesses. Two former colleagues were very seriously injured when they were heading down the A1, and had a tractor and trailer pull out on them.

[Buhar]

29 minutes ago, melmerby said:

 some designated A74(M) and some M74. (What's the difference?)

 

As I understand it, if it's an (M) motorway it replaced the old A road, often built on top (the A74(M) in places). Ordinary motorways ran in roughly the same orientation as the A road which remained.  There's a wee bit of A74 south of Glasgow, the rest got single carriage-wayed and designated a B road or a B road was built alongside for local journeys and non-motorway traffic.

 

I think the M6 M74 naming issue was to do with which budget it came out of and also trying to appease the Scots by building the southern stretch with 3 lanes.

[phil-b259]

On 29/10/2022 at 14:25, melmerby said:

Sounds just like the piecemeal A74 upgrade, except it is all officially Motorway now albeit some designated A74(M) and some M74. (What's the difference?)

 

There is a photo on the web of a sign where a M74 sticker has fallen off a sign showing M6 underneath!

That suggests it was originally going to be a full blown extension of the M6 to Glasgow

 

 

It was.

 

 

What got in the way was politics... or Scottish Devolution to be more precise. 

 

As you can imagine the SNP are never going to agree to sacrificing a 'Scottish' number for an 'English' one.

 

However it should also be noted that the 1990s upgrade of the A74 to D3 motorway was in itself a political project designed to help pop up the pro Conservative vote and prove that devolution wasn't necessary.

 

Quite why the Scots haven't renumbered the A74(M) bits to plain old M74 though is still an odd one....

 

some links

 

https://www.roads.org.uk/motorway/m74/
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=M74_and_A74(M)_History

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33272&hilit=a74+m
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2307

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by phil-b259