Flittersnoop

So how many people actually live in Central Birmingham, compared to the Black Country, etc?

I think you are very much mistaken. The argument has been made on here many times that by removing the fastest trains from the WCML and thereby reducing the diversity of train speeds you increase capacity. If you retain fast trains to placate passengers from Wolverhampton, Coventry and Milton Keynes, you instantly lose that capacity increase. That's not "trolling", that's a fact, Bernard. Sorry.

I am making assumptions using the arguments put forward by fans of HS2 on here and elsewhere; that by removing the fastest trains from the WCML you increase capacity on the WCML by having all the trains running at roughly the same speed, with stops at the intermediate stations. You don't live in Wolverhampton, then?! Or Coventry, Milton Keynes, Nuneaton or any of the other places that will have to suffer a loss of express trains so that the "many more" people in Central Birmingham can get to London faster?

If you care to read my comments you would see that I don't decry building a new railway. I, along with many other people, just think that in a small, densely populated island like Britain, building an expensive, ultra-high speed line like HS2 is completely the wrong thing to do. More "classic" lines would have been a better use of the money.

Pity the poor sods in Wolverhampton, etc who currently have a good service of fast trains direct to London but, thanks to the wonderful "progress" that HS2 represents, will now have to put up with slower journeys or getting off at New St, walking to Curzon Street and waiting for the next HS2 train! Of course, the problem of putting a 125mph train on the new line wouldn't arise if the new line wasn't being so ridiculously and expensively over-specified! It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the only way HS2 could have been designed worse would have been for it to use a different gauge.

I think Cov has been promised three express services per hour. How many more stops can be added before the train stops being an express, I wonder? And will fares go down to reflect the poorer service? I somehow doubt it!

1. Places like Coventry have been promised that they will still have express services to London, so HS2 trains are very much "in addition" to the WCML. 2. "Onward connections" are part of almost every rail jouney. What percentage of HS2 passengers will live within walking distance of an HS2 station? By making HS2 separate from the rest of the national network you instantly negate the attractiveness of going by train for very many potential passengers. 3. Is it not the case that fares on Kent trains that use HS1 are higher (i.e. "premium") than journeys using the old lines to London? I cannot believe that a similar policy won't apply to HS2 to try to recoup some of the eye-wateringly expensive construction costs.

No, of course not. What a silly thing to suggest. But I do think that Pendolinos should be able to use the new line as a diversion route in case there's a problem on the WCML, or in case there's a problem with the fleet of new HS2 trains, or maybe even by freight trains at night. All those things would be signs that the new route really is another part of the national rail network.

A tunnel under the centre of Birmingham. If we are clever enough to build Crossrail under central London, avoiding all the tube lines, sewers, etc, then a tunnel under Brum must be possible, to take trains on towards where lots of people actually live, like the Black Country, the South West and Wales, and make HS2 what people on here seem to think would be A Good Thing, i.e. part of the national rail network.

I would love to share your fatalistic philosophy, but I keep remembering that the tax I pay is going towards the cost of it.

I am not uninformed at all. Your comment contains a big contradiction. You say that route is self-contained, but also assert that it will be just another part of the national rail network. Reading back through this thread it seems to be the fate of anyone not a fan of HS2 to be subjected to personal comments.

Because the "classic compatible" trains (which will rattlle around on the HS2's enhanced loading gauge) will have to be built to work on both HS2's train control as well as ordinary WCML signalling, thus making them more expensive. Just look at Crossrail to see how easy it is to make trains work with multiple signalling compatibility!

But it's not, is it? Nothing like it. Special trains, special signalling. If the new line had indeed been planned as a normal line to supplement capacity on the WCML it would have had my support from Day 1.

Surely a tunnel beneath central Birmingham would have been feasible? The GWR managed it 150 years ago, after all! No need to flatten anything much, and Curzon Street could have been made into a through station.

Because changing trains is a pain in the @#%*, and changing stations even more so. You were touting the usefulness of HS2 as part of the XC network, whilst the design of HS2 precludes extending any train services into Wales, the South West, Black Country, etc etc. HS2 is a massive missed opportunity. If you live in central London, Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds then great: otherwise, very disappointing.

Which is why it's a bad idea to have the Curzon Street station in Birmingham as a terminus: one of many design flaws in the HS2 project. A project that is the rail industry's big chance for the 21st century should not have so many obvious drawbacks, especially since its pricetag means it's very unlikely that there will be further money to correct these flaws for many decades.

From a politcal perspective there must be a strong possibility that HS2 (which is seen as an elitist project that rich people will use) will be scrapped and some of the money used for improving rail services in the north, which almost everyone agrees are currenly dire, so passenger trains might return to Ashington, and the trans Pennine routes might be electrified after all.

Much the same logic gives rise to the negative reaction in many people's minds to the prospect of a British designed high speed railway line!

Unfortunate, then, that it is common knowledge that the HS in HS2 stands for High Speed! I'm surprised the project hasn't been re-branded, as that's a common tactic used to try to change people's perceptions these days.

Almost everyone uses the banks, most people use the NHS, so money sent in that direction is perceived as necessary, if not actually well spent. The BBC is regarded as poorly run and profligate, so hardly a good example to use in the context of HS2. Boeing's shareholders should be very worried at the moment. Who are HS2 shareholders? Us, hence the alarm at the prospect of yet another major hike in the likely cost of the project. £107 million is a lot of money: £107 billion really is a huge sum to spend on a railway line that will be used by only a very small proportion of the population, especially, as I said, when the rail industry has acquired a reputations for poor value for money, unreliable services, missed deadlines and budget overruns. That kind of context can't be dismissed when it's public money being used.

Could it be possible that the only reason the cost of HS2 is an issue is because £107 billion pounds is a truly huge sum of money? Putting that sort of money into the hands of an industry that of late is associated in the public mind with poor value for money, unreliable service, missed deadlines and cost overruns was bound to be controversial.