|
Title: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 02, 2011, 16:45:23 I'm on the fence for HS2. I know the WCML is out of capacity, but I worry too much about the effect of services to Coventry (for example) being AXED to 1 tph and 10 minutes slower.
I also fear it will be like Ebbesfleet and Stratford - not integrated at all with the rest of the rail (or public transport) network. As there will be no "Nimbys" on this forum, it should be an interesting result, as no-one here will directly gain or get blighted. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 02, 2011, 16:53:40 We do need the capacity. All main stations will get at least a half-hourly service, but yes, they might well call at additional stations, like Northampton once an hour.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on September 02, 2011, 17:06:24 we dont need high speed we need capacity, speed is a luxury,and should not be put before capacity with the growth of train travel is needed!
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on September 02, 2011, 17:10:51 The problem seems to me to be that the many people who object to HS2 are people who live along the route between London and Birmingham and whilst that is as far as it would go for many years, will see no useful benefit. HS2 needs to be considered in relation to its proposed extension to the north and as part of the development of the national rail network that is desirable for many reasons that most of us on this website know about.
Many of the objectors do not seem to take any account of the indirect benefits of HS2 such as relieving the pressure on the non high speed lines that many do use. It has been a high public profile project. If you look at the recently opened A3 tunnel, this has cost many millions and benefits only the people using that road and the people who live near and will see less congestion around their area. But how many people objected to that scheme on the grounds that they will not benefit from it? I would support HS2 but would question whether it is necessary to spend 25% of the tunnelling at the London end. After all, it is not proposed to do the same into Birmingham. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ellendune on September 02, 2011, 18:18:57 The capacity is certainly needed.
The question therefore is how to provide that capacity. A high speed line makes it easier to separate traffic of different speeds. It also give a sporting chance of getting some of the travellers out of planes if the price is right. The option of piecemeal improvement of the WCML and lengthening trains will only help to an extent. Anyone who reads the RUS will see it is never going to solve the problem. Also pieceemal improvement brings more disruption to existing travellers. If you live in the Chilterns and only do business in London then of course there is no need for a high speed line. But without it the north which was once our economic powerhouse will be difficult to access. Unless the north does develop then the economy in the south east will continue to overheat and we will ahev to build houses and factories all over the chilterns instead! Those of us who have a UK wide business recognise the need. In Europe HS has changed the way I travel. I do take the train to Leeds, but Newcastle and Edinburgh I am affraid I still fly as the train is too slow and too crowded to work in effectively. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: eightf48544 on September 02, 2011, 18:23:23 Basically in favour but not at the expense of exisisting lines. I'd far rather have the GWML and MML electrified plus in fill so South and East of at least Salisbury is elctrified to include Hastings Ashford Uckfield (Lewes) Reigate Wokingham.
Then infill in London with GOB. Kew Curves, Dudding Hill lines. Thats beofre we look at wirng off the West Coast and cross Pennines. The leave Marylebone which ought be wired to Birmingham but at least to Banbury. with Oxford Banbury and Basingstoke Reading. Electrifying Marylebone Birmingham will provide more capacity between Birmingham and London. Also i think the London terminal should be an underground through station (between Euston KX with a link through to HS1 with a depot in East London so trains drop passnegers leave for the depot then return refreshed to pick up. Cuts down dwell time. Need at least 6 platforms maybe 8. Similar to Berlin HBF Tief. Agree with reflex that it's capacity we need we are actually too small a country to have an LGV. Our towns are too close together. Perhaps HS2 should be built form Scotland Southwards then the London Birminghm stretch will become imperative. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: TerminalJunkie on September 02, 2011, 21:22:02 Quote Don't care (for TJ) Ta. Although this time I picked one of the other options :P Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ellendune on September 02, 2011, 22:47:38 Also i think the London terminal should be an underground through station (between Euston KX with a link through to HS1 with a depot in East London so trains drop passnegers leave for the depot then return refreshed to pick up. Cuts down dwell time. Need at least 6 platforms maybe 8. Similar to Berlin HBF Tief. You would probably need to double the cost then. Already most of the cost is at the London end. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: anthony215 on September 03, 2011, 01:18:46 I am for HS2 , although that said i am not too happy about some area's getting a reduction in teh number of trains they have. Also I think HS2 should continue to scotland and will certainly take a lot of pressure off the west coast mainline which could provide more capacity for local services.
I did wacth the pete waterman interview on channel 4 on youtube a week or so ago and i have read his article in teh latest rail magazine and he does present a good case for HS2. I also feel for somke of these people who will have to move, but i do think some objectives presented by 1 or 2 of the anti hs2 groups are stupid.(I would call some of these people nimbys, but i got told off on another forum for it.) Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: smokey on September 03, 2011, 09:38:02 I'm for HS2.
It's Great to see the DfT standing up for Rail for Once, I expect pressure from Europe has a Lot to do with it. DfT's New Build policy has been ROAD, ROAD, ROAD, ROAD, ROAD, oh and Airports for well EVER, since the DfT came into being. Any New Railway. Road, Airport, even a New Canal will have those who say it's NOT NEEDED, in the Wrong place, too expensive etc. High Speed 2 should run from London & the South right through to Scotland. For those who fear HS2 will cut service demand on the West Coast, remember that a lot of Traffic on HS2 will be New to Rail, taken from the Roads and Air Routes. And a Simple Rule to protect the West Coast services would be: Who ever gets awarded HS2 to Run, CAN NOT be involed in running the West Coast Service So in today's game that would rule out Virgin from winning the HS2 Franchise unless they handed back West Coast. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Electric train on September 03, 2011, 11:29:22 And a Simple Rule to protect the West Coast services would be: I think DfT have a different idea to you, they plan to let the West Coast franchise with HS2 as part of the bid, DfT need to get the money from somewhere to build HS2 this is one sourceWho ever gets awarded HS2 to Run, CAN NOT be involed in running the West Coast Service So in today's game that would rule out Virgin from winning the HS2 Franchise unless they handed back West Coast. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 03, 2011, 16:27:58 Yes - HS2 will effectively become part of the WCML. So Coventry and Wolverhampton will have services slowed down and axed. I think this is the biggest worry - Coventry is actually a top destination from Euston!
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 03, 2011, 16:59:09 Although I believe the intention is to increase the frequency of the limited stop services , taking advantage of the capacity released by diverting the fast services onto HS2. A slower but more frequent service could be just as attractive in terms of ability to compete with driving times, by reducing waiting times.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 03, 2011, 18:51:32 I don't think it will reduce demand from COV so they'll still get fast trains in the peak, just fewer of them, as the train will still need to be as full leaving there.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Chris from Nailsea on September 04, 2011, 00:05:20 Well, having bided my time, I've now voted. ;)
And that allows me to see the latest scores on this particular member's poll. Interesting reading. :D ;D Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Rhydgaled on September 04, 2011, 02:18:45 Basically in favour but not at the expense of exisisting lines. I'd far rather have the GWML and MML electrified That's pretty much my opinion. I'd also rather it had a slightly reduced top speed (cutting it to 202mph would save a lot more electricity than it would extend journey time, and it's capacity that's needed more than speed, might be able to avoid any important wildlife habitats slightly more easily too) and some ajustments (the main one being through stations at Birmingham and Manchester, allowing London - Glasgow trains to call at both (joining classic lines around Preston for the run north)).Quote Also i think the London terminal should be an underground through station. Since the issue is capacity, I thought about trying to help GWML capacity as well. To do this, I though about the London station being at the bottom point of a south-facing triangle. HS2 would be an extension of HS1 across the top of the triangle, with a junction from both heading south into the through station. Southwards, the line would swing round to follow the M4 out to Heathrow, then run south of the GWML until it passes over/under the present line at Newbury (with spurs to Reading to allow slower services to come of the HighSpeed line and call) then heading staight to Bath (where Bristol services would go onto the classic line to Bristol) before turning south for Plymouth (using the existing line, re-routed slightly, in parts). I eventually decided I didn't like the idea of HighSpeed to the south west when I heard Plymouth airport was closing, meaning less poluting air travel to compete with.Agree with reflex that it's capacity we need Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 04, 2011, 12:39:21 ...I'd also rather it had a slightly reduced top speed (cutting it to 202mph would save a lot more electricity than it would extend journey time, and it's capacity that's needed more than speed, might be able to avoid any important wildlife habitats slightly more easily too) Well, it is of course true that energy consumption increases signficantly with speed, however we can't look at the energy used by the trains in isolation from the other modes that people might use instead. Lower speed means longer journey times and that has a large impact on HSR's competitiveness with air and road. So while a reduced speed high speed train will use less energy, it is likely to carry fewer passengers and take fewer from air and road. There is therefore a compromise between the energy used by the train and the ability to attract passengers, however deciding where the optimal speed lies requires complex modelling, taking account of alternative modes, you can't simply assert that an arbitrarily chosen lower speed (precisely 202mph???) will be better. Similarly, while it is true in principle that a lower speed would give greater flexibility in routing, the extent to which this would in practice can enable sensitive locations to be avoided only be worked out by a detailed review of the route map. I know CPRE are keen on this, but it isn't something that can simply be asserted, we actually need to see what different route options are available on the map. "Conventional" speed HSR still requires a very straight alignment. Quote and some ajustments (the main one being through stations at Birmingham and Manchester, allowing London - Glasgow trains to call at both (joining classic lines around Preston for the run north)). ... I fear your "adjustments" would involve vastly more tunnelling and hence increases in cost. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 04, 2011, 12:59:27 Any line to Birmingham has to cut across virgin countryside unless it follows an existing line of motorway. Whatever speed the line goes, trees will have to be axed. I'm really annoyed about anti HS2 protestors though. "HS2 will terminate on the edge of B'ham city centre meaning commuters will have to get a bus to the centre." Rubbish. "HS2 will be 80 yds wide". How about no.
Either they are extremely ignorant, or they are blatantly lying or deliberately distorting the facts. I think the noise is being exaggerated too - better than the din of the M40. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: TerminalJunkie on September 04, 2011, 13:18:41 (precisely 202mph???) I believe the phrase you are looking for is 'number plucked out of mid-air', which naturally leads to the expression 'silly plucker'. ;D Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 04, 2011, 13:23:27 Btline: I agree, there are some extremely nonsensical objections being made and I suspect few of those making them have read the detailed proposals properly. If at all. The "Fazely St station site is outside the city centre" claim is a particularly silly objection, given Chiltern's great success in attracting people to Moor St next door. Furthermore, in the alternative rail packages considered, it is clear that any future expansion of rail capacity in Birmingham, whether HSR or improvements to the conventional network, will all require additional station capacity and the Moor St, Fazely St site is the only practicable location given the lack of space at New St.
And an awful lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that the first phase only goes to Birmingham, despite it being a key element of the proposals that from day one classic compatible trains will run off HS2 onto the WCML via the connection to the Trent Valley lines. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: paul7575 on September 04, 2011, 14:20:59 One of the strange things about the recent consultation, is that despite all the vested interests trying to turn it into a debate about whether there should even be a High Speed Line at all, the actual question asked was specifically about the details of the proposed route. Isn't the theory that (despite Ms Eagle's mutterings) the overall project has cross-party support?
Will be interesting to see the reaction to whatever response the DfT eventually make to the consultation... Paul Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: paul7575 on September 04, 2011, 14:27:30 Btline: I agree, there are some extremely nonsensical objections being made and I suspect few of those making them have read the detailed proposals properly. If at all. The "Fazely St station site is outside the city centre" claim is a particularly silly objection, given Chiltern's great success in attracting people to Moor St next door. In my opinion the DfT dug themselves a big hole, by referring in various different publications and announcements to both Fazely St and Curzon St - pretty much at random. Given that it is to be a terminus station with 400m platforms, but with the only public access at the buffer stops, they should have just announced that the entrance will be on Moor St. Where the platform's opposite ends are is irrelevant to passengers. Paul Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 04, 2011, 14:52:22 I think it should be called Curzon Street and the original building should be incorporated in some way. Then restore the Euston Arches, and you'll have the orginal "Roman Road" style design. We should make the new line iconic and something to be proud of - unlike St Pancras; whilst the main shed is very nice, they've ruined most of station. The EMT, SE and FCC platforms are cramped, dark, dingy, windy and yards from LU. Not to mention that horrid concrete box they slapped on the station.
If it takes Eurostar, Bham Int should be renamed Bham Airport & NEC. Then the new station can be Bham Curzson Street Int. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: JayMac on September 04, 2011, 15:22:15 Fit for purpose before aesthetics.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Electric train on September 04, 2011, 16:18:22 My personal view is the current Governments choice to terminate at Euston and not Old Oak Common is flawed on the cost to build that last 4 miles and I see very little if journey time savings. If we look at passengers who are likely to use HS2 -
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: paul7575 on September 04, 2011, 16:40:22 I think it should be called Curzon Street and the original building should be incorporated in some way. Why? The original building is no where near being in a usable position. You should maybe look at one of the DfT's helpful maps... Paul Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 04, 2011, 16:48:35 I'm aware of that fact, thank you! I'm sure some use can be found. Even as rear entrance. I don't know. Otherwise it's yet another Grade 1 listed building doing nothing useful.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: anthony215 on September 04, 2011, 17:00:15 My personal view is the current Governments choice to terminate at Euston and not Old Oak Common is flawed on the cost to build that last 4 miles and I see very little if journey time savings. If we look at passengers who are likely to use HS2 -
I think a lot of people agree that old oak common is a much better place to terminate the HS2 line at rather than spend a lot of money to Euston it could also provide an economic boost to that part of london and area's surrounding it. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: grahame on September 04, 2011, 17:39:07 (precisely 202mph???) I believe the phrase you are looking for is 'number plucked out of mid-air', which naturally leads to the expression 'silly plucker'. ;D There are 160944 mm in one mile ... so 202 mph is 325 kph. I'm suspecting a piece of work done in a metric country that showed that a speed between 320 and 330 kph is optimum for something. Sources, please, Rhydgaled :D Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Chris from Nailsea on September 04, 2011, 18:06:45 Erm ... 1 Mile = 1609344 Millimeters ;) :D ;D
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 04, 2011, 18:20:12 It should be a rounded number. Either 200, 225 or 250. HS1 should have been 200. Ok, Europe uses km/h, but we now have silly dual unit speed signs, which are a waste of money.
You don't see the M20 as 70 (110). No, British ways start from the start. This is not an imperial vs metric post, merely some common sense. Seeing as we're going to be using mph for the pubic indefinitely, there should be no compromise. There is nothing to be gained signing HS2 in km/h. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: simonw on September 04, 2011, 18:49:50 There are several issues regarding HS2 that the government are avoiding.
These include 1 - For HS2 to deliver the performance required, the minimum gap between stations will be large, I am not even sure that London - Birmingham is far enough apart to justify HS2. 2 - If the purpose of HS2 is to provide more capacity, add more current lines on the current routes. 3 - If the purpose of HS2 is to provide more capacity, modify lines to allow double - deck trans. 4 - if the purpose of HS2 is to reduce travel time, introduce smaller, non - stop direct trains. I am sure that upgrading track on major lines adding, electrifying the whole network and extra track where needed would be a much better way of spending ^30B Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 04, 2011, 19:02:56 What about the East Midlands? Are we going to have 2 stations with the same name? I worry about South Yorkshire - won't Sheffiled want a station in the city?
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 04, 2011, 19:03:35 There are several issues regarding HS2 that the government are avoiding. These include 1 - For HS2 to deliver the performance required, the minimum gap between stations will be large, I am not even sure that London - Birmingham is far enough apart to justify HS2. 2 - If the purpose of HS2 is to provide more capacity, add more current lines on the current routes. 3 - If the purpose of HS2 is to provide more capacity, modify lines to allow double - deck trans. 4 - if the purpose of HS2 is to reduce travel time, introduce smaller, non - stop direct trains. I am sure that upgrading track on major lines adding, electrifying the whole network and extra track where needed would be a much better way of spending ^30B These are all arguments you have to support with some actual figures I'm afraid. You can't simply assume these alternatives are cheaper, indeed double decking etc is extremely expensive. The HS2 proposal documents go into a lot of detail as to why the particular route was chosen (summarised here http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/hsr-consultation.pdf ) and what would be involved in alternative approaches. Their conclusion is that the disruption associated with upgrading existing routes is so great that it is more cost effective to build a completely new route. No doubt criticisms can be made of the assumptions behind their calculations, but if you wish to do that you do need to understand what they are, and challenge them on that basis. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: paul7575 on September 04, 2011, 19:51:24 I am sure that upgrading track on major lines adding, electrifying the whole network and extra track where needed would be a much better way of spending ^30B But there isn't a sum of ^30bn just sitting around looking for something to spend it on. If they don't build HS2 it isn't simply a case of using the money for something else however railway related, just as it wouldn't be instantly given to health or education. Which also means all those roadside placards in Warwickshire which say something like 'high speed train or schools' are a bit silly... Paul Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 04, 2011, 20:10:48 The fundamental point is that the supporting analysis for HS2 concluded that spending the money on other rail schemes to achieve comparable transport benefits wouldn't provide as good value to the taxpayer. So if HS2 is rejected, it doesn't mean the other schemes will go ahead instead, indeed as they offer worse benefit to cost ratio then the Treasury is unlikely to be interested.
Personally I find that conclusion disappointing, as I'd prefer to have a steady process of incremental improvements to the existing network rather than a completely new route, partly because of the environmental impacts and partly because incremental improvements would show benefits earlier. However, if the economic analysis concludes that this isn't cost effective then we need to recognise that and understand why. The challenge for those who still advocate spending the money on the existing network is to show that the HS2 analysis is flawed and come up with viable alternatives that deliver better value to the taxpayer, if that is possible. Otherwise we either go ahead with HS2, or we have to accept much smaller improvements in capacity on the existing network, because the Treasury won't fund enhancements that don't meet its criteria for value for money. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Electric train on September 04, 2011, 20:20:15 It should be a rounded number. Either 200, 225 or 250. HS1 should have been 200. Ok, Europe uses km/h, but we now have silly dual unit speed signs, which are a waste of money. HS2 will be constructed to SI units, so no chains and miles it will be km, no MPH it will be KPH, loadings in kg and Tonnes and not lbs and Tons and the catering on board will use metric currency albeit sterling I expect Euros will be accepted as well.You don't see the M20 as 70 (110). No, British ways start from the start. This is not an imperial vs metric post, merely some common sense. Seeing as we're going to be using mph for the pubic indefinitely, there should be no compromise. There is nothing to be gained signing HS2 in km/h. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ellendune on September 04, 2011, 20:23:39 There are several issues regarding HS2 that the government are avoiding. These include 1 - For HS2 to deliver the performance required, the minimum gap between stations will be large, I am not even sure that London - Birmingham is far enough apart to justify HS2. 2 - If the purpose of HS2 is to provide more capacity, add more current lines on the current routes. 3 - If the purpose of HS2 is to provide more capacity, modify lines to allow double - deck trans. 4 - if the purpose of HS2 is to reduce travel time, introduce smaller, non - stop direct trains. I am sure that upgrading track on major lines adding, electrifying the whole network and extra track where needed would be a much better way of spending ^30B 1. It is nearly twice as far as Rotterdam to Amsterdam and Brussels to Lille, yet these are the normal spacing of stops on high speed rain in Europe. It is only a little shorter than Brussels to Koln or Brussels to Amsterdam. 2. We have been through the arguments on adding capacity to extsting routes with WC Route Modernisation. The cost are high because of the restrictions on working hours on the existing railway and the cost of disruption. 3. Double deck trains would require modifying every overbridge and tunnel on the line at vast expense and disruption to traffic. We do not have the luxury of the continental loading gauge. 4. Smaller non stop direct trains would eat line capacity as they would be going at a different speed to the rest of the traffic and would be shorter. (I am not sure why they would need to be shorter). Providing additional capacity is not going to be cheap whatever way we do it. A new line is likely to be the cheaper in the long run unless you think it would be OK to shut down the WCML while we upgrade it! Incremental improvements to the existing lines are fine if we are looking at removing short bottlenecks, but we are running out of them on the WCML at least. Incremental improvements over great lengths bring continuous disruption to traffic. Please remember London to Birmingham HS2 is an incremental improvement for London to Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Scotland Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 08, 2011, 17:25:39 End of poll.
*Clear majority in favour, although sizeable opposition. *Most people think the chosen route is best. Thanks for voting! Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Rhydgaled on September 09, 2011, 00:07:27 ...I'd also rather it had a slightly reduced top speed (cutting it to 202mph would save a lot more electricity than it would extend journey time, and it's capacity that's needed more than speed, might be able to avoid any important wildlife habitats slightly more easily too) Well, it is of course true that energy consumption increases signficantly with speed, however we can't look at the energy used by the trains in isolation from the other modes that people might use instead. Lower speed means longer journey times and that has a large impact on HSR's competitiveness with air and road. So while a reduced speed high speed train will use less energy, it is likely to carry fewer passengers and take fewer from air and road. There is therefore a compromise between the energy used by the train and the ability to attract passengers, however deciding where the optimal speed lies requires complex modelling, taking account of alternative modes, you can't simply assert that an arbitrarily chosen lower speed (precisely 202mph???) will be better.Quote I fear your "adjustments" would involve vastly more tunnelling and hence increases in cost. Vastly more tunneling, or small increases in tunneling with some track built on a deck above motorways (still expensive might be cheaper than the all tunnel option), would be needed yes. However, it would allow all trains to go beyond Birmingham. A new 140mph line could beat road travel on journey time easily and there's no aviation to compete with on the London-Birmingham leg, therefore no need to push up electricity useage to go faster unless you can go beyond Birmingham after calling there. That's also much better use of capacity, if you want to give Birmingham and Manchester 3 trains per hour each on the government's planned route, you use six paths over the line into Euston. However, route the Manchester services via a central Birmingham through station and you could give both cities 4 trains per while only using that number of paths into Euston.I guess it really depends on just how massive the increase in cost would be and whether the advantages of Birmingham being a through station would warrant that cost. I believe the phrase you are looking for is 'number plucked out of mid-air', which naturally leads to the expression 'silly plucker'. ;D (precisely 202mph???) I believe the phrase you are looking for is 'number plucked out of mid-air', which naturally leads to the expression 'silly plucker'. ;DThere are 160944 mm in one mile ... so 202 mph is 325 kph. I'm suspecting a piece of work done in a metric country that showed that a speed between 320 and 330 kph is optimum for something. Sources, please, Rhydgaled :D I used a graph on page 15 of this document: http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/56774 to try and estimate kWh per seat kilometre figures which came out at 0.054 for 360kph, 0.048 for 330kph and 0.047 for 320kph. Using the carbon intensity figure of 455 grams of CO2 per kWh from http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/research/T618_traction-energy-metrics_final.pdf, I estimate emmisions (gramms of CO2 per seat km) of 24.57 for 360kph, 21.84 for 330kph and 21.385 for 320kph. I chose the presice 202mph figure for publicity reasons. Firstly, since it is just above 200mph you can say you have 200mph trains, or that you have trains that can exceed 200mph. Now, since we use miles in this country, 200mph would make sense. The only reason I didn't use that figure is by going to 202mph you could call the trains Intercity 325s. If you don't think that particular trick would be good marketing then ok, 200mph would be a better figure to use. So now you know, I didn't just pluck a number out of the air at random. It is rather worrying that both the quoted studies, although being produced for British use, are using kilometres rather than miles. Since we didn't adopt metric measurments for distances back when we adopted them for weights and have speed limits signs displaying miles per hour all over the country I think we should stick with miles. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ellendune on September 09, 2011, 20:25:49 It is rather worrying that both the quoted studies, although being produced for British use, are using kilometres rather than miles. Since we didn't adopt metric measurments for distances back when we adopted them for weights and have speed limits signs displaying miles per hour all over the country I think we should stick with miles. Although you say we didn't adopt metric measurements for distances, that is not quite correct. The engineering professions adopted metric meaurements in 1970. I have been desiging in metric units for all my 30 year career as a civil engineer. Any professional study will therefore be done in metric units. For distances that are measured in kilometres sometimes a laypersons summary will be produced in miles, but not in all cases. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: inspector_blakey on September 09, 2011, 20:53:05 Although distances on the traditional railway are still more or less exclusively measured in miles and chains (and just read an RAIB accident report to see what an awkward mixture of metric and imperial units that produces) I have a feeling that 'High Speed 1' uses metric units, and it would seem a logical step for the same to apply to HS2.
Incidentally, isn't the HS1 linespeed 186 mph because that's 300 kph? Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: super tm on September 09, 2011, 20:54:07 All the distances on the heathrow airport branch are in kilometres
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: JayMac on September 09, 2011, 21:29:13 I'm quite happy either way. In most cases it's a simple bit of arithmetic to convert imperial to metric and vice versa. Despite being taught metric at school I only know my personal measurements in imperial and have to do the maths to find out that I'm 177.5cm tall and 90kg in mass. Equally I'm currently drinking a can of Red Stripe lager which contains 484ml of finest Jamaican nectar which I know, after doing the maths, is exactly 3 imp fl oz short of an imperial pint.
I don't have a particular emotional attachment to units of measurement, that just seems a bit silly to me. So if HS2 is going to be measured in metric that's fine by me. Let's see INTERCITY 325 on the side of the HS2 trains. A graphite grey, silver white and red stripe 'swallow' livery would look quite nice too. Still the best livery the Class 91s have ever had. Now waiting for inspector_blakey to come back and confuse matters with US liquid measurements..... NOTE: Edited to correct my bad maths. 484ml is not exactly 17 imp fl ozs. 483.023019464ml is. (Well to 9 decimal places....) Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: TerminalJunkie on September 09, 2011, 21:43:32 *Clear majority in favour, although sizeable opposition. *Most people think the chosen route is best. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias) Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 09, 2011, 22:27:34 I know it doesn't matter. But why have 2 systems? There is no chance of the rest of the rail/road network being changed, so why are little new bits or indeed large new bits done in a different system. The only advantage is so European rolling stock can be used. But of course, that means our trains have to be dual (like SE Javelins).
It was the same on the roads when signs went up "440, 330, 220, 110 yds" in the early 2000s - obviously someone thought they'd be ripped down within a few years and replaced with 400, 300, 200, 100 mtrs". Thankfully this practice has stopped and new signs are done in easy to use numbers for yds. Still - it's a shame those new Motorway markers are in km. I wonder how many confused commuters wonder how they can be 100m from work when they are only 60m (=100 km). But that dates from the M1 when the builders thought we were going metric so they put the emergency phone signs up in metric, although missing off the units. For goodness sake, we not going metric, so just put up the signs in units that everyone understands! Plus, when I'm crusing down the M40, I know how far it is to London without having to do a calculation to convert! (and yes - I was educated in metric) I hate this "we have to do it in metric to keep the EU happy, but then we'll make anything the public see imperial." Why don't we teach children imperial in school when it is the only legal system of measurement for road signage and draught beer/cider? Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Trowres on September 09, 2011, 22:33:07 The fundamental point is that the supporting analysis for HS2 concluded that spending the money on other rail schemes to achieve comparable transport benefits wouldn't provide as good value to the taxpayer. So if HS2 is rejected, it doesn't mean the other schemes will go ahead instead, indeed as they offer worse benefit to cost ratio then the Treasury is unlikely to be interested. The key is in the weaselly words "comparable transport benefits". There are hundreds, if not thousands of potential transport schemes around the UK that would yield a better cost-benefit ratio than HS2. Of course, speeding up local transport in say 30 cities at ^1bn-ish each doesn't yield "comparable" benefits, does it? Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ellendune on September 09, 2011, 22:41:20 I hate this "we have to do it in metric to keep the EU happy, but then we'll make anything the public see imperial." Why don't we teach children imperial in school when it is the only legal system of measurement for road signage and draught beer/cider? I was taught in both systems. However i really would not liked to have practiced engineering in imperial units. Dimensions are fine if that is al you have to do, but once you get into forces and fluid flow it is just so much more difficult and more mistakes are made. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: inspector_blakey on September 09, 2011, 22:46:25 Why don't we teach children imperial in school when it is the only legal system of measurement for road signage and draught beer/cider? Let me think...possibly because schoolchildren aren't traditionally supposed to drive, or drink draught beer and cider? Possibly also because the imperial system is a tired, convoluted old anachronism of empire and it's high time we used something infinitely more logical. Science and engineering (the disciplines that do more measuring than most) use SI the world over. Other than some mis-placed affection for an utterly hopeless system of measurement (perhaps a bit like the tatty, leaky shoes that you like because they're well worn in and comfortable) I see absolutely no good reason for keeping imperial measurements. And before you throw any arguments about 'we should keep them because the US uses them' at me, I'll remind you that the US and UK measuring systems are fraught with differences between then! Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Electric train on September 09, 2011, 23:04:04 Although distances on the traditional railway are still more or less exclusively measured in miles and chains (and just read an RAIB accident report to see what an awkward mixture of metric and imperial units that produces) I have a feeling that 'High Speed 1' uses metric units, and it would seem a logical step for the same to apply to HS2. Incidentally, isn't the HS1 linespeed 186 mph because that's 300 kph? Correct HS1 distances are metric and 186 mph is 300kph The East Coat Mainline electrification overhead line structure numbers North of Hitchin are numbers stated in km, South of Hitchin they are in miles, likewise on the GWML the OHL structures numbers are stated in km and as the wire make their way West the structure numbers will be in km. For example GWML structure numbers are J/06/05 ...... J is the route designation the first digits are the km and last digits the individual structure in that km. From memory routes are - A - LTS B - GE C - WA (Cambridge) E - East Coast F - Midland Main Line G - West Coast Main Line (Glasgow) A second letter is used for branches etc GB Rugby Birmingham, JH Airport Junction / Heathrow Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 09, 2011, 23:11:53 I was taught in oth systems. However i really would not liked to have practiced engineering in imperial units. Dimensions are fine if that is al you have to do, but once you get into forces and fluid flow it is just so much more difficult and more mistakes are made. I agree - but that doesn't change the fact that all the signs are in mph. Let me think...possibly because schoolchildren aren't traditionally supposed to drive, or drink draught beer and cider? How's that relevant? We teach children for the future! Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: TerminalJunkie on September 09, 2011, 23:13:22 Still - it's a shame those new Motorway markers are in km. Quote from: http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/16049.htm (http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/16049.htm) 14. Aren't traffic signs supposed to be in imperial units, not metric? For more than 30 years, distance marker posts have been provided at 100 metre intervals along each hard shoulder of motorways. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 09, 2011, 23:34:32 Read my full post. I'm talking about the new ones.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: TerminalJunkie on September 09, 2011, 23:49:06 Read my full post. Are you sure you want me to do that? The chances are I'll just find more of your silly mistakes, like this one: 60m (=100 km) 60m = 0.06km.(http://forum.simjunkies.org/Smileys/junkie_smilies_01/silly_arse.gif) Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ellendune on September 10, 2011, 08:37:13 I hate this "we have to do it in metric to keep the EU happy, but then we'll make anything the public see imperial." Why don't we teach children imperial in school when it is the only legal system of measurement for road signage and draught beer/cider? I was taught in both systems. However, I really would not liked to have practiced engineering in imperial units. Dimensions are fine if that is al you have to do, but once you get into forces and fluid flow it is just so much more difficult and more mistakes are made. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 10, 2011, 09:18:23 ... The key is in the weaselly words "comparable transport benefits". There are hundreds, if not thousands of potential transport schemes around the UK that would yield a better cost-benefit ratio than HS2. Of course, speeding up local transport in say 30 cities at ^1bn-ish each doesn't yield "comparable" benefits, does it? What is "weaselly" about discussing comparability? I fully agree that there are a lot of good local transport schemes that ought to be funded, and am worried that HS2 could reduce funding available for other transport schemes, however none of them will do anything for the problem HS2 is designed to address, namely meet future demand forecast on the WCML corridor. That problem doesn't go away if you give every city a good light rail system, indeed it could become worse because it would improve connectivity to heavy rail and thereby encourage further modal shift from cars. So the problem of what to do about capacity on the WCML corridor still has to be addressed, even if that means using ticket pricing to stifle demand. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 10, 2011, 10:53:42 I'm afraid I cannot remember the source, but seem to remember a graph which showed a fast enough HighSpeed train on the UK's electricity mix could have a negliable, perhaps even non-existant, reduction in emmisions over car transport. Therefore, I felt that for me to support HS2 it would have to be a compromise between being fast enough to tackle domestic aviation but slow enough that obtaining modal shift from road to HSR would result in a drop in emmisions. But unless the chart whose source you can't remember was based upon an analysis of how modal shift varies with speed then still haven't provided any objective basis for supposing that 202mph is the optimal speed... Quote Vastly more tunneling, or small increases in tunneling with some track built on a deck above motorways (still expensive might be cheaper than the all tunnel option), would be needed yes. However, it would allow all trains to go beyond Birmingham. A new 140mph line could beat road travel on journey time easily and there's no aviation to compete with on the London-Birmingham leg, therefore no need to push up electricity useage to go faster unless you can go beyond Birmingham after calling there. That's also much better use of capacity, if you want to give Birmingham and Manchester 3 trains per hour each on the government's planned route, you use six paths over the line into Euston. However, route the Manchester services via a central Birmingham through station and you could give both cities 4 trains per while only using that number of paths into Euston. I guess it really depends on just how massive the increase in cost would be and whether the advantages of Birmingham being a through station would warrant that cost. ... You are still speculating without any reference at all the detailed engineering studies that have been published! The cost of putting HS2 on a deck above a motorway would be staggering, and have you given any consideration to access for maintenance, disruption to the road network during construction, etc etc? Noise mitigation? Visual intrusion? And you've still missed the point about speed- of course there isn't any signficant London to Birmingham air travel, but trains will run to the north, using HS2 for the first leg, from day 1. This provides time savings that provide modal shift benefits on longer journeys from day 1, and obviously will greatly increase with the full Y network. Building a new 140 mph line would only reduce construction costs by around 10%, but offers greatly reduced modal shift benefits, and by attracting fewer passengers makes the business case worse. Making all trains to the north stop at Birmingham doesn't make better use of capacity at all, you'll need longer trains and seat occupancy will be worse, because it will be much harder to balance demand for different legs of the route. i.e. there will be empty seats north of Birmingham. Can I suggest you actually read the core HS2 documents so you properly understand what is proposed, and why, before you propose more alternatives? Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: paul7575 on September 10, 2011, 12:01:59 Can I suggest you actually read the core HS2 documents so you properly understand what is proposed, and why, before you propose more alternatives? The chapter that explains in some detail exactly why a 'through Birmingham' route is totally impractical would be a good start. They'd need a piece of desolate waste land on the right alignment, and comparable in scale to the Stratford railway lands before they built the international station box there. It just isn't possible... Paul Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Andrew1939 from West Oxon on September 10, 2011, 22:48:23 I thought this thread was on the merits of HS2, not on metrication where you can discuss the pros and cons until the cows come home.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Trowres on September 10, 2011, 23:56:37 What is "weaselly" about discussing comparability? I fully agree that there are a lot of good local transport schemes that ought to be funded, and am worried that HS2 could reduce funding available for other transport schemes, however none of them will do anything for the problem HS2 is designed to address, namely meet future demand forecast on the WCML corridor. That problem doesn't go away if you give every city a good light rail system, indeed it could become worse because it would improve connectivity to heavy rail and thereby encourage further modal shift from cars. So the problem of what to do about capacity on the WCML corridor still has to be addressed, even if that means using ticket pricing to stifle demand. Hi mjones, thanks for replying when the thread was in danger of being lost in the imperial/SI unit debate. I used the term "weaselly" as the report wording that you quoted might give the impression that HS2 was the best economic benefit on offer. I think we're agreed that it is not, and that there is a risk of bigger benefits being lost due to a funding shortfall. That leaves the point about a solution to WCML capacity being needed. I don't think I can adequately cover this in a short post as there are so many issues revolving about this point, many of which have already been debated in the context of motorways and airport expansion. Without having a prejudice on which issues could be the most significant, they include:
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Rhydgaled on September 11, 2011, 00:24:02 the imperial system is convoluted old anachronism of empire and it's high time we used something infinitely more logical. Science and engineering (the disciplines that do more measuring than most) use SI the world over. Other than some mis-placed affection for an utterly hopeless system of measurement (perhaps a bit like the tatty, leaky shoes that you like because they're well worn in and comfortable) I see absolutely no good reason for keeping imperial measurements. And before you throw any arguments about 'we should keep them because the US uses them' at me, I'll remind you that the US and UK measuring systems are fraught with differences between then! I'd agree with that statement, minus the bit I've put in bold italics. No matter how hopeless a system of measurement it is, when something takes a long time the expression used is 'it takes ages, and similarly if something's a long way away 'that's miles away. 'That's kilometres away' just doesn't have the same ring to it, and despite it being a bit convoluted it seems to invoke a sense of national pride, or something, that we have our own system. It's not logical, but while going fully metric would be a good idea getting rid of imperial would be a sad at the same time.And you've still missed the point about speed- of course there isn't any signficant London to Birmingham air travel, but trains will run to the north, using HS2 for the first leg, from day 1. This provides time savings that provide modal shift benefits on longer journeys from day 1, and obviously will greatly increase with the full Y network. Building a new 140 mph line would only reduce construction costs by around 10%, but offers greatly reduced modal shift benefits, and by attracting fewer passengers makes the business case worse. And your missing my point (or more likely I didn't make it at all clear), provided the figures I've seen are correct I cannot accept that running services between London and Birmingham much faster than 125/140mph would be justifiable on a purely enviromental basis. Taking other things into account limiting the max speed of the Birmingham trains sounds silly, but to prevent faster trains being enviromentally unjustifiable they have to continue beyond Birmingham.As for capacity with a stop at Birmingham, you say there would be empty seats north of Birmingham. What about the passengers who would then be able to use the new line rather than the classic ones between Birmingham and points north? They'll take some of the spare seats and that might help release capacity on more of the classic lines than HS2 as planned would. a 'through Birmingham' route is totally impractical I have looked on Google Earth. The site selected by the government for HS2's Birmingham station is an incredible find, a large open space right next to the existing Moor and New Stret stations. It wouldn't be quite so easy, but I can't see why the station couldn't be on the same site with the same southern approach if it was a through station. The platform lines would probablly need to be lowered a bit and put on a slight slope leading into a tunnel under the other half of the city to emerge near the M5/M6 junction. The tunnel would be very expensive yes, but not longer than the London tunnel from Euston to Old Oak Common. From there, a mixture of running above and alongside the M6 would be one option, or head north-east to finish phase 1 at it's planned Rugeley Trent Valley WCML junction (the currently planned route there from the M42 would not be needed either way). If you follow the M6 north, the junction with the classic lines would be at Norton Bridge instead.------- They'd need a piece of desolate waste land on the right alignment, and comparable in scale to the Stratford railway lands before they built the international station box there. It just isn't possible... Paul Yes, it would be more expensive, but impractical I think it is not. Therefore, I think it is worth thinking about to see if that extra cost would be justified to provide, as I see it, a more useful railway. I used the term "weaselly" as the report wording that you quoted might give the impression that HS2 was the best economic benefit on offer. I think we're agreed that it is not, and that there is a risk of bigger benefits being lost due to a funding shortfall. Interesting post, depending on aviation policy (HS2 probablly needs to be supported by a landing or take-off tax, otherwise the space freed up at airports by lost demand for domestic flights may be used for more longer-haul flights) I think greater enviromental benifits at least could be had spending the money on existing railways, particularly electrification. I pick up in particular your first bullet point, should we accomodate the growth at all or try to stop it? More to the point, can we stop it quickly enough without an increase in road congestion or domestic flights? If we can't, is there a cheaper short-term capacity solution (buses perhaps?) which can be used until we can get the demand under control? That leaves the point about a solution to WCML capacity being needed. I don't think I can adequately cover this in a short post as there are so many issues revolving about this point, many of which have already been debated in the context of motorways and airport expansion. Without having a prejudice on which issues could be the most significant, they include:
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 13:17:03 This thread has persuaded me to support HS2 (after being on the fence).
My concerns are now with integration. At the London end, they'll be links to multiple Tube lines, BR lines, Crossrail and Crossrail 2 if it gets built. At the B'ham end, MUCH more needs to be done: *Perhaps a link line from HS2 going into New Street, to allow services from Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley, and perhaps Walsall, Stafford and Stoke to be switched to High Speed running. XC services from Manchester to the South could also be switched as well as XC services from the Southwest towards the North East. *Midland Metro extension to Curzon Street/Moor Street. This will make the business case for more lines better. *A good interchange with the Snow Hill lines at Moor Street. *The walk to New Street will only be 3 minutes, but a better signed route though the underpass would be good, with fewer stairs and no road crossings. If this isn't done, HS2 will just be used as a "Parkway" service at Birmingham International. Commuters from all around the West Midlands may drive to the Parkway, instead of getting a train to New Street/Moor Street or indeed a direct train onto HS2. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 13:56:47 Need to remember that the West Midkands stop will be just that once the whole line is built - its not just a London-Brum link...
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 18:28:09 Yes, but we still need good links. At the moment, the plans are not good enough at the Brum end.
The same will apply with the new "East Midlands" and "South Yorkshire" stations - they'll need good links with local transport, other wise the Country end of HS2 will be just parkways. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 18:30:56 Trains will run onto the WCML beyond Birmingham, so what's not to like? I'm sure there's a link into Birmingham too....
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 18:32:36 For the people of Wolverhampton and Sandwell & Dudley, it would be good to have a link.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 18:35:19 It would, but youi can't knock down half of birmingham ....
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 18:42:29 You wouldn't have to. The line will be adjacent to the line into New Street. A simple double track link would suffice. No buildings would be knocked down. Have you seen the maps?
My idea of Manchester - South running via New Street would be to retain the Stafford, Stoke and Wolverhampton links. Obvs some could run "direct" down HS2 from Manchester/Lichfield too. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 18:43:21 Yes, I have. There's no room for another pair of double tracks into New Street.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 11, 2011, 19:36:01 Yes, I have. There's no room for another pair of double tracks into New Street. Indeed. The constraints imposed by the bottleneck into New St are well known, there isn't enough track capacity for current needs let alone trying to add a link to HS2, which will then require additional platform capacity, for which there isn't room either! BTline- you do realise that the approach to New St is essentially underground? The existing tracks occupy all the available space, widening involves digging and demolition. It is interesting to note that the alternative rail packages investigated in the HS2 scheme documents all involve providing additional capacity in the Moor St/ Fazeley St area, because of the great difficulty in providing new capacity at New St. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: inspector_blakey on September 11, 2011, 20:16:16 I think it's possible to over-do the 'HS2 versus domestic aviation' argument. For example, British Airways operates several daily flights between Manchester and London: these are essentially 'feeder' services for BA's hub at LHR, I very much doubt that many of the pax onboard are actually simply travelling from Manchester to London. If you are flying into or out of Heathrow from the north these are actually a fairly attractive option, as the cost of frequently little more than that of a longhaul ticket from LHR, you can check your bags in MAN and pick them up at your destination, and assuming you're booked in the same itinerary you're guaranteed the connection, in the sense that should your first flight arrive late the airline has to make alternative arrangements at their expense to get you to your destination.
For these passengers I doubt HS2 will prove particularly attractive. Of course, London to Scotland is a different kettle of fish, but it's going to be a while before HS2 makes it that far north and I would wager that until that happens there will not be a significant dent in domestic aviation. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 20:25:32 I am perfectly aware of the bottleneck. Try reading my post. I suggest putting in A LINK. A crossover. Nowhere have I suggested putting in a pair of new tracks into New Street! It's really quite a simple concept considering the HSL runs adjacent to the BHM - Water Orton line for many miles.
Third time lucky, if you still don't understand, I give up! Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 20:29:33 You also don't read all the posts, Sir!
Someone said there isn't any platform availability either! So where are your trains going to go? Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 11, 2011, 20:31:35 Hi mjones, thanks for replying when the thread was in danger of being lost in the imperial/SI unit debate. I used the term "weaselly" as the report wording that you quoted might give the impression that HS2 was the best economic benefit on offer. I think we're agreed that it is not, and that there is a risk of bigger benefits being lost due to a funding shortfall. I see what you are getting at, nonetheless I think it is reasonable to make the argument that HS2 is the most economically advantageous solution to the problem it is intended to solve. The fact that completely different scheme intended for an entirely different purpose somewhere else in the country has a better BCR isn't that helpful. If HS2 really does produce a good return on investment then the country will be better off as a consequence and will be better able to afford other schemes, elsewhere. (I realise there are controversies surrounding the UK approach to transport appraisal, e.g. the value attached to time savings, but those are problems with appraisal in general rather than being specific to HS2). So to my mind the argument really does come down to deciding how much additional capacity really is needed... Quote That leaves the point about a solution to WCML capacity being needed. I don't think I can adequately cover this in a short post as there are so many issues revolving about this point, many of which have already been debated in the context of motorways and airport expansion. Without having a prejudice on which issues could be the most significant, they include:
I fully agree that the above are important questions. A high proportion of the journeys forecast to be made on HS2 will be journeys that would not otherwise have been made, so it is entirely reasonable to question whether we should be concerned if there are never made. And I fully agree that there are serious concerns about the consequences of changing settlement pattens and encouraging ever greater travel distances. However, overcrowding is being a growing problem on the existing network and in the absence of major infrastructure investment will only get worse, leaving fare increases as the only method left for managing demand. I'd be concerned about the consequences of that- making rail travel unaffordable for a larger part of the population and driving more travel back on the roads, unless demand restraint measures are also applied to the roads. There's a danger that demand management policies are pursued inconsistently- limiting growth in capacity and using pricing to restrain demand on the railways, but still permitting growth on the road network and in aviation. So I remain undecided! I think the underlying problem is that whether we go ahead with HS2 or not, it is still not being considered as a part of a properly integrated sustainable transport policy that has at its heart the intention of reducing transport emissions, reducing the need to travel and delivering modal shift. If it were, the benefits of HS2 would be greater, because a higher proportion of journeys made on it would be from modal shift rather than induced travel, and air and road capacity freed up from people switching to rail wouldn't be immediately filled by new trips using road and aviation. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 20:31:52 Um... existing Wolverhampton to London trains don't need extra paths! Nor do existing XC services.
If you're talking about creating new services, the Bordesley curves could free up over 4 paths per hour into New Street. But I'm not talking about new services, simply a small rail link to get trains onto the HSL. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 20:34:41 You're not explaining yourself very well...
You want a link from hs2? Only hs2 trains run on hs2...so if you then have a link from hs2 to New Street, only hs2 would use it....? So please explain further how you propose this link works please Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 20:39:14 What's to explain?
The existing setup will only allow terminating trains at Curzon Street. It is a terminus - look at the plans. My idea will allow trains to use the HSL and then call at New Street instead of Curzon Street on the way to/from other exotic destinations such as Bristol Temple Meads and Newcastle. This is possible because New Street is not a terminus - access is possible from West and East. These would be existing VT and XC services. "Only HS2 trains use HS2" - not true, services from Glasgow will run WCML to Lichfield, before joining HS2 to London. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 20:42:40 *Perhaps a link line from HS2 going into New Street, to allow services from Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley, and perhaps Walsall, Stafford and Stoke to be switched to High Speed running. XC services from Manchester to the South could also be switched as well as XC services from the Southwest towards the North East. There - you see. You *have* proposed HS2 trains run into New Street. There are NO paths, nor platforms for these trains. Also, HS2 is HIGH SPEED, using them as commuter connections would be a complete waste. Quote *A good interchange with the Snow Hill lines at Moor Street. Already in the spec. Have you read it? The terminus is next door to Moor Street. Quote *The walk to New Street will only be 3 minutes, but a better signed route though the underpass would be good, with fewer stairs and no road crossings. Errr - the terminus is the other side of Moor Street to New Street. Chiltern advertise a 10 minute walk from Moor Street to New Street - so how do you calculate it's a 3 minute walk from the wrong side of Moor Street. Please get your facts straight if you want a proper discussion. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 20:48:02 "Only HS2 trains use HS2" - not true, services from Glasgow will run WCML to Lichfield, before joining HS2 to London. You're wrong, sorry. I'm right - no trains other than hs2 trains will be running on HS2 track - however, HS2 will run over 'ordinary' rails with other stock. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 20:55:43 There - you see. You *have* proposed HS2 trains run into New Street. There are NO paths, nor platforms for these trains. Also, HS2 is HIGH SPEED, using them as commuter connections would be a complete waste. Quote So if there are no paths or platforms for these trains, how is it that they run? As far as I remember Bristol to Newcastle trains call at BHM. Please correct me if I'm wrong (or trying READING the WHOLE post). Deary me... If using HS2 for non HS services is a waste, why are existing WCML trains being diverted onto the line at Lichfield? The VT and XC services I have suggested are 125 mph services not just for commuters. A major purpose of HS2 is to take existing trains off the WCML! Have you ever walked from Moor Street to New Street? If you think it takes 10 minutes then you clearly haven't, or stopped at the Apple store on the way to drool over the iPad 2. What rail companies say is irrelevant, they'll always exaggerate. e.g. 30 minutes for Glasgow Central to Queen Street. Rubbish - 10 at most. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 11, 2011, 20:59:22 "Only HS2 trains use HS2" - not true, services from Glasgow will run WCML to Lichfield, before joining HS2 to London. You're wrong, sorry. I'm right - no trains other than hs2 trains will be running on HS2 track - however, HS2 will run over 'ordinary' rails with other stock. I think btline is proposing that 'classic compatible' train sets would be used for some London to Birmingham services, instead of the dedicated european guage trains that will run only on HS2, enabling them to run into New St and hence to Wolverhampton by a connection somewhere on the Water Orton line. This assumes the Water Orton line is electrified, though I think that is proposed anyway, so that alone isn't insurmountable. But the classic compatible trains are much more expensive than the ones that will be dedicated to the high speed line, which will increase costs, then there is the problem of slots in New St etc etc. The dedicated HS2 trains will also be much longer than the classic compatible, so more trains will be needed, requiring more HS2 slots, making it even less cost effective. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 11, 2011, 21:03:28 So if there are no paths or platforms for these trains, how is it that they run? As far as I remember Bristol to Newcastle trains call at BHM. Please correct me if I'm wrong (or trying READING the WHOLE post). Deary me... If using HS2 for non HS services is a waste, why are existing WCML trains being diverted onto the line at Lichfield? The VT and XC services I have suggested are 125 mph services not just for commuters. A major purpose of HS2 is to take existing trains off the WCML! Possible misunderstanding here: all the trains that will run on HS2 will be high speed. The 'classic compatible' services to the North will all be high speed while they run on HS2 itself. They aren't proposing to divert Pendolino services onto HS2. Putting 125 (or even 140) mph trains onto HS2 would waste capacity as they'd get in the way of the high speed services going at up to 250mph. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 21:05:34 So if there are no paths or platforms for these trains, how is it that they run? As far as I remember Bristol to Newcastle trains call at BHM. Please correct me if I'm wrong (or trying READING the WHOLE post). Deary me... I did read your whole post - indeed, I've quoted most of it above. You seem to be confused. First you suggest a link from HS2 to New Street. New street is currently full, so no HS2 trains could use this link into New Street. Quote If using HS2 for non HS services is a waste, why are existing WCML trains being diverted onto the line at Lichfield? They're NOT. Read the document. It's the other way around - HS2 are being diverted onto WCML, not non-HS services being diverted onto HS2. Quote The VT and XC services I have suggested are 125 mph services not just for commuters. A major purpose of HS2 is to take existing trains off the WCML! You haven't read the document, have you. No it's not at all. WCML trains will only still run down the WCML to Euston. Quote Have you ever walked from Moor Street to New Street? Yup, at least twice a week,m every week. It's slower to go through trhe Bull ring too. Use the underpass & you only have to cross roads twice, both at traffic light controlled crossings. You can't do it in 5 minutes from Moor Street barriers to New Street 'barrier' in 5 minutes, but you can in 10 minutes. So 10 minutes is what they use. I was with Chiltern when we stopwatched it! Where were you? Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: inspector_blakey on September 11, 2011, 21:06:48 Ladies and gentlemen - can I remind you please to attempt to keep the tone of your discussions civil? There's nothing wrong with a robust exchange of sincerely held opinions, but this thread looks like it's in danger of degenerating in the same way that the Cotswold Line thread has done in recent days.
This is a warning shot for now, but if things dissolve further then appropriate action will be taken. Thanks for your understanding. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 21:17:43 Of course Pendolinos won't run on HS2 - they can only operate at 140mph! How would they fit in with the 250mph services? ::) Any trains using HS2 will be the "classic compatible" ones, similar to Eurostar.
I have not made a mistake - some WCML trains will run down HS2 from day 1. HS2 is not just about London to Bham. I give up trying to explain. Mjones understands. I apologise if I have been "forceful" in my discussion, but I'm afraid it is very frustrating for someone to misinterpret a pretty simple concept multiple times. If it took you 10 minutes to walk you were walking slowly. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 11, 2011, 21:24:25 Of course Pendolinos won't run on HS2 - they can only operate at 140mph! How would they fit in with the 250mph services? ::) Any trains using HS2 will be the "classic compatible" ones, similar to Eurostar. I have not made a mistake - some WCML trains will run down HS2 from day 1. HS2 is not just about London to Bham. I give up trying to explain. Mjones understands. I apologise if I have been "forceful" in my discussion, but I'm afraid it is very frustrating for someone to misinterpret a pretty simple concept multiple times. If it took you 10 minutes to walk you were walking slowly. I understand that you are proposing classic compatible services from London going via New St instead of terminating at Curzon St, though the increased costs and capacity constraints already mentioned are still a problem. But I remain confused by your reference to services from Bristol and Newcastle, where do you see them fitting in? (Edit, to clarify: Bristol to Birmingham isn't electrified, so not available to classic compatible services, even if the costs were justified. Nor could the classic compatible services continue to Newcastle until the eastern Y route is built, unless further electrification of the classic cross country network is done). Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 11, 2011, 21:47:44 Of course Pendolinos won't run on HS2 - they can only operate at 140mph! How would they fit in with the 250mph services? ::) Any trains using HS2 will be the "classic compatible" ones, similar to Eurostar. Did I miss you mentioning 'classic compatible' trains in an earlier post? I'm sure I didn't...... Can you point me to where these non-hs2 trains are mentioned in the published proposal, because I can't see them..... Indeed, how are you suggesting these reach Birmingham & Wolverhampton? You accept that there are no paths for them, so which trains are you replacing? And platform lengthening perchance at Wolves? Because they're full too for terminators. Quote I have not made a mistake - some WCML trains will run down HS2 from day 1. HS2 is not just about London to Bham. All I have seen is HS2 trains either to Curzon Street or onto the WCML at Lichfield onto Manchester & Liverpool. Please advise where I can read about the trains you suggest? Quote I give up trying to explain. Mjones understands. I apologise if I have been "forceful" in my discussion, but I'm afraid it is very frustrating for someone to misinterpret a pretty simple concept multiple times. As I said, if you'd explained about classic compatible, the confusion would have been dealt with. But I suspect that's more you proposing them than the Government. Because what happens to them when they extend the line north & they need the HS2 paths for further HS2 trains..... Quote If it took you 10 minutes to walk you were walking slowly. With respect, you failed to read my post. I said more than 5 minutes but not as much as 10. But because you can't advertise 5 minutes, they chose to go with 10. I'd like to see you do Moor Street barriers to New Street 'barrier' in 5 minutes. Especially during the day when you can't just wander straght across the roads. It's impossible. [/quote] Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 22:14:05 I was assuming the Y had been built and Bristol to Bromsgrove had been electrified. Fantasy land perhaps... ;D
Manchester to Reading is possible though, calling at Stockport, stations to New Street, Brum Int, Old Oak (Heathrow?) and Reading. VT already run services from Wolverhampton to Euston every hour. I was suggesting that they were diverted onto HS2. One train a day runs non stop from New Street so it would make perfect sense! Of course, the links and services to Coventry would have to be considered. It was just an idea to ensure as much of the West Mids benefitted as possible. My overlying point is that I think Brum branch trains just stopping at Curson Street makes HS2 feel "separate" to the rest of the network. A bit like SE HS1 services do. We should integrate as much as possible so that you're just boarding a "normal" train that just happens to be using the HSL for part of its journey and is made of classic compatible stock. Also, we need Ashford to Leeds and Margate to Manchester - but that's another story... Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ellendune on September 11, 2011, 22:52:37 If HS2 is to live up to its name (High Speed) it cannot stop at every IC station. Stops need to be no less 50 miles apart on average and probably nearer 100 miles. So if you want services to Wolverhampton it could only be a change at Birmingham.
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: inspector_blakey on September 11, 2011, 23:18:08 So let's get this straight Btline... You seem to want Cotswold Line services to burn from Worcester straight through to London with very few intermediate stops, thereby carrying around large numbers of empty seats from the passenger numbers that there aren't at the western end of the line. But you'd like HS2 to limp along calling at every significant settlement along the way...?
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 11, 2011, 23:31:07 But Wolverhampton isn't on HS2! I don't think I've proposed any additional stops apart from suggesting Milton Keynes (which I don't agree with anyway).
None of my proposed services would involve slowing down or additional stops. On the contrary, it would involve fewer stops. Wolverhampton to Euston minus Coventry and Rugby. Bristol to Newcastle minus Tamworth, Burton, etc. Where have I suggest that a train calls at every settlement along HS2. Indeed is there a decent settlement along the route? I'm talking about getting the most out of HS2 - diverting stuff onto it (using 250mph stock). Nothing would make "additional stops" when on HS2. The debate on whether there should be a parkway station halfway between Brum and London is a different story (I would argue not - others may disagree - please share). Inspector Blakey - I could argue that if full size trains terminate at Curzon street every 20 mins, there could be lots of seats. My plans to extend them could encourage more in the West Mids to travel on them. Your comparison to Cotswold is somewhat confused. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Rhydgaled on September 11, 2011, 23:42:12 I think what Btline is suggesting is that the existing Pendolino operated Euston - Wolverhampton trains (via WCML) cease to exist. They would then be replaced with Euston - Wolverhampton (via HS2) services using classic-compatable HS2 stock.
There would be no problem with paths at New Street in that scenario, but the new service (because it would be routed via HS2) would not be able to observe any stops the Euston - Wolverhampton services currently makes between Birmingham and Euston. Any such stations would therefore get a reduced frequency of services to Birmingham as the path at New Street would still be taken. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 12, 2011, 09:15:09 So, how do the WCML stations get served then?.....Pax from those stations will be unablde to access HS" and will still expect their fast services. Maybe he thinks London Midland have the speed & capacity on their trains?
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 12, 2011, 10:15:01 Taking the Wolverhampton route: After HS2 the frequency would be cut anyway both VT and LM. The only place that would still need fast services would be Coventry as the other stops would be covered by service from Trent Valley and Northampton. Trains can terminate at Brum Int. A local from New Street could run fast after Coventry. Lots of possibilities that involve no new paths. My way sees that Wolverhampton and Dudley retain a fast link to London i.e. Actually benefit from HS2 unlike at the moment.
For XC: local services along the route. There is already a plan for tamworth to moor street. Places like Chesterfield are on MML etc. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 12, 2011, 10:33:37 Taking the Wolverhampton route: After HS2 the frequency would be cut anyway both VT and LM. The only place that would still need fast services would be Coventry as the other stops would be covered by service from Trent Valley and Northampton. If your purposer it to retain fast services rom Wolves & Dudley, then why are you suggesting Trent Valley services be slowed down for Rugby & the other stops?....seems perverse to me, like robbing Peter to pay Paul. And you think they'll order more Javelin-type stock just for Wolves & Dudley? You're kidding aren't you? And when HS2 phase 2 asnd more get built, and those paths get needed by trains from the North, what happens to your Javelin-type services to Wolves etc?....So they get cut again a decade down the timescale. Isn't that a serious waste of money?.... A fast service from Wolves & Dudley to the Birmingham Parkway station is the obvious solution, with current WCML services to Euston slimmed down (which we seem to agree will happen) to make way for these fast feeder services. No new stock requitred, no extra paths needed either. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 12, 2011, 11:54:21 Trent Valley services are likely to be increased. They are already pretty slow and infrequent. My idea would speed up services.
Your idea of a "feeder" service is interesting, although I think it should just continue to London. But you raise a good point, with only 2 tracks, and the possibility of pretty much all WCML, ECML and MML services diverted to HS2 (services beyond Manchester and Leeds using clasic compatible stock), are we going to run out of space? Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 12, 2011, 12:28:49 Trent Valley services are likely to be increased. They are already pretty slow and infrequent. My idea would speed up services. Pray explain that then. You've just suggested ADDING stops to Trent Valley services which SLOW them down. Quote Your idea of a "feeder" service is interesting, although I think it should just continue to London. But you raise a good point, with only 2 tracks, and the possibility of pretty much all WCML, ECML and MML services diverted to HS2 (services beyond Manchester and Leeds using clasic compatible stock), are we going to run out of space? No we're not, because the Government's (NOT mine) idea is NOT to have any more Javelin services but feeder services to Birmingham Parkway. You need to solve the running out of paths problem before you can call your idea anything more than a badly thought-out idea. Also, work out where all the money for these extra trains is coming from. Your various ideas in many threads are spending money like this country has 100% GDP increases every year....and what is happening to all the current stock that is currently running the services that you propose to run down HS2.... Please think your ideas through before posting them, otherwise we'll all just stop discussing them. It only seems to be me anyway.... Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Phil on September 12, 2011, 12:53:12 Please think your ideas through before posting them, otherwise we'll all just stop discussing them. It only seems to be me anyway.... Ah, but it's quite entertaining sitting back and watching you two point-scoring! Have to confess this isn't a subject which I have any strong views over, other than thinking any investment at all in new railway track has to be a positive thing. Anyway, please carry on :D Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 12, 2011, 12:58:37 With respect, it's probably because others understood what I meant.
As far as "what does the other stock do" - umm, what is the point of HS2? To increase capacity so the Pendolinos can run extra, faster services for Northampton, Milton Keynes, Trent Valley etc. Besides, by the time HS2 is built, they'll probs be nearing retirement! ::) :D HS2 must be "part of the rail network", not a separate railway. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 12, 2011, 14:04:50 By the time its fully built, there will be no spare paths on HS2, for your trains, amd no money for the extra trains which would have a short life owing to lack of eventual paths.
In your (unrealistic) dreams again, say I Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: Btline on September 16, 2011, 00:13:19 Here is a link to a report which demonstrates what WCML enhancements and new services could result from HS2. (includes the FGW area)
http://www.greengauge21.net/publications/capturing-the-benefits-of-hs2-on-existing-lines/ It benefits many of the areas "blighted" by HS2: including Lichfield, Kenilworth and the Chilterns. It also mitigates Coventry by adding a 3rd tph to Marylebone and Wolverhampton trains only have one extra stop. I know it's only a study - but if anything like what's in this report occurs, I'm definitely in favour of HS2! Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: JayMac on September 16, 2011, 11:47:17 From the Huffington Post UK (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/09/15/hidden-costs-in-high-spee_n_965010.html):
Quote HS2: ^30 Billion In Hidden Costs For High Speed Rail, Says Report More than ^28 billion of taxpayers^ money will be needed to cover the hidden costs of the High Speed Two (HS2) project, according to an investigation championed by the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA). Rising costs and lower revenues associated with recent pledges made by the Department of Transport are to blame, claims the report. Critics of HS2 argue that ^10 billion will be added to the bill by Cross Rail 2 - the Chelsea to Hackney line - that will have to be built to ease pressure on London Underground lines from Euston, according to the TPA. Offsetting environmental concerns, such as going underground to avoid visual disruption, will cost an estimated additional ^3 billion, it says. However, Professor David Begg, Director of the Campaign for HS2, called the TPA report a ^work of imaginative fiction^. He said: ^Anybody can make up a set of figures for spending that may have to happen in the future. Unfortunately, the key thing this 'research note' lacks is any evidence or research. The TPA has nothing constructive to say about how Britain^s railway capacity crisis can be helped. Instead of just carping and criticising from the sidelines, they should realise that HS2 is the best option for taxpayers and passengers.^ Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng, a member of the transport select committee, agreed with Begg. Speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), he said: ^Any input into the model can come up with any answer you want. It is simply the case that it is all dependent on the assumptions you make. It does not take an Einstein or even a sophisticated mathematician to manipulate those assumptions to find the figures you want.^ The proposed high speed service is not designed to affect the regularity of existing trains. Theresa Villiers, Minister of State for Transport, pledged earlier this year that local trains will continue to run frequently. However if there are no cuts to local services, then no savings are made, argues the TPA, adding ^5.4 billion to the overall cost Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "They^ve been promising the world but meeting their pledges would add billions to the already frightening price tag attached to the current plans. There is no way taxpayers can afford the hidden costs of HS2. It would be completely unfair to heap this further burden on them at a time when taxes are rising and other areas of spending are being cut." Flaws in predicted revenue are also criticised by the report. The project relies on the assumption that many more people will be using rail by the time of HS2^s completion. Kwarteng acknowledged this, saying: ^I've seen the benefit-cost analysis and I agree that it is based on extraordinary assumptions: that is that rail demand will increase from now till 2043. If it stops in 2026, then it makes no sense; there will be no benefit. I^ve seen those figures... there are risks, everything in life has risks, but if you balance the risks I think this is an excellent project... railways have been subsidised by the government since the nineteenth century." Over enthusiastic predictions have led to previous projects failing, say the TPA. Their research quotes a 2010 document from rating agency Fitch, which states: ^Historically, the agency has observed that the assessment of rail demand has displayed a significant optimism bias, particularly for Greenfield projects... Rail projects are often high profile. This exposes them to 'political entrepreneur syndrome', where the public authorities overestimate the benefits of the project to get it approved for the purpose of political gain.^ David Bayliss, an engineer from the RAC Foundation, agreed. Speaking at the IEA event, he said: ^As an engineer I am excited by the concept of high speed rail... but I am afraid this proposal is an example of naive enthusiasm over hard-headed realism.^ The government will announce their decision in December after further consultation. If the plans go ahead, building could start by 2017. Kyn Aizlewood, an economic consultant and the co-author of 'High Speed 2: the next government project disaster?' said: ^There is consensus among people that we need continued investment in infrastructure, however I don^t believe HS2 is a good thing.^ Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 16, 2011, 12:44:08 So Crossrail 2 will be solely for the purpose of carrying HS2 passengers, it provides no other benefit. ::)
And this statement: "if there are no cuts to local services, then no savings are made" shows that they don't understand at all (or chose to ignore...) the function of HS2 in freeing up capacity on the existing network to meet suppressed demand for more regional and local services. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: ChrisB on September 16, 2011, 12:47:24 Quite. Not a good advert for the TPA. unusually, clearly out if their depth. Maybe that's why only the Huffington Post would run it?
Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: JayMac on September 16, 2011, 13:26:55 The Telegraph have also, thus far, ran the story.
The full report does bear down on the figures quite well, and has been written by someone with a great deal of experience in the rail industry. http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/highspeedrail.pdf I'm undecided as to its conclusions, as I am to HS2 itself. Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: JayMac on September 16, 2011, 13:30:35 From the Coventry Telegraph (http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2011/09/15/row-over-funding-to-fight-hs2-plan-92746-29427801/):
Quote Row over funding to fight HS2 plan A ROW has developed over thousands of pounds of taxpayers^ money pledged to fight the HS2 train line set to cut through Warwickshire. Councils have ploughed money into a ^1,175,000 fighting fund as an alliance of local authorities along the route seek to challenge the government^s case for the 250mph London-to-Birmingham line. Tory MP Graham Evans has complained to the Audit Commission after Warwick District Council put forward ^100,000 ^ despite making ^300,000 of cuts this year. Warwickshire County Council is known to have pledged ^50,000, with consultants fees and legal advice already swallowing up ^40,000 of that in their fight against HS2. The fighting fund is run by 51m; an alliance of eighteen local authorities fighting the ^34billion plan, and was joined by Coventry City Council last week. North Warwickshire Borough Council and Stratford District Council are also part of the 51m group but have not pledged money. MP Graham Evans says the pledge of money by the two councils is illegal as it breaks rules which ban the running of campaigns using taxpayers^ money to influence the view of the public on a matter of policy. But campaigners and councillors have hit back. Councillor Michael Doody, leader of Warwick District Council, said: ^The HS2 funding was met from the council^s reserves and contingency budget. ^The HS2 funding is a one-off cost which the council was able to contain within the specific funding, whilst the savings required to be found are recurring." Title: Re: HS2: For or against? Post by: mjones on September 16, 2011, 13:42:39 Here's a response to the Taxpayer's Alliance report:
http://www.campaignforhsr.com/response-to-the-taxpayers%e2%80%99-alliance-report-%e2%80%98the-hidden-costs-of-hs2%e2%80%99 Also worth looking at this for an alternative view of the earlier IEA report (mentioned in the press articles): http://www.campaignforhsr.com/background-briefing-on-the-iea%E2%80%99s-hs2-report "The co-author, Kyn Aizlewood, does not disclose that his views are clearly effected by the close proximity of his house to the proposed rail route and that he is a member of an anti-HS2 action group" I struggle to see how the conclusions, as quoted in the press at least, could come from someone with a good understanding of the railway, as some of the key arguments, e.g. treating the cost of Crossrail 2 as a cost of HS2, and the silly comment about cutting local services, demonstrate either a woeful lack of understanding, or, worse stil, a deliberate intention to mislead. There are some good arguments against HS2, but not these. This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |