HS2: For or against?

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

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^▸ (United Kingdom) 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^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) 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

------- 

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

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^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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.

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.
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:

• Whether accommodating the forecast growth is the best policy given the economic, environmental and energy context
• Should growth be encouraged elsewhere where it can be accommodated at lower unit cost?
• Unintended consequences of altering the journey-time map of Britain, such as land use patterns and re-routing of journeys.
• Integration of HSR with other transport.
• How headline time savings with HSR compare with actual door-door time savings.
  

It is a great shame that consideration of HSR has descended to a bad-tempered rhetoric from both sides.

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?

[Btline]

This thread has persuaded me to support HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) (after being on the fence).

My concerns are now with integration. At the London end, they'll be links to multiple Tube lines, BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) 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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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.

[ChrisB]

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...

[Btline]

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^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will be just parkways.

[ChrisB]

Trains will run onto the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) beyond Birmingham, so what's not to like? I'm sure there's a link into Birmingham too....

[Btline]

For the people of Wolverhampton and Sandwell & Dudley, it would be good to have a link.

[ChrisB]

It would, but youi can't knock down half of birmingham ....

[Btline]

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^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) from Manchester/Lichfield too.

[ChrisB]

Yes, I have. There's no room for another pair of double tracks into New Street.

[mjones]

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^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), 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.

[inspector_blakey]

I think it's possible to over-do the 'HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) versus domestic aviation' argument. For example, British Airways operates several daily flights between Manchester and London: these are essentially 'feeder' services for BA^» (British Airways - about)'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.

[Btline]

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!

[ChrisB]

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?

[mjones]

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^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) 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^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) 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^▸ (United Kingdom) 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...

That leaves the point about a solution to WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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:

• Whether accommodating the forecast growth is the best policy given the economic, environmental and energy context
• Should growth be encouraged elsewhere where it can be accommodated at lower unit cost?
• Unintended consequences of altering the journey-time map of Britain, such as land use patterns and re-routing of journeys.
• Integration of HSR with other transport.
• How headline time savings with HSR compare with actual door-door time savings.
  

It is a great shame that consideration of HSR has descended to a bad-tempered rhetoric from both sides.

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.

[Btline]

Um... existing Wolverhampton to London trains don't need extra paths! Nor do existing XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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.