HS2: For or against?

[whole diary]

[Btline]

But Wolverhampton isn't on HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))! 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.

[Rhydgaled]

I think what Btline is suggesting is that the existing Pendolino operated Euston - Wolverhampton trains (via WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line)) cease to exist. They would then be replaced with Euston - Wolverhampton (via HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))) 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.

[ChrisB]

So, how do the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) stations get served then?.....Pax from those stations will be unablde to access HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services))" and will still expect their fast services. Maybe he thinks London Midland have the speed & capacity on their trains?

[Btline]

Taking the Wolverhampton route: After HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) the frequency would be cut anyway both VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) and LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise). 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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)): local services along the route. There is already a plan for tamworth to moor street. Places like Chesterfield are on MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) etc.

[ChrisB]

Taking the Wolverhampton route: After HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) the frequency would be cut anyway both VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) and LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise). 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^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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.

[Btline]

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^▸ (West Coast Main Line), ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) services diverted to HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) (services beyond Manchester and Leeds using clasic compatible stock), are we going to run out of space?

[ChrisB]

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.

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^▸ (West Coast Main Line), ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) services diverted to HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) (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....

[Phil]

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 

[Btline]

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^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))? 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!

HS2 must be "part of the rail network", not a separate railway.

[ChrisB]

By the time its fully built, there will be no spare paths on HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), 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

[Btline]

Here is a link to a report which demonstrates what WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) enhancements and new services could result from HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). (includes the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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!

[JayMac]

From the Huffington Post UK^▸ (United Kingdom):

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)): ^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^▸ (Member of Parliament) 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.^

[mjones]

So Crossrail 2 will be solely for the purpose of carrying HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) 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.

[ChrisB]

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?

[JayMac]

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^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) itself.