oldagedpredator - Member
True the East coast is sparcely populated between S. Nortumberland and Edinburgh. Surely highspeed rail links would also make the NE of England more attractive to businesses and increase private sector employment.
At the evidence given to the Transport Select COmmittee, John Tomaney argued against HS2 going to Newcastle. Not because of the cost of damage to the countryside, but because it would make it too easy to get to London from the NE:
An expensive white elephant to me. The wrong answer to the wrong question
Not sure I fully agree with Frodo way ^^ there. West Coast upgrade took out a lot of level crossings (which allowed line speed increases) and re-doubled the track in the Trent Valley which had been taken out by Beeching(?). Capacity increased quite a bit - as did the price of tickets! Railtrack looked at a fancy signalling system to allow 140 mph linespeed that eventually got scrapped to bring the costs down to £9b from an original estimate of £2.2b iirc. (Estimate went £12b or more at one stage).
I did hear Iain Coucher when head of Network Rail say that he did not believe there was a business case for HST2 to go to Leeds via Birmingham, not sure if this was a personal or NR view though. Things change and politicians do not always make the best decisions when votes are to be had. Or lost.
As also said up there it is a lot easier and therefore cheaper to build a line fresh than to upgrade a current line.
Business folk will still rather fly.
Nope, we want the easiest/quickest way from where-we-start to where-we-need to go.
For example; when I lived in Leeds I used the train regularly into London, as it was quicker and easier - plus this was before 9/11, now it would be a no-brainer even for the most train-hater. The fact I got breakfast, and time to read the paper and work was just a plus.
The problem (for those who want to reduce congestion) with where I live now is that my car is usually the easiest/quickest (and mostly cheapest) option for UK travel.
And as someone directly impacted by HS2, but who'll never really be able to use it, my message is - just get it done.
EDIT - that he did not believe there was a business case for HST2 to go to Leeds via Birmingham, not sure if this was a personal
Its infrastructure and usually almost impossible to 'justify', a bit like a companies' new finance system - you know its needed but any business case could easily be destroyed.
it will be another Concorde, something paid for by the majority for the use of a privileged minority.
Just a thought, but why are we even considering running a HS link to Scotland?
As Scotland is likely to become an independent foreign state before this comes to fruition why bother?
The unspoilt countryside that HS2 will ruin, yesterday
The M40 Chiltern cutting at Stokenchurch was equally controversial when it was built. If they'd decided to take HS2 down the same route then there would probably be less opposition; they have decided instead to take it out of the Chilterns down a relatively unspoilt valley, damaging one of the few remaining bits of countryside in one of the most populated areas of the country. Still, at least they didn't take it down the next valley which is even more unspoilt. Obviously that's because they chose the optimum route and wasn't influenced by Chequers being in that valley...
thing is its already quicker to train Edinburgh London city centre to city by the time you count check in time and getting to and from airports
they have decided instead to take it out of the Chilterns down a relatively unspoilt valley,
True, but it is one of the main Chiltern thorough-routes with both the busy A413 and Aylesbury-Marylebone main-line. It would be either that a push up on the A41/Euston/Grand Union valley(s).
And once in the Vale you are pretty much to Brum with nothing in their way.
Aylesbury-Marylebone main-line
Calling that bit a main-line is stretching things a bit! Chiltern Railways now refer to the Princes Risborough route as the main-line, the Aylesbury route is considered more of a branch line. Main existing Chiltern through-routes are the A41, M1 or A40/M40 corridors, the one they've chosen has always been more of a local route with a road and railway that meander along the contours rather than blasting through like HS2 will. If they can't squeeze into one of the existing corridors then given that its mainly chalk I would have thought that a bit more tunneling would have removed most of the objections. On the other hand maybe the politicians don't feel they need to as the local MP is not likely to lose his seat over this or raise many objections given his wet approach to constituency issues.
If ordinary people can get from London to Birmingham for small change then I'm all for it.
However, they won't. It's going to cost billions, which will need to be recouped somehow and you can bet that some politician is devising a way of getting it built that returns a healthy profit for all concerned at the expense of the passengers - who will by and large be business people priced off the airlines by hikes in aviation taxes.
Two years ago, Southeastern introduced their high speed service to London St Pancras, priced at a 30% premium over the already ridiculously expensive main line services. Yes, they get you to London in 35 minutes from Ashford (and coincidentally will run Olympic VIPs to Stratford), but the majority of people in Kent who commute work in east London and rely on the old Cannon Street service. Taking public transport into account, there's naff all in it door to door. Last year, Southeastern had to reduce the length of their high speed trains from 12 carriages to 6, because of flat demand.
HS2 will be a similar white elephant but on a much more massive scale unless the lessons are learned. As a commuter, I'd rather see the billions put into the existing network for cheaper trains that don't smell of piss.
pjm1974's post above is apparently a live broadcast from a Saloon Bar. Needs moar cliches!
Clue: what happens to prices and volume when you add supply to a market? What happened to the price and volume of cross-channel ferry trips after the Chunnel was completed? Would you have built the Chunnel or criticised it using the same arguments?
Konab - Good point!
Even if the HS2 service only proves to be a service for business and the wealthy it still relieves congestion on the existing lines.
I'd take having a seat from Manchester to London as being a plus even if I couldn't afford to use the HS2 service.
The most economical solution is a line running to Manchester that interfaces with the existing network. That way the line provides the capacity where it is needed and as its a new route lets make it high speed.
The only vague issue with integrating it with the current network further north is that you're then restricted to smaller loading gauges, can't build trains to European spec, or go double-deck or anything.
So you have standard gauge trains only going further north.
Can you get double deck trains through the tunnel ....suppose you could the car decks are double story.
I get the capacity argument, but it's hard to swallow when in my experience getting the train often means walking past loads of empty 1st class carriages to be squeezed into a rammed standard carriage. I don't often travel at peak though.
oldagedpredator - So you propose building the most heavily congested sections last when the governments probably run out of money anyway?
Not exactly a build sequence more routes to look at.
Even the names of the Y-route should give some clues the current plan isnt a go-er. Its essentially a fast airport link and nothing else.
The main thing would be coming further east with first highspeed line north. It surely would have more benefit if the first line linked more town and cities together. A line conecting the East Midlands throught to S. Yorkshire and then into Manchester and Liverpool would, I think, bring more benefit to more people. Doesn't mean a Birmingham Spur couldnt be added to this at the time its built. You then get the potential for fast travel between northern cities and the midlands. It also means eventually you get fast travel between NE and NW. The Y-route is still to SE focused. Not all of us want to go quickly down to London.
From the development of the TGV network one of the key things they found was not building enough track capacity at the time. Doing it again they would apparently go for more quad track with highspeed and commuter or freight lines seperated. Build something that can also deliver high volume commuter travel between Birmingham and the East Midlands or S.Yorkshire and the NW as well as the high speed lines and you might be on to something.
I dont enough to have all the answers to this but I do know enough to see we're being sold a pup. Its a 1990's solution to a 21st century issue.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
