[Closed] HS2. Now coming to a village near you.

Will it go ahead now the UK has no prospects ?

Passes by here but the otherside of the existing railway so not a drama.

I think there was a change recently up Sheffield way - they originally planned to do a Meadowhall station, but now they're talking about having a city centre station. The change in the route goes straight through the middle of a new build estate, part of it still under construction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-36716526

(Serves them right for calling the estate 'shimmer' though...)

The residents of that estate will have had a lucky escape, immediate buyback of their homes shortly after realising the full horror of living in Mexborough.

The new route does look like it will please nobody though.

Old news to us southerners. Local pub's now been empty for years and now sports a HS2 Elephant sign and graffiti.
(resident of sunny Chilterns)

You'd rather get a letter than be just the wrong side of the line, no ?

Tough times I am sure but its impossible to build infrastructure withoit an impact somewhere. FWIW I think its a waste of money, better spent on normal rail infrastructure and expanding the regional airports imho.

Tough times I am sure but its impossible to build infrastructure withoit an impact somewhere. FWIW I think its a waste of money, better spent on normal rail infrastructure and expanding the regional airports imho.

Portishead has needed a line for years and it would be easy to do ,HS2 doesnt benefit nearly enough people for the cost and the travel time saved is small

a huge creator of jobs, and sadly a huge waste of money and effort, why not spend the money on regional services, or converting the m4 to a rail line or the m25 to an orbital railway, easily done with little land take.

Such a bad idea, a lack of vision and only solves one (non) problem.

The country needs an ambitious infrastructure plan which includes a Heathrow alternative, an improvement to regional railways and a way of getting freight off the roads and onto the railways.

Also some sort of northern-centric spending maybe upgrade the gas street lighting? Pave some roads or whatever.

The Titfield Thunderbolt on bbc4 now, thats how to run and plan a railway

Bad idea? Completely peabrained if you ask me (which you won't)
The only thing I ever thought of when I heard about it when it was 1st mentioned some years ago was, 'why would this country want to spend millions (?) of pounds on a railway system mainly to get a fairly small percentage of people to London quicker than now'
Can someone explain please, cos I don't get it.

Nope,you have it there!

Comes past my house into Leeds, it's the other side of an existing railway line but will be on a 15-20m high viaduct between a canal and a river and will look ****ing rediculous and spoil a lovely area.

I'm a Civil Engineer, so I understand that infrastructure needs to be built and you can never please everyone, someone will always be put out. But the local rail infrastructure in these parts is desperate for an upgrade, and that would have a more beneficial impact to the local economy than some fictitious northern power house and a train that gets people from cheaper houses to well paid jobs in London quicker.

If local rail infrastructure was good enough HS2 would be great. But it's not , so it's a shit idea atm. IMO.

a train that gets people from cheaper houses to well paid jobs in London quicker.

Not for long, get ready for being priced out of your own areas by displaced Londoners who can start buying up the housing in newly commutable areas.

HS2 is about as funny as Boris becoming foreign secretary.

'why would this country want to spend millions (?) of pounds on a railway system mainly to get a fairly small percentage of people to London quicker than now'

a train that gets people from cheaper houses to well paid jobs in London quicker.

Well the theory is that on their way back they bring their money with them.

Bad idea? Completely peabrained if you ask me (which you won't)
The only thing I ever thought of when I heard about it when it was 1st mentioned some years ago was, 'why would this country want to spend millions (?) of pounds on a railway system mainly to get a fairly small percentage of people to London quicker than now'
Can someone explain please, cos I don't get it.

In fairness, the railways are full, there isn't spare capacity for people or freight.

People keep saying they're fed up of sitting on the floor outside the toilets and how freight should be on the railways.

Well this is the solution, there's a practical limit to platform lengths, there's only so short a time gap you can put between trains, and ultimately yes, people do need to get to/from London.

I live not far from the route in the chilterns & yes it's crap for the area, but you can't expect to live the modern lives we lead without infrastructure being improved somewhere.

+1 for what tinas & Gary L say above - its about total capacity & not just time being shaved off one particular route

As for existing infrastructure - lots of it is 150 years old and pretty knackered. Can you imagine what a brand spanking new modern railway line would be like?

Actually.. don't need to imagine, I've been on them. In other countries...

+1 for what tinas & Gary L say above - its about total capacity & not just time being shaved off one particular route

Of the long commutes I did Glasgow Manchester was easier by train than plane, a high speed direct ish link would keep that going well. There is something to be said for city to city transit as opposed to heading 30-40 mins out to go to an airport.

and as if by magic for the vid above
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-14/new-plan-for-high-speed-rail-link-between-melbourne-and-sydney/7628316
To put that into perspective Flight time is 1hr25 so 1hr50 proprosed would be faster than flying with checkin times. The all stops version close to 3 hrs would still be faster centre to centre than flying.

And really fast trains are cool

There are shit loads of existing lines/unused decommissioned etc why does it need to be over virign ground ffs. It's going to plough across quite lanes etc up our way too.

There are shit loads of existing lines/unused decommissioned etc why does it need to be over virign ground ffs.

So the new GREAT Britain can't make a decision on a new runway after years of wrangling and consultations, has huge issues building a new railway line and has endless problems building a new nuclear power station (Hinkley Point C).... and people think were going to show the world how to do it the British way.... Imagine being a foreign business person who lands at Gatwick and your told that over 200 trains have been cancelled by Southern Trains from the Airport to the centre of the capital because of an arguement going on for months!!

Why build HS2 = Because Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan... etc all did and they work brilliantly.

Yep, French railways are airports are all smashing, ignore the fact that they cancel more trains and flights than we do.

CDG on the TGV mainline is boss, you have to say. The flight was delayed 3 hours and they lost your bags, but at least you can go anywhere in Europe on the train.

Oxford - Cambridge would be an excellent line to re-open, infrastructure-wise. Major innovation axis of the country, and Cambridge's connectivity to anywhere other than London is dreadful. Bit of a pipedream, though - think there's a decent amount of housing being built over the line since the 60s.

If this gets built how much will a ticket cost? Long distance fares are already stupidly expensive.
Scrap it and build tidal barrages instead.

Oxford - Cambridge would be an excellent line to re-open, infrastructure-wise. Major innovation axis of the country, and Cambridge's connectivity to anywhere other than London is dreadful. Bit of a pipedream, though - think there's a decent amount of housing being built over the line since the 60s.

This !!!!!!!

There have been rumblings but housing at the oxford end is the problem
but linking via MK in the middle would be excellent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_West_Rail_Link

now that the plan is to spend our way out of recession again it might just happen

Oxford - Cambridge would be an excellent line to re-open, infrastructure-wise. Major innovation axis of the country, and Cambridge's connectivity to anywhere other than London is dreadful. Bit of a pipedream, though - think there's a decent amount of housing being built over the line since the 60s

"to get a fairly small percentage of people to London quicker than now"

Or you could look at it as getting a small percentage of people [i]out[/i] of London quicker than now?

Which can only be a good thing. I'm all for HS2. I think it's an excellent project, and if it inconveniences a small number of people, then so be it.

HS2 is a vanity project. It's the wrong sort of railway, with stations in the wrong place.

Simon Jenkins piece is worth a read -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/hs2-the-zombie-train-that-refuses-to-die

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2014/02/rail-740-hs2-is-the-wrong-scheme-in-wrong-place/
" the location of stations is clearly designed to minimise cost rather than improve accessibility. People do not like to travel to parkway stations as demonstrated the unpopularity of those such as Avignon on the French TGV network and yet the HS2 designers have put forward out of town stations serving Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham and Derby. Rail’s key advantage is as a form of city centre to city centre transport and therefore the out.

" HS2 'does very little to improve the network, and merely concentrates connectivity on London’. That is spot on. The supporters of the line in the midlands and north who think that this is a project that will improve their local economies are deluding themselves.

Indeed, HS2 is being designed almost as a separate railway. This is well demonstrated by the crazy plan to partly use rolling stock that would not be compatible with the classic rail network which will make interchange with existing services even more difficult. HS2 as presently designed will do little to improve connectivity for the vast majority of towns and cities in the UK, apart from the few lucky enough to have a station.'

Wasn't part of the point of HS2 to remove the long distance load on the exisiting lines (mainly west coast) to allow more local services, given many lines are already at capacity.

I agree making it incompatible with existing stock is a bit odd but if your building a new line why not make it high speed, rather than another slow one? and if your doing that then old stock isn't suitable anyway (as it would just slow everything down).

It will cut across my commute and a few of the bridleways we ride here.

Pretty sure we could spend the money better, rather than turning the East Midlands into a suburb of London and pricing my kids out the area when they want to get a place of their own.

the East Midlands into a suburb of London and pricing my kids out the area when they want to get a place of their own.

Then again, if it takes some of the pressure off the south east, my kids might not be priced out of the area when they want to get a place of their own.

Going back to the compulsory purchase thing, my brother & his gf did very well from it when their flat in Camden was earmarked for demolition for HS2 a couple of years ago. They jumped on the opportunity and got something like 10% over (favourable) market valuation, all legal fees and other costs, and SDLT contribution on their new place. And no estate agents involved. The process took a while, and they even got the valuation revised upwards because the market had moved in the meantime. In all he reckoned they were about £50k better off than if they'd simply sold up in a normal market.

Obviously it sucks if you're getting turfed out of a cherished family home but if you had any plans of moving it's actually a great opportunity.

Oxford - Cambridge would be an excellent line to re-open, infrastructure-wise. Major innovation axis of the country, and Cambridge's connectivity to anywhere other than London is dreadful. Bit of a pipedream, though - think there's a decent amount of housing being built over the line since the 60s.

[url= http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/ ]It's coming in bits[/url].

As a few have said, HS2 isn't about speed, it's about capacity. The West Coast Main Line is full, they're trying to squeeze more and more freight onto it, and there's just no room. They need to do something. High speed rail means you can run more trains, thus relieving a lot of pressure on the WCML, and thus the road network.

You can't use double deck trains nor can you make trains longer on our existing infrastructure, and if you think HS2 is expensive, just try upgrading existing infrastructure - check out the Trent Valley quadrupling programme costs. You could improve the signalling on the entire network to potentially squeeze in a few more trains, but see previous point re: cost for incremental improvement.

There are shit loads of existing lines/unused decommissioned etc why does it need to be over virign ground ffs. It's going to plough across quite lanes etc up our way too.

That's just moronic. Yes, let's revive a load of branch lines closed 60 years ago, because the best way to build a new ultra high capacity line is to have an absurdly circuitous route which still uses 150 year old infrastructure. 🙄

Comparisons to France, Germany, Spain et al are flawed, because our geography is very different. We don't generally have the large distances between centres of population they do. The French are envious of our rail network anyway - we're more punctual and have a better service.

Japan is a lot closer to us, but they've been investing in a network of high speed lines for nearly 40 years, and there's very little freight transported by rail compared to passengers, so there's not the same contention on the infrastructure.

As a few have said, HS2 isn't about speed, it's about capacity

Except they have made it about speed, for vanity, at a cost. I can't remember where it was but there was an interesting analysis article about how even a few mph less would make it a different, cheaper and more feasible project, basically what we are currently proposing is the wrong HS2. If anyone can remember what this article was it would be good to post it here.

I think if we brexit it'll be pulled anyway, after all that has been spent on it so far.

A slightly slower HS2 wouldn't change the route though, it would just change the headline cost, and probably not the actual cost.

But looking longterm why wouldn't you spend the extra now to give you a service that was worthwhile in 50-100 years?

If they had thought like that when they did HS1 (and even the current upgrade programme that's ongoing in a lot of places) then the majority of the country would be stuck at trains going no more the 60mph, which would massively push users into cars and onto the roads. And I can tell you as someone who's local service has to suffer a rickety service that takes 1-1/2hrs to do 60miles, it sucks.

Japan is a lot closer to us, but they've been investing in a network of high speed lines for nearly 40 years, and there's very little freight transported by rail compared to passengers, so there's not the same contention on the infrastructure.

Shinkansen trains can run at 3 min intervals.

Edinburgh - London, there are 3 trains per hour.

HS2 is about meeting the capacity needs of the next decade and beyond, not solving those of the last decade.
I'm currently working on projects that won't begin construction until the early 2020s which have been identified to address anticipated passenger growth, and the inability of that existing infrastructure to be able to cope with it.

Shinkansen trains can run at 3 min intervals.

Edinburgh - London, there are 3 trains per hour.

Not sure of your point. That's apples:oranges, you're comparing capacity to demand... Are you suggesting Edinburgh to London should have 20 trains an hour?

But ok, yes, let's develop that, and it supports my point rather than refuting it.

What happens if you introduce 125mph trains leaving Edinburgh for London every 3 minutes:

- there's not enough physical space
- you have conflict between local trains and freights with higher speed services
- you have to run everything slowly because the signal system can't cope with small separation distances
- there are no margins if there are any disruptions

What is the solution to these problems? Could it be a proprietary network reserved for those 20 hourly Edinburgh - London services, leaving (in that instance) the ECML free for freight and other slower services. A happy by product of computerised cab-signalling, a lack of conflict and proprietary infrastructure happily means you can run much faster too.

HS2 is about meeting the capacity needs of the next decade and beyond, not solving those of the last decade.

but it does this badly. Parkway stations are a particular problem - the train doesn't take people where they actually want to go and the transfer from there to the city adds traffic (likely motor vehicles) cost and time.

The theory that it will revitalise the Northern towns it links to London is bunk. All evidence is that it just creates a wider commute catchment for London. Surely commuter lines and improved links between northern cities would have more of a payback than HS2

Well yes and no. That doesn't fix issues with capacity on arterial routes. There isn't all that much economic benefit for improving travel between northern towns when compared to adding a few million extra tonnes of freight to the railways and improving connectivity to London.

adding a few million extra tonnes of freight to the railways

unless something has changed significantly the chairman of the Rail Freight Group seems to think it will make things worse
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10309863/HS2-will-clog-up-the-rail-system-warns-freight-expert.html
Also - "many smaller places on existing main lines will see service reductions without any HS2 alternative" - ie places that currently have reasonably regular direct London links will lose them

(that's a 2013 article but i've not heard of changes to the routing since then)

My understanding is that there have been quite a number of significant changes since 2013, and you have to remember that that article is from an organisation attempting to change HS2 routes and proposals.
I'll ask around about route, train paths and future service proposals.

From that telegraph report...

HS2 is supposed to remove trains from the existing West Coast route, described by Mr McLoughlin as “already operating close to its limit”. But the new line will initially be built only between London and the West Midlands.

For at least the first six years after it opens, seven HS2 trains an hour to Manchester, Liverpool and points further north will have to join the crowded West Coast tracks anyway, just north of Birmingham, to complete the second half of their journeys.

But that's wrong, as the HS2 trains would replace the standard line trains on the non-HS2 part of the west coast line, so the level of congestion ends up the same. It does though free up the parts of the existing network that parallel the HS2 build, i.e. for freight or more frequent stopping services.

The idea that good rail and road links bring prosperity to the north is bunkum. Imagine a town sitting on the East Coast Main Line, the A1, The M18 to the M1, The M62 running across the top. Throw in canal links to the Humber and an international airport with runway big enough for A380s and the Antonov super transporters.

You'd imagine the place would be buzzing, it's not, welcome to Doncaster.

As an aside, here's a great article about how high speed rail has disrupted slower local connections all across Europe.

[url= http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-killing-the-european-railway-network.html ]http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-killing-the-european-railway-network.html[/url]

For at least the first six years after it opens, seven HS2 trains an hour to Manchester, Liverpool and points further north will have to join the crowded West Coast tracks anyway, just north of Birmingham, to complete the second half of their journeys.

The northern bits aren't as congested though. North of the Trent Valley it's not so bad.

Njee, I'm suggesting that more trains seems a reasonable solution to overcrowded trains. The Shinkansen run at a variety of speeds btw, faster overtake slower at minor stops. Local commuter lines run at similar density.

So will Thameslink in a couple of years.

My point is that you still need the infrastructure to support that (hence massive redevelopment of London Bridge). If one of your trains from Edinburgh stops at Berwick there's nowhere for the faster ones to pass.

The Shinkansen all have broadly comparable performance, they don't run high density on lines where there's a huge mix, and where they do it's slow. It doesn't need stating that mixing 125mph passenger trains with 50mph freights on a double track line is a recipe for instant conflict. Obviously running everything at 50mph mitigates that, but then you have a railway at max capacity and trains running at 50mph!

As an aside, here's a great article about how high speed rail has disrupted slower local connections all across Europe.

The article is about LONG DISTANCE slower trains, which unsurprisingly have been cancelled as there is less need for the long distance routes when they are served by the higher speed. However, there are still slower trains between places, just not covering the full distance on one train. As you would expect the slower trains are now focussed on connecting towns that are near, rather than crossing the whole country. This mean capacity can be kept in the right place, rather than empty commuter trains travelling miles just because they have to provide the long distance service all too.

The Thalys is two to three times as expensive as the Étoile du Nord, while it's only 25% faster. For most people, the time gained by taking the high speed train is not worth the extra cost. However, since the Étoile du Nord has vanished, they are left no other choice than to pay more when they want to travel by train.

You can still travel cheaply by low speed train between Paris and Amsterdam -- over the same route that was covered by the Étoile du Nord. But you have to be very patient: the trip takes 7 to 8 hours and you have to switch trains 5 to 6 times (Paris-Maubeuge-Jeumont-Erquelinnes-Charleroi-Brussels-Amsterdam). A one-way trip costs €66, half the price of the most common fare of the Thalys.

Of course the issue is the cost of the new fast train, its usually much much more 😐

My point is that you still need the infrastructure to support that (hence massive redevelopment of London Bridge). If one of your trains from Edinburgh stops at Berwick there's nowhere for the faster ones to pass.

There are a couple - Drem springs to mind, but that's my point - without lots of places to pass you can't run trains every 3 minutes unless they all run at the speed of the slowest one.

The Thalys

Was singularly my most impressive, pleasant, and comfortable rail journey ever. If HS2 is going to be anything like that, just build the bloody thing.

Oxford - Cambridge would be an excellent line to re-open, infrastructure-wise. Major innovation axis of the country, and Cambridge's connectivity to anywhere other than London is dreadful.

Who wants to visit Oxford?

A direct line to Ambleside would be quite nice....

As an aside. there's an interesting article in Issue 4 of London Reconnections about the infrastructure upgrade plans for the Northern and Jubilee lines. To increase the Jubilee line to 36tph will cost nearly £300m - £120m for 8 new trains, additional stabling at Stanmore £50m and infrastructure upgrades £100m.
Northern Line Upgrade 2 giving 30tph is quoted at £700m...