Forum menu
It takes 2h 50mins to travel by train from Liverpool to Hull, costs £73.70 and requires a change at Leeds. That’s a journey of just 128 miles, average speed of 45mph. To drive is 30 minutes faster.
Can we fix that first?
It takes 2h 50mins to travel by train from Liverpool to Hull, costs £73.70 and requires a change at Leeds. That’s a journey of just 128 miles, average speed of 45mph. To drive is 30 minutes faster.
Unless the M62 is screwed, which it frequently is.
The economic arguments for Northern Powerhouse Rail (which is basically what you're talking about), fall flat if HS2 isn't tied into it. To get the most out of a new Trans-Pennine route connecting Liverpool, Manchester, either Bradford or Huddersfield (depending on your exact routing), Leeds and Hull, you also need HS2 landing at Manchester and Leeds.
The two go hand in hand.
Leeds also needs a line off to York and Scarborough, tied into ECML.
This has got to the point where you've been living in a house for decades and, while it all basically functions (just), you've got ancient wiring, holes in the roof, single pane windows and drafts coming up through the floorboards and rather than keeping on re-papering the cracks, you eventually have to say **** it, the entire house needs rebuilding.
Our rail network is that house.
Although I'm very upset at the sheer amount of environmental devastation that is being foisted upon the country. You'd have thought as well that for £100 billion, they might have been able to include better walking and cycling provision within the building work.
from Bordeaux to Paris in just over 2 hours.
The line is 340kms long,
unless I am misreading this thats not really high speed. Edinburgh to london is 650km and takes 4 hours with conventional trains.
You’d have thought as well that for £100 billion, they might have been able to include better walking and cycling provision within the building work.
Yeah, well. That's because none of this 'economic argument' bollocks is joined-up, forward-looking thinking. It's all predicated on keeping things how they've always been, prioritising London and the south east and notional wealth generation that, in reality, benefits a small proportion of the population.
We should be prioritising well being across the whole population, not obsessing about GDP figures and a system that pours money into the pockets of people who already have most of it to start with. You can maybe justify HS2 in those terms, but what it doesn't do is make any contribution to reducing the misery of commuters trapped in the Northern Rail horror show or change our cultural obsessions with the car and commuting to work. And the idea that some sort of trickle down will eventually lead to better northern local train services is a fantasy.
We should be prioritising people's happiness and health and our environment, not outdated economic metrics. And part of that should be centred around creating infrastructure that encourages walking and cycling. HS2 doesn't do one bit of that, not even tangentially.
@tjagain : Yeah, someone wrote a figure down wrong - Bordeaux to Paris is about 600km / 375 miles. Maybe he meant 340 [b]miles[/b] of new line.
So 2hrs 8 mins is an average speed of 300kph / 190mph.
which is definitely High Speed Rail!
That makes more sense
The London / SE is the cash cow for HMRC, it has the highest productivity, the highest paying industries, highest earners, highest taxpayers and is the highest net contributing region to HMRC (after taking infrastructure spending into account*). It makes a lot of sense to invest in the area which will generate the highest return. That’s not to say that other areas don’t also deserve investment.
Precisely the sort of 'cost of everything value of nothing' foxtrot-uniform attitude that gets us up to our eyeballs in national strife in the first place. We in the north continue to look forward to the crumbs.
The economic arguments for Northern Powerhouse Rail (which is basically what you’re talking about), fall flat if HS2 isn’t tied into it. To get the most out of a new Trans-Pennine route connecting Liverpool, Manchester, either Bradford or Huddersfield (depending on your exact routing), Leeds and Hull, you also need HS2 landing at Manchester and Leeds.
The trans-pennine route either upgraded or left to fester connects with York (25 direct trains a day to London), Leeds (30 direct trains a day to London) and Manchester (unsure, ~50 trains a day to London) already. An upgraded trans-pennine is NOT dependent on HS2. Not to say it wouldn't benefit but it's not a dependency. What we need is more people staying in the North and more people coming on the empty northbound trains in the morning.
Should have started up North & all lines that needs electrifying should have been done before this was started. If loads of money was invested oop North etc then maybe in a few years these places would yield more taxes.
A joined up infrastructure plan including reducing the need for airports, getting more freight on the rails, traffic free city centres and beaucoup bike only paths is obvz too much to ask.
MML
Ah yeah - my emergency exit route when the ECML is buggered. Fair point that it's a poor cousin - I know nothing about it other than St Pancras is astonishingly beautiful and the place a waste time when waiting for an ECML train.
Gonna throw this in - all the talk of trans-pennine and the M62
HS2 is awesome because It'll cut down on flying to & from Birmingham like...
Airport managers are understood to have spoken to local council leaders about building a second runway to take advantage of the High Speed Two (HS2) rail line, due to open in 2026. The new line includes a station by the airport.
That’s because none of this ‘economic argument’ bollocks is joined-up, forward-looking thinking. It’s all predicated on keeping things how they’ve always been, prioritising London and the south east and notional wealth generation that, in reality, benefits a small proportion of the population.
There is definitely an economic argument for a proper network, of which HS2 is only a part. However, just because a new network is justifiable doesn't mean it's being executed well. And just because it's not being executed well doesn't mean the idea should be binned.
It’s a lot of money so c*nts in suits talking loudly on their phones and twiddling on laptops can swish back and fore and go to some boring meeting where they talk bollocks to other c*nts. I’d build a mile deep hole under the rails half way along and have carriages where the floor opens up automatically and dumps them all in it
That rant was worth posting again, succinct, to the point, no filler, and more importantly very accurate....... more like this please
It’s a lot of money so
c*nts in suits talking loudly on their phones and twiddling on laptopsscientists working on cancer treatments, AI researchers working for deepmind, NGO employees etc can swish back and fore and go to conferences where they bounce of each other’s ideas.
Fixed that for you.
There are people on those trains who are the only reason working class heroes like yourself aren’t living in a backward, second world nation - but one that is still a strong innovator.
Personally, I’d rather be filling the mass graves up with entitled thick ****s who think the world owes them a living.
There is definitely an economic argument for a proper network, of which HS2 is only a part. However, just because a new network is justifiable doesn’t mean it’s being executed well. And just because it’s not being executed well doesn’t mean the idea should be binned.
You're missing my point, which is that basing our infrastructure developments on narrow and questionable economic models and metrics - GDP is the obvious holy cow - is irrelevant to the well being of a vast swathe of the population. We should be spending money on making people's lives better right across society, not fixating on increasing some questionable measure of national wealth.
There may be 'an economic argument for a proper network' in other words, but equally, that argument is misguided and driven by an obsession with generating more and more 'wealth' which most people never benefit from. You could arguably spend that money on the NHS, education, walking and cycling infrastructure, weaning people away from personalised motorised transport and more and have a far greater impact on people's quality of life.
Even in narrow transport terms, investing money in local commuter services run by the likes of Northern Rail would make far more difference to everyday quality of life than splurging it on HS2.
HS2 is expensive due to the Home Counties "retired barrister" effect leading to tunnels, poor ground for the line in the Midlands and silly costs at Euston
All these are gutting the budget so in the north communities are getting cut off and the project rammed through
As for London Crossrail 2 will happen before HS3 gets off the drawing board.
Cs long as decisions are made by people who work in London (DoT and MPs) we'll get London centric investment with the London overhead and the usual crumbs handed to those who are too thick to get into the London bubble with all the same London generated statistics that show it's more efficient to spend in London
There may be ‘an economic argument for a proper network’ in other words, but equally, that argument is misguided and driven by an obsession with generating more and more ‘wealth’ which most people never benefit from
Yes.
There is absaloutely no value in sustainable economic growth driven by a greener form of transport which helps to raise the tax income of the Tresury. That's crazy talk, people don't see anything back from tax at all.
Even in narrow transport terms, investing money in local commuter services run by the likes of Northern Rail would make far more difference to everyday quality of life than splurging it on HS2.
As others have pointed out - there's no point in doing the former without the latter. And to be honest, the London trains are just as if not more overcrowded - so the quality of life impact is bullcrap as well.
There is plenty of point in bringing rail transport in the north up to standard without HS2 - and while yo are at it upgrading northern airports. A significant % of people flying from london have had to travel from Scotland or the big northern cities.
But then its not London so it doesn't count. London must get the vast majority of transport subsidy because no one important lives north of Watford.
Yes rail needs up graded and increased capacity all over the UK - but you get more bang for your buck if you do stuff in the north.
HS2 is the wrong answer to the wrong question.
TJ is correct in that it's the wrong answer, we need
Investment in the northern coast to coast (Liverpool to Manchester to leeds & Sheffield to the NE) and connecting lines
serious money spent on bikes and buses - buses need real priority over cars
this would enable dedicated bus services to replace the rural trains that jam the Westcoast mainline, that would give you the capacity HS2 is trying to solve.
Since posting this I have read the replies with interest and learnt a lot about the possible benefits away from the headline “shorter journey times’ shouted by the media.
I shall go away and process.
Huge waste of cash for a new trainset, to us oop north, we dontr want it we ant newer faster trains to Leeds, Sheffield, Hull,Derby North Wales and more places.
As for boris canceling the trainset, just after or before an election, and alienating all those southerners.
Fianlly boris brought the wright boris bus to london, nowhere else bought any, and now the company in northern ireland wants cash handouts, due to lack of orders, another huge failure, throw in new nuclear power stations, new roads and new trains that dont work, electrification of the railways that collapsed and was cancelled, electrification of the severn tunnel that cant be switched on due to major problems with water ingress and diesel fumes attacking the overhead rails.
Sitting here in a nice new ttain doing 100mph on the way to Glasgow I cannot help think that this is what northern England needs not HS2
£13.30 return for 45 miles each way. 42 mins. Free wifi
It's almost a European experience
I live close to where HS2 will be built, there are going to be a few spin off benefits locally and a huge amount of disruption when it's built but to suggest we don't build a major new modern railway linking north to south that will continue to benefit the country for many years to come is frankly ridiculous & all the enquiry will do is add to the expense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297
George Osborne is holding his own review now, mostly to cover up the fact he knew it was over budget 3 years ago when he was Chancellor but said and did nothing about it.
Politicians really need to stay out of infrastructure, they're useless.
HS2 is expensive due to the Home Counties “retired barrister” effect leading to tunnels, poor ground for the line in the Midlands and silly costs at Euston
And because the railway network has been ignored for so long we've basically forgotten how to build anything so it ends up really expensive. The cost of electrification per mile in the UK is massive compared to most of Europe, for example.
Personally I hope it gets canned.
It will have massive impacts upon the village I live in and none of them will be good. The environmental impact is huge, no one knows how much it’s going to cost which means that it’ll be many times over budget and they’re already talking about pairing back the service. If it gets completed, it’ll be a grade a **** up that doesn’t deliver what it promised.
The construction industry is lobbying hard for it to be completed, it’ll be interesting to see how much they are listened too.
It has always seemed like marginal gains at best, unless you work in the high speed rail construction industry.
It has always seemed like marginal gains at best
Doubling capacity is marginal?
Fact is that our infrastructure is piss poor, and also full. Something needs doing. We will need this eventually. Actually no, we need it now, but we need all the rest of it now too.
Why is investing in basic transport infrastructure so controversial?
Why is investing in basic transport infrastructure so controversial?
Maybe because we’re a relatively small, densely populated country and stuff like this can have a big impact on people’s lives? It’s going to have an awful impact on my village during the construction and once it’s operating and the people working on it are unable to answer pretty basic questions about mitigation in the consultations I’ve been too.
There is also a feeling amongst those affected that stuff is being snuck through. There were many battles about the route near our village. It was accepted eventually once it was moved a bit but they’ve now decided to build a maintenance depot right on the edge of the village which will have noise and light pollution implications for those on the edge.
Totally agree Molls, but this is what the infrastructure of the West Coast mainline looks like, which will get you from London to Manchester or Liverpool in under 2 hours
Once you get to either of those cities, or Leeds or Newcastle or Sheffield and the infrastructure you are then dependent on looks like this...
Ask anyone who uses any train line that doesn't service London where they think the priority should be? We're all stuck on overcrowded 40 year-old rolling stock (which is basically a converted bus that was only ever meant to be a stop-gap) and has a journey time where you'd be quicker walking
If you've not seen it then it's well worth watching the Despatches documentary
The consensus amongst the rail experts seems to be that they'll can it once they've built the section to Birmingham. It'll essentially end up as just a (ludicrously expensive) commuter line into London from the midlands, while the rest of the country's transport network continues to be starved of funding
Yup - get faster and longer trains like the one I used today and yo quadruple the capacity. the train I was on has maybe 800 seats on it - and runs every 15 mins each way taking 37 - 44 mins to do the 45 miles. Faster than you can drive
this is what is needed along with reopening branch lines- not HS2
Yup – get faster and longer trains like the one I used today and yo quadruple the capacity. the train I was on has maybe 800 seats on it –
800 seats?????? How many carriages TJ? I'm guessing this is Edinburgh-Glasgow?
And 216 trains a day- is this really value for money for the government and taxpayer? How full was the train?
Can you see that this couldn't really be rolled out in most places.
The smart thing to do is cancel the third runway there and use HS2 / NPR to tap into Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds-Bradford airports.
Unfortunately the tourists want to go to London and our exorbitantly priced terrestrial public transport will not encourage them to go elsewhere. Make it as cheap as Italy to travel by rail and you may get the tourists to travel to a regional hub away from London. Until this is solved more runways at Heathrow and Gatwick are the future.
Unfortunately the tourists want to go to London
Err, I'm often a tourist & London is one of the last places I want to go!
Vinney - yes Edinburgh / glasgow. 800 seats is a guesstimate. Its new rolling stock, the train is too long for many platforms at least a dozen carriages maybe more and at least 50 seats in each. Its effing huge. And fast. topped 100mph according to my GPS - and its profitable I think -- not sure but its certainly no white elephant
Actually they are used a lot - I took two offpeak trains 10.15 and 4.15 - both around 20% full. The peak ones are standing room only
its 2 an hour early mornings and late evenings, 4 an hour the rest of the time I think none in the dead of night.
there is of course the other Glasgow - Edinburgh lines - Carstairs, East Calder and Bathgate. Bathgate line is reopened in the last few years and the shuttle ( fast train I was on) alternates which bit it goes on thru Falkirk and which stations it stops at - so not all the intermediate stations get the 4 trains an hour. the only thing that poor about it is its useless to get to either airport. Pretty much every town in the central belt gets a train or two an hour. Used a lot by commuters
Of course you have to tailor the service to the need but what it shows is "build it and they will come" Its quicker, cheaper and nicer than driving.
You would not have to replicate this in the liverpool to leeds - but a modern train seating a couple of hundred, traveling at 80 mph plus would make the cross the north of england journeys so much better. Cutting travel times by 25 - 50 % on the leeds / liverpool stuff would increase traffic hugely. Have you seen the crap trains they use now?
this would be nothing remarkable in most of Europe - you know plentiful comfy fast modern trains.
yes Edinburgh / glasgow. 800 seats is a guesstimate. Its new rolling stock, the train is too long for many platforms at least a dozen carriages maybe more and at least 50 seats in each.
They're Class 385's: either a 3-car or a 4-car so you've probably got 2 X 4-car setup (8 carriages total) which is 546 seats.
Well more than eight carriages this is the new rolling stock. Electric stuff. A lot bigger than the train it replaced
reopening branch lines
You think that would be cheaper than HS2? And it would do nothing for mainline capacity. It would just allow more people easier access to the main lines which are already full.
It ALL needs doing.
Also, Scotland is topographically different because it has its two major cities of similar stature and I'm guessing most of its population at either side of an easily navigated lowland stretch of land. England doesn't have to major cities, it has one that dwarfs everywhere else, and the rest of the development is spread about the place in clumps. 'The North' of England should have a similar setup, yes, but there are hills in the way which is why it's geographically harder which has changed the history of development.
It's easy to point to other countries and say 'why aren't we like that?' Well, history and geography often play a part.
Crazylegs - googling says you are right but I thought I counted more than 8 before I gave up. anyway 560 seats is still a lot Edit - are the carriages longer?
Molgrips - of course it could be done across the north of england - its just no one will make the invenstment. The lines are already there. Spendingthe money would create far greater benefits on smaller lines that don't go to London/
Remember 4 Glasgow / Edinburgh lines and one of them has alternate routes. One of these is newly opened ( well a few years now) and we also have the Borders railway, Alloa Branch all reopened and soon the leven branch will be reopened.
there is zero reason why this could not be done across the north of England. When was the last new line opened in the north of England? there are far more people in the leeds to liverpool area than in the central beltof Scotland. Why are they still running pacers?
I still think it's more complicated than you think.
The really ludicrous fares are to and from London. Why? Because demand is so high, and so many people (like me) are on expenses so the cost can be borne. So it's possible that these high fares are required to pay off the investment. Or perhaps they are envisaging competing with airlines, and I think most of the flights are to and from London. Or Edi/Gla.
Fares are pretty equal by distance aren't they? ie a train from Cardiff to Nottingham is about the same as a train from CDF to LON. Actually cheaper to get to London.
Molgrips - its really not. Its just as decisions are made in londonthats where the improivements get made! Its that simple. London sucks huge sums of money up in subsidy that the notrth of England does not get. Why do we have investment in rail in scotland - cos the scottish government does it. Eff all investment in the noth of england. The money being wasted on HS2 would mean a decent rail service all over the north of England. Far more bang for your buck.
Billions literally invested in Rail in scotland - but still £13.30 return edinbugh glasgow. But cross pennines is still running 40 year old pacers that do 45 mph - when we have 100 mph electric trains
Its out of sight out of mind and no one important lives there. Its disgusting to wast all that money to make commutting from the midlands to london possible when you still cannot get any sort of decent train transpennines
The government spends more money on transport projects for Londoners than on those for the rest of the country combined, a think tank says.
The Institute for Public Policy Research North says £2,700 is spent per person in London compared with £5 per head in the north-east of England.
there is zero reason why this could not be done across the north of England. When was the last new line opened in the north of England? there are far more people in the leeds to liverpool area than in the central beltof Scotland. Why are they still running pacers?
Complete lack of investment.
Pretty much Victorian infrastructure, coupled with Beeching cuts.
Terrain - it's insanely hilly, it's gritstone so very hard to tunnel through.
Population - that corridor from Manchester to Leeds is very narrow, it's got canals, bridges, valleys, hills and roads and a lot of small towns / big villages in the way.
Complete lack of investment.
Complete lack of investment.
Many (if not most) of the stations are at least partially non-compliant with DSA regs. Many stations are simply not long enough for any more than a 4-carriage Sprinter. Even Leeds doesn't have a platform long enough for the new 6-carriage 195s. It should have by now but Failing Grayling ordered a "review" of it 5 years ago. Naturally it came back saying it was far and away the best option. Which is why he binned it. ****ing idiot.
So while there are a few new 195s on the line from Manchester up to the Lakes, they can't fit on the Manchester to Leeds corridor.