HS2 happening?

[craftycarper]

If our current trains are fast enough, why do so many people fly?

 

Of course this totally ignores one of the main reasons for another railway, increased capacity, for freight as well as passengers. The feeling is, if we have to build a new railway, it might as well be high speed while we are at it.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

we have had the intercity 125 for years but there are few if any places on our crumbling network that it can reach these speeds so I think we should improve what we have rather than cut the country in half ruin people's life's and waste a fortune we allegedly don,t have

[furnessvale]

we have had the intercity 125 for years but there are few if any places on our crumbling network that it can reach these speeds so I think we should improve what we have rather than cut the country in half ruin people's life's and waste a fortune we allegedly don,t have

Having worked within the railway industry for years and now in retirement maintaining a keen interest in the railways, I do not recognise the railway you describe.

 

Many miles of the east coast, west coast and Great Western main lines are passed for 125. Sections of the midland main line have recently been passed for 125. What is not 125 is mainly 110 or 100. About the only 75mph or less lines are branches where the many stops would render higher speeds pointless. Even so, most of even those lines have continuous welded rails. Modern signalling will mean only 14 signal boxes will control the entire network within the next 20 years.

 

Since privatisation in 1995, passenger journeys have doubled, freight increased by 50%. What is desperately needed for the future is more capacity.

 

Even as I type, the government is implementing plans to spend twice as much on new roads as will be spent on HS2 so they are not being neglected in favour of rail. If HS2 is stopped more motorway capacity will have to be built, perhaps through the Chilterns.

 

Please don't base your perception of Britain's railways on the hysterics of the Daily Mail.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Graham Davis]

Well said George!!

[craftycarper]

Having worked within the railway industry for years and now in retirement maintaining a keen interest in the railways, I do not recognise the railway you describe.

 

Many miles of the east coast, west coast and Great Western main lines are passed for 125. Sections of the midland main line have recently been passed for 125. What is not 125 is mainly 110 or 100. About the only 75mph or less lines are branches where the many stops would render higher speeds pointless. Even so, most of even those lines have continuous welded rails. Modern signalling will mean only 14 signal boxes will control the entire network within the next 20 years.

 

Since privatisation in 1995, passenger journeys have doubled, freight increased by 50%. What is desperately needed for the future is more capacity.

 

Even as I type, the government is implementing plans to spend twice as much on new roads as will be spent on HS2 so they are not being neglected in favour of rail. If HS2 is stopped more motorway capacity will have to be built, perhaps through the Chilterns.

 

Please don't base your perception of Britain's railways on the hysterics of the Daily Mail.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

[Chop!]

A ridiculous waste of money! Money that would be far better spent undoing Beeching's axe cuts. And re-instating the sorely needed branch lines and cross country routes.

There is a lot more to the UK than London Birmingham & Leeds.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Chop!

[Peter X]

Having worked within the railway industry for years and now in retirement maintaining a keen interest in the railways, I do not recognise the railway you describe.

 

Many miles of the east coast, west coast and Great Western main lines are passed for 125. Sections of the midland main line have recently been passed for 125. What is not 125 is mainly 110 or 100. About the only 75mph or less lines are branches where the many stops would render higher speeds pointless. Even so, most of even those lines have continuous welded rails. Modern signalling will mean only 14 signal boxes will control the entire network within the next 20 years.

 

Since privatisation in 1995, passenger journeys have doubled, freight increased by 50%. What is desperately needed for the future is more capacity.

 

Even as I type, the government is implementing plans to spend twice as much on new roads as will be spent on HS2 so they are not being neglected in favour of rail. If HS2 is stopped more motorway capacity will have to be built, perhaps through the Chilterns.

 

Please don't base your perception of Britain's railways on the hysterics of the Daily Mail.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

This is the great thing about this forum, there's always someone with some real knowledge of a subject. It certainly chimes with my experience of using the railways to say that we need more capacity, although a lot of that experience is on the suburban lines into London in rush hour, where it's hard to see how extra capacity can be created. Having said that, projects like Crossrail are helpful in that they postpone the day when the roads in London seize up altogether. You could build a new Underground line almost anywhere in London and it would fill up with people. People said 15 years ago that Croydon Tramlink would be a waste of money but it's a victim of its own success, frequently overcrowded.

 

While London needs more railways to enable it to get on with what it does best, generating money for the Treasury, the UK also needs the North to prosper doing what it does best, making things. The government (and opposition too it seems) appear to have reached the conclusion that HS2 is the best answer, and there certainly appears to be a need for more rail capacity along its route, but does that extra capacity really have to cost so much? I wonder whether a number of smaller ideas put together might be better value, for example:

 

If there are bottlenecks on existing lines going north out of London, would a bit of extra track or other minor works make it possible to run more trains?

 

Would longer trains be part of the answer? I think these have been introduced successfully on some commuter lines in recent years, making it possible for example to squeeze more passengers per hour through the bottleneck of the lines into London Bridge.

 

Why the emphasis on top speed, when the distances are not so great? Back in 1991-93 I used to commute out via Paddington to Reading, and it seemed that the train took many miles at each end getting up to top speed and slowing down again. And all too often it had to slow down in between due to some problem or other on the line. I suspect that money spent on signalling, track maintenance and line side security is unglamorous but effective?

 

Then of course there's the idea that business people should use Skype etc. more. The technology has its uses up to a point, but sometimes a face to face meeting really is best. Having said which, big organisations are very over-fond of holding unnecessary meetings. I've been in a lot of these where I've come out thinking "that was a boring hour I could have spent doing my real job".

 

I also wonder what infrastructure improvements businesses in the North think would most benefit them? Do they see better rail links to London as a priority, or are they more bothered about getting through trains to Ashford and Europe?

[Higgs]

Since privatisation in 1995, passenger journeys have doubled, freight increased by 50%. What is desperately needed for the future is more capacity.

 

Even as I type, the government is implementing plans to spend twice as much on new roads as will be spent on HS2 so they are not being neglected in favour of rail. If HS2 is stopped more motorway capacity will have to be built, perhaps through the Chilterns.

 

Please don't base your perception of Britain's railways on the hysterics of the Daily Mail.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Since privatisation the subsidies paid have increased. Most to Network Rail. Were they not paid to Network Rail, higher costs to the rail companies would have to be levied for their access to the system. Consequently, the fares would increase. Network Rail recieve about 85% of some £4,000,000,000 in subsidies per year. I trust the HS2 will not be an even further drag on the public resources.

 

I do not see the comparison between money spent on roads and that spent on a new rail line as valied. The funds for roads is a more democratic application of public money. Access and use of the roads will serve more people. All the tax payers will have access to something they have contributed to. It will also give access to people who are below the tax threshhold. Something for the rich and poor alike.

 

It is said that the rail companies are victims of their own success. I think success is when something works properly, turns a profit and needs no public funding. Until that happens, there is no such thing as a privatised rail system, in effect.. On paper, yes.

[cotswoldsman]

I take your point I had misunderstood and didn't realise that all those currently travelling to London throughout the day are just on a all expenses paid jaunts. Speaking as one who for years did similar trips I saw no pleasure in my expenses paid jaunt and would definitely organise Skype conferences or similar when I could.

 

We need an investment programme now on all areas of infrastructure.

My son commutes from Birmingham to London every day and his train is packed with people doing similar, unfortunately he has to pay himself and his season ticket has just gone up to over £7,000

IMO this country badly needs a new rail system unfortunately the choice of name of High Speed was a bad choice any new rail system was going to be fast as that is where technology is now. Yes people will lose there houses and that is what happens with new infrastructure projects going right back to when railways first started and for that matter motorways. The fact that journeys will be quicker is a bonus but the main point is this countries rail system badly needs upgrading.

If our current trains are fast enough, why do so many people fly?

 

Of course this totally ignores one of the main reasons for another railway, increased capacity, for freight as well as passengers. The feeling is, if we have to build a new railway, it might as well be high speed while we are at it.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Well said that man

 

Since privatisation in 1995, passenger journeys have doubled, freight increased by 50%. What is desperately needed for the future is more capacity.

 

 

I think we have discussed this before and I have to agree 100% when I was involved in Rail Freight trying to book slots was almost impossible and I have been retired now for 12 years.

[NigelMoore]

Yes people will lose there houses and that is what happens with new infrastructure projects going right back to when railways first started and for that matter motorways.

 

Interestingly enough, it was not what happened [going back yet further] with the canals. In at least some of their enabling Acts, such as that for the Grand Junction Canal in 1793 – which was to be the major freight artery of its day – the powers of compulsory purchase were expressly worded to exclude the taking of residential and associated developed property.

 

 

Of course, the country was less populated then.

 

Edit to give content in plain font -

 

"Provided always, and be it further enacted, That nothing herein contained shall authorise or impower the said Company of Proprietors, or any Person or Persons acting by or under their authority, to take, use, injure, or damage, for the purposes of the said canal and collateral cuts, or any of them, or any other of the purposes as aforesaid, any house or other building which was erected and built on or before the first day of September one thousand seven hundred and ninety two, or any land or ground which, on or before the said first day of September was set apart, and used, as or for any garden, orchard, yard, park, paddock, planted walk, or avenue to a house, without the consent of the owners and occupiers thereof, other than . . ." certain listed exceptions. [my emphasis in bold]

Edited March 23, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Ray T]

Why do they keep lying that this train set will cost 50 billion, when everybody knows it will be an open cheque book case, that will overrun hideously.?

Mrs T writes:

 

When this project was first mooted in 2009 the projected cost was £19b. Now it is £50b and not capped.

 

Where people in Kenilworth have agreed to go early, HS2 buys their house at well below market value then spends a small fortune on the property before putting it on the rental market.

 

My Mother's next door neighbour has been offered £50k LESS than it was worth in 2008 yet sites such as Zoopla show it should be the opposite-£50k more than 2008. If my house has to go then pay me properly, not put me in a situation where I cannot afford a similar property in the same area for my Mother.

 

When the time comes in 2017 I will be engaging a surveyor who has long experience with HS1 to fight my corner. Build your stupid , uneconomic, London commuter belt extension railway if you must but not off my back. Even farmers who lose land will not be compensated adequately for loss of earnings.

 

Mrs T

 

(edited for a typo)

Edited March 23, 2014 by Ray T

[thorne lass]

 

 

 

For every £1 invested, the wider economic benefits of HS2 will return £2

 

 

Where do they get this stuff from? HS2 will (not might, or could) return double its cost? Politicians seem to be swallowing these kind of figures hook, line & sinker while back in the real world, no-one else is.

 

For every £1..00 invested in flood relief works the payback must be £8.00.

[b0atman]

A ridiculous waste of money! Money that would be far better spent undoing Beeching's axe cuts. And re-instating the sorely needed branch lines and cross country routes.

There is a lot more to the UK than London Birmingham & Leeds.

Leeds is only on there as the M1 goes directly there from London so that must be the far north

[Higgs]

My son commutes from Birmingham to London every day and his train is packed with people doing similar, unfortunately he has to pay himself and his season ticket has just gone up to over £7,000

IMO this country badly needs a new rail system unfortunately the choice of name of High Speed was a bad choice any new rail system was going to be fast as that is where technology is now. Yes people will lose there houses and that is what happens with new infrastructure projects going right back to when railways first started and for that matter motorways. The fact that journeys will be quicker is a bonus but the main point is this countries rail system badly needs upgrading.

 

 

 

I commute 14 miles a day, work in my home town and don't need the railway. I can either do it in the car or use the bike. And if the rail system you want couldn't happen with a nationalised industry and can't be done with a privatised industry, where do you go from there?

 

State subsidy is different when used for nationalised industry as opposed to private industries. For one thing, you can eliminate the shareholders. It has been proved that neither private or national permutation have been wholly effective. On the basis of that experiment, I would ditch the private model. If the tax payers are going to have to cough up either way I'd sooner it were renationalised. Make the whole country the stakeholders and return the connection to the more personal public endeavour that private industry fails to imbue.

 

If the progress made in technology and the increased personal wealth of a few could be reflected in the social benefits, I'd shut my gob.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Higgs

[furnessvale]

A ridiculous waste of money! Money that would be far better spent undoing Beeching's axe cuts. And re-instating the sorely needed branch lines and cross country routes.

There is a lot more to the UK than London Birmingham & Leeds.

Indeed there is, and every town and city from London northwards will benefit from HS2.

 

For example, EVERY train from Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh and many other places, will run on HS2 saving time.

 

Towns and cities further south will benefit from trains being diverted to HS2, freeing up capacity for more services on the original routes.

 

Quite simply, no HS2 means passengers and freight will have to go by road meaning a new north south motorway will have to be built.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Higgs]

Indeed there is, and every town and city from London northwards will benefit from HS2.

 

For example, EVERY train from Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh and many other places, will run on HS2 saving time.

 

Towns and cities further south will benefit from trains being diverted to HS2, freeing up capacity for more services on the original routes.

 

Quite simply, no HS2 means passengers and freight will have to go by road meaning a new north south motorway will have to be built.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

 

Magic wand?

[furnessvale]

 

 

Magic wand?

?????????????

[Higgs]

?????????????

 

I do not subscribe to optimistic view. We can all read what the promises are, doubt the reality will match. And haste makes waste.

[craftycarper]

Having worked within the railway industry for years and now in retirement maintaining a keen interest in the railways, I do not recognise the railway you describe.

 

Many miles of the east coast, west coast and Great Western main lines are passed for 125. Sections of the midland main line have recently been passed for 125. What is not 125 is mainly 110 or 100. About the only 75mph or less lines are branches where the many stops would render higher speeds pointless. Even so, most of even those lines have continuous welded rails. Modern signalling will mean only 14 signal boxes will control the entire network within the next 20 years.

 

Since privatisation in 1995, passenger journeys have doubled, freight increased by 50%. What is desperately needed for the future is more capacity.

 

Even as I type, the government is implementing plans to spend twice as much on new roads as will be spent on HS2 so they are not being neglected in favour of rail. If HS2 is stopped more motorway capacity will have to be built, perhaps through the Chilterns.

 

Please don't base your perception of Britain's railways on the hysterics of the Daily Mail.

 

George ex nb Alton retired my perception is based on my personal experiences of the rail network certainly not on a newspaper I have never read so let's not lower ourself,s to mud slinging to score points, I have traveled many miles around the country on trains but never at 125 miles an hour and often late or canceled even being transferred to a bus to finish my journey and the views from the window are normally made up of run down derelict sidings not the brilliant ultra modern network you are trying to sale to me I wish we could come back to this in 10 years when it's still not finished gone massively over budget and improved know ones life in fact recent study,s have shown that any benefits to the north of our country will be made up from losses to the south so if there's 50 billion pounds in the coffers to splash around maybe we should be spending it on making the entire network electric and efficient like any other country in the world whose trains actually work and not just line the pockets of a select few and as said ruin the life's of many

 

[Southern Star]

I am going from Sheffield to Torquay on tuesday setting off at 0955 arriving at 1450 I think £38 a bargain it will cost me as much in fuel to come back!! We need better and bigger..........canals to get rid off all the lorries on the road hopefully HS2 will do the same

 

Peter

But would you really want the 400,000 heavy goods vehicles registered with DVLA to be replaced by canal boats, especially given that you would need far more of them than there are HGVs on account of their much slower speed? I would imagine that having to queue up for two days to get through a lock would soon take the shine off of the idea.

[furnessvale]

 

my perception is based on my personal experiences of the rail network certainly not on a newspaper I have never read so let's not lower ourself,s to mud slinging to score points, I have traveled many miles around the country on trains but never at 125 miles an hour and often late or canceled even being transferred to a bus to finish my journey and the views from the window are normally made up of run down derelict sidings not the brilliant ultra modern network you are trying to sale to me I wish we could come back to this in 10 years when it's still not finished gone massively over budget and improved know ones life in fact recent study,s have shown that any benefits to the north of our country will be made up from losses to the south so if there's 50 billion pounds in the coffers to splash around maybe we should be spending it on making the entire network electric and efficient like any other country in the world whose trains actually work and not just line the pockets of a select few and as said ruin the life's of many

I am sorry that you have uniquely managed to travel many miles on the railways of this country and NEVER at 125mph. You have missed so much.

 

Hundreds of trains every day travel many miles at 125mph. The average arrival within 5 minutes of booked time is over 90%. Cancellations are about 2% if that. Bus substitution is less than 1%.

 

Please let me know when you next intend to travel so I can pick a different train.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[craftycarper]

I am sorry that you have uniquely managed to travel many miles on the railways of this country and NEVER at 125mph. You have missed so much.

 

Hundreds of trains every day travel many miles at 125mph. The average arrival within 5 minutes of booked time is over 90%. Cancellations are about 2% if that. Bus substitution is less than 1%.

 

Please let me know when you next intend to travel so I can pick a different train.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

you can continue to quote your trainspotting statistics but they are not reflections of the real world in fact my last journey involved me standing for several hours even though most of the seats were empty but reserved and myself and most others had to stand in the corridor the whole way, my local train only runs the full route twice a day and every other journey terminates 2 stops before the end of the line and we are all sheparded onto a minibus that is over 50% of the journeys not 1% and even if your rose tinted views of the modern rail network were a reflection of the truth you still have failed to make any argument in support of hs2 in fact if the network is really in the tip top conditions you describe it would make the need for a new rail system even more pointless

[furnessvale]

you can continue to quote your trainspotting statistics but they are not reflections of the real world in fact my last journey involved me standing for several hours even though most of the seats were empty but reserved and myself and most others had to stand in the corridor the whole way, my local train only runs the full route twice a day and every other journey terminates 2 stops before the end of the line and we are all sheparded onto a minibus that is over 50% of the journeys not 1% and even if your rose tinted views of the modern rail network were a reflection of the truth you still have failed to make any argument in support of hs2 in fact if the network is really in the tip top conditions you describe it would make the need for a new rail system even more pointless

Oh dear, the ultimate put down. Most amusing given that I made my living from railways for most of my working life.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

I could continue batting this back and forth forever but we will never agree so I will say goodbye, I have a boat beckoning.

Edited March 23, 2014 by furnessvale

[Athy]

my last journey involved me standing for several hours even though most of the seats were empty but reserved and myself and most others had to stand in the corridor the whole way,

Most unusual. When seats are reserved, the reservation ticket tucked into the headrest generally gives the names of the stations between which the seat is reserved, Let's say you're going from London to Derby. Either:

- the reservation is from London to Derby. But if after a few minutes of departure the seat is still empty, that means that the person hasn't caught the train so you can sit down on it. Or,

- the reservation is from Market Harborough (or another intermediate station) to Derby. So you can sit down until the train reaches Market Harborough. Or,

- the reservation is from London to Market Harborough (or wherever) and the bod does turn up. But when he gets off at his station, you can then sit in the now vacant seat.

 

Incidentally, where did you find a train with a corridor? I thought that they were virtually extinct now, just as locomotive-hauled passenger trains are.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Athy

[craftycarper]

Oh dear, the ultimate put down. Most amusing given that I made my living from railways for most of my working life.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

I could continue batting this back and forth forever but we will never agree so I will say goodbye, I have a boat beckoning.

Oh dear, the ultimate put down. Most amusing given that I made my living from railways for most of my working life.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

well even though you have failed to make any case for for this overpriced white elephant at least you can relax safe in the knowledge that you have left us with a modern on time railway network that makes us the envy of the rest of the world laters

[Athy]

Modern network, certainly - trains and stations have been considerably modernised over the last decade or so. On time, not so sure! I would say that, for example, French trains are more punctual, though I have no stats to back this up - I speak only from personal experience/