Hs2 Amendment

[Guest]

I see from Central TV News tonight that the HS2 route has been altered near Litchfield so that it will no longer blight the Wood End lock area on the T&M.

 

Good news, apparently they are to tunnel under that area. The local MP (who claimed to be a narrowboater) was clearly very chuffed.

 

Ed. - Title of course should be amendment.

Edited June 23, 2015 by MJG

[adam1uk]

This was announced in October, was't it?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-29451053

[Guest]

This was announced in October, was't it?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-29451053

Interesting, not sure why then that Central saw it as news worthy today. I know we are watching it in South West France but I don't believe the signal should take that long to get here....

 

Ed - Ah it's because it's going to an MPs vote.

Edited June 23, 2015 by MJG

[Sabcat]

He is indeed a narrow boater. Mad as a fish but a nice enough bloke. Good fun to have a pint with as well.

[ditchcrawler]

This is from Michael Fabricant's Facebook page.

 

The HS2 Orders were approved tonight which finally get rid of the viaduct and instead HS2 (which I still oppose) will travel under the A38 and West Coast Main Line.

Here is the short speech I gave in Parliament a few hours ago:-

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con):
When the debate began, a colleague whispered in my ear, “Oh, so you’ve been bought off then.” I can tell the House that I have not. I believe that the route is profoundly wrong for the reasons given in my amendment on Second Reading of the original Bill. For example, it does not even connect directly with the channel tunnel. However, I welcome the orders as the changes being made in this document mean that in Lichfield we will not have the blight or damage to the environment that we would otherwise have had. The original proposal was for a flyover, some 120 feet high, soaring over the plains of the Lichfield Trent Valley. It would have been visible from Lichfield Cathedral; it would probably have been visible from my house in the close of Lichfield Cathedral, although I am not declaring an interest. However, at last we have seen sense.

I have to give credit not only to the Committee, as I and others did earlier, but to Staffordshire County Council, Lichfield District Council and individuals who petitioned about this issue. I pay particular tribute to a local farmer whose son demonstrated to the Committee the height of the flyover by getting a drone with flags attached to it running to and fro. I was slightly worried that an Exocet missile or something would shoot it out of the sky, but it demonstrated clearly to the Committee and to some people working for HS2, who accompanied the Committee when it came to Lichfield, the damage that the high viaduct would have done.

There are further changes, too. Those who know me well know that I am a keen narrow boater, and we have some beautiful canals in the Lichfield area. Originally, the HS2 route would have crossed the canals at two particularly beautiful points. Changes have been made there, too. Although, as the Minister said, the cost has been reduced by the making of those changes, I will nevertheless say that he did it because he knew it was the right thing to do, and it means that these canals are now going to be protected.

In short, I welcome the motion and I welcome, for once, the Minister, who is a good friend of mine, presenting it to the House. If it comes to a vote, I, for one, will be voting for it.

[DHutch]

I am torn, part of me quite looked forward to the viaduct!

[Laurence Hogg]

HS2 is a farce, saves you 15 mins of the journey London - Birmingham, then if you are going any further its a 15 minute walk to the other main stations or you have to get a cab or bus. If you are going the other way its a fifteen minute walk down to the HS1 terminal. Absolutely barmy.

[IanM]

But HS2 is not just about speed, it's about line capacity.

 

There isn't much more room on the current infrastructure to increase the number of trains. Move some of the long distance trains onto new lines and you free up more of the existing network for the more local stuff including freight.

Edited June 24, 2015 by IanM

[Morat]

It's about "spending our way out of recession". There are other more deserving projects. I'd rather we installed proper fibre networks for video conferencing and taxed the hell out of corporate travel.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Morat

[Athy]

But HS2 is not just about speed, it's about line capacity.

 

There isn't much more room on the current infrastructure to increase the number of trains.

Why should one need to? The most numerous users of trains are surely commuters, and they are likely to reduce in number as the years go by. 15 years ago Mrs. Athy and I both went out to work; now both of us work from home, with separate offices in the same house. I'm sure that this is an increasingly common pattern. So there will be progressively less demand for line capacity - unless you're suggesting that we need to spend billions of pounds to enable people to go shopping or on holiday

[IanM]

Why should one need to? The most numerous users of trains are surely commuters, and they are likely to reduce in number as the years go by. 15 years ago Mrs. Athy and I both went out to work; now both of us work from home, with separate offices in the same house. I'm sure that this is an increasingly common pattern. So there will be progressively less demand for line capacity - unless you're suggesting that we need to spend billions of pounds to enable people to go shopping or on holiday

 

It's not just for passenger capacity, freight is increasing too and currently there's little room for it to grow and keep the same levels of service. I'm not getting into whether it's a good thing or not as we've done this to death, I was merely pointing out it's not just to get from A-B quickly.

[PeterG]

With the current air of austerity we should be using the money for HS2 on something more relevant rather than encouraging more long distance traveling. I manage to work with people all over the world on a daily basis and rarely need to travel to do this.

[Athy]

With the current air of austerity we should be using the money for HS2 on something more relevant rather than encouraging more long distance traveling. I manage to work with people all over the world on a daily basis and rarely need to travel to do this.

Quite so. I can't remember how many billions of pounds HS2 is supposed to cost. It may be similar to the amount that the government intends to save on benefits and other such expense. Can someone at Whitehall perhaps add 2+2?

[Jess--]

there does seem to be a lot more freight being moved on trains these days (compared with what I remember from my youth) and the amount would seem to be increasing further with new Rail-Served distribution depot's appearing.

 

however this increase is having an effect on the rail network, as an example there is a level crossing near to stamford (I forget the name) which carries 3 tracks, in the past (about 10 years ago) the most the barriers were down was around 15 minutes in an hour during busy periods, these days if you time getting to that crossing wrong you can be waiting up to 45 minutes for all three tracks to be clear enough for the crossing to open.

 

current usage on that crossing seems to be 1 track carrying high speed passenger traffic, 1 track carrying lower speed passenger and freight traffic and the third track with nothing but slow moving freight

[PeterG]

Perhaps what needs to be done then is to encourage more freight and less passengers by persuading passengers that there are many alternatives to long distance traveling which are cheaper in money and ecologically.

[b0atman]

Quite so. I can't remember how many billions of pounds HS2 is supposed to cost. It may be similar to the amount that the government intends to save on benefits and other such expense. Can someone at Whitehall perhaps add 2+2?

Plus how many millions are already being spent.

[DHutch]

Trains are a great way to move people and goods, what we need is less goods and crappy consumerism.

 

 

Daniel

[Guest]

I am torn, part of me quite looked forward to the viaduct!

I love to marvel at the engineering achievement that is often so evident in such constructions however that one was set to ruin a very nice and particularly idyllic spot in the system.

 

And yes before anyone says it there are multiple parts of the system in exactly the same position after early railway construction but there is no real need to add to it where it can be avoided, which in this instance it seems it can be.

[Machpoint005]

Plus how many millions are already being spent.

 

It's important to remember the difference between a million and a billion. Universal adoption of the US 'billion' disguises the FACT that a billion squid is a thousand million squid, but the two terms are often bandied about as if billions were only a bit bigger than millions.

 

I think it's worth spending millions now to avoid the outlay of 32 BILLION over the next several years. Don't forget this is a government vanity project which is bound to overspend drastically (think Channel Tunnel, Humber Bridge, London Olympics...) so if the consultancy work can eventually justify ditching the project, so much the better.

 

If we need a new railway line for capacity reasons, what's wrong with a conventional (not HS) line? As Laurence said, what matters is the doorstep-to-doorstep time, and knocking 15 to 30 minutes makes proportionately much less difference.

 

As for not HS2 connecting with HS1, that is just idiotic.

[DHutch]

 

As for not HS2 connecting with HS1, that is just idiotic.

Even GCR got that right...

[Athy]

Even GCR got that right...

...and look what good it did in the long term - most of the GCR main line closed in 1967.

[DHutch]

True

[Guest]

As for not HS2 connecting with HS1, that is just idiotic.

I am currently at the mercy of a poor internet connection and can't search very well but I thought there was a proposal to link them, or has that gone by the wayside in the amendments?

[Machpoint005]

If so, a mere link could fall some way short of satisfying a fundamental requirement!

[KevMc]

Perhaps what needs to be done then is to encourage more freight and less passengers by persuading passengers that there are many alternatives to long distance traveling which are cheaper in money and ecologically.

 

I can't imagine why anyone with a car would dream of using the train for anything other than a simple journey. I need want to go to Swanage in September and I just looked at the fares out of interest. For 2 adults and a child the minimum comes to a little under £100 - it takes 3.5 hours and needs 2 changes... the nearest station is Wareham so we'd need to get bus or taxi from there. It's 130 miles by car ... and I'm getting about 58 mph so call it 5 gallons return - works out under £30 and we'll arrive a lot less flustered - no argument in my book.