HS2 High Speed Rail

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Will it ever happen? The proposed high speed rail-link from London to Birmingham and then on to Manchester and Leeds. Every week it seems that some politician comes out with something negative about the project.

Personally, I wish it had been done years ago but the proposed costs really make me wonder if it is worth it now.

Obviously I have a north west bias to my opinion but I think we would see greater gain here with more investment in local transport infrastructure.

One must do project that will never happen is extending the M65 eastwards towards Yorkshire and Leeds. It seems absolutely mad that the only route connecting the whole north west of England to the M1 is the M62. An M65 extension would reduce congestion on the M62 between Bradford and Leeds and the entire northern section of the M60 around Manchester. It would reduce travelling times from anywhere north of Preston to Leeds by about 45 mins and produce greater economic gains for the isolated east Lancashire towns of Blackburn and Burnley than HS2 ever could at a fraction of the cost. The reduction of congestion along the M60/62 junction would also help Manchester and Liverpool.

Improvements should also be made to cross-pennine rail routes as well as the Metro-link in Manchester.

Thoughts?

[Malbec]

Why waste money linking up places in the North when we can and should have better transport links in London? We need a new circular line serving the suburbs so that people can bypass the overcrowded central hub stations, thats far more important IMO.

[Mark]

You can argue either way. IMO London already gets far too much of the investment

Whereas spending a fraction of the money for HS2 would transform the North and yet the money is only available for pet projects.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Why waste money linking up places in the North when we can and should have better transport links in London? We need a new circular line serving the suburbs so that people can bypass the overcrowded central hub stations, thats far more important IMO.

Couldn't we do that and extend the M65 with the money they want to spend on HS2?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You can argue either way. IMO London already gets far too much of the investment

Whereas spending a fraction of the money for HS2 would transform the North and yet the money is only available for pet projects.

Improving transport links locally in the north west would benefit a population of around 6-7 million. Why are the 6 million Londoners only worthy of transport infrastructure?

[GridGirl]

I'm going to a client meeting in London tomorrow. The 7.00am train from Leeds gets in at 8.59 and I can be at my client by 9.30am. OK so quicker would be better but the sheer cost of HS2 doesn't justify the relatively small reduction in commute, which isn't too bad if services are running on time and are not delayed. What I would prefer is a reduction in train fairs and uninterrupted services. I fix tickets where I can but an open return between Leeds and Kings Cross is in the region on £250 which is far too much.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm going to a client meeting in London tomorrow. The 7.00am train from Leeds gets in at 8.59 and I can be at my client by 9.30am. OK so quicker would be better but the sheer cost of HS2 doesn't justify the relatively small reduction in commute, which isn't too bad if services are running on time and are not delayed. What I would prefer is a reduction in train fairs and uninterrupted services. I fix tickets where I can but an open return between Leeds and Kings Cross is in the region on £250 which is far too much.

The train from Preston to Euston takes about 2 hours which is fairly quick to be fair (avg speed of around 110mph) so £50bn to get to London 30 minutes faster seem ridiculous when it already takes longer to get from Preston to Leeds on a train.

[BDunnell]

I used to be hugely in favour of HS2. Now, the way in which it's been planned, and the arguments used for justifying it, have put me off it completely. The out-of-town stations, such as that in Sheffield, render the whole thing absurd. The time-saving argument is a complete non-starter. I love high-speed rail travel in mainland Europe, but we've gone about it in totally the wrong way — not least because privatisation has seen virtual abandonment of notions of a national rail network, and the HS2 services would surely be viewed as premium offerings rather than as part of the regular network. (French and German high-speed services do command slightly higher fees, but, in each case, as part of a wider nationwide structure.)

As for what the money saved by cancelling HS2 should be spent on, I can, as someone who uses trains right across the UK, think of many priorities higher than London services.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I used to be hugely in favour of HS2. Now, the way in which it's been planned, and the arguments used for justifying it, have put me off it completely. The out-of-town stations, such as that in Sheffield, render the whole thing absurd. The time-saving argument is a complete non-starter. I love high-speed rail travel in mainland Europe, but we've gone about it in totally the wrong way — not least because privatisation has seen virtual abandonment of notions of a national rail network, and the HS2 services would surely be viewed as premium offerings rather than as part of the regular network. (French and German high-speed services do command slightly higher fees, but, in each case, as part of a wider nationwide structure.)

As for what the money saved by cancelling HS2 should be spent on, I can, as someone who uses trains right across the UK, think of many priorities higher than London services.

I 100% agree.

It would be nice to have faster trains but it really isn't a priority when you consider the improvements we could make elsewhere.

[Mark]

I'm going to a client meeting in London tomorrow. The 7.00am train from Leeds gets in at 8.59 and I can be at my client by 9.30am. OK so quicker would be better but the sheer cost of HS2 doesn't justify the relatively small reduction in commute, which isn't too bad if services are running on time and are not delayed. What I would prefer is a reduction in train fairs and uninterrupted services. I fix tickets where I can but an open return between Leeds and Kings Cross is in the region on £250 which is far too much.

To be fair the East Coast Main Line is probably the best and fastest service into London. But I'm sure what you'd benefit from more in your day to day life is faster connections to Manchester, Sheffield, York etc. rather than being able to get to London 10 minutes faster. And as HS2 would take an indirect route via Birmingham it's not going to be that much faster anyway -- All this is assuming it ever gets to Leeds, which is unlikely, even if the line to Birmingham is built.

[D-Type]

In Britain I can't see the justification for faster services. Does, say, 1hr 45 minutes compared to 2hrs really make a significant difference? On longer routes, 7 hours vs 8 hours is significant. If time saving is the objective, can this be achieved by running more frequent trains? Wait 30 minutes for a 1hr 45min journey or wait 15 minutes for a 2hr journey means the same total door to door time.

Having said that, once the government have done their sums, and decided there is a business case they should fully commit to it. The heel dragging that takes place cannot be justified. We saw it with the Channel Tunnel which was delayed and delayed. Then once it was built we had a long wait until the fast connection to London (HS1) was built and that was effectively done twice with station at Waterloo being built then replaced by one at Charing Cross. How many times has Crossrail been cancelled or delayed? And how many times have plans been finalised to the 'optimuum solution' then changed a few years later?

[Mark]

There is a case for HS2 if it will replace other forms of transport. e.g. Those who may currently fly from (say) Glasgow to London, if a train service can be provided which does the journey quicker door to door then great. But that's not what's being suggested here.

I think HS2 should have been built about about 30 years ago when other countries were building high speed lines, it's well out of date now and it can be argued that we've moved on from needing to be places in person quickly. We have the internet, teleworking etc. Just imagine if the government said we've now got £50bn to improve cycling infrastructure across the country, the entire country would be transformed to the benefit of millions, instead we get a single rail line to the dubious benefit of the privileged few.

[BDunnell]

There is a case for HS2 if it will replace other forms of transport. e.g. Those who may currently fly from (say) Glasgow to London, if a train service can be provided which does the journey quicker door to door then great. But that's not what's being suggested here.

I think HS2 should have been built about about 30 years ago when other countries were building high speed lines, it's well out of date now and it can be argued that we've moved on from needing to be places in person quickly.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with all of this. High-speed rail is still viable and relevant in many circumstances. Take Germany as an example. There, albeit in a country far more environmentally-minded and less wedded to the car than is the UK, high-speed rail is seen as a true alternative by both business and leisure travellers to both domestic air travel and car journeys. Would it be so had not high-speed trains been introduced? Not so much, I feel. Even if the time savings sometimes are small, these services have rendered the German rail network a more attractive proposition overall. To some extent it's an image thing, yet these are, above all, practical services. HS2, with out-of-town stations, can't truly claim that.

Often I think it's worth considering the obverse of an argument, and whether it makes sense. In this case, the obverse is that it doesn't matter if trains are made slower. In a world where speed — even only minor increases in speed — is increasingly of the essence, there remains a potent case for high-speed rail. However, HS2 as proposed for the UK is simply misconceived.

[BDunnell]

If time saving is the objective, can this be achieved by running more frequent trains? Wait 30 minutes for a 1hr 45min journey or wait 15 minutes for a 2hr journey means the same total door to door time.

Then you run increasingly into capacity problems on many existing lines relating to the number of 'train paths' available. Taking this into consideration, one begins to appreciate why some services have actually slowed down. The Norwich to London route is one I know well — quite apart from the line's infrastructure being absolutely creaking, there has over the years been a steady deterioration in journey times. This is because of the increased popularity of rail travel having led to demands, and a sound commercial case, having been made for more services to stop at more stations. There is a knock-on effect.

[Mintexmemory]

If time saving is the objective, can this be achieved by running more frequent trains? Wait 30 minutes for a 1hr 45min journey or wait 15 minutes for a 2hr journey means the same total door to door time.

Then you run increasingly into capacity problems on many existing lines relating to the number of 'train paths' available. Taking this into consideration, one begins to appreciate why some services have actually slowed down. The Norwich to London route is one I know well — quite apart from the line's infrastructure being absolutely creaking, there has over the years been a steady deterioration in journey times. This is because of the increased popularity of rail travel having led to demands, and a sound commercial case, having been made for more services to stop at more stations. There is a knock-on effect.

That is the hub of the issue, HS2 can't be justified alone on the journey time criterion. It is all about improving capacity without the need to share lines with the stopping trains. Anyway, I take exception to the spurious north v south arguments. HS2 has to go ahead, if only to keep me in gainful employment for the next 10 years ;)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If HS2 is to go ahead they need to start with the northern section first. Reducing travelling times from Manchester and Leeds to Birmingham to around 50 mins would be a great step forward. Building the Birmingham to London section first would just depress the north even further.

[steveaki13]

I agree with Mark who earlier said it right, that any money saved from this project does not need spending on Londons Rail Network, I think that area already gets enough funding and if Hs2 does fall through any available money should be invested on rail and transport links further north.

I have travelled on the railways from East Anglia and Essex to London and to be honest I can get from home into the City in about an 40 minutes which aint bad.

However some services experienced elsewhere are not as brilliant.

As for the travel time, as some have stated the comparative reduction in time taken will not be worth the massive expenditure.

[BDunnell]

I agree with Mark who earlier said it right, that any money saved from this project does not need spending on Londons Rail Network, I think that area already gets enough funding and if Hs2 does fall through any available money should be invested on rail and transport links further north.

I have travelled on the railways from East Anglia and Essex to London and to be honest I can get from home into the City in about an 40 minutes which aint bad.

Why just the north? The line you mention, from Norwich in to London, is crying out for more money. It suffers so many serious infrastructure problems.

[555-04Q2]

Will it ever happen? The proposed high speed rail-link from London to Birmingham and then on to Manchester and Leeds. Every week it seems that some politician comes out with something negative about the project.

Personally, I wish it had been done years ago but the proposed costs really make me wonder if it is worth it now.

Obviously I have a north west bias to my opinion but I think we would see greater gain here with more investment in local transport infrastructure.

One must do project that will never happen is extending the M65 eastwards towards Yorkshire and Leeds. It seems absolutely mad that the only route connecting the whole north west of England to the M1 is the M62. An M65 extension would reduce congestion on the M62 between Bradford and Leeds and the entire northern section of the M60 around Manchester. It would reduce travelling times from anywhere north of Preston to Leeds by about 45 mins and produce greater economic gains for the isolated east Lancashire towns of Blackburn and Burnley than HS2 ever could at a fraction of the cost. The reduction of congestion along the M60/62 junction would also help Manchester and Liverpool.

Improvements should also be made to cross-pennine rail routes as well as the Metro-link in Manchester.

Thoughts?

Ask Jeremy Clarkson for advice, he has a solution to every transport problem ;) :p:

[Mark]

Why just the north? The line you mention, from Norwich in to London, is crying out for more money. It suffers so many serious infrastructure problems.

No; I'm talking about transport infrastructure NOT involving London. Why does all the investment have to go into getting people into and out of London?

[555-04Q2]

Why just the north? The line you mention, from Norwich in to London, is crying out for more money. It suffers so many serious infrastructure problems.

No; I'm talking about transport infrastructure NOT involving London. Why does all the investment have to go into getting people into and out of London?

Maybe because it is your financial and tourism hub amongst other things?

[BDunnell]

No; I'm talking about transport infrastructure NOT involving London. Why does all the investment have to go into getting people into and out of London?

Because they are undeniably important routes, transporting the largest numbers of people. Like it or not, that's reality — as is the fact that more capacity and better infrastructure are urgent requirements on many of them. And you forget in your anti-London bias that these routes don't just transport people to and from London, but between intermediate points on the routes in question too.

[henners88]

Why just the north? The line you mention, from Norwich in to London, is crying out for more money. It suffers so many serious infrastructure problems.

No; I'm talking about transport infrastructure NOT involving London. Why does all the investment have to go into getting people into and out of London?

Maybe because it is your financial and tourism hub amongst other things?
It is a major tourism hub yes but there are many other important sites around the country other than grotty London. Unfortunately so many rail routes suffer because of this obsession to spend all the money supplying routes to London. I can't use rail any more because I'd probably lose my job as its so unreliable. Birmingham is the biggest city in the UK and is in the centre, yet doesn't seem to have anywhere near as much effort in supporting. I hate the mentality in our country sometimes and its no wonder you hear 'Britain is a Country surrounded by the M25' so often! :)

[555-04Q2]

It is a major tourism hub yes but there are many other important sites around the country other than grotty London. Unfortunately so many rail routes suffer because of this obsession to spend all the money supplying routes to London. I can't use rail any more because I'd probably lose my job as its so unreliable. Birmingham is the biggest city in the UK and is in the centre, yet doesn't seem to have anywhere near as much effort in supporting. I hate the mentality in our country sometimes and its no wonder you hear 'Britain is a Country surrounded by the M25' so often! :)

You kidding! Birmingham! Bloody hell :eek:

[Dave B]

I can only base my opinion on living a few minutes walk from a station served by HS1, which we were assured would increase capacity and bring prices down on the commuter routes. In fact what's happened is we've lost 2 trains per hour to accommodate the high speed trains, which cost a lot more, and prices on the "slow" trains have gone up well in excess of inflation.

[kapparomeo]

From what I've heard from train enthusiasts, the main role of HS2 isn't so much to decrease overall journey time - as it is, it takes you a little over an hour to get the London from Birmingham anyway, it's hardly trekking the Sahara - but more to increase capacity by letting more trains run on an overcrowded line.

I don't really use the train enough myself for it to personally affect me, but I won't deny that the costs on paper are eye-watering.

[Starter]

Is the high speed service run by First or someone else?

[Mark]

Is the high speed service run by First or someone else?

The contract hasn't been awarded and won't be for a long long time yet - probably 10 years or so.

It's far from certain the line will even be built.

[Starter]

Is the high speed service run by First or someone else?

The contract hasn't been awarded and won't be for a long long time yet - probably 10 years or so.

It's far from certain the line will even be built.
Thanks. I was just curious. A company I had worked for over here was acquired by First while I was still there.

[emporer_k]

That money would be better spent improving the east-west rail links rather than the north-south routes. Also there should be more emphasis on local transport infrastructure outside of London.

It amazes me though why HS2 is not going to connect to the Eurotunnel, or even use the same London terminal as the Eurostar.

[Mark]

Yeah if you're going to do it then do it properly and stop having London as a hard destination you have no choice but navigating.

HS2 would make more choice if you could get a through train from Manchester to Paris. Even if you had to change in London in the same station that would work ok. As it is your going to have to trek across Central London on the tube or in a taxi. £50 billion for that?!

[555-04Q2]

£50 billion for that?!

For someone with influence involved to line their pockets a bit more ;)

[Mintexmemory]

Yeah if you're going to do it then do it properly and stop having London as a hard destination you have no choice but navigating.

HS2 would make more choice if you could get a through train from Manchester to Paris. Even if you had to change in London in the same station that would work ok. As it is your going to have to trek across Central London on the tube or in a taxi. £50 billion for that?!
Actually it is not a trek across Central London (you are clearly forgetting Eurostar is no longer at Waterloo) - it's a half mile stroll down the Euston Rd from Euston to St Pancras International. Alternatively 1 stop on the Victoria line. A whole lot easier than transfers in other multi-terminus capitals. Sorry that we have a Capital city that is a business and tourism world brand but there it is. The French have tried making Lille and Lyon alternative hubs - if any of you have been there and have formed a view you have some insight on how visitors to Britain regard our infrastructure.

As for the E-W route argument - Ipswich to Bristol? Or is it NE - SW that people really mean Middlesborough - Cardiff. Forgive my London bias but most of the anti-HS2 arguments just seem founded on an anti-London bias.

[SGWilko]

Personally, if the government(s) spent money on rail upgrades rather than widening motorways just to create more car journeys and thus more congestion and pollution, then the rail network would become more efficient, more attractive to Joe Public and will become cheaper.

IF a second rail link HAS to be built, it should be paid for by industry and be used solely for freight and get the lorries off the roads. That would vastly reduce wear and tear on the motorways, which will reduce repair bills. Congestion would be lower as you wouldn't get one lorry traveling at 56mph being overtaken by another doing 57mph, taking about 10 miles to make the overtake and causing a bottleneck!

[Mark]

Actually it is not a trek across Central London (you are clearly forgetting Eurostar is no longer at Waterloo) - it's a half mile stroll down the Euston Rd from Euston to St Pancras International. Alternatively 1 stop on the Victoria line. A whole lot easier than transfers in other multi-terminus capitals. Sorry that we have a Capital city that is a business and tourism world brand but there it is. The French have tried making Lille and Lyon alternative hubs - if any of you have been there and have formed a view you have some insight on how visitors to Britain regard our infrastructure.
.

I haven't forgotten. However for it to be a realistic through service, a half mile trek through London streets, with all your baggage etc, is not acceptable. Neither is having to go onto the tube.

[SGWilko]

Yeah if you're going to do it then do it properly and stop having London as a hard destination you have no choice but navigating.

HS2 would make more choice if you could get a through train from Manchester to Paris. Even if you had to change in London in the same station that would work ok. As it is your going to have to trek across Central London on the tube or in a taxi. £50 billion for that?!

That's the nail on the head IYAM. We are a small country (in physical size terms), and we do not have the room in this country for HS2 without buggering up a fair few livelyhoods.

But yes, HS2 would only really work if it were a true extension of HS1, which it never will be.

[Rollo]

It amazes me though why HS2 is not going to connect to the Eurotunnel, or even use the same London terminal as the Eurostar.

A quick look at Google maps at the intersection of Euston Rd and Pancras Rd; where the two terminals King's Cross & St Pancras (or is that one conglomo - you decide) tells you that that's an awful lot of railhead to be jamming into a small area without HS2.
Is it really going to kill people to move less than one mile between Euston and King's Cross St Pancras?

[SGWilko]

I can only base my opinion on living a few minutes walk from a station served by HS1, which we were assured would increase capacity and bring prices down on the commuter routes. In fact what's happened is we've lost 2 trains per hour to accommodate the high speed trains, which cost a lot more, and prices on the "slow" trains have gone up well in excess of inflation.

I live a stone-and-a-bit throw from Ebbsfleet. A station in the middle of no-man's-land. The ever increasing cost on the southeastern franchise to pay for HS1 is the reason why I stopped commuting by train and got myself a moped.

[555-04Q2]

and got myself a moped.

Your coolness factor just went up a notch in my book :D

[SGWilko]

and got myself a moped.

Your coolness factor just went up a notch in my book :D

I shan't tell you it's a 50cc Pugrot then! :laugh:

[555-04Q2]

and got myself a moped.

Your coolness factor just went up a notch in my book :D

I shan't tell you it's a 50cc Pugrot then! :laugh:

Now why you got to go spoil it like that :laugh: ;)