HS2, whats the current status ?
Discussion
MarshPhantom said:
People say train use is increasing, not as rapidly as short haul flights, London to Manchester in 55mins. Anyone who thinks they can predict the future is usually wrong.
But 55 mins isn't the true journey time is it? If you were living in central Manchester, 10 mins walk from the station and wanted to get to St Pauls in London for a meeting - which is quicker?Vaud said:
MarshPhantom said:
People say train use is increasing, not as rapidly as short haul flights, London to Manchester in 55mins. Anyone who thinks they can predict the future is usually wrong.
But 55 mins isn't the true journey time is it? If you were living in central Manchester, 10 mins walk from the station and wanted to get to St Pauls in London for a meeting - which is quicker?It doesn't take no time get to train stations.
MarshPhantom said:
The plane is quicker. I can be at City airport in about 15mins. 2 hrs won't be the actual journey time for HS2 unless you aren't going anywhere at the other end.
It doesn't take no time get to train stations.
OK, so from Manchester station to the airport, through security, to plane, to London, offload, to tube to St Pauls? What would the difference be in minutes?It doesn't take no time get to train stations.
Vaud said:
MarshPhantom said:
The plane is quicker. I can be at City airport in about 15mins. 2 hrs won't be the actual journey time for HS2 unless you aren't going anywhere at the other end.
It doesn't take no time get to train stations.
OK, so from Manchester station to the airport, through security, to plane, to London, offload, to tube to St Pauls? What would the difference be in minutes?It doesn't take no time get to train stations.
Personally I can get to City Airport a damn sight quicker than I can Euston.
MarshPhantom said:
rs1952 said:
Steve - blame the EU for what it is responsible for (if you must...) but you can't hang this one on Brussels 
But in a way this does epitomise the problem with talking about HS2 on here. There are so many people with simplistic ideas and opinions that do not withstand close scrutiny when the practicalities are taken into account. I have a saying "if the answer is so simple that an idiot could think of it then an idiot has just thought of it" It works in the majority of situations. So far we have had all the usual ones:
"Why don't they just run longer trains?" Because then you'd need longer platforms and you'd need to remodel many junctions at platform ends. And that starts to get very expensive when there are other infrastructure works involved as well, such as bridge embankment or cutting widening.
"Why don't they run double deck trains?" Because they wouldn't fit under the bridges or in the tunnels without further expensive works, that's why. And on top of that, there were two prototype double-decked trains developed in the UK in the 1940s by the Southern Railway. There are very good reasons why those prototypes did not result in widespread adoption of double deck trains, and most of the reasons were they didn't live up to expectations.
"Why can't we just upgrade the existing railways instead?" We are upgrading the existing railways - as well as building HS2. Read the papers, do a Google search - there are various ways of finding out
"People won't need to travel in the future because of new technology." I wonder if anybody thought that would happen when they invented the telephone, or even the postal service a couple of hundred years earlier?
We have had a new one today, however, or new to me at least. We read that the ABD has calculated that if the money to be spent on HS2 was used to reduce fuel taxation we'd all be buying the stuff at 70 pence a litre. Well that's a win-win situation if ever I saw one - its so simple an idiot could have thought of it.
But of course, if fuel was 70 pence a litre it would lead to much greater car use, a huge transfer of freight traffic from rail to road, and nationwide congestion that would make current Friday afternoon traffic levels on the M25 look like a meander down an empty country lane. I doubt that that is what the ABD had in mind when they came up with that one.
Unintended consequences are a bugger, aren't they
People say train use is increasing, not as rapidly as short haul flights, London to Manchester in 55mins. Anyone who thinks they can predict the future is usually wrong.But in a way this does epitomise the problem with talking about HS2 on here. There are so many people with simplistic ideas and opinions that do not withstand close scrutiny when the practicalities are taken into account. I have a saying "if the answer is so simple that an idiot could think of it then an idiot has just thought of it" It works in the majority of situations. So far we have had all the usual ones:
"Why don't they just run longer trains?" Because then you'd need longer platforms and you'd need to remodel many junctions at platform ends. And that starts to get very expensive when there are other infrastructure works involved as well, such as bridge embankment or cutting widening.
"Why don't they run double deck trains?" Because they wouldn't fit under the bridges or in the tunnels without further expensive works, that's why
. And on top of that, there were two prototype double-decked trains developed in the UK in the 1940s by the Southern Railway. There are very good reasons why those prototypes did not result in widespread adoption of double deck trains, and most of the reasons were they didn't live up to expectations."Why can't we just upgrade the existing railways instead?" We are upgrading the existing railways - as well as building HS2. Read the papers, do a Google search - there are various ways of finding out
"People won't need to travel in the future because of new technology." I wonder if anybody thought that would happen when they invented the telephone, or even the postal service a couple of hundred years earlier?
We have had a new one today, however, or new to me at least. We read that the ABD has calculated that if the money to be spent on HS2 was used to reduce fuel taxation we'd all be buying the stuff at 70 pence a litre. Well that's a win-win situation if ever I saw one - its so simple an idiot could have thought of it.
But of course, if fuel was 70 pence a litre it would lead to much greater car use, a huge transfer of freight traffic from rail to road, and nationwide congestion that would make current Friday afternoon traffic levels on the M25 look like a meander down an empty country lane. I doubt that that is what the ABD had in mind when they came up with that one.
Unintended consequences are a bugger, aren't they
? Once again, do a Google search. Passenger mileage up 62% IIRC since privatisation in 1994, and freight tonnage also on an upward curve. That is why we need to increase capacity on the network, and we can't get enough extra capacity on existing railways.We used to have spare capacity 50 years ago, but the railway went into a period of what they called "rationalisation" which in practice meant reducing capacity by removing duplicate lines (both separate routes and singling lines that had once been doubled, reducing quadruple line to double lines etc), and then flogging off the resultant "spare" land. Blame Beeching if you like for decimating railway capacity, but don't then blame the industry for wanting to put it back again.
And by the way, I have nothing against short-haul flights. I've used enough of them myself, especially Bristol or Heathrow to Newcastle, Glasgow and Aberdeen. But doubling or trebling or increasing by tenfold short haul flights will do nothing to solve the current capacity problems on the railways.
rs1952 said:
And by the way, I have nothing against short-haul flights. I've used enough of them myself, especially Bristol or Heathrow to Newcastle, Glasgow and Aberdeen. But doubling or trebling or increasing by tenfold short haul flights will do nothing to solve the current capacity problems on the railways.
And there's another couple of bunches of nimby's trying to prevent capacity enhancement at Gatwick, Heathrow and heck even a new estuary airport in Borisland.I'm sick to fooooking death of seeing irrelevant adverts about the Heathrow/Gatwick argument in papers and posters 200 miles away from it where i live.
Shag me they even carry out full page adverts in Private eye
MarshPhantom said:
Stedman said:
Rick101 said:
Th issue is network capacity. The high speed part is jut trying to catch up with other countries that have had it for 40 years.
This.I used to live a couple of miles from the WCML and that could be quite loud.
BGARK said:
s2art said:
On top of those technologies there is a huge game-changer hurtling towards us; autonomous vehicles. They will be available possibly in 10 years (unlikely) but almost certainly in 20. Approx the timescales of HS2. HS2 could become the biggest white elephant in history. The money should be going to improve the road network.
I agree with this.BGARK said:
Vaud said:
Much of business is based on relationships
Its diminishing rapidly as its usually time-wasting trying to get to the point, do you perhaps use Amazon, buy on-line or feel the need to go for a chat in a local shop?I am developing some VR software with a small team right now that will allow people to buy unusual products online that currently require human interaction, stage 1 through flat screen, stage 2 via headset. We are doing this solely because face to face comms is costly (transport) and time-wasting (useless sales staff), going straight from manufacturer to consumer automating the entire middle bit.
I am not saying everyone is doing this or wants to change but care to bet which direction it will end up, not on a billion pound train that's for sure!
It's a tricky one HS2. On the one hand it will help free up capacity and it will mean the millions more people who will be working in London in 20 years time won't have to live there. It may be seen as a way of dealing with the current housing crisis in the South East. Might make a big airport in Manchester or Birmingham a possibility as well. Maybe that's why it doesn't link up with Heathrow?
However - it's just a mad idea. Too expensive in cost/productivity terms compared with a full national roll-out of high speed broadband. To build HS2 and not do that first is to deny the modern age. Brunel would be turning in his grave if you put that to him. It's just too expensive. That's it in a nutshell really. The business case is s
t.
As has been said above - autonomous cars are outside the considerations of the planners. But they really ought not to be. They are a total reality. And they are door to door. No faffing about at either end.
However - it's just a mad idea. Too expensive in cost/productivity terms compared with a full national roll-out of high speed broadband. To build HS2 and not do that first is to deny the modern age. Brunel would be turning in his grave if you put that to him. It's just too expensive. That's it in a nutshell really. The business case is s
t. As has been said above - autonomous cars are outside the considerations of the planners. But they really ought not to be. They are a total reality. And they are door to door. No faffing about at either end.
MarshPhantom said:
Not done it, all I'm saying is the journey will consist of - travel to the station, 2hrs on HS2 to London, travel to and from your destination, 2hrs back home then travel home from the station. You have all this if flying but 4hrs on the train is less than 2 if you're flying.
Personally I can get to City Airport a damn sight quicker than I can Euston.
Two hours is the current journey time on the WCML. HS2 will be 1 hour.Personally I can get to City Airport a damn sight quicker than I can Euston.
Also, no. The flight is 1h05 from MIA to LHR. If you are very quick off the plane you can be on the Heathrow Express in about 15 minutes and it's then 21 minutes to Paddington. Add in an hour for check in and security and MIA to London takes 2h41, not including time taken to get to the airport.
The train, however, takes 2h05. Be generous and add 15 minutes at whichever station you board it at and you've got 2h20 to Euston, which is far better for the city than Paddington. You've also got a train every 20 minutes rather than one flight every 90 minutes or so. That's why there are naff all flights between London and Manchester and even then they're full of people transferring to other flights at Heathrow. The train killed them off by being faster.
speedyguy said:
And there's another couple of bunches of nimby's trying to prevent capacity enhancement at Gatwick, Heathrow and heck even a new estuary airport in Borisland.
I'm sick to fooooking death of seeing irrelevant adverts about the Heathrow/Gatwick argument in papers and posters 200 miles away from it where i live.
Shag me they even carry out full page adverts in Private eye
They can both expand if they are willing to pay for it themselves. What the argument is about is whether you should be forced to pay to increase the capacity of a private business with no real chance of return on the investment spending unless you own a ton of shares in BAA.I'm sick to fooooking death of seeing irrelevant adverts about the Heathrow/Gatwick argument in papers and posters 200 miles away from it where i live.
Shag me they even carry out full page adverts in Private eye
I'm half expecting a bunch of barbarians to sack London next week.
Swervin_Mervin said:
MarshPhantom said:
Stedman said:
Rick101 said:
Th issue is network capacity. The high speed part is jut trying to catch up with other countries that have had it for 40 years.
This.I used to live a couple of miles from the WCML and that could be quite loud.
rs1952 said:
MarshPhantom said:
rs1952 said:
Steve - blame the EU for what it is responsible for (if you must...) but you can't hang this one on Brussels
But in a way this does epitomise the problem with talking about HS2 on here. There are so many people with simplistic ideas and opinions that do not withstand close scrutiny when the practicalities are taken into account. I have a saying "if the answer is so simple that an idiot could think of it then an idiot has just thought of it" It works in the majority of situations. So far we have had all the usual ones:
"Why don't they just run longer trains?" Because then you'd need longer platforms and you'd need to remodel many junctions at platform ends. And that starts to get very expensive when there are other infrastructure works involved as well, such as bridge embankment or cutting widening.
"Why don't they run double deck trains?" Because they wouldn't fit under the bridges or in the tunnels without further expensive works, that's why. And on top of that, there were two prototype double-decked trains developed in the UK in the 1940s by the Southern Railway. There are very good reasons why those prototypes did not result in widespread adoption of double deck trains, and most of the reasons were they didn't live up to expectations.
"Why can't we just upgrade the existing railways instead?" We are upgrading the existing railways - as well as building HS2. Read the papers, do a Google search - there are various ways of finding out
"People won't need to travel in the future because of new technology." I wonder if anybody thought that would happen when they invented the telephone, or even the postal service a couple of hundred years earlier?
We have had a new one today, however, or new to me at least. We read that the ABD has calculated that if the money to be spent on HS2 was used to reduce fuel taxation we'd all be buying the stuff at 70 pence a litre. Well that's a win-win situation if ever I saw one - its so simple an idiot could have thought of it.
But of course, if fuel was 70 pence a litre it would lead to much greater car use, a huge transfer of freight traffic from rail to road, and nationwide congestion that would make current Friday afternoon traffic levels on the M25 look like a meander down an empty country lane. I doubt that that is what the ABD had in mind when they came up with that one.
Unintended consequences are a bugger, aren't they
People say train use is increasing, not as rapidly as short haul flights, London to Manchester in 55mins. Anyone who thinks they can predict the future is usually wrong.But in a way this does epitomise the problem with talking about HS2 on here. There are so many people with simplistic ideas and opinions that do not withstand close scrutiny when the practicalities are taken into account. I have a saying "if the answer is so simple that an idiot could think of it then an idiot has just thought of it" It works in the majority of situations. So far we have had all the usual ones:
"Why don't they just run longer trains?" Because then you'd need longer platforms and you'd need to remodel many junctions at platform ends. And that starts to get very expensive when there are other infrastructure works involved as well, such as bridge embankment or cutting widening.
"Why don't they run double deck trains?" Because they wouldn't fit under the bridges or in the tunnels without further expensive works, that's why
. And on top of that, there were two prototype double-decked trains developed in the UK in the 1940s by the Southern Railway. There are very good reasons why those prototypes did not result in widespread adoption of double deck trains, and most of the reasons were they didn't live up to expectations."Why can't we just upgrade the existing railways instead?" We are upgrading the existing railways - as well as building HS2. Read the papers, do a Google search - there are various ways of finding out
"People won't need to travel in the future because of new technology." I wonder if anybody thought that would happen when they invented the telephone, or even the postal service a couple of hundred years earlier?
We have had a new one today, however, or new to me at least. We read that the ABD has calculated that if the money to be spent on HS2 was used to reduce fuel taxation we'd all be buying the stuff at 70 pence a litre. Well that's a win-win situation if ever I saw one - its so simple an idiot could have thought of it.
But of course, if fuel was 70 pence a litre it would lead to much greater car use, a huge transfer of freight traffic from rail to road, and nationwide congestion that would make current Friday afternoon traffic levels on the M25 look like a meander down an empty country lane. I doubt that that is what the ABD had in mind when they came up with that one.
Unintended consequences are a bugger, aren't they
? Once again, do a Google search. Passenger mileage up 62% IIRC since privatisation in 1994, and freight tonnage also on an upward curve. That is why we need to increase capacity on the network, and we can't get enough extra capacity on existing railways.We used to have spare capacity 50 years ago, but the railway went into a period of what they called "rationalisation" which in practice meant reducing capacity by removing duplicate lines (both separate routes and singling lines that had once been doubled, reducing quadruple line to double lines etc), and then flogging off the resultant "spare" land. Blame Beeching if you like for decimating railway capacity, but don't then blame the industry for wanting to put it back again.
And by the way, I have nothing against short-haul flights. I've used enough of them myself, especially Bristol or Heathrow to Newcastle, Glasgow and Aberdeen. But doubling or trebling or increasing by tenfold short haul flights will do nothing to solve the current capacity problems on the railways.
Do you know how much a season ticket is between London and Manchester?
Most recent figure I can find is £13k for 2012, so will be more than that now. Tickets will no doubt be far more pricey for HS2.
Edited by MarshPhantom on Wednesday 15th April 06:59
W124 said:
It's a tricky one HS2. On the one hand it will help free up capacity and it will mean the millions more people who will be working in London in 20 years time won't have to live there. It may be seen as a way of dealing with the current housing crisis in the South East. Might make a big airport in Manchester or Birmingham a possibility as well. Maybe that's why it doesn't link up with Heathrow?
However - it's just a mad idea. Too expensive in cost/productivity terms compared with a full national roll-out of high speed broadband. To build HS2 and not do that first is to deny the modern age. Brunel would be turning in his grave if you put that to him. It's just too expensive. That's it in a nutshell really. The business case is st.
As has been said above - autonomous cars are outside the considerations of the planners. But they really ought not to be. They are a total reality. And they are door to door. No faffing about at either end.
The only way to move people out of London is to move the jobs out, this notion that a new line will allow millions of people to live in Birmingham or Manchester, is wrong, most people start work at between 8 and 9 this limits the number of trains that can get the people to work on time.However - it's just a mad idea. Too expensive in cost/productivity terms compared with a full national roll-out of high speed broadband. To build HS2 and not do that first is to deny the modern age. Brunel would be turning in his grave if you put that to him. It's just too expensive. That's it in a nutshell really. The business case is s
t. As has been said above - autonomous cars are outside the considerations of the planners. But they really ought not to be. They are a total reality. And they are door to door. No faffing about at either end.
My thoughts are that the railways should not be looked at in isolation, we are an island, freight should go by sea till the last part of its journey, items that require speed should be on the railway at night or during quite times during the day, but with high speed freight trains, this would free up the roads, the problem is all this would require government control and no government will make such a big commitment.
Swervin_Mervin said:
BGARK said:
Vaud said:
Much of business is based on relationships
Its diminishing rapidly as its usually time-wasting trying to get to the point, do you perhaps use Amazon, buy on-line or feel the need to go for a chat in a local shop?I am developing some VR software with a small team right now that will allow people to buy unusual products online that currently require human interaction, stage 1 through flat screen, stage 2 via headset. We are doing this solely because face to face comms is costly (transport) and time-wasting (useless sales staff), going straight from manufacturer to consumer automating the entire middle bit.
I am not saying everyone is doing this or wants to change but care to bet which direction it will end up, not on a billion pound train that's for sure!
As another example for those who keep dismissing whats inevitable, have you maybe used Tesco or Asda to deliver your groceries, only a couple of years ago this basic process was inconceivable to most people, even my mum uses it now!
Rick101 said:
JB! said:
Not on the WCML it isn't, it cant reach Enhanced Permissible Speeds, I know, I used to work on it 
Albert P? Much as I'd love a new line to be built, its political suicide and horrifically expensive through the home counties, the GCR should never have been torn up, just mothballed.
BGARK said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
BGARK said:
Vaud said:
Much of business is based on relationships
Its diminishing rapidly as its usually time-wasting trying to get to the point, do you perhaps use Amazon, buy on-line or feel the need to go for a chat in a local shop?I am developing some VR software with a small team right now that will allow people to buy unusual products online that currently require human interaction, stage 1 through flat screen, stage 2 via headset. We are doing this solely because face to face comms is costly (transport) and time-wasting (useless sales staff), going straight from manufacturer to consumer automating the entire middle bit.
I am not saying everyone is doing this or wants to change but care to bet which direction it will end up, not on a billion pound train that's for sure!
As another example for those who keep dismissing whats inevitable, have you maybe used Tesco or Asda to deliver your groceries, only a couple of years ago this basic process was inconceivable to most people, even my mum uses it now!
But no, we never use it. Mainly because we like to select our own produce and shop from multiple sources. And this is the issue. What's a fit solution for one line of business/customer, will not always be fit for many others.
I'd be willing to bet a massive £5 that in 10 years time there won't be wholesale uptake of VR or autonomous vehicles, and that the majority of people that currently use rail (be that business or private) will still do so, if not in even larger numbers.
MarshPhantom said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
MarshPhantom said:
Stedman said:
Rick101 said:
Th issue is network capacity. The high speed part is jut trying to catch up with other countries that have had it for 40 years.
This.I used to live a couple of miles from the WCML and that could be quite loud.
It would be clear to anyone that's ever been on a HS train that it would be markedly quieter than conventional rail.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff