HS2

[powerstroke]

Rovinghawk said:

It might come as a shock, but some people do actually need to go places & do things.

To quote Boris Johnson, "We can't all just sell each other cappuccino over the internet".

Part of the purpose of HS2 is to relieve overuse of other parts of the rail system, thereby allowing freight to be more competitive & reduce road congestion- this seems to be conveniently ignored by those against it.

best bet is to get people on trains and put goods and services on the roads
Private cars are the problem not road transport and trade, rail is not suitable for moving goods and services..

Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 29th April 13:27

[audidoody]

StevieBee said:

Well said and spot on.

HS2 is not really for us. It is for the next generation and goes beyond 20 mins quicker to Brum.

Well then I'd suggest that the highly-paid HS2 company executives get themselves a better PR company. Because "saving 20 minutes to Birmingham" is the way it has been pitched.

[RichB]

StevieBee said:

Ross1988 said:

The capacity that HS2 will free up on the old lines, will allow for ETRMS to be fitted on the EC/WCML eventually, which will be a circa 50% increase in line capacity, as well as increase in freight using these lines.

The reason it will cost a fortune is because the signalling will be top class, and the track will be on will be on slabtrack, using a relatively new method (In the UK) where the initial cost is higher, but maintenance of the track is a lot less over the years, where as ballasted track has to replaced every 30 years or so, it's 80 for slabtrack, with no chance of 'wet beds' or cracked sleepers, and no requirement for tamping.

It does cost a fortune, but it will transform rail travel in this country, granted it will be years in the future, but when have we had a Government that invests in anything longer than their term in power?

Take electrical power production, all of our nuclear sites are getting on, and there is not long term solution to this, other than grants and subsidies for green power generation. With (until recently) little to no investment in the base load capacity.

I do feel sorry for people who have land/houses in the way of HS2 and I hope they are compensated appropriately.

Well said and spot on. HS2 is not really for us. It is for the next generation and goes beyond 20 mins quicker to Brum.

Indeed, HS2 is the first large scale railway scheme for just over 100 years. It will link North and South with a state of the art railway. At the same time it will free up capacity on older lines which (one can hope) will perhaps encourage freight off the roads and back onto the railways. If those complaining about were around 150 years ago we would never have had the east coast and west coast mainlines, after all why the need for two? The M1 would never have been built, after all the A1 could cope and why bother building another airport, not that many people fly! People always say how good the French TGV is but when, in Britain, we try to do something different the NIMBYs get agitated. I'm all for it.

[rover 623gsi]

i was listening to some economic analyst bloke give a presentation the other week...

a small part of his presentation was about transport infrastrucure and he mentioned that the important thing about HS2 (in his view) wasn't that it connected the midlands and north with London, but that it connected the midlands and north with Europe. He also mentioned that in his experience the big companies in Asia didn't really view Europe as a group of individual countries but just one big land mass.

anyway...

[worsy]

bucksmanuk said:

Why does everyone want to travel in and out of London? London’s packed already, what about building up another area of the country?

Amen

[goldblum]

RichB said:

ndeed, HS2 is the first large scale railway scheme for just over 100 years. It will link North and South with a state of the art railway. At the same time it will free up capacity on older lines which (one can hope) will perhaps encourage freight off the roads and back onto the railways. If those complaining about were around 150 years ago we would never have had the east coast and west coast mainlines, after all why the need for two? The M1 would never have been built, after all the A1 could cope and why bother building another airport, not that many people fly! People always say how good the French TGV is but when, in Britain, we try to do something different the NIMBYs get agitated. I'm all for it.

I'm not a NIMBY, I simply never travel by train. I don't know anyone who does often enough for a quicker journey to make a significant impact on them - they aren't bothered about 20 mins either way. My parents travel to London once every six months and the new line will actually add time to their journey as it won't stop at their station anymore. It's a colossal waste of money, but once again London decides how the majority of the country that it's out of touch with has to proceed.

Your French TGV analogy isn't accurate as France needs a high speed line to cover much greater distances than our little country.

[iphonedyou]

goldblum said:

What about the labourers and grafters? Nice and juicy for them one supposes, but where will they go when the work finishes? Mind you that could be a very, very long way off.

To be fair though, using that logic we could easily not do any construction in case people couldn't move on anywhere. I know that's not what you're saying, though.

[goldblum]

iphonedyou said:

goldblum said:

What about the labourers and grafters? Nice and juicy for them one supposes, but where will they go when the work finishes? Mind you that could be a very, very long way off.

To be fair though, using that logic we could easily not do any construction in case people couldn't move on anywhere. I know that's not what you're saying, though.

Sure, it's just that the government is making such a deal out of 'creating jobs'. They did the same with the Dome, the Olympic village (since bought by a Russian billionaire to be converted into flats IIRC). What's happened to all the 'created jobs' there? Billions and billions (well, not the Dome )spent on our behalf, private company reels in the profit. Stinks.

[Ross1988]

goldblum said:

And none of these people are already employed?

No they are not, Maybe I have misconstrued what you are saying, so correct me if I'm wrong. The current network is staffed to its required capacity, so a further increase in capacity will see an increase in the need for more staff. HS2 is a new line with new depots and new stations.

All of which will need to be staffed. You'll need all the positions filled by new staff. You'll need new fitters, maintainers, welders, cleaners, security, station masters, train guards, drivers, train staff, station maintenance, ticket office staff. All of these will be new.

Also there will be trickle down of the money going back into the economy. Take for example the replacement of a axle and wheelset on a bogey:

Someone will have to check the axle when a defect is reported > Someone to remove it > Someone to order a replacement > Someone to make a new one (as well as the mining and production of steel) > Someone to check it with NDT > Someone to deliver it > Someone at the depot to check and fit it > Someone to check it's fitted correctly > Someone to do all the paper work for the depot and the contracted company.

All of these people will be paid, where it is taxed, and it's taxed again when spent. Without this new network, a lot of the above would not happen.

A second example, take Cobrakid (Posted above) I assume he makes the god forsaken fastclips (Assumption and Deja Vu there) This project may keep his company going, or cause them to expand.

A made a similar post earlier, but it appears to not have worked, but if it has then there will be a double post.

[s3fella]

audidoody said:

I caught a Virgin train from Euston to the NEC last week. It was half empty and took an hour and 15 minutes. I don't really need to get there 20 minutes earlier.

Precisely. I'm going Euston the Edinburgh tomorrow on peak time train and it is 49 quid, so super cheap. I suspect the train will have plenty of room, let's see.

[s3fella]

Ross1988 said:

goldblum said:

And none of these people are already employed?

No they are not, Maybe I have misconstrued what you are saying, so correct me if I'm wrong. The current network is staffed to its required capacity, so a further increase in capacity will see an increase in the need for more staff. HS2 is a new line with new depots and new stations.

All of which will need to be staffed. You'll need all the positions filled by new staff. You'll need new fitters, maintainers, welders, cleaners, security, station masters, train guards, drivers, train staff, station maintenance, ticket office staff. All of these will be new.

Also there will be trickle down of the money going back into the economy. Take for example the replacement of a axle and wheelset on a bogey:

Someone will have to check the axle when a defect is reported > Someone to remove it > Someone to order a replacement > Someone to make a new one (as well as the mining and production of steel) > Someone to check it with NDT > Someone to deliver it > Someone at the depot to check and fit it > Someone to check it's fitted correctly > Someone to do all the paper work for the depot and the contracted company.

All of these people will be paid, where it is taxed, and it's taxed again when spent. Without this new network, a lot of the above would not happen.

A second example, take Cobrakid (Posted above) I assume he makes the god forsaken fastclips (Assumption and Deja Vu there) This project may keep his company going, or cause them to expand.

A made a similar post earlier, but it appears to not have worked, but if it has then there will be a double post.

You keep mentioning 'capacity'. Peak trains to London that stop in the environs of London are standing room only most days. But I've never stood up from Birmingham to London, peak or otherwise.
So whilst you suggest this will allow more rail freight, at present commuter demand is on the exiting local station lines and trains, not on manchestEr and Birmingham to London trains.

So I'm not sure those not involved in building it or running it will see any appreciable benefit to it at all as it appears to cure a problem that isn't there to most of the population.

[Fittster]

s3fella said:

audidoody said:

I caught a Virgin train from Euston to the NEC last week. It was half empty and took an hour and 15 minutes. I don't really need to get there 20 minutes earlier.

Precisely. I'm going Euston the Edinburgh tomorrow on peak time train and it is 49 quid, so super cheap. I suspect the train will have plenty of room, let's see.

And will that train have to share a track with local stopping services and goods trains?

[Fittster]

s3fella said:

You keep mentioning 'capacity'. Peak trains to London that stop in the environs of London are standing room only most days. But I've never stood up from Birmingham to London, peak or otherwise.

You are saying there are empty seats on trains running from New Street that arrive at Euston before 09:00?

[Ross1988]

s3fella said:

You keep mentioning 'capacity'. Peak trains to London that stop in the environs of London are standing room only most days. But I've never stood up from Birmingham to London, peak or otherwise.
So whilst you suggest this will allow more rail freight, at present commuter demand is on the exiting local station lines and trains, not on manchestEr and Birmingham to London trains.

So I'm not sure those not involved in building it or running it will see any appreciable benefit to it at all as it appears to cure a problem that isn't there to most of the population.

Sorry I may have not explained to well previously. If HS2 increases the rail capacity in general, it will allow ETRMS (Modern in cab signalling technique) to be rolled out onto existing lines, including commuter lines. This would be a similar trickle down effect, they will do the main lines first WCML and ECML as HS2 will take up the disruption in capacity while it's implemented, then the main lines will take up the slack as commuter lines have ETRMS installed. ETRMS allows for an estimated increase in train frequency of 50%.

So HS2 will, in time, see a more frequent service for commuters, hopefully.

[s3fella]

Fittster said:

s3fella said:

You keep mentioning 'capacity'. Peak trains to London that stop in the environs of London are standing room only most days. But I've never stood up from Birmingham to London, peak or otherwise.

You are saying there are empty seats on trains running from New Street that arrive at Euston before 09:00?

I regularly travel between new street and London, both ways, and I've always been able to get a seat, yes. There are people standing from the stops just north of London, as I said, that's where the issues are. But you don't need an HS2 line to cure it, IMHO.
My point is that the existing network is not 'at capacity' most of the time, yes some peak trains are, but rest fit her time there is lots of room.
Which suggests it needs better management within the existing facilities.

[s2art]

I think the problem with HS2 is that its implementing an old technology just as we can see newer technologies on the horizon that will render HS2 less useful. Within the lifespan of the HS2 implementation its almost certain that autonomous cars (driverless/autopilot) will become available. Combine that with improvements in electric vehicle technology (slow but it is improving) and the transport of choice for most people will be the car. Get in set destination and sit back and log on to work (or pistonheads). Door to door times are what matters most. So, to me we should be putting the investment into roads.

[Ross1988]

There is still investment in roads as well, granted it's not 50 billion but it is still happening.

[Rovinghawk]

powerstroke said:

best bet is to get people on trains and put goods and services on the roads
Private cars are the problem not road transport and trade, rail is not suitable for moving goods and services..

The line a mile or so from my house carries hundreds of containers every day, far more efficiently than roads can manage (I've probably built more road & rail infrastructure than you, so can speak from a position of strength on that one).

Rail is extremely good for moving heavy goods long, fixed distances. An example might be Nissans from Sunderland to Cornwall or containers of goods from Dover to Manchester & Carlisle.

What we need is a balance of different forms of transport, not reliance on one. This is similar to having balance in our electricity generation and so many other forms of infrastructure.

Before you tell me what is good/bad/best, do you have knowledge on the subject or just opinions?

[dcb]

RichB said:

At the same time it will free up capacity on older lines which (one can hope) will perhaps encourage freight off the roads and back onto the railways.

Hasn't happened in half a century or more, unlikely to happen anytime soon.

For general purpose freight, road trumps rail by a country mile.

About the only place where rail beats road is low value, high volume goods
where conversion from road to rail at one end and from rail to road
at the other end isn't needed.

RichB said:

People always say how good the French TGV is but when, in Britain, we try to do something different the NIMBYs get agitated. I'm all for it.

I think I'm right in saying the French TGV only operates due
to massive public subsidy. i.e. it doesn't run at a profit.

Not something I'd want my tax pounds spent on.

I'd rather have a trunk road network that isn't one of the worst
in Europe instead.

[Mojocvh]

Bit OT but, is this another smokescreen generated to mask the abysmal performance of our leaders in determining our countries ENERGY policies???

I mean, as had been said 20 mins off a journey at what cost...

my10psworth