UK -High Speed 2 Rail Project

[miamited]

All that money is being spent in the UK. The place is so crowded and the housing price so high so a lot of the cost comes there. But the idea of a high speed link is a good one and works very well in mainland Europe. It is also more environmentally friendly to use trains than cars. Given the massively overcrowded motorways of the UK improving train services is a very good option. Theoretically this should open up jobs in the South and London to Northerners and make it easier for businesses to justify moving out of the South East and London to the North of England. The price tag seems steep but this is one of the projects for a century. Look at the return on investment that Britain got from its 300 year old rail network. Set in the longer sweep of history this seems like common sense.

Hi mindlight,

There's a Netflix documentary on right now concerning the London underground. Seems that back when it was being debated and contested there were a lot of people that thought it was folly, also. Today, I doubt you could find a single Londoner that doesn't depend on it or appreciate it for what it does by way of keeping traffic down at least 100,000 cars. Estimates are that the 'Tube', serves up some 5 million passenger journeys per day!!! The entire network consists of 11 lines with some 270 stations.

So, I just think that we need to understand that people in a society have often pooh-poohed and bad mouthed changes that have later turned out to be really great blessings. This HS rail link could well be the next bad idea that 30 years from now will turn out to be another most practical idea that a lot of people make good use of. I think Londoners, and any big city dwellers, should consider how many cars a good city transit system takes off of the downtown streets. HS rail has proven its worth in Asia for many, many years already. It does have high build costs because it has to be built around all sorts of pre-existing structures and roads. It also is more expensive than most roads because it has to be either elevated or buried to really take advantage of the HS benefits. However, I think when we think 30-40 years down the road, the cost becomes much more palatable. When we do sit down and put a pencil to the actual savings in pollution and wear and tear on city streets and necessary parking garages that have to be built for everyone to drive their individual vehicles into a city for a job, the cost is really quite low.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Tom 1]

I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to England and I love so much about it. I have family in Dover also. But while I loved visiting, I felt like it was way too expensive for what you get, for just about everything. Food, rents/homes, cars/petrol, just about everything seemed overpriced and under-sized. But the other thing is, as you said, I don't understand what England is trying to be. The same goes for other parts of Europe I visited. It seems they (and maybe even the rest of the world) want to become other Americas in that they want to be a melting pot. I understand America being a melting pot, that's how America was designed and built. American "culture" is derived from that kind of mixing. But European and other nations have their ages-old cultures and seem to want to push that aside to become American or something else. I don't understand it either. Maybe I'm wrong or ignorant, but I don't understand it either.

It’s the history you’re missing, you have to imbibe that to understand Europe. It stands on deep roots, and that history runs through al aspects of life, although it’s not something people think about much it’s behind a lot of the random stuff about sovereignty etc. I’m yet to meet anyone who wants their country to be like America.

 

[Anthony2019]

I remember the days when the channel tunnel did not exist and there was no high speed rail link connecting Britain with the continent. Journeys were either done by air or by sea.
Air journeys were very expensive and only from selected airports.
Most trips I made to the continent were by ferry. You would have to go by car to one of the channel ports, take the ferry and then make the onward journey to your destination. The journey from London to Paris would take all day. It was quite exciting crossing the sea and enjoying the on board amenities.
These days, you can get from central London to central Paris (or even Brussels) direct in just over 2 hours. Just buy your ticket, go through the check-in desk at St Pancras. The trains are very long, spacious and airy. There are smart cafe bars. The journey is so smooth that you don't realise you are going at speeds of nearly 200mph. Everything seems to whizz past the window so quickly. The tunnel under the English Channel is over 30 miles long. And at the end of the journey, you get off the train and walk out of the station into the centre of Paris.
Nowadays, you can travel to London to other places including Amsterdam!

 

[HantsUK]

Commenting on the OP: the main purpose of HS2 is to increase capacity. The exiting lines were built when the population was much lower than now, and I suspect when when people travelled less than now. The current infrastructure cannot cope with demand.

The existing lines have both intercity (fast) services and stopping local services. This limits the number of trains, as you need bigger gaps if trains are running at different speeds, and with some stopping but not others. This will be one reason that the current 125s (or their replacements) do not reach their maximum speeds.

HS2 will also benefit local services.

A different question is whether HS2 will benefit the Midlands and North as well as London, or end up just extending the dominance of London.

The Channel Tunnel also suffered delays and cost overruns, and initially did not have the passenger numbers expected. A couple decades after opening, that has all been forgotten.

 

[HantsUK]

Nowadays, you can travel to London to other places including Amsterdam!

Or during the winter, the weekend ski trains. Leave St Pancras Friday evening, direct into the French Alps, and you can be on the first chair lifts Saturday morning. And return the following Saturday night. Compared with flying, you get two additional days skiing. And avoid the hassle of airports and long check-ins (usually), and long slow transfers into the the ski resorts. Did I mention two more days skiing?

 

[Anthony2019]

Or during the winter, the weekend ski trains. Leave St Pancras Friday evening, direct into the French Alps, and you can be on the first chair lifts Saturday morning. And return the following Saturday night. Compared with flying, you get two additional days skiing. And avoid the hassle of airports and long check-ins (usually), and long slow transfers into the the ski resorts. Did I mention two more days skiing?

Oh yes! I remember them advertising the ski trains! Also I think they did direct services to the south, as far as Avignon!

 

[Francis Drake]

It would be far better if the money was spent on upgrading and reopening them many link lines which were previously closed.
I strongly recommend people read this from the Tax Payers Alliance
The Great British Transport Competition

Or go directly to the actual report (linked below) which came from the competition. Using the HS2 cash on the following infrastructure projects would have a profoundly better return for the expenditure than the HS2 vanity project. It would also benefit the whole country, not just the business and political elites who can afford the fares on HS2!

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...EPORT_FINAL_REVIEWED_18MAY2019.pdf?1558213640

Additionally, those who insist that HS2 will provide jobs should also contemplate that the multiple projects in the above report would spread that government largesse around the country, not just in one area.

 

[dms1972]

Double deckers are completely impractical in the UK unless on brand new routes. There are countless bridges and tunnels that would need to be replaced.

Good point, however it was brand new routes I am refering to, mainly this new High Speed line and they are going to create new tunnels etc. for it. They plan on making a 10 mile tunnel for it through the Chilterns. If they are making new tunnels it would seem to make sense to plan ahead to make it able to accomodate for double-decker carriages, should they ever come into use. Clearly that would not be possible for most existing lines if they already have tunnels, and bridges.

 

[dms1972]

I think what matters to most people is cost and convenience rather than speed.
Even if HS1 went ahead, I would still probably catch a direct train from my own town into London, rather than change in Birmingham, even if it took slightly longer. There's less distance to carry luggage, I can sit in the same seat for the duration of the journey. My ticket would probably cost much less.
50 mins from Birmingham to London on HS1 sounds impressive.
But currently, it takes me about half an hour to get into Birmingham. When I get there, it would probably take me the same amount of time to find my way through the station, to wait for the next departure and get on the train. Already I have spent around 2 hours which is about the same the journey would have taken by car.

They've re-lableled things so what used to be the link from London to the Channel Tunnel is now refered to as HS1. Its already operating.

HS2 (in two phases) would operate eventually between: Manchester / Leeds (2 lines) - Birmingham - London.

If you were not in a hurry the traditional line might be the more scenic, as HS2 is going to run a good bit of the way in cuttings and about 10 miles of it is going to be via a new tunnel through the Chilterns apparently.

I can see some advantages of HS2, but I agree it is a vanity project, and the trains are not likely to run quite as fast (on average) as some talking about it seem to believe. However updating is inevitable, and now that work has begun and a good bit has been spent (around £8 Billion apparently) there would have to be a very strong case for not continuing with it. And when it comes to railways its important to think about what will be needed, not in the next five years, but in the next 25 years. That said the rest of the network must not be allowed to stagnate in the meantime.

So I guess while I am unlikely to benefit much from it, I would not begrudge others having the benefit of it.

But it would be better and fairer to spread the money out in improvements across the whole rail network.

 

[dms1972]

Commenting on the OP: the main purpose of HS2 is to increase capacity. The exiting lines were built when the population was much lower than now, and I suspect when when people travelled less than now. The current infrastructure cannot cope with demand.

The existing lines have both intercity (fast) services and stopping local services. This limits the number of trains, as you need bigger gaps if trains are running at different speeds, and with some stopping but not others. This will be one reason that the current 125s (or their replacements) do not reach their maximum speeds.

HS2 will also benefit local services.

A different question is whether HS2 will benefit the Midlands and North as well as London, or end up just extending the dominance of London.

The Channel Tunnel also suffered delays and cost overruns, and initially did not have the passenger numbers expected. A couple decades after opening, that has all been forgotten.

Thanks for your comments. Yes I understand capacity is an issue.

As to HS2 'benefiting local services' - I'd like to hear that explained in a little more detail as to how it will do this, not saying it won't but would like to know how? Presumably it will only be branch lines connecting to HS2 that will benefit, not all local services. HS2 will cost each constituency in the UK about £50 million regardless of whether they benefit from it or not.

 

[dms1972]

HS rail has proven its worth in Asia for many, many years already.

Where average journeys are significantly longer, thus economies of scale come into play.

 

[dms1972]

So, I just think that we need to understand that people in a society have often pooh-poohed and bad mouthed changes that have later turned out to be really great blessings. This HS rail link could well be the next bad idea that 30 years from now will turn out to be another most practical idea that a lot of people make good use of.

Ah, the London underground was a genuinely good idea, but on the other hand look what happened with Concorde!

I hope you are right about HS2.

 

[Anthony2019]

I don't know if it is part of their long term plans, but it would be good if you could get trains from Scotland, the North and the Midlands direct to places like Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris. St Pancras International is only a short distance from Euston and HS1 and HS2 lines could be linked together as one providing a non-stop journey into the continent.

 

[miamited]

Ah, the London underground was a genuinely good idea, but on the other hand look what happened with Concorde!

I hope you are right about HS2.

Hi dms,

I don't have any idea whether I'm 'right' or not. All I know is that there are countless stories of past improvements that started with a sizable group saying it was a bad idea and then it turning out to be good. I've heard stories that when the first locomotives were being introduced that a lot of people thought you would die going that fast. The underground was pooh-poohed by many in the beginning. As another poster posted, the Chunnel was considered a worthless plan that couldn't work and was much to expensive.

I think that HS rail is a good mode of transportation, especially for bringing people from far off places together more quickly. Just as with jet airplanes, they're wonderful for traveling 3,000 miles quickly. So too, I would think, HS rail brings people who are only a couple of hundred miles apart together more quickly. I don't thin anyone can deny that pretty much all of our forms of social transportation keep cars off the roads and, therefore, we don't have to build as many new roads as quickly.

There is certainly an argument to be made that a lot of cities are running out of room for roads. Boston just put much of their interstate system underground because it needed widening and there was no place to do it except underground or double decker elevated roadways.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[HantsUK]

Thanks for your comments. Yes I understand capacity is an issue.

As to HS2 'benefiting local services' - I'd like to hear that explained in a little more detail as to how it will do this, not saying it won't but would like to know how? Presumably it will only be branch lines connecting to HS2 that will benefit, not all local services. HS2 will cost each constituency in the UK about £50 million regardless of whether they benefit from it or not.

I happened to see the following Youtube which explains how HS2 improves capacity, and also is a benefit to the existing rail network, and why improving the existing lines to increase capacity would be far more difficult and disruptive.

The problem currently is that intercity and local trains use the same tracks. You need bigger gaps between trains that are running at significantly different speeds than if they are all going at similar speeds with similar stops. Running the intercity trains on a separate line means that you can increase the capacity (number) of local trains.

If you do not have HS2, then there is little point in re-opening lines or making small improvements in the areas affected, as there is not the capacity for more trains.

I had thought that HS2 was just about reducing times on the intercity trains, the benefit of which I would question.

The costs are high, but less than the cost of a new motorway. The UK is not very good at doing large public sector infrastructure, and tends to be far too car and London biased in what is done.

It would be far better if the money was spent on upgrading and reopening them many link lines which were previously closed.
I strongly recommend people read this from the Tax Payers Alliance

Interesting. But none of these alternative possible projects are reasons for not doing HS2. Just alternative ways to spend money. The West Coast line has already had a £10B upgrade (in today's prices).

Personally HS2 will be of little interest to me, as I do not make those journeys.