Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tunnie]

The lessons have not been learned from HS1. Tickets for "High Speed" services are around 25% higher than normal services, passenger numbers are lower than expected:

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/transport/high-speed-1-underwhelming-passenger-numbers-exposed-taxpayer-to-debt-risk/8628492.article

Its a no brainer, if you are a commuter, if you get up 20 mins earlier you save 25% off your commute cost. Other way around, why would you pay 25% more just to arrive 20 minutes earlier?

Only ones that would pay that are people wanting to "experience" high speed (low numbers) or business travels that can be expensed (again not great numbers)

The bulk of season paying commuters don't like what they are paying now, all you need is Chiltern/West Coast to be cheaper and HS2 is a dead duck.

HS2 money should be spend on current infrastructure...

But as I stated Tunnie, these high speed lines are more about the future than now.

If only Brunel's Broad Gauge had have won the day the railways would be even more advantageous than they are now

So spend that money on the lines we have now, make them faster, better signalling, better faster rolling stock, Electrification of what we have.

Get what we have up to scratch first, then look at new lines.

[TheBoy]

However, that would definitely preclude running through to the rest of Europe which I believe is essential.

Accept the fact that Eurotunnel would not ever allow anyone else to use their tunnel, last thing they want to see is their own companies, such as Le Shuttle, have any further competition.


HS2, as it stands, is a white elephant that we all have to pay for to build (a significant amount), and will have to heavily subsidise it forever.

The tiny few that can use it (because it stops/starts in a useable location for them), are unlikely to have a need for it anyway.

Its business case is severely flawed, its approval is based on sloppy reports (at best, corrupt lies is probably nearer the truth), and nobody will want to use it.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The lessons have not been learned from HS1. Tickets for "High Speed" services are around 25% higher than normal services, passenger numbers are lower than expected:

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/transport/high-speed-1-underwhelming-passenger-numbers-exposed-taxpayer-to-debt-risk/8628492.article

Its a no brainer, if you are a commuter, if you get up 20 mins earlier you save 25% off your commute cost. Other way around, why would you pay 25% more just to arrive 20 minutes earlier?

Only ones that would pay that are people wanting to "experience" high speed (low numbers) or business travels that can be expensed (again not great numbers)

The bulk of season paying commuters don't like what they are paying now, all you need is Chiltern/West Coast to be cheaper and HS2 is a dead duck.

HS2 money should be spend on current infrastructure...

But as I stated Tunnie, these high speed lines are more about the future than now.

If only Brunel's Broad Gauge had have won the day the railways would be even more advantageous than they are now

So spend that money on the lines we have now, make them faster, better signalling, better faster rolling stock, Electrification of what we have.

Get what we have up to scratch first, then look at new lines.

Indeed Tunnie, that would be a good approach in places, and the rail authorities are spending money in that direction when they can

However, in many places it is cheaper to build a brand new fast link than use existing track beds.  In our busy, over crowded cities, they have grown up and developed around the original Victorian railway infrastructure. Without tearing down buildings, extending track beds, building new tunnels and bridges, along with extended stations, you cannot just lay additional track on what exists.  Crossrail under London is a good example of what has to be done now; build completely new infrasture, in this example tunnels, to take the new track to create vast additional capacity.

The lines that exist currently all travel through major cities, I cannot think of one where it would be 'easy' and cost efficient to build in the additional capacity without major demolition, huge cost, and massive disruption. Again, it is far more cost effective to build a new high speed, for the purpose, line from scratch.  Never underestimate also the difficulty in building into existing curves, straight but limited track beds, and as stated before, the railway stations themselves.

Here 'down South' the HS1 line was built in many cases within sight of existing lines, but there is no way it could share the old track bed and route in general.  Indeed in Ashford the HS1 goes over the existing station via a motorway type flyover.  Ashford is a fairly small town, so just imagine the problems with very large towns and cities.

No, it is either a brand new line or nothing.  Like additional airport capacity, doing nothing is not an option for the commercial interests of our country.

[tunnie]

Have to disagree there, better signalling & electrification of our entire network would be a start. Electric trains are faster, lighter and less noise.

Better signals would allow trains to run closer together, as its during commuter hours when services suffer.

I've used rail services during the day, outside of rush hour, practically empty!

[TheBoy]

LZ - apart from when it hits the M25, does WCML from Brum to London go through any cities?  To save you looking at a map, the answer is no.

I still think the existing services are more than adequate, not particularly overcrowded (on the Brum to Smoke routes), and I think commuting will be reduced in 20yrs.

[Taxi_Driver]

However, that would definitely preclude running through to the rest of Europe which I believe is essential.

Accept the fact that Eurotunnel would not ever allow anyone else to use their tunnel, last thing they want to see is their own companies, such as Le Shuttle, have any further competition.


HS2, as it stands, is a white elephant that we all have to pay for to build (a significant amount), and will have to heavily subsidise it forever.

The tiny few that can use it (because it stops/starts in a useable location for them), are unlikely to have a need for it anyway.

Its business case is severely flawed, its approval is based on sloppy reports (at best, corrupt lies is probably nearer the truth), and nobody will want to use it.

That sounds just like the public "consultation" that my local council gave when the wanted to build a new school nearby me......and still built it 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

However, that would definitely preclude running through to the rest of Europe which I believe is essential.

Accept the fact that Eurotunnel would not ever allow anyone else to use their tunnel, last thing they want to see is their own companies, such as Le Shuttle, have any further competition.


HS2, as it stands, is a white elephant that we all have to pay for to build (a significant amount), and will have to heavily subsidise it forever.

The tiny few that can use it (because it stops/starts in a useable location for them), are unlikely to have a need for it anyway.

Its business case is severely flawed, its approval is based on sloppy reports (at best, corrupt lies is probably nearer the truth), and nobody will want to use it.

Sorry TB but you are greatly underestimating it's importance.  In 2011, whilst we are in the grip of a major recession, Eurostar carried 9.7 million passengers.

Eurotunnel celebrated this year 300 million passengers that have travelled through the tunnel since 1994. 

In addition millions of tons of freight have travelled through from Europe and back in container freight trains, amounting to Euro 473 million in just the first six months of 2012.

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/freight/eurotunnel-reports-strong-revenue-growth-in-first-half-of-2012.html#.ULEITuRWySo


A "white elephant"?  Definitely not!  It is BIG business, and that is before any link up to a fast line to the north.   

http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/about_eurostar/press_release/20120308_eurostar_reports_growth.jsp

http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uploadedFiles/assets-uk/Media/Press-Releases/2012-Press-Releases/121018-300-millions-voyageurs-UK.pdf

[tunnie]

But we already have 2 main lines that go up North, outside commuter times services have low use.

We don't need HS2, if you want to take a train to B'ham, take WCML if you want a quick train. Slightly slower, take Chiltern. If you don't live near a station and want to get there cheap, drive.

No freight will run on HS2, won't be very High Speed stuck behind 60mph freight train 

Why do we need a 4th option? 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

LZ - apart from when it hits the M25, does WCML from Brum to London go through any cities?  To save you looking at a map, the answer is no.

I still think the existing services are more than adequate, not particularly overcrowded (on the Brum to Smoke routes), and I think commuting will be reduced in 20yrs.

What?!

Here is the map of the WCML, and you say it does not go through any cities?  I am sure when I travelled it it did, and the limits of the track bed are obvious all the way up North.



 

[TheBoy]

LZ - I was one of those 300m. I won't be again. You complain of bad business practices on another thread.....

HS2 will not carry freight, so cancel out all the freight calcs.

Eurostar and Le Shuttle are gateways to Europe. People will travel to the terminus, in order to get to Europe. HS2 doesn't really offer the same. I'm not going to drive to Birmingham, just to get to London.  How many people get aboard Eurostar at London, just to get off before Folkstone?

This is about spending £23bn (unclear is its £23,000,000,000 or £23,000,000,000,000), assuming its done to budget (which we know from experience....) to provide a service that already exists, only just be a few minutes faster (and thats all it is, a few minutes). And then spending all the subsidies just so the (very) few can use it.


Note, I'm specifically avoiding the whole debate about ripping up AoONB - and it would be a shame to ruin the Chilterns - and all the usual NIMBY "it will blight the countryside" views. For info, its too far away from me - about a mile, in a cutting, so will have no impact. If the wind is in the right direction, I *may* hear it, assuming that somebody first bombs the 3 local airstrips, and the A43.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

But we already have 2 main lines that go up North, outside commuter times services have low use.

We don't need HS2, if you want to take a train to B'ham, take WCML if you want a quick train. Slightly slower, take Chiltern. If you don't live near a station and want to get there cheap, drive.

No freight will run on HS2, won't be very High Speed stuck behind 60mph freight train 

Why do we need a 4th option? 

Because we do need a fast modern rail link, not one built for 19th century trains and business.

Driving long distance in 50 years time may not be an option, and the ideas currently about freight trains WILL change, as they greatly have since the 19th century.  Fast freight is BIG business (please see my previous thread link for Eurotunnel Freight: Euro 473 million for the first six months of 2012.  Very fast freight will come under commercial pressure and the market dictating it should.

[TheBoy]

LZ - apart from when it hits the M25, does WCML from Brum to London go through any cities?  To save you looking at a map, the answer is no.

I still think the existing services are more than adequate, not particularly overcrowded (on the Brum to Smoke routes), and I think commuting will be reduced in 20yrs.

What?!

Here is the map of the WCML, and you say it does not go through any cities?  I am sure when I travelled it it did, and the limits of the track bed are obvious all the way up North.

 

Name 1 city it goes through between London and Brum, which was what I said

[TheBoy]

Because we do need a fast modern rail link, not one built for 19th century trains and business.

Why? The 19th century one is pretty much as good as the new proposed one, which only shaves off a few minutes

Driving long distance in 50 years time may not be an option,

Yup, we'll be flying everywhere

and the ideas currently about freight trains WILL change, as they greatly have since the 19th century.  Fast freight is BIG business (please see my previous thread link for Eurotunnel Freight: Euro 473 million for the first six months of 2012.  Very fast freight will come under commercial pressure and the market dictating it should.

HS2 is NOT able to carry freight. HS2 is a passenger service only. HS2 will NEVER be able to carry freight.

[tunnie]

But we already have 2 main lines that go up North, outside commuter times services have low use.

We don't need HS2, if you want to take a train to B'ham, take WCML if you want a quick train. Slightly slower, take Chiltern. If you don't live near a station and want to get there cheap, drive.

No freight will run on HS2, won't be very High Speed stuck behind 60mph freight train 

Why do we need a 4th option? 

Because we do need a fast modern rail link, not one built for 19th century trains and business.

Driving long distance in 50 years time may not be an option, and the ideas currently about freight trains WILL change, as they greatly have since the 19th century. Fast freight is BIG business (please see my previous thread link for Eurotunnel Freight: Euro 473 million for the first six months of 2012.  Very fast freight will come under commercial pressure and the market dictating it should.

Eurotunnel has limit of 60mph, not very fast 

May get it up to 100mph, but still going to hold up 150mph passenger services.

My previous comments still stand, if you want to get to B'Ham or London, from either, you have two perfectly good train options.

Working remotely has jumped massively, people don't need to save time on their journeys any more. Concorde has sadly proven that, people are happy to spend longer getting there.

If its urgent, there are other means.

Given HS2's budget, we could make some serious road improvements nationwide. More people would benefit from it, rather than people in around around London/Birmingham.

[STMO123]

But we already have 2 main lines that go up North, outside commuter times services have low use.

We don't need HS2, if you want to take a train to B'ham, take WCML if you want a quick train. Slightly slower, take Chiltern. If you don't live near a station and want to get there cheap, drive.

No freight will run on HS2, won't be very High Speed stuck behind 60mph freight train 

Why do we need a 4th option? 

Because we do need a fast modern rail link, not one built for 19th century trains and business.

Driving long distance in 50 years time may not be an option, and the ideas currently about freight trains WILL change, as they greatly have since the 19th century.  Fast freight is BIG business (please see my previous thread link for Eurotunnel Freight: Euro 473 million for the first six months of 2012.  Very fast freight will come under commercial pressure and the market dictating it should.

It certainly won't be an option for me, thank God.
 
Roll on death.