Print

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

[Lizzie_Zoom]

This is a great opportunity to link the major centres of the North and bring jobs and prosperity to those parts.  No longer will it then be necessary to over crowd the South East and South generally, spreading the population and wealth to more northerly parts. 

The benefits of building such a line commence from the very start with construction and auxiliary jobs in thousands created. During and after building the line will continue to attract jobs in many fields, with British industry being able to speedily transport it's products right across Europe.

It is ironic that the vision of a fast continental line by first Watkin, then later Sir Sam Fay was almost realised in 1899 with the completion of the Great Central "London extension" line linking the likes of Rugby, Nottingham, Loughborough, and Sheffield with the intention of connecting with a future Channel Tunnel.  Yet  it was basically closed in 1966, with the final section going in 1969.

We now need the full line to achieve the original objectives, especially as the high speed line between France and St. Pancras has been built, but as with everything else first money will be a major hurdle, then as previously stated the protests by those who don't want it in their back yards!!

The estimate of 20 years before it is actually built seems about right, but that is far from good for the future of GB plc.

Why should the majority pay for this service that is only of use to a few hundred?

Cancel the project. Build a road instead.

they did, its full. they named it the m1

They already have 2 reasonable london-brum lines - Euston/Moor st? and Marylebone/Snow Hill?

More people use the M1 and M40 than use those rail links, so demand lies in the roads (which can be used by everyone on the route), rather than a line only usable by the priviledged few

No TB, you miss a vital fact.

This route will be for high speed freight in addition to passengers.  Indeed any railway MUST have high levels of freight traffic to pay it's way. This rule has applied to railways since the first ones were built.  The old GWR relied on the South Wales coal traffic, along with the milk and fish train movements. The LNER relyed very heavily on coal and steel freight movements, and when the UK's industrial output started to slip away, then the depression years of the 1930s, it became a virtually bankrupt railway!

I could go on, but in short any old or new railway, including this proposed one, requires freight traffic. This is one of the principle arguments for building it in the first place; to remove freight from the roads; move it swiftly to the customer, and of course transport freight non-stop between the North of England and the continent 8-) 8-) 8-).  Passenger movement should be of secondary importance, but, yes TB, it cannot be expected to pay for the building of the infrastructure by way of providing a good Return on Capital.  Nor will it cover the Running Costs of the railway.    The LMS relied also on high freight movement, with only the SR relying in the majority on passenger traffic in the form of high density commuter trains.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Yeh but, HS2 dont go anywhere.....it stops/starts where you dont need freight and gets as far north as the dizzy heights of Staffordshire whilst passing no where in particular on the way.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Yeh but, HS2 dont go anywhere.....it stops/starts where you dont need freight and gets as far north as the dizzy heights of Staffordshire whilst passing no where in particular on the way.

As I understand it Mark there will be strategic freight transfer yards along the high speed line.  In the south east it is planned already for one of these transfer yards to be built for HS1

[tunnie]

Rail Freight is dead, its just too restrictive for delivery, always will be. Road will always be cheaper and more flexible, so no one will use rail.

[Marks DTM Calib]

Rail Freight is dead, its just too restrictive for delivery, always will be. Road will always be cheaper and more flexible, so no one will use rail.

LOL,

Rail freight has grown massively over the last 15 years.

You have to look beyond your small packages and think about the bulk freight, the stone, ore, coal etc.....

Also consider that container traffic arrives at a major port and then needs moving to ditribution centres which is also best achieved by rail for multiple container loads.

I still dont buy it Lizzie, the line has been thought up based on where it will get the least objections.

All it can do is move stuff from just outside London (because you cant support a freight terminal along its route within the capital) to just north of Birmingham which is of little use.

If it linked to HS1 (which it doesn't) then it may offer some freight benefits with goods passing through the tunnel but it doesn't.

And anyway, freight does not need high speed lines (although thelr loading gauge would be useful) so the only hope would be to move passenger traffic off the West coast line to free up capacity to allow more freight operations.

So we are back to a high speed line that does not go any where

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Rail Freight is dead, its just too restrictive for delivery, always will be. Road will always be cheaper and more flexible, so no one will use rail.

LOL,

Rail freight has grown massively over the last 15 years.

You have to look beyond your small packages and think about the bulk freight, the stone, ore, coal etc.....

Also consider that container traffic arrives at a major port and then needs moving to ditribution centres which is also best achieved by rail for multiple container loads.

I still dont buy it Lizzie, the line has been thought up based on where it will get the least objections.

All it can do is move stuff from just outside London (because you cant support a freight terminal along its route within the capital) to just north of Birmingham which is of little use.

If it linked to HS1 (which it doesn't) then it may offer some freight benefits with goods passing through the tunnel but it doesn't.

And anyway, freight does not need high speed lines (although thelr loading gauge would be useful) so the only hope would be to move passenger traffic off the West coast line to free up capacity to allow more freight operations.

So we are back to a high speed line that does not go any where

First Mark I would accept that point of new railways today go where there are least objections, which it completely against the old, original principles, of this method of transport; to go where the maximum trade will be.

However, the experience of all railway construction is that where railways go, property and industrial development will follow eventually.  For instance one of many examples is here in Ashford.  The original coming of the railway 'woke up' this market town and led to additional industrial trade and population.  Now in the 21st century the town is developing fast on the back of high speed train routes to the continent via the Channel Tunnel.  Industrial units, along with housing, are springing up everywhere.  Why should this not happen to areas of the North, bringing jobs and prosperity? 

Of course I am a long and faithful supporter of the railways, and am biased towards the idea of increasing dramatically freight movement especially.  To me it will always be obvious that the railways are by far the most efficient form of transport, but only fails to appeal to many potential passengers due to the shameful decline of the many lines that used to link almost every key town, so that any journey involves a disjointed and non-viable route, and thus makes it a far from appealing option . 

So for me any new railway should be celebrated and embraced as a significant advance on what we have now, with almost "back to the future" progress, remembering that in 1930 the UK had the historically maximum 20,445 route miles open to traffic, which by the 1970s had fallen to 11,798 route miles, and currently hovers around 10,408 route miles.

 The expansion possible to again link all main commercial centres and key areas of population is therefore staggering!!

[Varche]

I have to smile at Britain. Everyone knows it makes sense to have high speed railways. In Spain they have gone to town on building a nationwide high speed rail system. In less than five years they built a new line from Malaga to Madrid for example. No doubt funded in part by the EU (bet Britain never stuck its hands out for any money!".The aim quite simply is to very soon have a high speed station with half an hour of 90% of the population!! AND the rail fares aren't RIP off like they are in Britain. Why is that then?

As well as building a proper nationwide high speed rail network, why not also build a new airport on the East Coast somewhere served by the same rail link. It could be a way to regenerate Britain and drag it properly out of recession.

I agree the centre of London is a botch. If I lived up north I would just want to be able to get on a fast train at say Doncaster and travel straight to say Paris

[jerry]

in the early 60s there were about 9million cars on our roads, by 2005 there were about 30million.Much of this of course was down to the changes in society with more people having to travel further from home  to work and the replacement of local high street shops with out of town supermarkets but it makes me laugh with all the political parties hammering on about the effect all  these cars have on greenhouse gasses/climate change etc yet none of them actually back any viable alternative and all we get are higher fuel prices/higher taxes the odd park and ride , oh , and a Toyota Pious. Seriously, look at all the cars we see on our daily journeys. How many of them actually carry a single passenger? Why not invest in better public transport be it bus services or rail links. Problem at the momment is that most train services are 1)no cheaper than going by car 2)not reliable enough 3)not frequent enough 4)have limited routes/destinations and 5)are not comfortable enough in terms of room, cleanliness, safety etc. When Im in London I dont use a car, when Ive been in larger cities in the past like Liverpool or Birmingham I used public transport. Why? Because it was more convenient. Live where I do now in Norfolk and to be without a car would be a nightmare. So why dont we invest in better public transport (as well as a better rail network for freight) so that the majority of major commuting routes are covered and we would use our cars primarily for social or shopping use rather than for getting to work? Maybe its purely down to the cost of getting it all started. In the current economic climate I can see that, but long term, surely its a viable alternative. Personally I am not a fan of what the Tories call Big Government that under Blair has grown to  a bloated wastefull and inept bodge of middlemanagement and quangos but maybe public transport is one area where state intervention as opposed to privateization is needed?

[Marks DTM Calib]

Fear not, I am in favour of new high speed rail links but, HS2 is a joke......IF your gong to do the job, do it properly and at least take in TWO major conorbations en route......this one covers London and nothing else.

The Ashford case is an excepetion, HS1 was specificaly setup to link the channel tunnel to London.....HS2 links London to the middle of no where. 

[Marks DTM Calib]

I should add that if HS2 had a link with HS1 and ended or passed through Birmingham then I can see it as a 'grand plan' which is on the right 'track'.

This would allow high speed links between UK City no2 and London, europe and beyond.

The curent option allows you to take a slow train from Birmingham to the NEC, get on a High Speed Link to Euston, run down to ST Pancras and get on a high speed link to the continent......hence its not integrated

If HS2 is not succesful then the media will have a frenzy and the whole lot will get canned.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I should add that if HS2 had a link with HS1 and ended or passed through Birmingham then I can see it as a 'grand plan' which is on the right 'track'.

This would allow high speed links between UK City no2 and London, europe and beyond.

The curent option allows you to take a slow train from Birmingham to the NEC, get on a High Speed Link to Euston, run down to ST Pancras and get on a high speed link to the continent......hence its not integrated

If HS2 is not succesful then the media will have a frenzy and the whole lot will get canned.

I certainly agree on that point Mark, and I really do think that for the scheme to be totally viable and practicable for passengers H1 must join directly with H2. 

Of course the cost of ploughing a rail link between Euston and St Pancras would be hugely expensive, but that  should not stop it happening!! 8-)  The Victorians would not have hesitated for a minute!;)

[hoofing it]

I see hs2 is getting shredded here would the simple answer in the short trem not be to increase speed limit from 125 to 145 for the pendalinos.
I found Virgin are far more helpfull and trains are cleaner,faster and comfy unlike the east coast dinosaurs

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I see hs2 is getting shredded here would the simple answer in the short trem not be to increase speed limit from 125 to 145 for the pendalinos.
I found Virgin are far more helpfull and trains are cleaner,faster and comfy unlike the east coast dinosaurs

As I understand the condition of modern track, even with the refurbished West Coast Line, it is unable to take trains running at more than 125 mph, even when they can run at 140 mph, throughout their length. There are too many inter change sections and crossovers to make that a safe option. 

In addition to that the amount of "space" available is limited, and does not allow a part of the traffic to run at high speed, say at 145 mph, without finding their pathways hindered by slowing moving traffic.

That is why the HS1 line is such a success, as trains can run at up to 186 mph for very long stretches without hinderence from 'regular' rail traffic, junctions and crossovers.  Even with the introduction of the Javellin, Class 395, trains travelling at 'only' 140 mph the amount of free pathways still allows for maximum speed running

[hoofing it]

I see hs2 is getting shredded here would the simple answer in the short trem not be to increase speed limit from 125 to 145 for the pendalinos.
I found Virgin are far more helpfull and trains are cleaner,faster and comfy unlike the east coast dinosaurs

As I understand the condition of modern track, even with the refurbished West Coast Line, it is unable to take trains running at more than 125 mph throughout their length. There are too many inter change sections and crossovers to make that a safe option. 

In addition to that the amount of "space" available is limited, and does not allow a part of the traffic to run at high speed, say at 145 mph, without finding their pathways hindered by slowing moving traffic.

That is why the HS1 line is such a success, as trains can run at up to 186 mph for very long stretches without hinderence from 'regular' rail traffic.  Even with the introduction of the Javellin, Class 395, trains travelling at 'only' 140 mph the amount of free pathways still allows for maximum speed running

bring back the 47 push pulls ahh those were the days

[tunnie]

I see hs2 is getting shredded here would the simple answer in the short trem not be to increase speed limit from 125 to 145 for the pendalinos.
I found Virgin are far more helpfull and trains are cleaner,faster and comfy unlike the east coast dinosaurs

As I understand the condition of modern track, even with the refurbished West Coast Line, it is unable to take trains running at more than 125 mph, even when they can run at 140 mph, throughout their length. There are too many inter change sections and crossovers to make that a safe option. 

In addition to that the amount of "space" available is limited, and does not allow a part of the traffic to run at high speed, say at 145 mph, without finding their pathways hindered by slowing moving traffic.

That is why the HS1 line is such a success, as trains can run at up to 186 mph for very long stretches without hinderence from 'regular' rail traffic, junctions and crossovers.  Even with the introduction of the Javellin, Class 395, trains travelling at 'only' 140 mph the amount of free pathways still allows for maximum speed running

Sorry! Define 'Success' If you define it as built then ok, but profitable? No.

http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/High__speed-trains-hit-by-lack-of-passenger-demand-newsinkent35351.aspx?news=local

All back to my earlier point, that the High Speed tickets are three times more expensive than a ticket on the regular 125 trains