Print

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

[TheBoy]

Just been to the local HS2 exhibition as our town is affected. I'm not a not-in-my-back-yard person, so have limited views either way. It's a bit pointless and a catastrophic waste of money, bit otherwise, no view

But this government backed exhibition is so bias, it's intrue

[Varche]

All part of the softening up punters process. Have you gone soft yet?

All part of the marketing of grandiose expenditure that you may or may not want. Bit like the design more ugly pylons competition instead of asking shall we put the cables underground. 

Have they put the HS2 in culverts with removeable lids to facilitate maintenance but otherwise minimise impact to the locals? Don't suppose so for a minute.!!

[TheBoy]

I was utterly disgusted by how misleading the exhibition was.

I pointed one part out (about how much would be tunnelled, following existing roads/lines etc), only to be told that it could be interpreted as fact.

They couldn't make their mind up if it was £17bn or £34bn, only to then decide it was £17bn for Phase I (the bit to Lichfield (why Lichfield?)), then to contradict that later.

Then say the business case, seemingly mosted made up of how much extra 'productive' time Birmingham to London travellers would have (as apparently you can't work on trains...)) was £11bn over 60years. In fact, the entire business case said this would save the country just shy of £20bn over 60years. Yet would cost £17bn (or £34bn, if they can make up their mind) in building it...

...then there is the ongoing maintenence.  They say the tracks will have to be replaced every 8 to 15yrs.


As a counter argument to upgrading the WCML again, they use the amount of disruption as being the problem.  Yet this will need similar disruption after 8-15yrs (I suspect this will be less, due to the wheel damage by running on non HS2 lines, and the wheel damage will cause HS2 track damage).

Oh yes, something I wasn't aware of, they won't be running the 400m long, taller trains, carrying 1100 people each (which is what the business case is based on). We found some small text that they would have to run shorter (200m), narrower, lower trains, as beyond Birmingham, these trains have to run on normal track, as Phase II (Birmingham to Leeds/Manx) isn't planned in our lifetime.


There own figures, bearing in mind the exhibition is pro HS2 on Route 2, HS2 London to Birmingham = 50m, the current WCML = 1hr15.  The WCML is more useful as it stops at useful places, whereas HS2 will only stop at a site about 4m from Euston, and a place in East Birmingham, again just a couple of miles from the planned Curzon Street terminus.  Is it worth it?


They used a strange audio scale that I'd not come across before to describe the noise increase...  ...they average out the noise fluctuations out over 18hrs (HS2 will not run at night  :-/), and their scale said it would average to a level between a hoover and a hair dryer.  They also say that just under 5000 houses in our local area will receive a noise increase of 3db. 3db means noise doubles, as db is a log scale. In the local area, I suspect there are only 5000 houses .



In the interest of fairness, I also went to hear what the Stop HS2 brigade had to say, who were camped up just outside the carpark (apparently not allowed on site ). There were equally weak

[TheBoy]

On the subject of noise, this was all based on the 'maximum' speed limit of 225mph...  ...then were proudly annoucing they would increase this to 250mph at a later date, only they didn;t mention extra noise...

[Nickbat]

£35 billion to shave just 20 minutes of the London-Birmingham journey time?

Let me see, that's £1,600,000,000 per minute saved, or just over £26.5 million for every second saved.

Given the country's finances, I would say such spending could only be sanctioned by complete fools.   

[Martin_1962]

Actually I think investing in a high speed network is a good ides.

It will help cut down on aircraft flights.

It will provide employment.

It will maintain our place on the fastest railways table rather than slip down (we used to be no 3)

[TheBoy]

Actually I think investing in a high speed network is a good ides.

Interesting, why?

It will help cut down on aircraft flights.

I fail to see that. HS2 own figures are 3.5hrs to Glasgow, SleazyJet 737 is about 50mins. I suspect Sleazy is cheaper as well

It will provide employment.

Why? It'll likely be built be low-cost labourers, and you can bet they will not be UK workers. In life, lets say HS2 are right about it will stop plane travel, for every job running the new line, one will have to go from the aviation industry. So at best, it will have a neutral effect on UK employment.

It will maintain our place on the fastest railways table rather than slip down (we used to be no 3)

Who cares?  This is an awfully expensive "my penis is bigger than yours" exercise.

[TheBoy]

And, Martin Imber, if HS1 is anything to go by, its going to be a massive failure finacially (remember, we ALL pay for this, although its only for use by Londoners), but also have the effect of closing the existing railway (which is infinately more useful as to where it goes, and who can use it)

[kevinminton]

[quote ," (remember, we ALL pay for this, although its only for use by Londoners)"
err ... I'm not a Londoner but I use HS1 fairly regularly. I would like to be able to use it without having to go into That London to do so. However this does not constitute an economic argument to support HS2.

[Martin_1962]

In the long term we will need more high speed rail as some time the short haul air routes will have to be cut (polititians and their carbon stuff).

Only high speed long distance transport network suitable for electricity is rail.

As to times your flight to Scotland, lets say from central London.

London to Heathrow about 1 hour
Check in time about 1.5 to 2 hours
flight time 50 min
getting off time about 20 minutes AFAIR
time to Glasgow 25 minutes (I have driven it took me a while to escape from Glasgow)

Current train times are between 4 and 4.5 hours

Oh and from where I live it would be easy to get on at Birmingham International or change at BNS from Worcester. I have used Birmingham airport and I do not like all the faffing they do.

Xraying your bag, metal detecting - makes you feel like a criminal 

[TheBoy]

In the long term we will need more high speed rail as some time the short haul air routes will have to be cut (polititians and their carbon stuff).

Only high speed long distance transport network suitable for electricity is rail.

As to times your flight to Scotland, lets say from central London.

London to Heathrow about 1 hour
Check in time about 1.5 to 2 hours
flight time 50 min
getting off time about 20 minutes AFAIR
time to Glasgow 25 minutes (I have driven it took me a while to escape from Glasgow)

Current train times are between 4 and 4.5 hours

Oh and from where I live it would be easy to get on at Birmingham International or change at BNS from Worcester. I have used Birmingham airport and I do not like all the faffing they do.

Xraying your bag, metal detecting - makes you feel like a criminal 

HS2 Ltd are now starting to admit that they won't be carbon neutral - and their idea of carbon saving is by assuming they can stop every nort/south aircraft, and that every car journey only has a single occupant.  So the carbon one doesn't wash any more, even they agree with that now.

Electricity still needs big coal fired power stations, seeing as the world has abandonned nuclear after the success of the Japanese ones.

As to flight times, if I was in the centre of London, I reckon I'd use City, not that hellhole called Heathrow.  Obviously, if I was in Middlesex, I'd use Heathrow. Crawley way, I'd use Gatwick.  And Stanstead. Luton. Or for the majority of the population that live outside the tiny area that HS2 serves, any nearby airport.

And then the flights invariably will be cheaper - though if more than 1 person is going, car will always be cheapest...

[Kevin Wood]

Sadly, rail has missed the boat in this country and any further investment in passenger rail travel is utterly pointless.

Not because high speed links themselves are not any benefit, although London-Birmingham is hardly much use, but because the suburban links are so sh1te that there aren't useful connections to access the decent links.

I live in what can loosely be called the suburbs of London. I can drive to Birmingham in about 2 hours.

To get anywhere by public transport I need a bus to the station (15 minutes and about £4 . The bus timetable is completely out of sync with the rail timetable, of course, so at least a 30 minute wait to catch a train.

The train rattles into Waterloo in about 1h20 these days (used to be about 50 minutes. These trains are getting slower) . Then I've got a connection by tube to get to the HS2. It could get me to Birmingham in a nanosecond. Let's say it does, for the sake or argument. It's still going to take me longer than driving, at this point.

I'm then not really in Birmingham but just outside it. I've then got to struggle with another disjointed suburban public transport setup to get where I actually need to be.

We can get all excited about trains doing 250 MPH if we like, but they'll be nothing more than an expensive train set. Train links into the suburbs and anywhere other than the centres of major cities simply do not exist and never will.

Modern life is no longer compatible with a passenger rail network except in specifc circumstances (e.g commuting into London) IMHO.

What the rail network should be doing is concentrating on getting freight off the roads so the roads are clearer and more efficient for those who need to get somewhere specific in a sensible time frame with minimal faffing about and at reasonable cost.

Kevin

[Terbs]

Annoys me that most those for it usually live miles away from where its going to come thundering through our rural countryside.....just like the poor sods that have their villages/homes demolished to make way for extra runways at airports

[TheBoy]

As Kevin Wood rightly points out, its only useful for a tiny proportion of the population (around 5% when Phase II is completed (due to start around 2040)). Yet every man, woman and child need to pay£500 for it to be built, and they have hidden the maintenence costs so deep in the business case, I'm having trouble verifying the correct set. The locos and rolling stock are extra, and will have to be UK specific (so untried, untested, designed by committee, thus a balls-up) as they have to run on high speed lines, and tradional (or 'classic rail' as they call it) lines.

Also, all their bumpth for its benefits assume that they are running the wider, double decker, 400m long trains with 1100 passengers per train. In the current business plan, hidden deep into the costs of the rolling stock and locos, there are no plans to use anything other than the standard, narrow, single deck, 200m long trains. So the presented business case is made up of lies woefully inaccurate information.  The business plan already didn't make sense as the real underlying figures (sadly, HS2 Ltd's figures are too biased to be trusted) already showed it running at a significant loss over the 60yr plan (to the tunes of 10s of billions, and not including ongoing maintenence and running, or rolling stock).


Most 'office professinals' are slowly getting the ability to work from anywhere, cutting commuting needs. This will only increase.  Those who have to go into workplaces, eg factory workers, shop workers, etc etc, simply won't be able to afford the price premiums. So it will be unused in a fairly short few years, and Phase II will never be built, making Phase I pointless.


Modest improvements to existing services, which do stop at useful places, is a better, more sensible, more useful, cheaper option. But sadly isn't some minister's pet project.


HS2 will be the death of passenger rail in the UK. And in 20yrs, when all local services are ceased, Beeching style, I will say I told you so...

[Varche]

As Kevin Wood rightly points out, its only useful for a tiny proportion of the population (around 5% when Phase II is completed (due to start around 2040)). Yet every man, woman and child need to pay£500 for it to be built, and they have hidden the maintenence costs so deep in the business case, I'm having trouble verifying the correct set. The locos and rolling stock are extra, and will have to be UK specific (so untried, untested, designed by committee, thus a balls-up) as they have to run on high speed lines, and tradional (or 'classic rail' as they call it) lines.

Also, all their bumpth for its benefits assume that they are running the wider, double decker, 400m long trains with 1100 passengers per train. In the current business plan, hidden deep into the costs of the rolling stock and locos, there are no plans to use anything other than the standard, narrow, single deck, 200m long trains. So the presented business case is made up of lies woefully inaccurate information.  The business plan already didn't make sense as the real underlying figures (sadly, HS2 Ltd's figures are too biased to be trusted) already showed it running at a significant loss over the 60yr plan (to the tunes of 10s of billions, and not including ongoing maintenence and running, or rolling stock).


Most 'office professinals' are slowly getting the ability to work from anywhere, cutting commuting needs. This will only increase.  Those who have to go into workplaces, eg factory workers, shop workers, etc etc, simply won't be able to afford the price premiums. So it will be unused in a fairly short few years, and Phase II will never be built, making Phase I pointless.


Modest improvements to existing services, which do stop at useful places, is a better, more sensible, more useful, cheaper option. But sadly isn't some minister's pet project.


HS2 will be the death of passenger rail in the UK. And in 20yrs, when all local services are ceased, Beeching style, I will say I told you so...

That is overlooking one thing. The desire/need to pop off somewhere for a meeting no matter how frivolous. Teleconferencing? It will never catch on !