Author Topic: HS2  (Read 6447 times)

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: HS2
« Reply #50 on: March 25, 2014, 10:06:45 am »
Nobody from the Continent wants to go anywhere in the UK other than London direct by train and vice versa; the aborted Nightstar and NoL E* builds showed this

Really ? All the people dragging their cases across from St Pancras to Kings Cross or Euston after getting of the Eurostar must just be confused then. It would make a great deal of sense for people from the North of England to be able to get a direct train to Paris or Brussels as well, It would shave three hours of that journey as currently you have to allow time to change in London and get through customs which means also allowing for your train in the UK being cancelled or delayed, you cant schedule it so there is only 30 minutes transfer time in London.
I would suggest that being able to get a direct train to the continent from the north of England would be a much bigger benefit to the north than shaving 20 minutes of the time to get to London.
I agree. But... we've had Heathrow for sixty-odd years and the Great Western line for a century before that and we still haven't linked them up. And now it's moot anyway as you can fly direct from Bristol or Cardiff to obscure Eastern European towns for less than the cost of a train to Paris.
sideways bounding monkey lounging under fruit tree

Re: HS2
« Reply #51 on: March 25, 2014, 07:47:29 pm »
And now it's moot anyway as you can fly direct from Bristol or Cardiff to obscure Eastern European towns for less than the cost of a train to Paris.

We may not be in the days of Pullman carriages or the Blue Train, but it's still a more civilised way to travel than girding your loins to face Mr O'Leary's blue'n'yellow bus service.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: HS2
« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2014, 11:28:17 am »
In many ways yes, but it does depend on the journey. For the one I mentioned, flying is by far the quickest and most direct. Bus is cheaper, allows you to take more luggage and is almost door to door, but takes about 30 hours and you have to try to sleep sitting up in atmosphere of 50 people's stale breath and farts. Train is more comfortable than bus but involves at least three changes, takes longer than the bus and costs more than the plane. I wish it didn't.
sideways bounding monkey lounging under fruit tree

Re: HS2
« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2014, 11:53:01 am »
In many ways yes, but it does depend on the journey. For the one I mentioned, flying is by far the quickest and most direct. Bus is cheaper, allows you to take more luggage and is almost door to door, but takes about 30 hours and you have to try to sleep sitting up in atmosphere of 50 people's stale breath and farts. Train is more comfortable than bus but involves at least three changes, takes longer than the bus and costs more than the plane. I wish it didn't.

It's that description that makes people use their cars instead.  Although having seen the inside of some cars I do wonder what the benefit is. 

Far better to cycle, really; the HS2 track would make a fantastic cycle route.  And bring back ocean liners so long as I don't have to go steerage :facepalm:.
Sic transit and all that..

Re: HS2
« Reply #54 on: March 27, 2014, 12:31:26 pm »
I'll bet they wont let a bike anywhere near HS2.
Get a bicycle. You will never regret it, if you live- Mark Twain

Re: HS2
« Reply #55 on: March 27, 2014, 12:43:26 pm »
Not necessarily - HS1's absolutely fine. Distances are shorter, of course, but it's the same rules in practice as any SouthEastern commuter train - turn up and get on, as long as you avoid peak times. Gateline staff apparently sometimes get shirty if there's a big group - I think technically there may be a limit of 2 bikes or something silly, but I've never had any problems in groups of up to 7.

arabella

  • no se porque yo no lo se
Re: HS2
« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2014, 09:04:41 pm »
I'm still wondering why there's been no attempt to put together the infratruture for an alternative to London.
In the dark, all views are the same.

Martin

  • Give me bas relief
    • WWW
Re: HS2
« Reply #57 on: March 27, 2014, 09:15:37 pm »
Aye. They had onboard passport checks when E* first started (complete with office for the douaniers and a cell for miscreants), and even crossing into the DDR before the Berlin Wall came down, it was on a train that a border guard took the piss out of my name.

But no, the security of Albion's soil means we have to check everyone before they get on or after they get off the train, not do it the way the rest of Europe did even before Schengen.

sadly (even having gone by train to Athens through what was the Eastern bloc) that seems always the way it is; 22 miles of water is a big psychological as well as physical barrier; a bit of track under it is not enough to change our established travel patterns to the continent

20 years in E* has still not ventured much outside the destinations where it can compete with air travel (and I for one would not choose to travel S of Paris by surface means having done it both ways many times)

as for sleeper trains no idea what still exists in the UK other than to Scotland or Cornwall and whether either of those pay their way

Re: HS2
« Reply #58 on: January 31, 2016, 10:51:48 am »
Has anyone been following HS2?  How likely is it to go ahead and what are the next stages in planning?  I notice our MP (NB) voted for it a year or so back...  ::-)
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

Re: HS2
« Reply #59 on: January 31, 2016, 12:12:31 pm »
It shouldn't be built, for the simple reason it's going to stuff up the beer garden in my local.

Re: HS2
« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2016, 12:36:39 pm »
I've not been following it, but it seems construction is scheduled to start next year.

It will be built, and it will end up massively over budget, as these things always do. There's no doubt it's needed: the West Coast and East Coast Main Lines are already at capacity and passenger numbers are increasing.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Re: HS2
« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2016, 01:10:49 pm »
Apparently the whole of HS2 is based on the misapprehension that key business people 'vital for the economy as a whole' don't do any work on existing intercity links, that take a little bit longer than HS2 would...
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

Re: HS2
« Reply #62 on: January 31, 2016, 01:50:07 pm »
It's hard to get much work done if you're standing in the vestibule for an hour and a half.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Re: HS2
« Reply #63 on: January 31, 2016, 01:55:53 pm »
The justification for HS2 is codswallop because it doesn't consider other ways of expanding the network.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: HS2
« Reply #64 on: January 31, 2016, 02:04:00 pm »
I've not been following it, but it seems construction is scheduled to start next year.

It will be built, and it will end up massively over budget, as these things always do. There's no doubt it's needed: the West Coast and East Coast Main Lines are already at capacity and passenger numbers are increasing.
Ultimately, it's all about Big Business and contracts for consultancy and building it. Lots of smoke and mirrors, blocked reports - e.g. The one on HS1 which was blocked until it could no longer fatally damage the "case" for HS2.
There is a capacity problem, but it's all in the London commuter range. The West Coast Line is typically very crowded to/ from Milton Keynes - but HS2 doesn't stop until Birmingham airport ( well, somewhere not too fat from it in actual fact). There is also an issue of ticket pricing altering capacity - the oft- quoted packed train on a Friday is the first one after the expensive tickets stop. I regularly travelled on the West Coast and East Coast lines out of London, and the, say, 5.15 train was well under capacity.
Since the case for HS2 was voted on (with Heavy whipping) Virgin have been allowed to use longer trains ( previously stored away) and to change the ratio of 1st/ standard class carriages. This has freed up plenty of capacity, and Euro signalling can free up lots more if the Government went with it.
By the way, it seems that, for the foreseeable future, HS2 will only go from Old Oak Common to Crewe! Journey times from Birmingham New Street or Manchester Picadilly to central London are likely to be significantly longer than they are now.
As with most of this Government's decisions, it's all about investors and vested interests I'm afraid. Exactly the same as with fracking ( with some of the same vested interests as it happens).

Re: HS2
« Reply #65 on: January 31, 2016, 02:32:44 pm »
Those are all very good points.

The justification seems to change, which does ring alarm bells. Originally they were suggesting premium pricing for business travellers, now they are saying the pricing will be in line with current tickets and the investment recouped with a *tripling* of capacity, and trains every 5-10 mins. *IF* this happens, and people choose the train over the motorway, this will be a good thing. Increasing London salaries to pay for commuters to do this, perhaps less of a good thing.

You mention the 5:15 out of London - if this is 05:15 then it's hardly surprising, if it's the 17:15 then it's no longer the case. It's hard to physically get on an intercity train 17:00-18:30, let alone get an unreserved seat. After 2008 there was a lot of space but not any more. It's also true that at commuter times, the trains get quite empty from stations further than an hour to an hour and a half. However, I recently caught the last train to Newcastle out of King's Cross, and there were only two unreserved standard seats left, most people going quite far (and unlike the commuter time trains, virtually everyone with a booking turned up!).

Longer platforms, allowing an extra carriage, are a much cheaper way of increasing capacity, and this is happening in places. But it only gives about 10% extra per train. Similarly changing first carriages to standard sounds like a good idea, but despite the extra space in first class they only hold about 10% fewer people (~62 vs 55 off the top of my head), and they could be filled better if the pricing hadn't gone as crazy as it has done.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Re: HS2
« Reply #66 on: January 31, 2016, 09:14:41 pm »
They'll use our money to build it and then flog it off to their mates for a song a few years later. as with HS1, Lloyds Bank shares and any number of other things.

Labour tax everyone and spend it on everyone whether they like it or not.

The Tories tax everyone and give it to their already-rich mates through the back door.
Never tell me the odds.

Re: HS2
« Reply #67 on: January 31, 2016, 09:19:56 pm »
There has to be a better way to spend £80 billion (over 16yrs).   I can think of a few.
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

Re: HS2
« Reply #68 on: January 31, 2016, 09:22:41 pm »
Hookers and blow would only be marginally worse.
Never tell me the odds.

Re: HS2
« Reply #69 on: March 14, 2016, 12:31:03 pm »
Hyperloop anyone?

Elon Musk's Hyperloop could head to Europe before California
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/11/elon-musk-hyperloop-old-europe-slovakia-california

After a possible two decades and £80bn, HS2 could arguably be in danger of 'old hat' too...
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

Re: HS2
« Reply #70 on: March 14, 2016, 01:45:38 pm »
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: HS2
« Reply #71 on: March 14, 2016, 02:08:05 pm »
I hear about capacity - but I note that the non-stop trains from Reading to London are slower than they were 30 years ago, taking several minutes more. I also recall that when I was commuting between Reading & Theale & Newbury, we suddenly went from full to impossibly overcrowded trains between Theale & Reading, with people having to wait on platforms for the next train - because trains were reduced both in frequency & length while the number of passengers was increasing. It was claimed that this was based on usage statistics, which was clearly bollocks, & I recall harassed  train guards agreeing whole-heartedly with that when faced with complaining passengers, & urging passengers to complain to the company.

I'm not convinced that train overcrowding is a good measure of actual, let alone potential, capacity, & suspicious of claims that we need completely new high speed lines connecting major cities with London to solve capacity problems.

I wonder to what extent the proposed solution is part of the problem, in that it is likely to increase centralisation. Birmingham, for example, used to have freight lines connecting it with such places as Southampton. I see no proposals to replace that capacity, though the new major road which runs along part of the old rail line is packed with lorries nowadays. And so on . . . Where are the better connections between ports & inland cities? Where are the improvements in connections between cities other than London? Where's the cost-benefit analysis of spending on other railway improvements & comparison with the economic justification for HS2 in the HS2 case?
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

Re: HS2
« Reply #72 on: March 14, 2016, 02:26:56 pm »
Some of the capacity problem stem from having different companies sharing the same track, some come from increase frequencies of services.

When you run trains of vastly different speeds and stopping patterns on the same line, you end up with reduced capacity.  HS2 is supposed to help with that by moving some of the high-speed passenger traffic onto dedicated lines.

It is bollocks. The most overcrowding occurs on routes that are nowhere near HS2 route.

HS2 is an effing vanity project. Yes, we need more rail lines to increase capacity. Do we need ultra-high-speed rail? Don't make me laugh. Affordable, frequent services with actual seats for all the passengers is what we need. That could be served on existing lines. Add slow, winding routes for freight and local services. Much cheaper to build, less destructive and same benefits.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: HS2
« Reply #73 on: March 14, 2016, 02:54:55 pm »
High-speed is surely mostly about grades and signalling, and if you're building a railway from scratch, it seems silly not to make it suitable for high-speed operation.

But I agree it's a vanity project, and there other places where the money would be better spent to increase rail capacity.  East-west capacity is sorely needed, as are routes that don't involve London.  But that's getting ridiculous.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Re: HS2
« Reply #74 on: March 14, 2016, 03:28:54 pm »
Bicester is getting much better connected, with the two separate lines being connected, double tracking of old single track, new trackbed for faster running, bridges replacing level crossings, etc.,& it looks as if the Varsity Line is on its way to being revived -  because someone's actually noticed that there's a lot of traffic, & even without improvements, the railway was capturing enough of it to be busy. More capacity is being added between London & Birmingham on these lines & points in between as well as cross-connections, & there's scope to add a lot more at relatively (very relatively) modest cost. HS2 will zoom past without the option of connecting to any of it. And so on . . .

Felixstowe to the Midlands for freight would be handy. Better trans-Pennine lines ditto.
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897