New high speed rail link ...is it worth it ? - Page 10

Alan Fry · 12-01-2012, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

I know that. I was just pointing out that it's not Â£40 billion to shave 20 minutes off London-Birmingham, as was stated. The Â£40 (or rather Â£32) billion includes the Manchester and Leeds extensions.

That is what I saying!

danielf · 12-01-2012, 15:35

Yes, but I said it first

Alan Fry · 12-01-2012, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, but I said it first

I know!

Chrysalis · 12-01-2012, 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think people realise how good that Channel tunnel is. You can get from the centre of Paris to the Centre of London in under 2:30 hours, it's perfectly connected to the respective cities' train and metro/tube services.

not much good to me as I dont live near london.

the investment on HS1 HS2 etc. is a limited part of the country that benefits.

However the channel tunnel was replacing no line, there is already a line from brmingham to london.

AndyCambs · 12-01-2012, 16:01

Inote also that the new link bypasses the East Coast completely - so despite being told "improvements on the way" for people commuting from Newark and points south to London - that seems to have been missed out..

**Damien** · 12-01-2012, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

not much good to me as I dont live near london.

the investment on HS1 HS2 etc. is a limited part of the country that benefits.

However the channel tunnel was replacing no line, there is already a line from brmingham to london.

High Speed should eventually benefit all the country. The idea is to remove any disadvantage from not being in the capital by reducing the time it takes to get there. It will make companies in, say, Sheffield feel less remote to their clients in London. All of which should mean business, jobs and homes being more eventually distributed across the UK rather than centralised in the South-East.

I get the feeling the Government are in a no-win situation. They are often criticised, including on this forum, for being too focused on London and yet they are also criticised for taking real steps to help developing outside of the capital.

---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Inote also that the new link bypasses the East Coast completely - so despite being told "improvements on the way" for people commuting from Newark and points south to London - that seems to have been missed out..

Because for high speed to work they don't stop often. These aren't meant to be typical commuter trains which stop at many locations along their route, they are meant to connect the major population and business centres which in turn will have local routes to finish the journey. You don't take the motorway to your front door, you take it until the closest junction and then go on local roads to get there. Where before we were connected by the rail equivalent of a dual carriageway we're going to have a 4-lane motorway.

**Chris** · 12-01-2012, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

However the channel tunnel was replacing no line, there is already a line from brmingham to london.

There were multiple ferry lines between Folkstone/Dover and Calais/Boulogne. The channel crossing time was (still is, by slow ferry) over an hour, compared to a little over half an hour by Eurotunnel.

To discount the channel as a comparison simply because the mode of travel was floating rather than running on rails is rather artificial.

Alan Fry · 13-01-2012, 10:01

Can they build more stations in Sheffield and Maybe the Chilterns!

danielf · 13-01-2012, 10:07

They could, but stopping there would rather defeat the 'high speed' aspect of the whole thing.

Alan Fry · 13-01-2012, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

They could, but stopping there would rather defeat the 'high speed' aspect of the whole thing.

It would only add about 5 to 10 minutes to the journey time, plue more stations would allow more people to benefit!

**Hugh** · 13-01-2012, 10:34

And each station would add 5-10 minutes, thus, as previously stated, defeating the "high-speed" aspect....

danielf · 13-01-2012, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

It would only add about 5 to 10 minutes to the journey time, plue more stations would allow more people to benefit!

HS2 would shave 20 minutes off London-Birmingham. Adding 10 minutes to the journey times would half the high speed benefit. It's not going to happen, and we're not paying Â£17 billion for it.

Chrysalis · 13-01-2012, 11:08

so hang on a minute, it saves 20 minutes but if it had to stop it wouldnt save almost anything? yet the trains taking the extra 20 minutes are also making more stops?

**Damien** · 13-01-2012, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

so hang on a minute, it saves 20 minutes but if it had to stop it wouldnt save almost anything? yet the trains taking the extra 20 minutes are also making more stops?

The estimates are worked out on a direct route. In reality the actual journey time saved will be 39 minutes. Presumably the difference between the 39 mins and the 24 mins is due to the normal trains stopping. So it will be 24 mins quicker on direct trains, 39 quicker in reality at HS2 won't stop as much.

danielf · 13-01-2012, 11:22

Today's 11.43 from London to Birmingham stops at Milton Keynes and Coventry and takes 1hour 25 m.

According to Wikipedia, HS2 should reduce travel time from 1hour 12 minutes to 49 minutes. So that means 1 hour 12 minutes is without stops, and 2 stops take about 13 minutes.