New high speed rail link ...is it worth it ?

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

Remember though that HS2 will be going at 186-250 mph compaired to 100-125mph on the WCML!

---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Adding stops would allow more people to benefit!

[Chrysalis]

So why not have alternating trains one stops and the next one doesnt.

For the price the government is paying they should be aiming to benefit as many people as possible. Instead they going for maximum impact to headline times.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

So why not have alternating trains one stops and the next one doesnt.

For the price the government is paying they should be aiming to benefit as many people as possible. Instead they going for maximum impact to headline times.

I would agree with that!

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

So why not have alternating trains one stops and the next one doesnt.

For the price the government is paying they should be aiming to benefit as many people as possible. Instead they going for maximum impact to headline times.

Perhaps because there are already trains on existing lines that stop, and can still be used?

Surely if defeats the point of a high-speed train if it has to keep slowing down, stopping, and then getting back up to speed again? We don't see that happening on the HS1, TGV, et al. That's like saying I want to catch a fast flight to New York from London, but it should stop in Manchester and Glasgow first, imho.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

So why not have alternating trains one stops and the next one doesnt.

For the price the government is paying they should be aiming to benefit as many people as possible. Instead they going for maximum impact to headline times.

Pointless having a HS line that stops too often ,it just doesn't make any sense and would add too much to the bill .Bus companies have express services between A-B they don't stop at every bus stop that's what the normal bus is for the same applies to trains

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by martyh

Pointless having a HS line that stops too often ,it just doesn't make any sense and would add too much to the bill .Bus companies have express services between A-B they don't stop at every bus stop that's what the normal bus is for the same applies to trains

I am only suggesting 1 or 2 stops between London and Birmingham and 1 or 2 on each of the branch lines to Leeds (in future maybe Edinburgh) and Manchester (in future maybe Glasgow)

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Perhaps because there are already trains on existing lines that stop, and can still be used?

Surely if defeats the point of a high-speed train if it has to keep slowing down, stopping, and then getting back up to speed again? We don't see that happening on the HS1, TGV, et al. That's like saying I want to catch a fast flight to New York from London, but it should stop in Manchester and Glasgow first, imho.

its also pointless if hardly anyone can use it.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I am only suggesting 1 or 2 stops between London and Birmingham and 1 or 2 on each of the branch lines to Leeds (in future maybe Edinburgh) and Manchester (in future maybe Glasgow)

and that makes a HS speed line not a high speed line ,how is that so hard to understand ?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I am only suggesting 1 or 2 stops between London and Birmingham and 1 or 2 on each of the branch lines to Leeds (in future maybe Edinburgh) and Manchester (in future maybe Glasgow)

You'll be suggesting multiple airports around London next...

Originally Posted by danielf

You'll be suggesting multiple airports around London next...

with one giant one in the middle

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

with one giant one in the middle

Where London used to be

Originally Posted by danielf

Where London used to be

ssshhh don't give him ideas

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by martyh

and that makes a HS speed line not a high speed line ,how is that so hard to understand ?

A high speed line is definded as a line faster than 125 mph, this one goes up to 250 mph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:17 ----------

I am suggesting 1 airport for london to replace the 5 main London Airports (Luton, Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted and Southend)

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

A high speed line is definded as a line faster than 125 mph, this one goes up to 250 mph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail[COLOR="Silver"]

Which means it'll take a lot longer to slow down/get up to speed, thus making it more important to have few stops.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by danielf

Which means it'll take a lot longer to slow down/get up to speed, thus making it more important to have few stops.

The less stops there are, the less people benifit!