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

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

BBC Map and estimated journey times.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interac...ap-interactive

London to Birmingham:

Currently 1 hour 24 minutes, would be shortened to 45 minutes. A saving of 39 minutes.

London to Manchester:

Currently 2 hours 8 minutes, would be shortened to 1 hour 38 minutes. A saving of 30 minutes. Although from 2032 it would be 1 hour 8 minutes, a saving of an entire hour.

This is of course all based upon the drivers not being members of Bob Crow's union....

Possibly that should be written into the contract....

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Osem

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...thusiasts.html



The Dutch aren't renowned for infrastructure failures and I fear we're in for more of the same if this goes ahead. It will almost certainly overrun, the final bill will be far more than predicted and if the pricing is high enough to make some return then only the relatively well off will be prepared to use it. It just doesn't add up and I can't see how it wouldn't make more sense to spend the vast sums involved, creating jobs and stimulating growth over a much wider area by improving our existing network for both passengers and freight.

A Dutch passenger pressure group, Voor Beter OV (For Better Public Transport), is now taking the national rail operator to the Netherlands’ competition tribunal after it slowed down services on the regular network in an apparent attempt to drive passengers on to the high-speed line.

Oh dear. The sad thing is we have already had a bailout before on rail but it seems havent learned from that lesson.

Osem, you're cherry-picking the evidence you want to accept and declaring it "more realistic" because it tallies with what you have already decided is going to be the fate of HS2

Incidentally, part of the problem these things cost so much more, mile for mile, in this country, is because of the Nimbys and the nay-sayers who insist on objecting their way to the highest court in the land before accepting the democratic right of an elected government to take strategic decisions about the infrastructure of the country.

This decision has been taken by a government that, rarely for the UK, represents a very large majority of those who voted in the last general election. Furthermore, Labour is broadly supportive of HS2, having initiated the thing in the first place. They really should now be allowed to get on and build it.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I would think twice actually.

Didnt you say they £5 higher? thats significant.

On a train journey from london to say glasgow, the 20mins is even less relevant.

If there was a high speed line to Glasgow then you would save far more than 20mins. Manchester would be 1 hour quicker in 2032. Anyway London to Birmingham is 39 minutes quicker, not 20.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Oh dear. The sad thing is we have already had a bailout before on rail but it seems havent learned from that lesson.

What was that lesson?

---------- Post added at 10:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I would think twice actually.

Didnt you say they £5 higher? thats significant.

On a train journey from london to say glasgow, the 20mins is even less relevant.

Chrys, you are mathematically challenged in the extreme.

How on earth do you imagine that a 30-minute time saving on the 100-mile journey from Birmingham to London would translate into a 20-minute saving between Glasgow and London?

If the time saving is something like 30 minutes per 100 miles, compared with the best speeds currently offered by Pendolinos operating on the WCML, then from Glasgow to London you would be looking at a time saving of more like two hours - reducing the journey time to under 2.5 hours and frankly, making a rail journey more attractive than flying, given all the faffing about that comes with air travel (time in the air between Glasgow and London is about an hour, but then you have to add security, boarding and a train journey into central London from LHR or LTN).

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

What was that lesson?

---------- Post added at 10:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------



Chrys, you are mathematically challenged in the extreme.

How on earth do you imagine that a 30-minute time saving on the 100-mile journey from Birmingham to London would translate into a 20-minute saving between Glasgow and London?

If the time saving is something like 30 minutes per 100 miles, compared with the best speeds currently offered by Pendolinos operating on the WCML, then from Glasgow to London you would be looking at a time saving of more like two hours - reducing the journey time to under 2.5 hours and frankly, making a rail journey more attractive than flying, given all the faffing about that comes with air travel (time in the air between Glasgow and London is about an hour, but then you have to add security, boarding and a train journey into central London from LHR or LTN).

When did it change from 20 minutes to 30 minutes?

Also I wont answer your first question as I am struggling to see why you even asking it.

Most people on the street probably dont care about these time savings, if you asked joe bloggs would he pay X amount extra to get somewhere a bit faster the answer would probably be no. Especially in the northern part of the country where income levels are lower.

Do you forsee trains full of people on this high speed rail link, because I certianly dont.

[MovedGoalPosts]

One of the greatest problems with our form of government with elections every 4-5 years is short term views. It's good to see for a change something that was conceived by one government, Labour, is being continued by the coalition. If we continue with policies that can only be realised within a government term so many infrastructure projects that will provide benefits for the long term would never happen.

The link to Birmingham only is not enough, but it is the start of a proper network. It does need some proper joined up thinking and it is vital that it can link into the existing line between London and the Channel Tunnel, without requiring a train change. That is where, in my view, the real potential of the service lies which would finally start to offer real alternatives to air travel to Europe. In the short to medium term environmentally the line's contruction may not make sense, but in the longer term I would expect it to see some payback. Ultimately this is not just about time savings, but being able to create a proper modern railway network, rather than something stuck with the heritage of the Victorian era.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Rob

One of the greatest problems with our form of government with elections every 4-5 years is short term views. It's good to see for a change something that was conceived by one government, Labour, is being continued by the coalition. If we continue with policies that can only be realised within a government term so many infrastructure projects that will provide benefits for the long term would never happen.

The link to Birmingham only is not enough, but it is the start of a proper network. It does need some proper joined up thinking and it is vital that it can link into the existing line between London and the Channel Tunnel, without requiring a train change. That is where, in my view, the real potential of the service lies which would finally start to offer real alternatives to air travel to Europe. In the short to medium term environmentally the line's contruction may not make sense, but in the longer term I would expect it to see some payback. Ultimately this is not just about time savings, but being able to create a proper modern railway network, rather than something stuck with the heritage of the Victorian era.

I think Labour backs HS2 as well, we should also extend the network to Scotland, along with the North East of England, Wales and the South West of England as Well!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Incidentally, part of the problem these things cost so much more, mile for mile, in this country, is because of the Nimbys and the nay-sayers who insist on objecting their way to the highest court in the land before accepting the democratic right of an elected government to take strategic decisions about the infrastructure of the country.

This decision has been taken by a government that, rarely for the UK, represents a very large majority of those who voted in the last general election. Furthermore, Labour is broadly supportive of HS2, having initiated the thing in the first place. They really should now be allowed to get on and build it.

What he said.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Osem

And maybe that's exactly what's wrong Damien - we've missed the boat and what should have been done when financial and other conditions were far better than they are now simply wasn't.

Furthermore, the French network has never suffered from the huge legal and other problems that getting planning permission requires in the UK so, mile for mile, their network was built far quicker and cheaper than ours will be and has had the benefit of vast sums of govt. aid over decades. What we know is that in Holland, the nearest equivalent of what's being proposed here, completed only a couple of years ago (as opposed to decades ago as in the case of much of the French network) is failing and already requiring lots more taxpayers money just to keep it running full of empty seats. That seems to be a far more realistic comparison.

OK, I've had a rummage around, and a couple of things need saying. First, as far as I can tell the Fyra, uses the same tracks used for the Thalys which runs from Amsterdam to Paris. To quote 7 Billion for the Fyra seems unfair. Second, from what I can tell, there certainly are problems with Fyra, and these are due to high cost, low frequency (Fyra runs just once an hour). There also is the fact that Amsterdam-Rotterdam isn't that far (normal travelling time 1 hour vs. 40 minutes on a high speed train). The 20 minutes saved does make for a more feasible commute though.

The main thing however (and one would hope this would ultimately happen in the UK), is that it is part of a wider network of high speed trains on the Continent, linking up to Brussels, and Paris, and in the future to London and Germany, and high speed trains make far more sense over longer distances where they can replace air travel.

I'm still surprised by the price tag of 32 Billion for London-Birmingham though. The 7 Billion quoted for the Dutch line (~100 miles, but only partly high speed) is a fraction of the price tag of London-Birmingham, and I'm struggling to see why it should be so much more expensive in the UK.

Oh. One more thing: this is still work in progress, and the current trains can't use the track to its full potential. With new trains, it's expected that the journey time from Amsterdam to Antwerp will be reduced from 2 hours and 6 minutes on standard tracks to 1 hour and 9 minutes, which is quite substantial (but also achieved by having fewer stops).

£17 billion for London -Brum.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

£17 billion for London -Brum.

Ah. What's the £32 Billion that everyone's throwing around for? London-Manchester?

Edit: Oh, I see, branches to Manchester as well as Leeds. Good stuff, the whole thing just got 50% cheaper in my reckoning

And Leeds (and perhaps a bit further).

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And Leeds (and perhaps a bit further).

Yeah, I just edited my post.

The plan seems to be to allow HS trains to run onto existing track beyond Manchester and Leeds, allowing Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh access to HS2. Although there does still seem to be a long-term aspiration to extend the high-speed lines themselves all the way to Scotland.