HS2 losers -Aberdeen, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds and....

[Jerry]

Irrespective of where the money is coming from its costing far too much.

Well I suppose it depends on what value you put for England in having a high speed rail network connecting it's north west with London and how much value is placed on the freeing up of capacity for local services and freight

Interesting diagram in the linked tweet about the capacity issues

https://twitter.com/Microlambert/status/1706431886296301906?s=20

 

[Aviador]

We need our rail expert @Bigman onto this because I'm sure he's mentioned solutions in the past to the freight problem. #HS2 #HS2Fiasco

Well I suppose it depends on what value you put for England in having a high speed rail network connecting it's north west with London and how much value is placed on the freeing up of capacity for local services and freight

Interesting diagram in the linked tweet about the capacity issues

https://twitter.com/Microlambert/status/1706431886296301906?s=20

The value of HS2 is severely diminishing. As the lines have been chopped, so have the benefits from building the remaining line. England is a relatively large place and the number of places that would have seen a benefit from a fully completed HS2 following the original routes would arguably not be worth the cost of the project from the onset. Using the original London to Leeds plan as an example, the time shaved off by using HS2 doesn't achieve much if then you can't get into the suburbs easily because of poor local infrastructure in Leeds. Using Leeds as an example, the cost of a decent metro such as a tram system could significantly reduce journey times at a cost of up to £1.5bn. The current cost of taking HS2 to Manchester is looking likely to exceed £100bn. So from that it's clear to see what a waste of money HS2 is and furthermore it shows just how many regions throughout the UK could have benefited from the same amount of money.

 

[Silvercity]

Irrespective of where the money is coming from its costing far too much. The length of time it takes the UK to do anything is probably partly to blame as we've been banging on about HS2 for probably 20 years now, it's really no wonder costs have increased so much. It's a UK phenomenon. We just talk about doing things everywhere else gets on and does it.

Totally agree, we talk, not do, its a British problem.

Well I suppose it depends on what value you put for England in having a high speed rail network connecting it's north west with London and how much value is placed on the freeing up of capacity for local services and freight

Interesting diagram in the linked tweet about the capacity issues

https://twitter.com/Microlambert/status/1706431886296301906?s=20

Freight is something that rail is short of capacity for. When I see the amount of containers clogging the roads out of The Port of Liverpool would make much more sense getting much more of it on the tracks. The port authorities are investing in this again, however years ago, we let these lines get overgrown and out of use, in favour of lorries.

We need our rail expert @Bigman onto this because I'm sure he's mentioned solutions in the past to the freight problem. #HS2 #HS2Fiasco


The value of HS2 is severely diminishing. As the lines have been chopped, so have the benefits from building the remaining line. England is a relatively large place and the number of places that would have seen a benefit from a fully completed HS2 following the original routes would arguably not be worth the cost of the project from the onset. Using the original London to Leeds plan as an example, the time shaved off by using HS2 doesn't achieve much if then you can't get into the suburbs easily because of poor local infrastructure in Leeds. Using Leeds as an example, the cost of a decent metro such as a tram system could significantly reduce journey times at a cost of up to £1.5bn. The current cost of taking HS2 to Manchester is looking likely to exceed £100bn. So from that it's clear to see what a waste of money HS2 is and furthermore it shows just how many regions throughout the UK could have benefited from the same amount of money.

I am more in favour in the HS3 scheme, basically transforming rail travel across the North. That is a much bigger problem than reaching London.

Now they are talking about HS2 terminus in London being 'Old Oak Common ' which is Ealing way I believe, does this mean all the works done around Euston was a waste of time ? Why would you want to arrive in West London anyway, then continue by tube

 

[Aviador]

I am more in favour in the HS3 scheme, basically transforming rail travel across the North. That is a much bigger problem than reaching London.

Now they are talking about HS2 terminus in London being 'Old Oak Common ' which is Ealing way I believe, does this mean all the works done around Euston was a waste of time ? Why would you want to arrive in West London anyway, then continue by tube

Whether I support HS3 or not is again going to be down to cost and value. Is the time saved the upgrade going to be worth the amount of money it would require to complete the project. Would the money benefit more places by spreading the money to more areas and again reducing the travel time between Liverpool or Manchester and Leeds isn't much use if then you're stuck in the centre of Leeds because public transport is so bad.

 

[KARFA]

it isn't about "time saved". i really wish people would get out of this mindset of "why are we paying for HS lines to save 5 minutes heading from Leeds to Manchester".

if you want to push the economy across the north then investing in HS rail from Liverpool to Hull is absolutely the best way to do it.

 

[Ashley.S.]

My understanding is that HS2 was announced with fanfare in 2009/10 by labour, then spent three years being reviewed and adjusted by the conservatives. It was then finally approved in 2013. Contracts weren't signed until 2017 and now 13 years later after the announcement, it drastically needs changing due to costs. Makes me wonder why they just didn't get on with it in the first place if it was so important...

 

[Silvercity]

Getting across the North and local services in cities is two different priorities. Both are important and both have been neglected for years. The north will lag behind London for ever unless these long term failures are addressed .

 

[Coathanger16]

Whilst getting between London and Birmingham or between Manchester and Leeds faster is an improvement, the biggest benefit is from the extra capacity such services would bring.

Both on the fast line between the major cities, and on the existing lines that now have more capacity for regional/suburban trains.

Imagine the UK road network with no motorways. Local roads would be clogged up with local traffic and long distance traffic. We see this now when motorways are shut for road works or an accident. Imagine that but 24/7. Build motorways and the long distance traffic moves over to the motorway which is quicker for them, and frees up room on the local roads making short journeys quicker and provides more local capacity.

HS2 and HS3 do exactly the same for the rail network.

For anyone advocating "upgrading" the existing network, clarity what upgrades you mean and also look at the upgrade of the WCML. The upgrade took 10 years, had its budget increased from £2.5bn to £14.5bn, disrupted the existing network for the duration of the works and when complete was at capacity straight away.

Building HS2/HS3 shouldn't be at the expense of upgrading the existing network but in addition to.

HS2 has by far one of the worst PR/advertising campaigns in history in that most people only talk about it in terms of getting between A and B quicker, whilst the vast majority of the population are unaware of the capacity benefits it would bring. If it had been advertised from the start as a capacity relief line that happened to allow faster trains than the existing line from the start, I suspect there would be at least some less opposition to it.

 

[Brum X]

Now they are talking about HS2 terminus in London being 'Old Oak Common ' which is Ealing way I believe, does this mean all the works done around Euston was a waste of time ? Why would you want to arrive in West London anyway, then continue by tube

There are lots of benefits of getting off at Old Oak Common, firstly not everybody wants to go to Euston in London , however that is our choicfe atm if you want to arrive in London on a fast train. There is no other choice.

It will be far easier to get to Heathrow for example and get on Crossrail than having to go into old congested Euston. Also for people in north London to get to BHX.

The same for Canary Wharf, jump on the Crossrail, why go into central London.

I agree, Euston needs to be included, however I don't think some people understand the benefits of an interchange at Old Oak Common.

 

[Silvercity]

I.can see if you want to go to LHR , it would be easy to change, but i would say if you want to be in Central London, a.central Station is more attractive to passengers, rather than arriving in the suburbs. HS2 originally was going to have a direct spur to LHR, which was cut. This would have been very useful.

 

[Coathanger16]

I.can see if you want to go to LHR , it would be easy to change, but i would say if you want to be in Central London, a.central Station is more attractive to passengers, rather than arriving in the suburbs. HS2 originally was going to have a direct spur to LHR, which was cut. This would have been very useful.

Admittedly this report is from 2011, but it was the first I could find, and the figures likely haven't changed drastically:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/central-london-rail-termini-report.pdf

For Euston specifically, only 20% of arriving passengers then walked to their destination vs 53% using the underground. A further 20% used either bus or rail for onward journeys.

One of the reasons for having two London stations was that if all HS2 passengers arrived into Euston it would overload the station. Even with Old Oak Common, there was concern that Euston would still be at or over capacity because of HS2 unless Crossrail 2 is built.

If Euston without OOC couldn't handle all HS2 passengers, it's fair to assume OOC without Euston couldn't handle all HS2 passengers. Both stations are needed and OOC will be quicker for HS2 passengers travelling to/from anywhere along the GWML or the Elizabeth line.

Travelling from OOC to Canary Wharf will take about 20 minutes on Crossrail with no changes, whilst Euston to Canary Wharf is 25 minutes with a change. Given a passenger getting off at OOC will get off the train say 5 minutes before a passenger getting off at Euston, that's 10 minutes quicker travelling via OOC. Whilst not a massive difference, it would be enough that the majority of passengers making the journey to Canary Wharf would do.

With regards to Heathrow, the spur option would never have worked. It would either require trains to route via Heathrow, thereby reducing the time saving of travelling to London, or would require dedicated trains to operate to Heathrow avoiding central London altogether, the demand for which would be too small to justify.

If including Heathrow in the High Speed network was so important, then routing the line itself from Euston to Heathrow then North would have been the best option, however failing that, the interchange at OOC is the next best option.

 

[Silvercity]

Admittedly this report is from 2011, but it was the first I could find, and the figures likely haven't changed drastically:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/central-london-rail-termini-report.pdf

For Euston specifically, only 20% of arriving passengers then walked to their destination vs 53% using the underground. A further 20% used either bus or rail for onward journeys.

One of the reasons for having two London stations was that if all HS2 passengers arrived into Euston it would overload the station. Even with Old Oak Common, there was concern that Euston would still be at or over capacity because of HS2 unless Crossrail 2 is built.

If Euston without OOC couldn't handle all HS2 passengers, it's fair to assume OOC without Euston couldn't handle all HS2 passengers. Both stations are needed and OOC will be quicker for HS2 passengers travelling to/from anywhere along the GWML or the Elizabeth line.

Travelling from OOC to Canary Wharf will take about 20 minutes on Crossrail with no changes, whilst Euston to Canary Wharf is 25 minutes with a change. Given a passenger getting off at OOC will get off the train say 5 minutes before a passenger getting off at Euston, that's 10 minutes quicker travelling via OOC. Whilst not a massive difference, it would be enough that the majority of passengers making the journey to Canary Wharf would do.

With regards to Heathrow, the spur option would never have worked. It would either require trains to route via Heathrow, thereby reducing the time saving of travelling to London, or would require dedicated trains to operate to Heathrow avoiding central London altogether, the demand for which would be too small to justify.

If including Heathrow in the High Speed network was so important, then routing the line itself from Euston to Heathrow then North would have been the best option, however failing that, the interchange at OOC is the next best option.

Maybe, I just don't see people habits changing with respect to a London terminus . I still think the Heathrow Spur would have been useful if the idea is to reduce domestic flights and car travel, which must be a consideration. As it looks HS2 is stopping at Birmingham anyway, therefore Euston will still be the main terminus for the NW, I imagine.

 

[LBA4EVER]

I see all the mayors from london and the northern cities are in leeds today regarding HS2 and the now possible cancellation of the northern line to Manchester.
In my opinion I feel they should cancel the section to manchester and for a fraction of the cost deliver the north with a proper transport infrastructure including a proper hull in the east to Liverpool in the west HS3 , super tram in Leeds and of course a train station linking LBA. I can think of many more major transport upgrades that could commence plus of course other cities in the north will have there own plans.
Of course these things will probably only occur in my dreams!!

 

[White Heather]

I didn't notice them all kicking off to this extent when the Leeds leg was cancelled!

Sometimes it seems that by Levelling Up, they only refer to the North West. I cannot see how the likes of Leeds, Bradford, Hull, York or Newcastle benefit from an HS2 line to Manchester. Few will travel via Manchester to Yorkshire and the East Coast Main Line will continue to be the main link between this side of the Pennines and London.

In my view, either the whole of HS2 should be built including Leeds and Manchester (and the Leeds leg later extended to Newcastle /Edinburgh with the Manchester leg later extended to Glasgow) or not at all. It's of little use just running the 100 miles or so from Euston to Birmingham.

 

[Silvercity]

I didn't notice them all kicking off to this extent when the Leeds leg was cancelled!

Sometimes it seems that by Levelling Up, they only refer to the North West. I cannot see how the likes of Leeds, Bradford, Hull, York or Newcastle benefit from an HS2 line to Manchester. Few will travel via Manchester to Yorkshire and the East Coast Main Line will continue to be the main link between this side of the Pennines and London.

In my view, either the whole of HS2 should be built including Leeds and Manchester (and the Leeds leg later extended to Newcastle /Edinburgh with the Manchester leg later extended to Glasgow) or not at all. It's of little use just running the 100 miles or so from Euston to Birmingham.

You mean Manchester, I can assure you there is no levelling up to be seen in the Liverpool City Region. The High Speed Link to Liverpool was dropped sometime ago. We could do with better local transportation, a rail link to the airport and a cross the north rail link, HS3 as its known. Hull to Liverpool with everywhere in between , passengers ands freight. In my opinion this is much more of a problem than getting to London.

 

[jfy1999]

In my view, either the whole of HS2 should be built including Leeds and Manchester (and the Leeds leg later extended to Newcastle /Edinburgh with the Manchester leg later extended to Glasgow) or not at all. It's of little use just running the 100 miles or so from Euston to Birmingham.

it’s unfortunate they couldn’t do it all at once.

At least if they can get the London - Birmingham section done then it will give a future less short-sighted government something to build upon when it comes to pursuing the northern legs.

 

[DarloPlaneBoy]

Personally I Don't agree with HS2 HS1 doesn't go 220MPH does it well the Eurostar might but that's because unlike us the French can build these things back when Virgin Trains introduced there Class 390 Pendolino's over 20 years ago Richard Branson said they could do 140MPH testing revealed they could indeed go 140MPH they tilted around corners. He asked Railtrack/Network Rail for upgrades to the WCML and they did but Branson still could never get his trains to do 140 due to infrastructure issues they were limited to 125MPH the class 350 Desiro used on the slower LNWR or local services can do 110MPH why didn't the Government at the time upgrade the WCML when they had trains they could go faster than then current class 91's used the 390's also being safer as proved in the Galyrigg Crash. Instead we waste Tax payers money on a Train Line that destroys The Countryside and still means where I live in Darlaston if I caught the Train from Walsall or Darlaston whenever that opens to New Street I would be easier getting the WCML Trains to Euston than walking across Brum to Curzon Street which will probably be more expensive. Also the Midland Metro expansion and this Sprint Bus and Cross City Buses planned it's all pointless why because there are still cars on the road unless you do something really stupid like divert the motorways away from Brum you are going to have congestion. What we should do rather than HS2 is build more Frieght Lines Bescot is the nearest Freight Depot to me and has Bits of Track that aren't used. The Walsall to Wolverhampton line is for Diversions and Frieght between Stafford, Bescot and Birmingham but if you reopened the South Staffordshire Line passing the old Round Oak Steel Works that could be a Frieght Line avoiding Birmingham potentially link it up around Soho Junction and then have it use it's own lines to allow more faster WCML Paths for the 390's and fast LNWR and around Brum CrossCountry Services then have the slow lines for the LNWR Services. This would increase frequency and maybe make the fast lines 140MPH we clearly have infrastructure in place for 220MPH and then Journey time is also reduced this would also help relive the Chiltern Line as people who use it for the WCML being rammed would possibly use the new WCML Frequency.

 

[jfy1999]

The Walsall to Wolverhampton line is for Diversions and Frieght between Stafford, Bescot and Birmingham but if you reopened the South Staffordshire Line passing the old Round Oak Steel Works that could be a Frieght Line avoiding Birmingham potentially link it up around Soho Junction and then have it use it's own lines to allow more faster WCML Paths for the 390's and fast LNWR and around Brum CrossCountry Services then have the slow lines for the LNWR Services. This would increase frequency and maybe make the fast lines 140MPH we clearly have infrastructure in place for 220MPH and then Journey time is also reduced this would also help relive the Chiltern Line as people who use it for the WCML being rammed would possibly use the new WCML Frequency.

How many more passenger trains per hour could you run on the WCML in that scenario?

Let’s say you divert freight trains off the WCML at Lichfield as you say - where will you send the freight trains after that? They have to get to places like Dagenham, Felixstowe and Folkestone. The Sutton Park line won’t get them there. So you’ll have to get them back on the WCML or onto the Chiltern line at some point nearer London, where those lines tend to be more congested. That defeats the point of diverting trains off the WCML in the first place.

 

[Coathanger16]

Personally I Don't agree with HS2 HS1 doesn't go 220MPH does it well the Eurostar might but that's because unlike us the French can build these things back when Virgin Trains introduced there Class 390 Pendolino's over 20 years ago Richard Branson said they could do 140MPH testing revealed they could indeed go 140MPH they tilted around corners. He asked Railtrack/Network Rail for upgrades to the WCML and they did but Branson still could never get his trains to do 140 due to infrastructure issues they were limited to 125MPH the class 350 Desiro used on the slower LNWR or local services can do 110MPH why didn't the Government at the time upgrade the WCML when they had trains they could go faster than then current class 91's used the 390's also being safer as proved in the Galyrigg Crash. Instead we waste Tax payers money on a Train Line that destroys The Countryside and still means where I live in Darlaston if I caught the Train from Walsall or Darlaston whenever that opens to New Street I would be easier getting the WCML Trains to Euston than walking across Brum to Curzon Street which will probably be more expensive. Also the Midland Metro expansion and this Sprint Bus and Cross City Buses planned it's all pointless why because there are still cars on the road unless you do something really stupid like divert the motorways away from Brum you are going to have congestion. What we should do rather than HS2 is build more Frieght Lines Bescot is the nearest Freight Depot to me and has Bits of Track that aren't used. The Walsall to Wolverhampton line is for Diversions and Frieght between Stafford, Bescot and Birmingham but if you reopened the South Staffordshire Line passing the old Round Oak Steel Works that could be a Frieght Line avoiding Birmingham potentially link it up around Soho Junction and then have it use it's own lines to allow more faster WCML Paths for the 390's and fast LNWR and around Brum CrossCountry Services then have the slow lines for the LNWR Services. This would increase frequency and maybe make the fast lines 140MPH we clearly have infrastructure in place for 220MPH and then Journey time is also reduced this would also help relive the Chiltern Line as people who use it for the WCML being rammed would possibly use the new WCML Frequency.

Out of local/commuter, freight and intercity services, the easiest to move off of the existing network is intercity because it stops at the fewest number of places - hence why HS2 was designed to remove the busiest intercity routes from the existing network.

Once HS2 opens, the majority of existing WCML New Street to Euston services will move over to HS2. Don't quote me on it, but there might be something like 1 Avanti per hour remaining on the WCML to serve places that HS2 doesn't (Coventry, Rugby, etc). In the vast majority of cases it would still be quicker for you to transfer to Curzon Street and get HS2 to London, than connect at New Street.

You mention the Chiltern Line - having used it extensively when I was younger, I'd personally like to see that line electrified and the line speed increased to bring the journey time from Moor Street to Marylebone under 2 hours and closer to that of the existing Avanti services.

Besides the City Centre stations, if you live closer to the Chiltern Line than the WCML, the journey times between Chiltern and Avanti are broadly similar. Once HS2 opens, for most people living close to the Chiltern Line in the West Midlands, it will be quicker to travel to Curzon Street or Birmingham Interchange and catch HS2 than to use the Chiltern Line.

No amount of upgrades will make the Chiltern Line be able to compete on time with HS2, but it needs some upgrade IMO to allow it to be a viable alternative to HS2 just as it's a viable alternative to the WCML now.

 

[DarloPlaneBoy]

How many more passenger trains per hour could you run on the WCML in that scenario?

Let’s say you divert freight trains off the WCML at Lichfield as you say - where will you send the freight trains after that? They have to get to places like Dagenham, Felixstowe and Folkestone. The Sutton Park line won’t get them there. So you’ll have to get them back on the WCML or onto the Chiltern line at some point nearer London, where those lines tend to be more congested. That defeats the point of diverting trains off the WCML in the first place.

I don't know all the Rail lines but I'm sure the Abbey line which is part of that planned Oxford to Cambridge Line links up to the WCML Frieght Trains can use that line of the WCML. I'd widen the WCML at times. The Main WCML is between Rugby and Lichfeild up to Stafford Avanti use it With the fast 390's the 350's do to. HS2 is a waste of money I certainly don't want it. I Don't know the lines that well but surely someone in charge of the Railways does and could help put the Frieght Trains somewhere else. Or even better make The Frieght lines Electricfied upgrade them to being able to run at speeds of 100MPH they could use some fast lines. The Intercity Trains use the fast lines not interfering with the slow services. Avanti bypass Northampton but serve MK and Rugby they use the Northampton Loop to bypass Northampton which LNWR serve. I don't agree with HS2 as it is going over budget has been delayed and delayed and delayed Curzon Street still looks no closer to opening. Twenty Years ago they had the option to make the Trains 140MPH 140 over the years could have become 160 180 maybe 200MPH with Avanti or Virgin realising they are upgrading so could upgrade Rolling Stock. They should have listened to Branson who I don't like but he had Trains that could do 140MPH 20 years ago that was amazing. If we had that infrastructure it could be upgraded to basically become a HS Line