HS2 - who's going to build it?

[oldrocker]

HS2 - who's going to build it?

My preference?

The French !

[Rfairlie]

I seems to me the main argument to build this is everyone else has one. Meanwhile I still have to travel to work packed like sardines in a grotty 142 running to an erratic timetable all the while paying far to much for the privilege. The last and only time i have travelled to London from Manchester it took a whopping 2h 10min or there abouts. This is no time at all really. Are we really so busy in our lives that spending billions to shave 30min off that is worth it. Seeing as the wealthy get away with not paying thier fair share of tax in this country, it will be the rest of us with little need to travel on it who end up paying.

On top of all that how will it save the enviroment if the power to run it is still coming from fossil fuels.

Tim

[gswindale]

Indeed.

What is the real need for the country's rail infrastructure?
A line used by few that is expensive that shaves a few minutes here and there off journey times or
Major upgrades to existing infrastructure to provide a better service for the bulk of passengers at little/no extra cost?

By all accounts, go ahead and build a HS line from London - Manchester, but what about those of us who want a HS link into London from 35 miles out?

It takes 1hr 22 mins to get to Birmingham from Euston - a distance of almost 120 miles, yet it takes 1hr 5 mins from Bracknell to London which is similar to driving. The alternative route via Reading takes pretty much the same length of time once you've factored in tube from Paddington to Waterloo and waiting time at Reading.

If somebody is willing to build a line that shaves 30 mins off my journey time to London, then I'm all for it, but why should Mankychester get the savings, yet nothing for the rest of us?

[davejc64]

I surprised that someone hasn't suggested closing down the railways altogether and building more roads, judging by some of the comments on here.

[jbilton]

Hi

Well under a 'privatised' railway, then it should be on whether a private company can convince banks, investors etc, they will get a reasonable return on their investment.
Then anything is possible.
However if its a free handout from the Tax paying public then agreed, I want a High speed rail link from Lincoln too please.... because I've paid the same rate of income tax as someone who lives in Manchester.
I'm amazed in this age of internet communications that people really need to commute from Manchester to London.
This country is a big joke ATM, at the expense of the ordinary working person.

Cheers
Jon

[davejc64]

Well if I'm honest I don't really care whether it's built or not, because it won't effect me either way.

[timenec]

Indeed.

"It takes 1hr 22 mins to get to Birmingham from Euston - a distance of almost 120 miles, yet it takes 1hr 5 mins from Bracknell to London which is similar to driving. The alternative route via Reading takes pretty much the same length of time once you've factored in tube from Paddington to Waterloo and waiting time at Reading."

There used to be 3 an hour from Reading to Waterloo including one "fast".Then some genius decided to cut out the fast and now the "slows" are slower than they used to be due to making more stops.That is progress in this country.As other posters have said what is needed is upgrades/extensions to existing routes rather than wasting money on shaving a few minutes off journey times on one particular route.It will not happen because there is no central direction coordinating the system.Same as electricity supply,Same chaos.Same idiots in charge.

[MuzTrem]

The reduction of CO2 emissions is an issue that affects every singe one of us! Besides, while the environmentalist in me is concerned about the impact on the landscape, the railway enthusiast in me is jumping for joy. It always surprises me when the same railway enthusiasts who complain about the decline of our national network then say that these new high-speed lines aren't really neccessary. Come on people, this is genuine progress, a chance to run faster, better trains and relieve congestion on the existing network. Combined with the electrification of the GWML, this is probably the most exciting time for our railways since Victoria was on the throne. I really believe that were are on the cusp of a new railway age, the like of which I always dreamed of but never dared to hope for until now.

So enough whinging and apathy - to steal a phrase from someone whom I know is thoroughly unpopular around here, just rejoice!

[gswindale]

Come on people, this is genuine progress, a chance to run faster, better trains and relieve congestion on the existing network.

But it's not going to reduce congestion on the most congested lines.

It will reduce congestion on the WCML between London & Bham, but could not using the Chiltern line also achieve the same results?
How will a high speed line from London -> North reduce congestion on the suburban lines around London? How will it reduce congestion in the Valleys? How will it reduce congestion between Liverpool & Manchester? What will it do for the population of East Anglia?

Nothing.

In theory it's a good idea, but it's aimed at relieving the wrong problem.

[MuzTrem]

Well of course I can't pretend HS2 is a magical solution to every problem ever. But we've known for years that the WCML is less than satisfactory, and this is a chance to properly correct that. Yes, you could upgrade capacity on the Chiltern line but you wouldn't be able to run at the same speeds, or with continental loading-gauge stock. In any case, HS 2 is aiming at taking a different share of the market, that currently taken by internal flights. Chiltern has, of course, done excellent work in taking cars off motorways and I hope it will continue to do so.

[davejc64]

All I wan't is cheaper rail travel! Not much too ask! Not likely to happen because people on low income have to be kept in their place, which is, at home, not having any fun!

[freightonrails]

Hi, The fact that HS2 does not end up going DIRECT to the Channel Tunnel, or Heathrow (I realise the difficulty) AND that their are two perfectly OK routes to Birmingham, I hope the HS2 does not get built (I dont live close to it either) but I would like a similar route built, perhaps for passengers, but specifically for freight.
Its the one proposed by Central Railways, it uses a route along the side of the M25 that starts at the Channel Tunnel, and goes then by the Chiltern Route/ Central Railway/to the North.
http://www.central-railway.co.uk/
I dont have any connection with them, It seems to me to make sense, thinking ahead, that as work/travel patterns may well change in the 2020's but the fact that freight will increse and go on travelling by road until the year dot, lets try to make plans now and get it off the roads then.
I would have thought that more "green" than possibly duplicating exisiting routes.

[jbilton]

Hi
I think your right.... the 'green' argument is dead before it starts.
High speed requires high energy levels, those few extra miles per hour, saving minutes, probably double the energy use.

Cheers
Jon

[MuzTrem]

Still better than a domestic flight, surely?

As for central railway, I agree it makes sense for freight to go by rail. But surely this is the role that the "classic", slower-speed, network would be better suited to in future, with a new high-speed network for passengers?

[jbilton]

Still better than a domestic flight, surely?

Hi
I don't think so .... on my understanding of pollution at present.

Based on the information I've read to date.
(This is stated as in previous threads there have been debates by those that understand these things, that CO2 emissions are not the big problem)

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1257714

We are told aircraft are not big polluters.
(I was also told this by the RAF, when I mentioned the Red Arrows continually practicing)

Cheers
Jon