HS2 gets go-ahead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16478954
The government has approved the construction of a high speed line to connect London with Birmingham. Its main purpose is to relieve pressure on the existing West Coast Main line (once the London and Northwestern line). As its completion date is 2026 I think it unlikely I shall ever ride on it.

The Nimbies have been slightly appeased by announcing more tunnels through the Chilterns - a quite reasonable method for going through a low range of hills where well-heeled people like to live. I am disappointed by the length of time needed to build it.

In theory they will not plan the links to Leeds and Manchester until the first phase is finished. However, I would expect them to start building these extensions earlier. The Scottish government (perhaps independent by then) would like extensions to either Edinburgh or Glasgow.

One should add here that this announcement was only the first stage. The next will be a parliamentary process which may well take three years. Only then will contracts be awarded.

The Liberal Democrat minister in that department said that construction will not begin until Crossrail is finished as HS2 line will need a stream of money at present going into Crossrail, whose construction is now under way.

Seems to me like it'll run out of money before it can get started. The per-unit-length cost is a whopping $262 million per mile, which is 110 percent higher than the per-unit-length cost of CAHSR—and 1300 percent higher than the per-unit-length cost of TGV Est.

Britain is not a part of the United States, and the British government financial system is not in any way similar to California's.

However, here is a critical article on the cost.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

I think the most convincing factor in favour is the fact that the existing line is almost full and can take no more trains. It was upgraded for a high cost and is still not suitable.

I doubt if I shall live long enough to find out whether this line will be worth the money.

Does this mean that the final alignment will avoid Heathrow and go directly to Central London? I have read some comments to the effect that a detour via Heathrow would be an inconvenience to the far greater number of passengers traveling to and from Cenral London, and to the Continent via Eurostar. Will the terminus be Euston or St. Pancras?

ExCon90 wrote:Does this mean that the final alignment will avoid Heathrow and go directly to Central London? I have read some comments to the effect that a detour via Heathrow would be an inconvenience to the far greater number of passengers traveling to and from Cenral London, and to the Continent via Eurostar. Will the terminus be Euston or St. Pancras?

So far the designated route will not go via Heathrow. Instead there will be a station at Old Oak Common where people can change to the Crossrail and Heathrow Express trains. That will give access to East London, including the financial districts of the City and Canary Wharf. I suspect this will become the busiest station on the line, as people could also change for west country trains and towns such as Reading, Bristol and Oxford.

The terminus will be at Euston. I think there will have to be extra platforms built there.

There will be a link to the HS1 line, probably by-passing St Pancras. Thus direct Eurostar or German ICE would be possible from Birmingham. (It's the Immigration department that has prevented this route beginning already. In 20 years time will there still be immigration controls?)

The figures for HS2 often get confused.

It is £33 billion for both stages. Phase one to Birmingham is 119 miles or 191 kilometres and costs £17 billion. That works out at £142 million a mile. Unlike the new Rhine Rhone line in France this involves a major rebuild of a London Terminal, requiring demolition of several blocks of central london properties, including a couple of office blocks and 650 residents. The only greenfield site is the suburban Birmingham station near the airport.

Phase one includes:
22.5 miles of the route will be completely enclosed in tunnel or green tunnel – compared to 14.5 miles for the consultation route;
56.5 miles will be in cutting - significantly reducing the visual and noise impact of the line;
40 miles will be on viaduct or embankment – around 10 miles less than the consultation route.

Nothing got confused, I think. The costs are astronomical and way out of whack with other high-speed corridor costs. There's no need to rebuild Euston when the burden could be spread among other London terminals, and other trains to/from Birmingham will be canceled besides. The length of route was cited as 100 miles due to the use of existing railways. £142 million per mile is still $218 million per mile; even the most expensive ICE route in Germany cost no higher than $71 million per mile.

amtrakowitz wrote:Nothing got confused, I think. The costs are astronomical and way out of whack with other high-speed corridor costs. There's no need to rebuild Euston when the burden could be spread among other London terminals, and other trains to/from Birmingham will be canceled besides. The length of route was cited as 100 miles due to the use of existing railways. £142 million per mile is still $218 million per mile; even the most expensive ICE route in Germany cost no higher than $71 million per mile.

That really would not work all the approaches to London are full or soon will be. There is no peak time spare capacity at any terminal station. so new station facilities are needed. Besides it would be just as expensive to build new links to different stations.

HS2 is primarily about capacity, with extra speed as a bonus. This is not a zero sum game, it's about growth. The UK's railways are now carrying as many passengers as the 1920's with a network a third smaller. Passengers number fell slightly at the start of the recession and they are already higher than they were before. This is much better than previous recessions when it would take 7 years for numbers to recover.

Current plans are for the limited stop expresses to transfer to the new line. Someof the existing services would remain via the classic route to connect towns that are not on the new network. Over the last few decades these towns have lost services and seen a reduction of services stopping as expresses have pushed them to one side. Towns line Milton Keynes, Northampton, Nuneaton, Stoke and Wigan will gain many new services, especially with each other rather than just London.

Once phase two is built then the biggest benefits will be felt, when three major lines have their linted stop expresses removed.

There is no peak time spare capacity at any terminal station. so new station facilities are needed

That would be true if all current services were to remain in place. It would be impossible and impractical to keep them all after building this line. Like it or not, this will replace rather than supplement existing services that will become obsolete in the face of faster trains; building new station facilities will turn out to be a waste (this is why France did not build new station facilities but instead ran the TGVs into existing stations).

This is not a zero sum game, it's about growth

You can't force growth. And judging by the resistance to this project, it's not like things are bursting at the seams.

Towns line Milton Keynes, Northampton, Nuneaton, Stoke and Wigan will gain many new services

How? On the one hand, you're saying that the limited-stop trains will transfer to the new line; on the other hand, you're saying that new services (with no gauge as to whether or not they're even wanted) will be "gained". It can't be both.

Once phase two is built then the biggest benefits will be felt

Phase Two is scheduled to commence building after 2026. If it takes as long to build as Phase One (and there's no guarantee that the funds will be there; indeed, £17 billion ought to be more than enough to build both phases), it'll open in 2036. Maybe you have 24 years to wait for such a line to open and its "biggest benefits", but not many of us do; and perhaps the technology will be obsolete that far down the road.

amtrakowitz wrote:

There is no peak time spare capacity at any terminal station. so new station facilities are needed

That would be true if all current services were to remain in place. It would be impossible and impractical to keep them all after building this line. Like it or not, this will replace rather than supplement existing services that will become obsolete in the face of faster trains; building new station facilities will turn out to be a waste (this is why France did not build new station facilities but instead ran the TGVs into existing stations).

This is not a zero sum game, it's about growth

You can't force growth. And judging by the resistance to this project, it's not like things are bursting at the seams.

Towns line Milton Keynes, Northampton, Nuneaton, Stoke and Wigan will gain many new services

How? On the one hand, you're saying that the limited-stop trains will transfer to the new line; on the other hand, you're saying that new services (with no gauge as to whether or not they're even wanted) will be "gained". It can't be both.

Once phase two is built then the biggest benefits will be felt

Phase Two is scheduled to commence building after 2026. If it takes as long to build as Phase One (and there's no guarantee that the funds will be there; indeed, £17 billion ought to be more than enough to build both phases), it'll open in 2036. Maybe you have 24 years to wait for such a line to open and its "biggest benefits", but not many of us do; and perhaps the technology will be obsolete that far down the road.

On the points you raise:

Draft timetables have been published showing services after 2026 on the 'classic' West Coast Main Line. I don't envisage a reduction in services for the growing towns along the Milton Keynes corridor, merely a change in emphasis to more 'semi-fast' and freight services to take the place of those transferring to HS2. The current complaint from the towns along the WCML is that too few services stop there. HS2 will address this issue. HS2 will speed up Anglo Scottish services leading to a reduction in domestic flights.

The resistance to this project is mainly from influential and rich residents in prosperous Conservative seats who make a lot of noise - however the project is supported by the large urban conurbations in the Midlands, North and Scotland. More importantly, unlike the US, HS2 has cross-party support.

The timescales for construction are very slow. I'm not sure why, but I believe it's due to managing annual budgets.

I see you're repeating talking points rather than positing actual merits and demerits.

The "domestic flight" issue is a canard. Having the public sector compete against the private sector (or ironically, public sector compete against public) is a net waste in taxpayer money.

And nothing related to HS2 justifies the excessive expenditure (especially compared to other HSR projects) or demonstrates the need for such a project, especially since the average speed of the current trains on the traditional right of way already reaches the triple digits. The comparative cost of reopening the GCML for the same purpose, and achieving the kind of average speeds envisioned for HS2, would still be far lower and it's an insult to all people not to bring that matter into consideration versus desecrating the Chilterns for fifteen times the normal amount per unit length that one would spend on HSR.

Citing political party adherents is argumentum ad hominem. There are plenty of others in other political parties and of other political ideologies that oppose this project, both on cost concerns and environmental concerns.

The "domestic flight" issue is a canard. Having the public sector compete against the private sector (or ironically, public sector compete against public) is a net waste in taxpayer money.

Britain is not the United States. That argument has no validity here. That is, there no worship of the private sector and no Constitution to be interpreted as making the "private sector" sacred.

Government policy is to discourage domestic flights. The airlines in any case would prefer to use their Heathrow slots for long distance flights. But in 20 years time who knows what the situation will be? Carbon emission restrictions may raise the cost of flying still more.

Attempting to use another canard to excuse a canard would be a strawman argument. Doesn't matter that one country is not another country; trains are trains, and they all serve the same purpose all around the planet. If the "private sector is not sacred", then what makes the public sector so? or "government policy" for that matter?

Not to mention "carbon emissions" is yet another canard. There's a trade war in progress between the EU and the USA (with China backing the USA up, to a degree) over their carbon taxes. The only purpose of carbon taxes is enrichment of elite politicians.

amtrakowitz wrote:Attempting to use another canard to excuse a canard would be a strawman argument. Doesn't matter that one country is not another country; trains are trains, and they all serve the same purpose all around the planet. If the "private sector is not sacred", then what makes the public sector so? or "government policy" for that matter?

Not to mention "carbon emissions" is yet another canard. There's a trade war in progress between the EU and the USA (with China backing the USA up, to a degree) over their carbon taxes. The only purpose of carbon taxes is enrichment of elite politicians.

I repeat the UK is not the US. Our politics operate in a different way. Parliament is sovereign.

Whether you or other right wing Americans like it or not there is a climate problem and restrictions on carbon emissions are going to increase, much as restrictions on tobacco smoke in public have increased.

The main justification for building the high speed line is to relieve the pressure on the existing north-south lines. Restrictions on internal flights will increase the demand to travel by rail even more.

Note that the ownership of this line is not yet settled and will only appear later when legislation is put before parliament.

how does a carbon tax or any other tax enrich politicans ? Are they pocketing it ?