High-speed rail link HS2 set for go ahead from minister

[Dave1]

Stobart Rail have been running daily trains to Inverness with Tesco Containerised supplies for the last three years (Scot Govt funded trial).

There also run now to Essex (The Essex Girl Express as we call it) with a service to S Wales starting anytime now. And Stobard run a service to Spain (Cool Eddie) bringing back fruit, in reefer containers. And more in the pipeline to be run by Stobart. And here is the problem with the WCML.

cheaper scheme to upgrade west coast line

This report makes it sound to simple. Trust me it's not. The problem is to many trains now use the WCML. One new line will have to be built to me this should be freight.

Dave

[mikey9]

And another point about trains and prices.

We ALWAYS find good prices - although we have become savvy.

Today - tickets for the 4th April went on Sale (middle of Easter Break so PEAK dates) - my elderly parents need to travel Inverness to York (6.5 hours by car - for me - or 12 hours driving for them - and I wouldn't want them to even contemplate it!! - 360 miles). There is one straight through train per day - disabled assistance (wheelchar and bag carriers provided for free) at both ends.

I booked them FIRST CLASS singles - with their Senior railcards for £34 each (did the same for the 10 days before so £68 return each).

Similarly - just checked cattle class on the same trian for our family of four......TOTAL £30.30 with a railcard.

Now compares with 35mpg for our car (I know - but that is what we have) - at £6 gallon - 10 gallons each way = - £60 each way.
So even disregarding the wear and tear - kids bored in car for 6.5 hours e/w - stops for wees etc - the train wins out clearly for both the elederly and the family - as long as you get organised.

Oh - and the train takes UNDER 6 hours centre to centre - so wins on speed too!

....just to put an alternative view on train services today 

[Quakered]

Another vote for HS2! We need the extra capacity. Some have talked about upgrading the existing lines but this has surely been done. I vaguely remember upgrading either the East or West cost mainline in the 90s and the cost was over £10b or more than the cost of the Trident programme that included the building and equipping of 4 huge nuclear submarines (how?). You can't provide the increase in capacity needed on the existing lines as it would need extra tracks to be laid and this would mean destroying huge tracks of housing as people tend to like to live near rail stations.

The speed is an essential part of the package as doubling the speed will (roughly!) double the capacity. The trains running on the new, faster lines will also be much heavier and longer, further increasing capacity. Not having to cope with local traffic will further aid capacity.

A really useful way of spending money. You just need to look at the Nimbys on the telly who oppose it, to know it is good!



 

[martin]

I try to take a pragmatic view of rail travel - I did commute into London many years ago for a couple of months until the penny dropped that it was patently potty. Nowadays I'd like to use the train more for longer distances, and recent experiences have been good (on time, clean, reserved seat) etc, BUT they can be horrifically expensive, and as I pointed out earlier, rather a pain to lug luggage from Victoria to Paddington or Euston on the tube, and lunatic to take any journeys during the "rush hours", which says to me that we do need to spend money on improving the network and rolling stock, but think it only fair that the "independent" railway companies give us back a share of their companies in return for investment by the state....
And I'll reiterate that I really can't see the point in speeds much over 100 mph - it adds significantly to the costs, will use gobbets more energy to build and run, and will ENcourage more commuting (which in the age of internet working and video conferences we should be DIScouraging). Do I give  a flying fig if my journey to points north takes a little longer? Not one jot - if it's properly run, it should be no hardship.......

[daftlad]

A really useful way of spending money. You just need to look at the Nimbys on the telly who oppose it, to know it is good!



 

The most compelling argument so far... 

I think I read that they could put trams in every city for the cost of hs2, hummmmm

peas

[Dave1]

The speed is an essential part of the package as doubling the speed will (roughly!) double the capacity.

Yes you will have double the capacity, but one thing they have not through about. Is inproving the infrastructure, at either end. When they reach Euston, the Underground will collape under the pressure. The only upgrade on the cards is the proposed Chelsea–Hackney line. And i cant see the money being put forward for this. Spending money to put in a new North South Freight line, would imporve the service not only for the people who travel from London to Birmingham. But also include Manchester, Liverpool, North Wales, the North West, and all the way through to Scotland

And I'll reiterate that I really can't see the point in speeds much over 100 mph - it adds significantly to the costs, will use gobbets more energy to build and run,

Speeds of 140mph should be the top on the British Network, after that your are right. You take the new trains running on HS2 will need 150% more power than the Virgin Pendolino.


Dave

[desperate]

I have mixed feelings on the HS2, we do need more capacity, but whether we can upgrade existing infrastructure enough to cope I doubt. We have a long history of trying to run the country on the cheap, a lot of our big industies died through lack of investment, and trying to make do and mend. 32bn certainly is a lot of money and there are a stack of projects that could do with that level of investment, but that arguement could be used against any project really. It would be better to start at the other end, the north of the country has been massively starved of investment over the years, perhaps this could start reversing that trend.

Desp

[Cornish Dragon]

Normally.... I would say great  new engineering project driving forth
the boundaries of technology, Concord , greater good of the country ....etc
NOW I say we are so far behind on curve on railways in Europe and times
have moved on a LOT.....
I question with modern communications, why are people still traveling so much
on business and indeed privately as more people shop on line ?
Invest in 3D digital conferencing world wide and the UK and the like ........
Why is ANY "government " department in London, with the pressure on
land and water in the South East ? Keep just 10 people per department
in a small cheap office  in London and ship the rest to the likes of Humberside etc
where local employment is needed and the extra personal wealth will help.
Is 30 to 40 minutes less traveling really worth many billions ?
Why not spend it on insulation, renewable energy, smart local grids things
that will benefit the whole country and reduce our dependence on the Russians,
Nigerians  and the like who make no mistake will shaft us eventually...
Politicians just love grand schemes and the publicity they generate but
it does not mean their "schemes" are the right .....
Just some rambling from Cornwall....
CU
CD

[spaces]

CD, I agree with much of what you say - business and work wherever possible should be over an internet as fast as that in South Korea. The country's backwaters need transport networks - so that they are not disconnected from the rest of the country (workers want to travel to the rest of the country easily in their leisure time) so why not build new railway lines through them (see my earlier post). As I said, how would the Victorians have met the challenges of congestion and over-crowding - whether workers trying to get to work in the overheated South East or the queues of road traffic trying to access/leave the Lake District on a fine weekend?

I feel a fraction of the £30-billion could work wonders on the existing network especially since it is so desperately in need of investment. Driving a new line through routes already served by road and rail seems questionable, especially when travelling times are going to be so minimally-reduced due to the relatively compact nature of our country. 

[mikey9]

Useful thread for consolidating views.

It is easy as a supporter and user of Rail to consider any investment in Rail is a good thing - however we are in a time of prioritising available funds for investment.

The Japanese went down the line fo massive public investment when their economy tanked - resulting in impressive rail infrastructure - but at least the economies buying their goods were all being very successful at the time so they had income to spend. The French/Germans/Spanish even the Italians invested in these premier league lines when economies were going well

.....however our govenement appears to be going down the line of miinimum public investment/massive cuts - but are still looking at investing this huge amount in an expensive, envionmentally suspect (speed vs power consumption) line of dubious economic benefit.

I tend to agree with spaces that 32Bn would go a very long way to imporving the services we already have.

Up here, simply a few more commuter stations around Inverness (we have a "single door only" station at Beauly where the conductor opens that door on arrival). This can be very low cost per passenger gained - but plans for another  a few miles away (Conon Bridge) are taking years to move forward.

Opportunities for more passing places/dualling of the Highland line - to allow more trains.

Further South - if you wanted to blow a big chunk of the budget - perhaps a dedicated Freight line to open up more slots for passenger trains - this could be slower, wouldn't have to be the most direct route, could have gradients and bends......to reduce tunnelling costs - call it the "Austerity Railway".

And loads of small projects between these to make the whole thing gel together better.

Action plan
Sit a cross section of users and providers down (I am sure the private operators aren't slow in saying what they want)
Get your wish list down
Cost it
Prioritise it
When it gets to £20bn - draw a big red line and put it down as savings - or more liekly contigency.

See - I can do planning me.....

[wookey]

mikey, you are quite right that trains are great if you know exactly where you will be going in 3 months time, _and_ you are organised. I've done this for european travel and it's great. However if you need to go somewhere in a week or two it's not so good and can be effing expensive. I was just looking at skiing by train in March (A mate has bought an appartment in les deux alpes which is marvellously accessible by train, but it's looking 'very' expensive.). Looks like I should have known what was happening back in nov sometime and it would be fine...

[knighty]

This report makes it sound to simple. Trust me it's not. The problem is to many trains now use the WCML. One new line will have to be built to me this should be freight.

if they built new lines for passengers the old ones could be used for freight

new pas anger lines can be smooth/comfee/quiet/fast

and the freight can chug along nice and slow on the freight line.... for the simple reason they'll want to go at whatever speed is most fuel efficient anyway :-)

[mikey9]

@ Wookey

Looks like I should have known what was happening back in nov sometime and it would be fine...

It surprises me that after over 10 (nearer 20?) years of having to book in advance to get the best fares (I hark back too to turn up and go "cheap day returns", "weekend returns", "monthly returns" and "open returns" of my youth - at what appeared to be "reasonable prices") - we still complain about the fact.

Trying to book a cheap Ski train trip in January for travel in March, it doesn't surprise me that you can't do it cheaply - with significant take up in train travel and only 2 months before travel on a service with very limited capacity - I would think this is obvious (sorry). I wonder if you can get a cheap flight to the same location at this point??

In comparison to Airlines (Easy/Ryan etc.) who have always been operating in this way - and don't get all the flak that the Railways do for operaing in the same way - early bookers get choice of cheap seats which sell out early. People booking holidays and flights have always got the best deals for booking 6m - 1yr in advance - but transfer this to the railways and it isn't acceptable.

Having first child at school this year - we are having to face up for the first time to the School Holiday premium - where typically any early booking cheap discounts dissappear very quickly, camp sites book up rapidly, self catering cottages add 50% to their price - all assuming you can find one.....(and then everyone else if off when you go on Holiday!!). So we are having to learn the tricks for getting the cheap fares - when booking opens, buying railcards, split ticketing, cheaper routes etc. This is the world we live in now so we have to  make the best of it (doesn't mean I don't complain loudly though).

Don't get me wrong - I would go back to the old pricing model, abandon privatisation, invest the 32Bn wisely (in many of the small improvements that would make a difference), get business to pay their due tax (Vodaphone could sponsor many of the improvements) put our taxes up to pay for it and provide a real world class rail service - it would likely make a loss  but then we would have a world class, available, useful, usable, responsive, flexible, integrated rail service on which you could get a seat (put a value on that little lot....

[Dave1]

This report makes it sound to simple. Trust me it's not. The problem is to many trains now use the WCML. One new line will have to be built to me this should be freight.

if they built new lines for passengers the old ones could be used for freight
new pas anger lines can be smooth/comfee/quiet/fast
and the freight can chug along nice and slow on the freight line.... for the simple reason they'll want to go at whatever speed is most fuel efficient anyway :-)

Very good argument.

I would say to this it will cost a damm site more, why?
New stations would have to be built, out of town? More area to be covered over for car parks? More as in the case of Cambridge, building on green belt? New roads will have to be built to link them into the city centre.
A freight line would not need all this new infrastructure either

Dave