Leeds to London will take about 1 hour 20 minutes, not be reduced by 20 minutes. The reduction is about an hour on current service.
The current line has a 125 mph limit, but not much of the trip is spent at that speed due to the frequent stops.
HS2 also frees up capacity on the ECML for additional services as capacity is currently very limited.
|
Just supposing your timings are correct .It doesn't address the issue of restricted access to hs2 caused by congestion .
Twenty minutes longer before you get to the train !
As I said improving commuter routes will benefit far more people than just the people who use trains to commute long distance .
|
|
|
|
(How about an alternative use for the £37 billion, improve access by improving road and rail links for commuters into city centres . )
Hi Bt , please read in more detail ,that's why I said road AND rail links .In addition how much fuel is wasted by commuters who sit in stationery or slow moving cars ,hastening the demise of fossil fuels .
When fossil fuels have finished we will still be using our battery ,hydrogen ,cooking oil powered cars to commute ,won't we ?
So the congestion problem will still be there won't it .
Edited by tony g on 26/02/2013 at 21:16
|
How much petrol and diesel do you think will be available in thirty years time?
Well they're not planning a high speed train from where I live to where I work so I'm hoping there'll be plenty about.
Look they said that in the 1950s. They then said in the 1970s we'd run out of oil before the end of the century. In 1997 I was told in a science lesson we may only have 20 years of oil left. There'll be plenty of the stuff around, whether the Government will have taxed it so high nobody buys any and the Govt make only £3.70 from it is another matter.
Secondly if we're going to spend £37billion on HS2 there'd better be plenty of fossil fuels about because that's how we'll be powering these trains.
The building of the link which won't be completed for thirty years and has a proposed cost of £37 billion ,with massive disruption to property and communities along its route
Oh it's completely bonkers and the original route just happens to be identical to an old disbanded European Union project to build a high speed transcontinental train system, which may explain the stupidity of the route.
Several things occur to me ,what's the chance of a project like this coming in on budget ?
None at all. The Government are involved. The Edinburgh tram line has gone from £370m to £1billion and it's still not built.
I completely agree Tony we should be sorting out the roads instead to benefit millions rather than a tiny group of sales reps who will actually go from Leeds to London - as if a powerpoint presentation can't wait another 30 minutes. But Government policy is to keep kicking the motorist to pay for their ridiculous train and they'll still expect us to keep driving to pay the over-run on the train budget for 50 years after it's built.
|
|
HS2 is mostly about capacity. The speed is a byproduct; the consequence of building a line for C21 trains rather than steam.
At its southern end it supplements the West Coast Line from Euston. That line is already rammed full, at least as far as Rugby. HS2 will remove long distance trains and allow growth on freight and the passenger services to MK and Northampton.
If it also removes Leeds trains form Kings Cross then that's another bonus.
Urban problems in the Leed/Bradford area are a different problem.
Access to the airport from either Leeds or Bradford is slow but who's sacrificing their house in Rawdon, Horsforth or Yeadon to improve it?
|
|
This really does show how stupidly expensive trains are to build and run. Train lines are multi billion pound things to get up and running and they'll never be as flexible or convenient as a car. But for motoring you just put some tarmac down, the odd bit of paint and off you go!
|
|
Interestingly, while car usage is falling rail is recording continuing growth. While full rate 'walk up' fares are absurd there are very good deals off peak or by comitting to specific services. Northampton to London the other week was £8 out and £6 back.
More than £14 in diesel alone to drive.
Even a weekly season at £125 is less than 20p/mile for 5 return trips.
|
|
Car use is falling because the Government are taxing people off the road, not because there's been some marvellous surge in train quality causing car users to flock to it. Trains are a rich persons plaything and starting from a very low base it's not hard to record 'growth.'
|
Car use is falling because the Government are taxing people off the road, not because there's been some marvellous surge in train quality causing car users to flock to it. Trains are a rich persons plaything and starting from a very low base it's not hard to record 'growth.'
Jamie that boll ox.
Train passenger miles are higher than they've ever been and on network that's smaller by a large margin than it was fifty years ago. While peak 'walk up and go' fares are outrageous there are bargains a plenty for the savvy. I could not drive from here (Northampton) to either London or Birmingham for what I'd pay for an advance fare.
Even at the rack rate for peak a return tickets to Euston, £53, you'd struggle to cover fuel+parking in the smoke. And that's before the stress of 70 miles each way.
Instead I sit back, have a coffee and read the Guardian - bliss.
|
Instead I sit back, have a coffee and read the Guardian - bliss.
Apart from when it's cancelled and you're shoved on a bus instead because someones stolen some track/cable or the power lines fall down in the wrong sort of heat.
While peak 'walk up and go' fares are outrageous there are bargains a plenty for the savvy. I could not drive from here (Northampton) to either London or Birmingham for what I'd pay for an advance fare.
I don't want to go to London or Birmingham. Look it only 'works' because of the outrageous taxpayer subsidy given to trains. If we stripped all that away and also allowed the motorcar to operate in a free market by removing its fuel tax, the train would never work.
The train as a concept would've died in the 19th century where it belonged if it wasn't for gerrymandering.
|
|
Ahh, so we invest in roads but subsidise rail?
Incidentally, although the buses get a tax rebate train diesel does not.
If my train's cancelled I get the next one. Can count bustitutions over last twenty years on one hand.
The M1 outside the back window was solid for hours the other week all 'cos a lorry did a roly-poly between 16 & 17.
|
Ahh, so we invest in roads but subsidise rail?
Well we don't 'invest' in rail at all do we because it never makes a return. It's more a case of simply spending money on it. Road can pay for itself through pure flexibility and the fact nobody can steal it. It doesn't shut down on a hot summers day and you don't need more than £1million worth of vehicle to use it.
Incidentally, although the buses get a tax rebate train diesel does not.
Unless they use biofuels, then they get a bigger rebate than the buses.
If my train's cancelled I get the next one. Can count bustitutions over last twenty years on one hand.
When I was 17 I had to use the train 4 days a week and I never got through a single week without at least one of the 8 trips being cancelled. Totally useless.
|
|
Surely trains can use duty free diesel as they are 'off road' vehicles?
|
|
Unfortunately our lords and masters have made sure that is not the case. With all the bureaucracy around red diesel and the sheer enforcement costs it makes more sense to just have diesel at an affordable price.
If you need to go out of your way to make subsidised fuel and dye it a different colour, the obvious conclusion is it's too expensive.
|
|
Car use is falling because the Government are taxing people off the road, not because there's been some marvellous surge in train quality causing car users to flock to it. Trains are a rich persons plaything and starting from a very low base it's not hard to record 'growth.'
Jamie that boll ox.
Train passenger miles are higher than they've ever been and on network that's smaller by a large margin than it was fifty years ago. While peak 'walk up and go' fares are outrageous there are bargains a plenty for the savvy. I could not drive from here (Northampton) to either London or Birmingham for what I'd pay for an advance fare.
I think Jamie is right, car use is dropping because of the high price of fuel, due to the tax.
Even at the rack rate for peak a return tickets to Euston, £53, you'd struggle to cover fuel+parking in the smoke. And that's before the stress of 70 miles each way.
I can drive to another town far more cheaply than taking the train. The train is very expensive, and I usually have to make lots of changes, and go on slow trains. Even sunday fairs are more expensive than my car, then put 4 people in it and the train suddenly looks very very expensive. Maybe it's because I get 60mpg from my car. However ... for commuting into London the traffic and congestion charge make the train better.
Instead I sit back, have a coffee and read the Guardian - bliss.
That is the first time I've see Guardian and bliss in the same sentence. My memories of the train are of delays, sitting next to a fat person who squashes me, shouting juveniles, litter, and no heating on an icy Winter's day.
|
|
|
|
|
(Urban problems in the Leed/Bradford area are a different problem.
Access to the airport from either Leeds or Bradford is slow but who's sacrificing their house in Rawdon, Horsforth or Yeadon to improve it? )
Given that vast sums of public money are involved to make hs2 a reality and then keep it running ,and that it will benefit relatively few people .
Doesn't it make more sense to improve commuter routes in many different places ,not just leeds .The capital sums involved are huge .The funds could be used to improve transport links all over the north . Improving economic activity along the m62 corridor .Hull/leeds/manchester/Liverpool .
I've always found the idea that the north depends on the south east for its economic well being to be a nonsense .
How much better would it be spend the money that way than on a showpiece rail line .
|
|
I'm very enthusiastic about developing railways to carry more passengers and freight, but I think the money for HS2 would be much better spent improving the existing railways and reopening some closed lines where potential demand has grown.
Even the most ardent petrolheads complain about congestion on the roads, so if more people and goods travel by rail, then there would be less congestion on the roads.
QUOTE:....""Well we don't 'invest' in rail at all do we because it never makes a return. ""
Nor do the roads, except for where there's tolls!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 27/02/2013 at 23:48
|
Even the most ardent petrolheads complain about congestion on the roads, so if more people and goods travel by rail, then there would be less congestion on the roads.
Except the Government will keep taxing the motorist to pay for this silly, unprofitable, unnecessary locomotive abomination. Even then it'll still run to too much money and I just think with national debt over £1trillion and rising at 10% a year, we're raiding the piggy banks of children who haven't been born yet to pay for this.
QUOTE:....""Well we don't 'invest' in rail at all do we because it never makes a return. ""
Nor do the roads, except for where there's tolls!
Roads pay for themselves many times over. You may hate the M25 but imagine the effect it'd have on the economy if it wasn't there. It's not like we maintain or repair roads in this country so they just have to build it once and then it's done. Trains take constant streams of money every single day.
|
|
Just out of interest, how many of you have used a train in the last 12 months, or, intend doing so in the next 12 months?
|
|
|
|
Just out of interest, how many of you have used a train in the last 12 months, or, intend doing so in the next 12 months?
|
Just out of interest, how many of you have used a train in the last 12 months, or, intend doing so in the next 12 months?
Used one this morning and again tonight. Rinse and repeat tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday.
As usual train was on time, properly heated and had plenty of seats. I expect the same this evening. I'll get email updates if there are any delays or cancelations.
Most common delay is 'a person under a train' - almost always suicide. Virgin and London Midland are working with Samaritans to help perps and with Network Rail to improve fencing etc so as to remove opportunity.
|
|
|
Just out of interest, how many of you have used a train in the last 12 months, or, intend doing so in the next 12 months?
I used the train last year to get to London Waterloo, when I needed a new passport quickly. It stopped at every lamp post, took ages, and it was expensive. I used to drive to the outskirts, park, and take the tube, but there are now parking restrictions in that area, sadly.
|
|
|
|
Jamie,
If you think the M25 is built and done you need to get out more. It's constantly being widened and having hard shoulder runninig /variable speed limits added. Currently working in NE quarter from A1M towards M11.
|
Jamie, If you think the M25 is built and done you need to get out more. It's constantly being widened and having hard shoulder runninig /variable speed limits added. Currently working in NE quarter from A1M towards M11.
It's not my fault the Highways Department is badly mismanaged and it's also not my fault the the M25 should've been widened 20 years ago and wasn't.
Just out of interest, how many of you have used a train in the last 12 months, or, intend doing so in the next 12 months?
I last used a train in 2004.
|
|
Got caught today. Powerlines down.
Just drove to a different station and caught the half hourly fast shuttle to London. Seats aplenty and lots of staff around the station ensuring people got on right service or on buses around the blockage.
About 15mins later than I would have been ordinarily due arriving 5 mins after a shuttle had left. .
|
Given that your experience was so positive with the system we have now .
Doesn't it suggest that we don't need to spend the billions on the new HS 2 ?
|
Given that your experience was so positive with the system we have now . Doesn't it suggest that we don't need to spend the billions on the new HS 2 ?
A crisis this morning was managed by well practised routines.
More generally, the West Coast line is rammed. Even if all fast line trains were 125mph tilting pendolinos 13 departures an hour is max. Mixing in the slower 100/110 trains reduces that to 10/11 - were there now and trains are as long as they can be for platforms and signalling.
HS2 is about capacity. It's faster because it would be barking to build a new railway running at old speeds.
The mistake is the timescale - it should be starting next year and running to Brum by 2020. As to the Nimbys, look at HS1 - the Chunnel Line. No landscapes are ruined, no wildlife has become extinct and any effect on house prices has been upwards.
|
As to the Nimbys, look at HS1 - the Chunnel Line. No landscapes are ruined, no wildlife has become extinct and any effect on house prices has been upwards.
The line probably is needed, but as for HS1, I do not doubt that many ancient woodlands were damaged, so yes some landscapes are ruined. It is not huge on the national scale, the problem is that when you build roads, railways, airports and so on, gradually ancient woodland goes. It is a bit like wildflowers. 50 years ago it was normal to see the fields alive with wildflowers in the spring and summer, but that sight has long gone in most places. Most countryside is industrial farming, a monoculture, nothing but rape, or corn, or pasture, with few hedges, little diversity in plants, few wildflowers, insects reduced in number, and hence birds reduced in number.
|
|
Quote:...""Roads pay for themselves many times over. You may hate the M25 but imagine the effect it'd have on the economy if it wasn't there. It's not like we maintain or repair roads in this country so they just have to build it once and then it's done. Trains take constant streams of money every single day.""
Yes, roads like the M25 pay for themselves many times over as compared to what it would be like if they weren't there, but the same is true of railways. Think what it would be like if there was no London underground or no commuter network serving London or no long distance freight container rail services.
|
|
Yes but London has a population so big and dense that the London Underground is essential. In the case of HS2 we're talking about many billions - which we haven't got - being spent so as some laptop salesman can get to London 40 minutes earlier for his powerpoint presentation. Hardly necessary.
|
Yes but London has a population so big and dense that the London Underground is essential. In the case of HS2 we're talking about many billions - which we haven't got - being spent so as some laptop salesman can get to London 40 minutes earlier for his powerpoint presentation. Hardly necessary.
FFS Jamie speed is a by-product. The issue is capacity.
The main line into Kings Cross and Euston are rammed with trains. Might be possible, by tweaking fares, to balance the overcrowded trains and those with a few empty seats but it's getting like the tube or the M25.
Solution is, as with M25, is to build more lanes(or in this case lines). Makes no sense at all to build new lines to run, like now, at best speeds achievable with fancy kit on 19th centiry alignments.
New lines with long wide curves and beasty 180-200mph trains is way to go.
|
|
b***** expensive by-product! If the issue is capacity then just build bigger trains. How hard could it be?
|
b***** expensive by-product! If the issue is capacity then just build bigger trains. How hard could it be?
How bigger.
If they're longer than the platforms need to match, not do-able at country stations never mind Euston or New Street.
Or do you mean double deckers?
Bigger tunnels and higher bridges all round - a far bigger job than new lines.
|
|
QUOTE:...""Yes but London has a population so big and dense that the London Underground is essential. In the case of HS2 we're talking about many billions - which we haven't got - being spent so as some laptop salesman can get to London 40 minutes earlier for his powerpoint presentation. Hardly necessary.""
On its own, the London to Birmingham part of HS2 would be a waste of money, but as part of the full Y-shaped HS2, which would probably be extended further as well as other HS lines being built, it makes sense. Other countries have built high-speed rail networks, it's the future, and we should be part of it.
|
Other countries have built high-speed rail networks
Maybe other countries aren't bankrupt. Did you miss the part where I said we haven't got the money this nonsense will cost?
Indebting future generations merely to keep up with the Joneses will never get my support.
|
|
I completely believe the fact Tony morrison a2z we should be organizing out the streets instead to benefiting large numbers rather than a small number of sales repetitions who will actually go from Leeds to London, uk - as if a ms power point demonstration can't hang on to another Half an hour . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
Mr Elan has done it again.
|
|
Although my previous post was in support of HS2 I'm coming round to the view that the £32 billion or whatever should be spent on the existing network, in addidion to the relatively small amount of money earmarked for that already.
As well as day-to-day maintenance and upgrading and the recently announced electrification programme, the railways would benefit from: New short links and junction improvements - replacement of many level crossings with bridges - quadrupling of track along very congested sections - re-opening of closed lines where demographics indicate a sufficient demand (i.e. the Portishead branch from Bristol) - re-opened or new stations along existing lines - re-establishment of rail-based parcel post service. Etc, etc.
|
|
IMO this vast sum of money (if it is even available) should be spent on imroving the quality of roads and public transport for a wide range of areas and people and not poured in to a gold plated service from London to Birmingham for however many people travel on it (10,000 a day each way perhaps?)
|
|
I don't think this high speed railink has anything to do with time saving.
A government wants to lave a legacy, look what we can do.
|
|
QUOTE:...""I don't think this high speed railink has anything to do with time saving.""
Agreed. It's all to do with giving construction companies something to do. Also, if this government or the next one (which will almost certainly be Labour) needs to find a multi-billion pound saving in the next year or two, they can conveniently cancel HS2, and nobody's lost anything, apart from the construction companies, if work has started at the time .
Edited by Sofa Spud on 29/07/2013 at 12:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
