O/T HS 2.

2 and 3: It's not really about speed or travelling to London, it's about capacity elsewhere. At least on NS lines, many more journeys will become possible and a lot more regular. EW is a different problem altogether, and one that requires a whole separate set of solutions.
4: Part of this is to do with how these things are costed and calculated, but it hasn't really.
5: No. It's intended to replace current IC services, not enhance them. The business case is built on HS2 being no more expensive than current services (at the cost that they'll be when it launches). And, given the huge increase in capacity it offers, I wouldn't be surprised to see the price of a ticket actually decrease.
6: You could use this argument about building literally anything. What's inarguable is that our traditional railway lines are obsolete, at least for the purposes for which we use them. There's no reason at all to think that rail-based transport will become obsolete within the next 20 years.

 

Not a rail user so this is a genuine question....If it's replacing a service, how does this significantly increase capacity ? I will believe when I see it regarding ticket prices

 

It's not really about capacity at all....it was all about emulating the rest of Europe's high speed network...it only became about capacity when Hs2 started losing the high speed argument. The fact is Hs2 have been overestimating the need for capacity to help maintain the funding behind the project....that is all that matters.
The real need is for northern connectivity which would be the next phase...sadly the money will have gone before that is realised.

 

Because anybody going from any of Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and London to any of the others will take HS2 rather than a current service. Running multiple speeds of trains in series on railway lines is very inefficient - a fast Pendolino between Birmingham New Street and London, for example, takes up several paths which could be used by several slower trains stopping at more stations along the way.

 

No. I've been following HS2 from the very beginning, and it was always about capacity. The WCML is beyond full, and has been for a quarter of a century.

Edit: From the introduction to the government's High Speed Rail Command paper, published right back in March 2010:

Note the order of those points. Speed was only ever secondary - the broad argument was that a new line was needed, and if you're building a new line you might as well make it as fast as possible.

 

I've always wondered - what was HS1? Have I missed something?

 

The new route they opened for channel tunnel trains into St Pancras via Stratford. It used to head over classic lines to Waterloo.

 

The Department for Transport’s own figures state West Coast Main Line intercity trains are on average just 32% full and about 50% full in peak hours. Network Rail data shows that on Mondays to Thursdays only 2 out of 294 daily InterCity trains to and from Euston had standing passengers.

 

It isn't just about capacity on the IC trains, but capacity on the lines.

You said that HS2 only started talking about capacity once they'd lost the argument about speed. That's incorrect, and I've demonstrated that by quoting from a very early document. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

But if someone from say donny wants to go to London won't they need a train from Donny to London meaning that the line is still being used and is at the the same capacity?

 

Yes absolutely...I'll give you Sir David Higgins headline opening statement...his emphasis is on speed and shortening journey times....apologies that it's long.

In HS2 Plus I highlighted the vicious circle that is threatening to make
London unsustainable – both as an economy and as a place for people
to live and work. The global property firm Savills said last month that
London has overtaken Hong Kong as the most expensive place to live
and work in the world. Londoners are faced with rising house prices
that make it increasingly difficult for them to buy a home in the capital
based on average wages – prices that, even for relatively modest homes,
can be anything up to 10 times average salaries. The alternative is a
commute on an ever more congested transport system which, despite
all the money invested in recent years, is struggling to keep up with
increasing demand. And, at the same time, companies are faced with
probably the most expensive property prices in the world – £110
per square foot in parts of Central London. That in turn feeds through
to consumers through hidden costs in the products we buy and raises
medium-term questions about London’s global competitiveness.
It is not coincidental that Network Rail’s headquarters is now in
Milton Keynes, and the HS2 Ltd construction headquarters will soon
be in Birmingham.
Average house prices in London and the South are three times higher
than in the North and commercial property prices in the North are
nearer £28 per square foot. And yet businesses are more reluctant to
move there, partly because of poor connectivity both to the global
market and within the region. The One North report showed that today’s
journeys between Leeds and Sheffield require a 48 minute drive or
a 46 minute train journey that could take just 17 minutes to Sheffield
Meadowhall on HS2. And, without intervention, today’s poor
connectivity is likely to get worse. Whilst the Government is significantly
increasing spending on the roads network – and these proposed schemes
will undoubtedly help at a local level – wider underlying problems will
remain. The North is more dependent on roads than in the South, and
yet major arteries such as the M1 and M6 for North-South traffic, and
the M62 and M56 for East-West traffic are already heavily congested
and forecast to become even more so. Traffic on the M6 is expected to
grow by 40% by 2040 with the inevitable knock-on effects on travel
times for both individuals and freight.
Put simply, cutting the journey time from
London to Manchester from 128 minutes to 68, or from London to
Leeds from 132 minutes to 83 makes it more likely that more businesses
will base themselves in the North and that existing firms will prosper.
And the same is true along the route. The journey time, for instance,
between Birmingham and Leeds, the centres of Britain’s largest two
manufacturing regions, would shrink from 118 minutes to just 57.
The effect should be transformational.
The result should be not a zero sum game in which London loses out
to the Midlands and the North, but a situation in which London grows
sustainably, and the Midlands and the North achieve their full potential.
The country’s productivity will rise as a whole

 

Looks like that's from 2014 - four years after the document I quoted, which came out at the same time as the original options appraisal and quite clearly puts capacity above speed in terms of importance.

 

Quite correct I agree, but speed has been the selling point from moment one and was still the selling point in 2014....read virtually anything now from Hs2 apologists and speed is barely mentioned. They only talk about capacity....capacity is an issue in places, but mainly south of Wolverhampton, not on the northern lines....and certainly not on our section, Phase 2b

 

Not true. At moment one capacity was the selling point. I've demonstrated that by giving you a quote from a document published in 2010, when the concept was first planned.

Speed is barely mentioned nowadays because it was always pretty much irrelevant to the fundamental need for HS2. Again, from the same 2010 document:

We needed - and need - a new line. If we build that new line, it may as well be fast.

 

The main trouble I have with these projects is that we talk and talk and talk about it for so long (spending much money just discussing it), and then the finished project (even if it is only half planned) will only be finished in decades. We need these projects done much sooner (adding to the expense, granted).

 

I'm certainly not having a go at you here Sestren, I know your arguments are made in good faith but it has to be recognised that Hs2 is a project built on a tissue of lies... I've attended many consultations, publicity roadshows and impact assessment roadshows and the whole emphasis is on speed and journey time...both of which they are not truthful about.
The whole company is based on incorrect information, subterfuge and threatened litigation, supported by a huge lobby campaign funded by the industry big hitters who have already made billions from the project and hope to make more.
It has to be worrying when you see the various Chairmen and CEO's lie about the cost in submissions to public and Parliament...and then leave the Company...Sir David Higgins...'on time and on budget' at £39 billion....Sir Terry Morgan comes in and it's £56 billion....Terry resigns and Alan Cook comes in and it's now £88 billion....no doubt the next Chairman will come in and admit to the £106 billion plus that Michael Byng has forecast.
I can tell you as an actual fact that their public consultation is a sham...they've driven a coach and horses through the Aarhus convention that is supposed to bind them. In the South Yorkshire consultations I've attended their 'community engagement officers' simply lie or fob people off with reassuring comments....as an example, two hundred plus homes are set to come down in our small town...their Officers consistently told people the Higgins line that it would only be sixteen, and then tagged on the reassurance that nothing had been decided yet and that they may well tunnel below rather than demolish...we had a copy of Hs2's own Impact assessment document that clearly stated no tunnelling would take place purely on the grounds of cost. They later came round with an Environmental Impact road show...a soundproof booth was erected to demonstrate the lack of noise pollution on residents...you put the headphones on and listen to a rural idyll of gentle breezes and birds tweeting...along comes Hs2...a slighly louder whisper for a minute or so and then back to the tweeting birds, the sector they chose to simulate was in a deep cutting through fields over 100m from the actual line going out to Barnburgh, not as it should have been a train passing directly overhead on a sixty feet high viaduct....I complained to Chris Grayling's senior Dft adviser and got no more than a smirk.
On the wider issue speed was critical to the business case ( apologies but I don't know where the docs are now) but if I remember rightly almost £50 billion pounds worth of the suggested benefits were based on reduced journey times....this was central to the case and Hs2 tried to bury the bad news that many parts of the line would have to operate at significantly lower speeds due to the effects of the Rayleigh wave on the tracks...but to the capacity issue there is independent evidence out there that Hs2 cannot deliver the numbers of trains per hour that it claims, some suggest that Hs2 have over estimated by a third by claiming unrealistic acceleration and deceleration figures....figures not achieved on high speed networks anywhere in Europe.
Again, I know you are making the case in good faith, but I would urge you to look at StopHs2.org...admittedly there are plenty of nimby supporters involved, but there are also many skilled Rail experts and Hs2 whistleblowers prepared to let the proverbial cat out of the bag....just to let you know Hs2 have never challenged legally their statements...this from a company who force non disclosure agreements on our residents whose homes are being purchased at below market values.
On the other side of the coin be careful about positive Hs2 'Report's or reviews that you may have read in the press over the last year or so...often the authors are Northern Powerhouse Rail Partnership, or High Speed Rail Industry Group...they present the report as an independent review, but both groups are staffed and funded by the companies who are set to benefit...Siemens, Atkins, Arup and others.

 

Your'e right ST. They reckon the northern part of the scheme won't be completed until around 2030.
By then some of the technology used will surely be " outdated."?

 

It's worse than that DR....Grant Shapps is now predicting 2040.

 

The thing that makes me doubtful of the truthfulness of this statement is "The Department for Transports own figures" bit!

 

I'm guessing Mr Johnson will do ok out of it

https://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/bori...42573/?ito=article.desktop.share.top.facebook