CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

"HS2: 'Timetable needed' for high-speed rail to reach Scotland"

(131 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

  2. crowriver
    Member

    Cost now estimated at £88 billion.

    Just imagine the cycling infrastructure you could build with that. Even at £1 million per mile of segregated, overly consulted on, TRO/RSO hearing timewasted Edinburgh style infrastructure that's still 88,000 miles' worth. Only 29,400 'A' roads in the UK so that would mean segregated bike lanes along all of them, could also do the 2,100 miles of motorways and still have 50,000 miles' worth of 'B' roads / unclassified roads with segregated paths alongside.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  3. jonty
    Member

    I wonder how it compares to roads investment over the same period? (Or a similar period in the past, inflation adjusted?) I'd rather the cycle money was taken from that. You can build all the cycle lanes you like but they're not going to make the kind of dent in domestic air travel (and long distance motoring) that HSR can.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  4. crowriver
    Member

    @jonty do many people fly from London to Brum? Last time I looked that's where HS2 was going.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  5. jonty
    Member

    It's going through Birmingham to Liverpool and Manchester and will link in with the existing rail network. The journey time (and reliability) improvements for the Birmingham leg alone will make end-to-end times for Anglo-Scottish rail journeys significantly more competitive with air travel. The introduction of new HS rail lines in continental Europe has been known to cause domestic air routes to become uneconomical and disappear.

    Astonishingly, there are direct flights from Manchester to London. That route's days would be numbered post-HS2 you would think.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  6. neddie
    Member

    HS2 will not make any difference to the number of domestic flights (without serious tax / price interventions).

    Just look at the Paris to Lyon route, served by frequent TGV services, yet you can also easily fly that route.

    As a certain railway engineer points out, HS2 is about capacity. And an increase in capacity will also increase demand (induced-demand works for railways too, who'd thunk it?)...

    Less time-consuming rail journeys and more capacity will only result in longer and more frequent business and leisure trips.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    “Andrew Gilligan rang me to ask me my top five transport priorities and asked me for my views on HS2 but he gave no view either way.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/22/tory-mps-urge-pm-to-deliver-long-overdue-hs2-in-joint-letter

    Not reaching Scotland any time soon.

    “Less time-consuming rail journeys and more capacity will only result in longer and more frequent business and leisure trips.“

    Which presumably is part of the ‘business case’

    Another ‘business as usual/what Climate Crisis?’ denial.

    Or, serious ‘HS2 is instead of expanding Heathrow, domestic flights and more big roads’.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  8. jonty
    Member

    When serious political will for domestic air travel restraint finally materialises in 5-10 years, it will be very embarrassing when we discover that we're actually out of intercity rail capacity and are faced with the choice of slashing local connectivity to free some up or just telling everyone they'll have to drive. At least the cars might be electric by then I suppose...

    I wonder how the beloved hectare of woodland which is set to be felled will fare with 4° of warming?

    Even without the "stick" HS2 will reduce journey times to London by at least half an hour and make rail that bit more competitive with air.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  9. neddie
    Member

    We cannot build our way out of climate change.

    Increasing capacity through HS2 is "business as usual".

    How about we don't increase intercity capacity, thus avoiding inducing new, more frequent and longer journeys? How about instead we use the £106 billion to electrify, double-track and fill in the gaps in the existing railway?

    Carrots do not work alone, they simply induce more travel.

    If we were to start simultaneously removing a lane from the M1 / M6 / M40 corridors and closing Birmingham airport, then I might believe there is a case for HS2...

    Posted 4 years ago #
  10. neddie
    Member

    Better still, why not directly convert the M1 / M6 to HS2?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  11. jonty
    Member

    Inline railway upgrades are extraordinarily expensive and disruptive. If they don't shut down the line for months, resulting in sometimes permanent shift to more polluting modes, then they have to rely on nighttime and holiday closures and take forever. Last time we tried upgrading the West Coast line it went 750% overbudget, delivered a fraction of what was promised and resulted in an emergency 4 month closure on one of the busiest sections. Much better to take the existing capacity-hoovering fast trains off the line completely and allow it to be used exclusively for local connectivity.

    Electrification and upgrades should absolutely happen as well. There are plenty of road projects to cancel to pay for those, which mysteriously the bulk of local anti-HS2 campaigners don't seem remotely concerned about. But it's totally bizarre that 'we' have spent years calling for serious rail investment and then when the government is finally willing to invest the kind of cash that has been pouring into roads and air travel for years, we baulk and say 'too much money - take it back please.'

    I suspect the motorway network is too bendy to be used for high speed rail, but when that's the option sitting on the PM's desk I'll absolutely be behind it. Until then, political realities dictate that we have to fight for what's achievable.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  12. neddie
    Member

    @jonty

    I am not suggesting we upgrade the West Coast line, as this would be simply increasing capacity, in a more expensive way, as you say.

    Instead we should be dual-tracking the Highland line to Inverness, Borders railway, any existing single-track line. And filling in gaps in the network.

    Electrification and upgrades should absolutely happen as well

    There is no money tree - choices have to be made. £106 billion is a vast amount of money (more than the entire increased infrastructure spend available to the government in the lifetime of this parliament).

    Similarly, there is a limit to human and machinery resources available to perform electrification or building of HS rail...

    Posted 4 years ago #
  13. jonty
    Member

    Capital spending and borrowing is pretty weird. The money is borrowed against the future asset value and revenue from the new line. We can borrow against multiple infrastructure projects, and investment in green infrastructure is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing right now. I don't think the figure is that big when you consider it compensation for 40+ years of underinvestment, especially considering inflation.

    Dual tracking the HML is absolutely increasing capacity too. It's a comparatively huge capacity increase actually - the biggest capacity boost you can get on a railway from adding a single new track is when you add a second one. What's the difference? Is the A9 more important than the M6?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  14. neddie
    Member

    Dual tracking the HML is absolutely increasing capacity too

    True. Perhaps we should do nothing except the electrification and taxing the B'jesus out of driving and flying?

    There is no future for the planet if it includes hypermobility.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  15. jonty
    Member

    I subscribe to a less primitivist environmentalist tradition, but again, when it's on the PM's desk - or even the desk of any elected representative anywhere - I'll take a look.

    In the meantime we might find building a coalition behind the more radical measures is a bit easier if you require less than 100% journey evaporation for everything to work OK.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  16. neddie
    Member

    if you require less than 100% journey evaporation for everything to work OK

    You're putting words into my mouth. I did not say nor imply that.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  17. jonty
    Member

    HS2 is required to meet existing rail demand growth as-is - the west coast line is very nearly full already. There's no way the existing network can take all the car and plane journeys too.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  18. neddie
    Member

    If we are to stand a chance of preventing dangerous climate breakdown and severe climate-migration impacts for current & future generations, we need to:

    - reduce the overall amount of travel we do (this includes limiting capacity, increasing prices)
    - move away from the 'business as usual', growth is everything model
    - completely change the consumerist system we've become accustomed to in the last 40 odd years

    It's a big ask, I know. Don't shoot the messenger...

    It could be seen as going back to a more primitive state. Alternatively, it could be seen as moving forwards to a more progressive, "harmonious with nature" state.

    We'll know the human race has matured when we live in harmony with the planet, plants & animals around us.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  19. jonty
    Member

    I'm not suggesting for a second that HS2 + the existing rail network will somehow hoover up all existing road and air travel demand. We'll still need serious cuts to travel. However, HS2 makes them a lot less catastrophic and more politically palatable.

    It would also be nice to have a decent alternative for people who choose not to travel by air and road before [dis]incentives kick in. I want significant road traffic reduction in Edinburgh to the degree that segregated infrastructure would be largely redundant. That doesn't mean I'm campaigning against the segregated infrastructure in the meantime.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  20. PS
    Member

    These big transport projects tend to be expensive ways of correcting issues created by failures in housing policy (and the economic policy that has focused on the SE of England). Most of the people cluttering up the trains and the roads are commuting. Sort *that* problem and the world becomes a better place.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  21. jonty
    Member

    It's very easy to sit in one of the most walkable (and busable) cities in the UK, with four electric railway lines connecting us to the nearest city and two connecting us to London and go 'well really, The North, you just need to sort out your housing policy and everything will be fine.'

    That sort of thing is the kind of transformation that happens over the span of 50 years rather than 10, and I'm not sure it's necessarily even possible to deliver outcomes which reduce the need for travel to the point where existing networks are adequate. That's ignoring whether there's even the will to start understanding where the problems are. On the other hand, HS2 are ready to start in Spring.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  22. acsimpson
    Member

    "- reduce the overall amount of travel we do (this includes limiting capacity, increasing prices)
    - move away from the 'business as usual', growth is everything model
    - completely change the consumerist system we've become accustomed to in the last 40 odd years"

    The first and third of those seem contradictory to me. Limiting capacity based on wealth is exactly what the consumerist society suggests we do. We need to find another way to ration travel. Although it may be fairer to the majority of the population it will be spun by those with the money so that it isn't a vote winner.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  23. PS
    Member

    It's very easy to sit in one of the most walkable (and busable) cities in the UK, with four electric railway lines connecting us to the nearest city and two connecting us to London and go 'well really, The North, you just need to sort out your housing policy and everything will be fine.'

    Yeah, jonty, I know. I was being somewhat facetious, but with the point that the UK's transport policy has always tended to reactive and somewhat wrong headed.

    It's also not The North's fault. There are plenty of (relatively) affordable homes in a lot of The North, just not many options around jobs near them. We should have built HS2 40 years ago, alongside a policy of growing the northern economy so that people didn't need to move to the SE to secure the jobs they wanted.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  24. neddie
    Member

    Most of the people cluttering up the trains and the roads are commuting. Sort *that* problem and the world becomes a better place.

    ^^^ Agreed.

    I'm not sure it's necessarily even possible to deliver outcomes which reduce the need for travel to the point where existing networks are adequate.

    People stop commuting (such long distances) when the monetary cost becomes too high, or when the time-cost becomes too high

    Higher rail, road and flight prices (and slower trains, reduced speed limits) will drive commuters to move closer (over time) to where they work. It is not a binary process. Higher prices mean that commutes that are currently marginal become nonviable.

    If that means that businesses that have centralised themselves in London can no longer attract enough staff, those businesses will look to set up regional offices, again reducing the need to commute.

    Correct pricing of transport could also drive housing policy and/or business location 'policy' ...

    Posted 4 years ago #
  25. jonty
    Member

    > People stop commuting (such long distances) when the monetary cost becomes too high, or when the time-cost becomes too high

    Indeed they do. No surprise then that the North East has the highest rate of economic inactivity in mainland Britain. Unfortunately the big centralised businesses in London have yet to feel the compulsion to come to them.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    “Correct pricing of transport could also drive housing policy and/or business location 'policy' ...”

    Perhaps.

    There are too many variables to create coherent policies.

    Even more difficult with a government that believes that a successful future will be based on being optimistic and a revived version of the (fictional) past.

    Plus of course a government that essentially wants to remove ‘impediments to business’, but, slightly paradoxically, wants to speed money forests on ‘public works’.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

  28. chdot
    Admin

  29. chdot
    Admin

    They would not tilt, so they would actually be slower north to Scotland than ordinary trains.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/24/hs2-politics-boris-johnson

    Posted 4 years ago #
  30. jonty
    Member

    Tilting actually increasingly unnecessary on the WCML thanks to track upgrades - more info here. Indeed, the latest fleet purchase doesn't include it.

    A good thing as the technology has a big weight penalty and reduces space for passengers.

    There are clearly both sides to the debate but it is hard to trust non-rail experts when the detail of their arguments doesn't stand up to mild technical scrutiny. Amusing that his source is LBC - bastions of fact-based reporting about how cycle lanes kill disabled pensioners.

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin