HS2 under review

[caradoc]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Because HS2 will also connect with the ECML

 

Last time I looked Birmingham - Sheffield (Midland) York and Newcastle trains were known as 'cross country services.

 

You like many others are choosing to ignore the fact that HS2 will be connected to the existing rail network at:-

 

The WCML at Litchfield Trent Valley

The WCML at Crewe

The WCML at Wigan

The MML at Sheffield (south)

The MML at Sheffield (North)

The ECML Church Fenton

 

Far too many people, in the media, the wider world, and even on rail-related Forums, seem to believe that the sole purpose and benefit of HS2 is to save a few minutes on London/Birmingham journeys. It is to the great discredit of HS2, and the DfT, that the full benefits, to so many parts of the country, have not been properly publicised.

 

[Ravenser]

3 hours ago, DLT said:

 

Quite so.  I don't have any argument with the need for new long distance main lines, but I don't believe that in this small country anyone needs to travel at 250 mph.  A more "conventional" main line connected to the network would make the whole system more versatile, and the ability to curve it a bit more gives far less damaging impact.  And hopefully, the ability to NOT bulldoze through brand-new housing estates.

250 mph makes an impressive sounding headline, and gave the whole thing the appearance of a Government vanity project, rather than a serious transport infrastructure project.  250 also happens to be double the previous 125 of the HSTs; more vanity!

Bill Bryson said in his recent book, You will get to Birmingham 20 minutes earlier.  What do you say if you are 20 minutes early?  "Great, lets go and have a coffee!"

 

I would be interested to see the business justification for upping the speed from the 187mph/300 kph level of CTRL /Eurostar to 250mph   /400kph.

 

The WCML and the Midland Mainline are both basically 100mph railways - albeit quite a bit of the southern part of the WCML has finally been upgraded to 125mph.

 

The basic justification for HS2 is capacity - the fact that nearly all the WCML south of Preston is saturated or nearly saturated , and this network serves London/Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool plus a lot of decent sized towns. 

 

Journey times to Manchester will be just over 2 hrs at 250mph. An extra 15-20 minutes on the journey by dropping the speed to 200mph will still leave the journey time well inside the 3 hrs at which the advantage tips decisively from air to rail. Liverpool will still be comfortably inside 3hrs . So too will Blackpool - which until recently had no through trains to London.....

 

The only WCML  journeys for which the extra speed has any substantial commercial benefit would be London/Glasgow, where rail lost out to air a generation ago. And there the killer is that at Wigan - just over half way - you drop back from a 250mph railway to a 75-100mph railway. Attempting to sort out the uncompetitive transit time of WCML Anglo-Scottish trains by driving line speed south of Wigan ever higher while leaving an unimproved mid 20th century railway as the second half of the journey seems a very odd approach. Something has to be done to up the line speed from Preston to Motherwell to around 125mph . What I don't know, but to make Anglo Scottish services on the WCML credible there has to be a significant acceleration north of Preston.... 

 

Then there's the Eastern leg. I'm sure that a re-run of the debacle that was W Coast Route Modernisation would be absolutely the wrong way to go. But I can't help noticing that the current proposal for an eastern leg to HS2 amounts to a re-run of George Hudson's strategy of the 1840s - serve the E Midlands  /Yorkshire by means of a branch off the WCML at Rugby. That strategy broke down completely within 20 years , necessitating construction of both the GNR and the Midland's London Extension as independant direct routes

 

There may well be good grounds for examining whether the proposed HS2 Eastern leg - ie a re-run of the failed Hudson strategy for serving those areas - actually stacks up against a revival-on-steroids of the MML electrification and a serious attempt to sort out Wakefield/Leeds/Bradford

 

I would have thought MML electrification /upgrade, reinstatement of the Corby/Edwalton route into Nottingham , and perhaps a 21st century reprise of the MR project to run a new main line from Rotherham up through Dewsbury into Bradford from the south (if you must build new main lines), at a target 125/140mph  line speed would cost far less than a wholly new route, show significant journey time improvements for Nottingham, Sheffield and Bradford while delivering plenty of additional capacity. It would also take some pressure off the Leeds approaches

 

I'm very strongly supportive of building HS2 to relieve the WCML but dropping the line-speed and a serious look at whether the Eastern leg is genuinely a better option than an all-out MML upgrade are two areas where a review of the options seems worthwhile. It might prove that the current proposal is better in each case, but there is a credible  alternative to compare against.

 

However there's no other credible way of relieving the pressure on the south end of the WCML     

[phil-b259]

8 hours ago, lmsforever said:

..... longer trains did we not have fifteen coach expresses once, ....

 

Something I missed earlier - but these "15 coach trains" wouldn't happen to be made up of 20m long Mk1 coaches would they?

 

Because in case you hadn't noticed modern rolling stock is considerably longer - 23m for a Mk3 and 26m for an 800 series bi-mode.

 

12 x 20m is roughly the equivalent of 10 x 23m

 

Longer coaches means more seats as there is less space taken up by couplings and end gangways within the set - just as ditching a separate loco in favour of a coach fitted with a driving cab adds seats.

 

As a result I reckon that a 11 car Pendalino provides more seats than your '15 coach train" of the past

 

 

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As I'm only just back from a week afloat on the English Channel I'm not going to plough through all the recent posts but I see all the same arguments are there as is presentation of the real facts.

 

 

Those of us who can actually appreciate what HS2 is really about should not sit back and let others spout lies / falsehoods - even if we have demolished them before.

 

If we can get just one anti person to wake up to reality then its time well spent.

 

Since this topic reignited yesterday, only one anti HS2 person has actually come forward and shown they understand the realities of the situation by admitting that significant new capacity is required.

 

That they believe de-scoping HS2 to a more conventional railway is a better way forward should commands respect - it cannot be denied that such a build  would certainly bring relief to the WCML and thus could be said to solve the problem to a degree.

 

By contrast others STILL refuse provide a solution to the capacity problem - preferring to sit on the sidelines and make sarky comments despite repeated requests to explain how they would solve the capacity issue.

 

[phil-b259]

43 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

I would have thought MML electrification /upgrade, reinstatement of the Corby/Edwalton route into Nottingham , and perhaps a 21st century reprise of the MR project to run a new main line from Rotherham up through Dewsbury into Bradford from the south (if you must build new main lines), at a target 125/140mph  line speed would cost far less than a wholly new route, show significant journey time improvements for Nottingham, Sheffield and Bradford while delivering plenty of additional capacity. It would also take some pressure off the Leeds approaches

 

I'm very strongly supportive of building HS2 to relieve the WCML but dropping the line-speed and a serious look at whether the Eastern leg is genuinely a better option than an all-out MML upgrade are two areas where a review of the options seems worthwhile. It might prove that the current proposal is better in each case, but there is a credible  alternative to compare against.

 

 

One of the things which is a big constraint growth on the MML is the fact there are only 4 MML platforms at St Pancras with no room to add any more. Another constraint  is the intensive use of the route by Thameslink meaning that capacity is most definitely an issue south of Bedford.

 

Transferring express traffic from Sheffield (plus taking some of the Nottingham / Derby custom via the Totton Parkway station) would allow MML services out of St Pancras to focus on providing a faster / better service to the likes of Leicester.

 

London to Leeds and Newcastle will not necessarily be any faster via HS2 - but it allows for additional trains that the current ECML south of Peterborough doesn't have room for as well as providing faster connections between the North East and the West Midlands.

 

As regards target speed - I do not see why 186mph is unacceptable . Its the de-facto standard for all high speed lines built in the past two decades, which suggests a good compromise between speed and cost / energy consumption etc. As HS1 demonstrated there is very little difference in alignment terms - its not as if a 140mph line is going to be able to abruptly swerve round a housing estate any more than a 186mph one will.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by phil-b259

[Allegheny1600]

This was in response to Phil's previous post!

It's like I've said many, many times - "You can't reason with unreasonable people"!

 

Let's hope and pray that the people doing this current review are "reasonable people", however, I greatly fear they are not.

I understand that the present PM's 'strongman' is in charge? That does not bode well.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Allegheny1600

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

This was in response to Phil's previous post!

It's like I've said many, many times - "You can't reason with unreasonable people"!

 

Agreed - but we owe it to the future of our rail network to try!

[Allegheny1600]

I rather suspect that one of the problems with the HS2 detractors is they simply fail to realise how overpopulated this small island is.

The overpopulation leads to more people wanting to travel but they have less space through which to move.

As has been pointed out - if you want the equal capacity of HS2 on a conventional railway, you need to at least double all existing main lines AND double the motorway network!

How on earth can this country afford that? Not just in actual cash but in land, disruption and chaos, all for limited effect.

HS2 cuts all that out by building a clean new railway that will syphon off almost all long distance traffic.

This leaves present day rail and road networks a heck of a lot of breathing space that will allow them to serve local traffic much more quickly.

 

Therefore, HS2 SAVES enormous amounts of money, time, land and so forth*.

Cheers,

John

 

* Because if we don't build HS2, we will have to do those doubling projects - with all the associated misery that would cause.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

Then there's the Eastern leg. I'm sure that a re-run of the debacle that was W Coast Route Modernisation would be absolutely the wrong way to go. But I can't help noticing that the current proposal for an eastern leg to HS2 amounts to a re-run of George Hudson's strategy of the 1840s - serve the E Midlands  /Yorkshire by means of a branch off the WCML at Rugby. That strategy broke down completely within 20 years , necessitating construction of both the GNR and the Midland's London Extension as independent direct routes

 

 

One of the reasons HS2 have ensured there are no intermediate stations between London and Old Oak is to maximise train throughput.

 

I would contend that a significant problem with the 'Hudson strategy was the need to serve all those intermediate towns south of Rugby - meaning you were actually layering 3 different passenger service groupings onto one line. During Hudson's time their were numerous stations - each with goods yards that required servicing, etc which add opportunities for congestion and delay.

 

The other thing is that a straight upgrade for the MML itself, while obviously useful doesn't help the Birmingham to Derby section of cross country and as such if you are going to compare like with like, then this upgrade needs to be added into any MML improvements north of Totton* to achieve a valid comparison with HS2

 

* HS2 will not directly help London the Loughborough section so careful study is needed to separate (i) improvements needed regardless (which to my mind includes electrification) and (ii) other measures that would only come into play if the eastern branch HS2 doesn't happen

Edited August 22, 2019 by phil-b259

[Ravenser]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

One of the things which is a big constraint growth on the MML is the fact there are only 4 MML platforms at St Pancras with no room to add any more. Another constraint  is the intensive use of the route by Thameslink meaning that capacity is most definitely an issue south of Bedford.

 

Transferring express traffic from Sheffield (plus taking some of the Nottingham / Derby custom via the Totton Parkway station) would allow MML services out of St Pancras to focus on providing a faster / better service to the likes of Leicester.

 

London to Leeds and Newcastle will not necessarily be any faster via HS2 - but it allows for additional trains that the current ECML south of Peterborough doesn't have room for as well as providing faster connections between the North East and the West Midlands.

 

 

 

I'm concerned that piling all long-distance services north from London onto a "new WCML" south of Birmingham is going to overload the bottom end of HS2 and the new Euston as traffic builds up. Condemning the MML to dwindle away into an ever shorter ever less important by-way , like the (old P-O route out of Gare d'Austerlitz) in order to do so seems questionable.

 

Capacity south of Bedford should have been substantially eased by Thameslink 2000, which effectively increased Thameslink's capacity by 50% (8 car to 12 car trains) . Is this still the choke point it was? 

 

And (again on the theme of budget schemes for modest relief) services via the Manton route from Corby / ? Nottingham could be diverted to terminate at Stratford International where there are 2 platforms currently going begging..... Connections into London St Pancras and beyond would be maintained through changing to Thameslink at Luton . I think there is a north-facing connection off HS1/CTRL at St Pancras? This would be a whole lot more credible than some of the ideas floating around this thread about using Old Oak Common as a hub. Stratford is a large and effective hub already, and such an approach would relieve the platform pressure at St Pancras.

 

Constructing 125 miles of high-speed main line to relieve these modest constraints on a second tier main line does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The MML at least has some scope for lengthening trains - they've been using 5 car Meridians

 

Leeds would benefit transit-wise from HS2 - but my instinct says you need a separate ECML upgrade route, not to pile everything onto Euston

[Ravenser]

5 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

One of the reasons HS2 have ensured there are no intermediate stations between London and Old Oak is to maximise train throughput.

 

I would contend that a significant problem with the 'Hudson strategy was the need to serve all those intermediate towns south of Rugby - meaning you were actually layering 3 different passenger service groupings onto one line. During Hudson's time their were numerous stations - each with goods yards that required servicing, etc which add opportunities for congestion and delay.

 

The other thing is that a straight upgrade for the MML itself, while obviously useful doesn't help the Birmingham to Derby section of cross country and as such if you are going to compare like with like, then this upgrade needs to be added into any MML improvements north of Totton* to achieve a valid comparison with HS2

 

* HS2 will not directly help London the Loughborough section so careful study is needed to separate (i) improvements needed regardless (which to my mind includes electrification) and (ii) other measures that would only come into play if the eastern branch HS2 doesn't happen

 

 

To my mind we seem to be defining a rather different requirement - that is a 125mph route to relieve the ECML from Hitchin south and the MML south of Bedford, to end up at some extra platforms somewhere in the KX/St Pancras complex

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Ravenser said:

 

I'm concerned that piling all long-distance services north from London onto a "new WCML" south of Birmingham is going to overload the bottom end of HS2 and the new Euston as traffic builds up. Condemning the MML to dwindle away into an ever shorter ever less important by-way , like the (old P-O route out of Gare d'Austerlitz) in order to do so seems questionable.

 

 

To an extent this has been factored in  - HS2 will be designed to be capable of taking double deck trains in future - in effect mirroring the French example where their high speed network copes quite happily with two double deck TGVs working in multiple on busy services.

 

If done this way the you could have two units from different each branch combine at the Birmingham Parkway station for the run into London.

 

There is also the fact that given the current struggle to get HS2 built, (even when - as you have acknowledged a HS2 type solution (even if not quite to HS2 spec) is the only way to address the WCML capacity shortage), its a bit of a leap of faith to assume that the political mood will allow a second new build high speed line into London.

 

 

 

[runs as required]

8 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

 .....Let's hope and pray that the people doing this current review are "reasonable people", however, I greatly fear they are not....

I'm happy about these two: Tony Travers is a strategist I respect, and Michele Dix has past transportation planning experience (both good and bad) that ought to serve  the review well.

 If we are able to disconnect this review from all sorts of allegations of negative political motives,  are there not good reasons for having a quick review of such a whopping reported final cost nearing 100 Billion? After all it is supposed to have been completed ivy the "autumn".

 

Can anyone look to precedents that have been useful in reviewing transportation/planning projects that have worked well in this country.

 

I took part in one when I (as an ex BR(E) Fiennes era architect) was still doing my RTPI planning practice in Liverpool.   We were a secret group put together by the Leader of the City Council to consider a rail based park and ride strategy .to scupper the horrendous multi level Inner City Motorway that had been proposed  by a Planning Consultant.

Our plans did indeed scupper the Motorway  but (as ever) only the inner rail loop got implemented that tied in together the radial electric lines - but it did spark Barbara Castle's  PTEs.

Do others  have similar positive experiences ?

dh

[The Great Bear]

On 21/08/2019 at 13:14, phil-b259 said:

 

And that is precisely why HS2 came into being in the first place!

 

There is plenty of scope for trimming costs - getting rid of / shortening some of the tunnels put in place as 'populist' measure to  pacify the NIMBYs of the Chilterns could generate big savings for starters.

 

Another obvious cost saving is to trim the the top speed back to 200mph - although such a change would make no difference to the routing it would allow slightly smaller tunnel bores and slightly cheaper OLE.

 

More radical ideas such a stopping construction at Old Oak or ditching phase 2 would be a classic case of making short term savings that end up costing you double when you finally have to face up to the inevitable need to compete the project properly (particularly if that means you have sold off the land previously acquired as the UK Government usually does).

 

Unfortunately now that the planning process is complete, the biggest changes that could reduce cost like those you mention can't be done, without spending years re-assessing the environmental impact and re-doing the whole planning process; under the hs2 bill what can be changed now is just details I think.

 

Having worked on the project for a while I tend to agree that a lot of money was chucked at it after the consultation stage, longer tunnels or lowering the level of the line. I do think that notwithstanding the real reason for the project, capacity, the journey time saving and top speed thing has been over emphasised - my the ignorant media, politicians but also hs2. I did get the impression at times that Andrew McNaughton wanted the fastest train set in Europe. The higher linespeed as Phil says makes tunnels larger in diameter but also I believe means move away from ballasted track at quite a cost I'd think. More fundamentally, a higher speed means that your ability to wiggle the route around constraints is more limited, so then you end up having to tunnel under them etc.

 

I never really understood why for instance much of the route coudn't broadly follow the M40, at least once beyond the Chilterns. A lower speed would have helped with this.

 

So the scope for cost saving now is limited; maybe yes lower speed and go back to ballasted track, look at details of bridge designs. The big money has been committed by the basic design, which I think erred toward over specification.

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by The Great Bear

[royaloak]

12 minutes ago, The Great Bear said:

So the scope for cost saving now is limited; maybe yes lower speed and go back to ballasted track, look at details of bridge designs. The big money has been committed by the basic design, which I think erred toward over specification.

 

But even at this late stage some savings are possible by lowering the speed etc, these could then lead to less tunnelling due to lower noise levels , smaller bores meaning more savings and a general de-scoping of parts the project, I would rather have a cheaper/slower HS2 than no HS2 at all.

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

To my mind we seem to be defining a rather different requirement - that is a 125mph route to relieve the ECML from Hitchin south and the MML south of Bedford, to end up at some extra platforms somewhere in the KX/St Pancras complex

 

We might be - but thats the problem, when attempting to compare things - it is essential to ensure you are comparing like with like.

 

To my mind the challenge is clear - HS2 have done lots of work on the benefits that would accrue if the eastern branch was built so any upgrade to the existing MML / ECML or a new build following their corridors out of London needs to deliver the same benefits for at the same or lower cost.

 

You have expressed opposition to the maximum top speed used for HS2 (which is fine) - but to perform a proper comparison any alternatives you need to either:-

 

(i) construct you alternative to HS2 standards, including maximum linespeeds.

 

(ii) Chose a compromise set of standards like a max speed of 186mph for open air and 140mph for tunnels (effectively HS1 spec) and use this to recalculate the benefits of HS2 using these figures as well as the benefits of the alternative .

 

(iii) reduce HS2 to conventional UK speeds and perform, an analysis of both options as in (ii)

 

The problem is, the lower the speed, the lower the time savings and the lower the benefits are. Now don't get me wrong additional capacity would still be of benefit to rail users - but would that on its own be sufficient to outweigh the considerable construction costs?

 

There is a correlation which holds true for all modes of transport in that the shorter the journey time the more attractive it is for users. to take a rather extreme example, the once thriving Ocean liner traffic dried up pretty quickly as soon as international air travel became available to the masses - not only did previous ship users value the time saving, but others for whom a long sea voyage was impractical time wise suddenly found they could travel with ease.

 

The ultimate question with HS2 is therefore not really should we be doing more of the same - rather its a question of how much quicker is reasonable. We have long planned for higher speeds on our domestic network (the only thing preventing 140mph is the fact that drivers have difficulty seeing lineside signals at such speeds so in cab signalling must be installed first) and it would therefore be sensible to ensure any new build matches this speed (which also means it must have an in cab singling system). Again I point out that although HS1 was designed as a 140mph railway - it turned out that much of the open air alignment was actually good enough for 186mph.

 

Yes it is certainly the case that 200moh or rater is pushing the boundaries (or indeed going well beyond what is economic based on what the study of detailed aerodynamics tells us about energy consumption versus speed) but the principle that we should look for improvements when building new is still sound.

 

As highlighted before, 186mph is used by most high speed railway operators in Europe as representing the optimum trade off between energy consumption and speed so why not use it for HS2? Again it wouldn't change the alignement of the route but it would certainly bring about savings while preserving the reduction in journey times humans have prized throughout history from the packhorse to canals to railways and the stagecoach through to the motor car.

 

 

[phil-b259]

32 minutes ago, The Great Bear said:

 

I never really understood why for instance much of the route couldn't broadly follow the M40, at least once beyond the Chilterns. A lower speed would have helped with this.

 

 

The M40 is actually quite twisty in parts - although finally fished in 1990/ 91 the environmentalists had made their presence felt and large chunks of the 1970s routing had to be junked to avoid SSIs and alike.

 

Even though HS1 shadows the M20, when you drive along the motorway the railway is not visible for long sections  because the motorway jigged left and right to avoid obstacles with curves that were too tight for the railway to follow.

[The Great Bear]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The M40 is actually quite twisty in parts - although finally fished in 1990/ 91 the environmentalists had made their presence felt and large chunks of the 1970s routing had to be junked to avoid SSIs and alike.

 

Even though HS1 shadows the M20, when you drive along the motorway the railway is not visible for long sections  because the motorway jigged left and right to avoid obstacles with curves that were too tight for the railway to follow.

 

Ah yes, avoiding Otmoor.

[lmsforever]

59 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

I rather suspect that one of the problems with the HS2 detractors is they simply fail to realise how overpopulated this small island is.

The overpopulation leads to more people wanting to travel but they have less space through which to move.

As has been pointed out - if you want the equal capacity of HS2 on a conventional railway, you need to at least double all existing main lines AND double the motorway network!

How on earth can this country afford that? Not just in actual cash but in land, disruption and chaos, all for limited effect.

HS2 cuts all that out by building a clean new railway that will syphon off almost all long distance traffic.

This leaves present day rail and road networks a heck of a lot of breathing space that will allow them to serve local traffic much more quickly.

 

Therefore, HS2 SAVES enormous amounts of money, time, land and so forth*.

Cheers,

John

 

* Because if we don't build HS2, we will have to do those doubling projects - with all the associated misery that would cause.

I can assure you that everyone on here knows about overpopulation in the UK that is why our countryside is being covered in houses to say we don't is stupid and typical of the attitude towards anyone who doesn't want this white elephant built.

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Those of us who can actually appreciate what HS2 is really about should not sit back and let others spout lies / falsehoods - even if we have demolished them before.

 

If we can get just one anti person to wake up to reality then its time well spent.

 

Since this topic reignited yesterday, only one anti HS2 person has actually come forward and shown they understand the realities of the situation by admitting that significant new capacity is required.

 

That they believe de-scoping HS2 to a more conventional railway is a better way forward should commands respect - it cannot be denied that such a build  would certainly bring relief to the WCML and thus could be said to solve the problem to a degree.

 

By contrast others STILL refuse provide a solution to the capacity problem - preferring to sit on the sidelines and make sarky comments despite repeated requests to explain how they would solve the capacity issue.

 

It doesn't matter what you or others post in this thread, how many disbelievers you persuade, etc. etc. this will be decided by the powers that rule this fragmented, London centric country. So any hope for a sensible decision that strengthens the transport sector for the good of rail users, industry and the economy in general (with the exception of the contractors building HS2) is long gone

[lmsforever]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The M40 is actually quite twisty in parts - although finally fished in 1990/ 91 the environmentalists had made their presence felt and large chunks of the 1970s routing had to be junked to avoid SSIs and alike.

 

Even though HS1 shadows the M20, when you drive along the motorway the railway is not visible for long sections  because the motorway jigged left and right to avoid obstacles with curves that were too tight for the railway to follow.

To true the route of the M40  twists and turns if the SSI,s had been destroyed the environment would be damaged for ever you might not care about these things but many many people do,you wait till the new motorway from Oxford comes up for routing you aint seen nothing yet!

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

I can assure you that everyone on here knows about overpopulation in the UK that is why our countryside is being covered in houses to say we don't is stupid and typical of the attitude towards anyone who doesn't want this white elephant built.

 

I'm still waiting for your solution to increasing WCML capacity.

 

If you want folk to take you seriously lets hear it.

 

Anyone can say idiot can say "No" - its pretty much the first thing a baby masters. An intelligent person says "No, this is a much better idea to resolve the problem".

 

 

 

 

[Mike Storey]

The current business case provides for trains running at a maximum line speed of 225 mph.

[lmsforever]

3 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

It doesn't matter what you or others post in this thread, how many disbelievers you persuade, etc. etc. this will be decided by the powers that rule this fragmented, London centric country. So any hope for a sensible decision that strengthens the transport sector for the good of rail users, industry and the economy in general (with the exception of the contractors building HS2) is long gone

There are far more antis than pro for HS2 some people on here are really rude to those who do not agree with you should  understand that many are directly affected by HS2 and therefore have a right to put there views forward.

[phil-b259]

16 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

To true the route of the M40  twists and turns if the SSI,s had been destroyed the environment would be damaged for ever you might not care about these things but many many people do,you wait till the new motorway from Oxford comes up for routing you aint seen nothing yet!

 

However the M40 exists!

 

It shows that  people were able to sit down and come up with a solution to the SSIs.

 

They did not listen to people who sat there saying 'No' or who ignored completely the factual analysis which showed the M40 required to be extended north to Warrick.

 

All we are asking is you knuckle down and find a alternative to HS2 that still gives a big uplift in capacity to places along the WCML.

 

Not exactly a hard task for a member of RMweb I would have thought - modellers are supposed to be creative aren't they?

Edited August 22, 2019 by phil-b259