LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

MidlandsGrimpeur2

@Jezyboy I would agree that demand for a better service with more trains/carriages that ran on time is certainly there. I don't necessarily think that demand extended to £50-70 billion on a high speed network though.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

The fundamental issue with HS2 as it was originally conceived was the actual lack of demand for it. The original idea was to connect London to the West Midlands, as someone who has spent their entire life living across both these two areas, I never understood why? There never seemed to be any actual desire for West Midlander's to have easier access to London either for work or leisure purposes or vice versa, and the economic argument of boosting infrastructure, trade, job creation etc. also never really seemed to stack up.

I get the idea that as it morphed into the 'Y' network this 'connectivity' would regenerate towns and cities along the network and improve transport infrastructure, but the original idea of opening up better links from London to WM and the North never seemed as though there was an meaningful demand for it.

They would have been far better off spending the money on rebuilding local rail infrastructure and creating an efficient service across the network where it was required.

I cycle across various points around WM and Staffs in particular where HS2 will (perhaps) travel through. They are all just mass brown earth sites with no real construction seeming to have taken place for 5 or 6 years. It just feels like a colossal waste of public money in the way things have actually turned out.

It was always envisaged as being part of a country wide plan, never just London to the Midlands. The first part was to link HS1 to a new line between London and the Midlands. Now it looks like it won't go to London or link to HS1, or any further.

Here's the original idea for High Speed 2 from 2009: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100203063942/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedtwo/highspeedtwo.pdf

Network Rail’s initial work has pointed to a strong case for an entirely new rail line in the corridor from London to the West Midlands. Such a line
would enable faster and enhanced services to be run on new and existing
lines to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and other destinations in the north of
England and Scotland, cutting journey times and increasing capacity
substantially.

High Speed Two’s purpose is to help consider the case for new high speed services from London to Scotland. As a first stage we have asked the
company to develop a proposal for an entirely new line between London and
the West Midlands.

I think the Euston bit is still happening, but has just been paused for a couple of years.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

Others have responded while I've been away. Finite amount of money and IMO the whole infrastructure was more important than HS. Not hindsight, always my opinion.

Jezyboy

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

Others have responded while I've been away. Finite amount of money and IMO the whole infrastructure was more important than HS. Not hindsight, always my opinion.

Honestly, it's quite difficult to quantify. I think at some point, you just need more track, so you need a new rail line.

Patching/making do and mending will generally get more short term bang for buck, but can be a false economy in the long-term.

But get two different cost modellers to run the numbers, and you will probably get opposite conclusions.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

The fundamental issue with HS2 as it was originally conceived was the actual lack of demand for it. The original idea was to connect London to the West Midlands, as someone who has spent their entire life living across both these two areas, I never understood why? There never seemed to be any actual desire for West Midlander's to have easier access to London either for work or leisure purposes or vice versa, and the economic argument of boosting infrastructure, trade, job creation etc. also never really seemed to stack up.

I get the idea that as it morphed into the 'Y' network this 'connectivity' would regenerate towns and cities along the network and improve transport infrastructure, but the original idea of opening up better links from London to WM and the North never seemed as though there was an meaningful demand for it.

They would have been far better off spending the money on rebuilding local rail infrastructure and creating an efficient service across the network where it was required.

I cycle across various points around WM and Staffs in particular where HS2 will (perhaps) travel through. They are all just mass brown earth sites with no real construction seeming to have taken place for 5 or 6 years. It just feels like a colossal waste of public money in the way things have actually turned out.

It was always envisaged as being part of a country wide plan, never just London to the Midlands. The first part was to link HS1 to a new line between London and the Midlands. Now it looks like it won't go to London or link to HS1, or any further.

Here's the original idea for High Speed 2 from 2009: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100203063942/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedtwo/highspeedtwo.pdf

Network Rail’s initial work has pointed to a strong case for an entirely new rail line in the corridor from London to the West Midlands. Such a line
would enable faster and enhanced services to be run on new and existing
lines to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and other destinations in the north of
England and Scotland, cutting journey times and increasing capacity
substantially.

High Speed Two’s purpose is to help consider the case for new high speed services from London to Scotland. As a first stage we have asked the
company to develop a proposal for an entirely new line between London and
the West Midlands.

I think the Euston bit is still happening, but has just been paused for a couple of years.

It feels like a grand designs "dream house" build, deciding that it's too expensive so making it a bungalow without any bedrooms, and then not putting the front door in just yet to save money.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

The counter argument would be that if there is a finite amount of money, where would it best be spent?

Bluntly, Manchester is a much bigger deal than Cambridge.

~£50bn is already committed for phases 1 and 2a. Either already spent or contracted. We're not getting any of that back regardless of what direction this takes.

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

Others have responded while I've been away. Finite amount of money and IMO the whole infrastructure was more important than HS. Not hindsight, always my opinion.

Honestly, it's quite difficult to quantify. I think at some point, you just need more track, so you need a new rail line.

Patching/making do and mending will generally get more short term bang for buck, but can be a false economy in the long-term.

But get two different cost modellers to run the numbers, and you will probably get opposite conclusions.

Proper maintenance and up grading should not be equated to patching/making do. If new lines are required fair enough but not a singular line at the expense of the whole system.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

The fundamental issue with HS2 as it was originally conceived was the actual lack of demand for it. The original idea was to connect London to the West Midlands, as someone who has spent their entire life living across both these two areas, I never understood why? There never seemed to be any actual desire for West Midlander's to have easier access to London either for work or leisure purposes or vice versa, and the economic argument of boosting infrastructure, trade, job creation etc. also never really seemed to stack up.

I get the idea that as it morphed into the 'Y' network this 'connectivity' would regenerate towns and cities along the network and improve transport infrastructure, but the original idea of opening up better links from London to WM and the North never seemed as though there was an meaningful demand for it.

They would have been far better off spending the money on rebuilding local rail infrastructure and creating an efficient service across the network where it was required.

I cycle across various points around WM and Staffs in particular where HS2 will (perhaps) travel through. They are all just mass brown earth sites with no real construction seeming to have taken place for 5 or 6 years. It just feels like a colossal waste of public money in the way things have actually turned out.

It was always envisaged as being part of a country wide plan, never just London to the Midlands. The first part was to link HS1 to a new line between London and the Midlands. Now it looks like it won't go to London or link to HS1, or any further.

Here's the original idea for High Speed 2 from 2009: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100203063942/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedtwo/highspeedtwo.pdf

Network Rail’s initial work has pointed to a strong case for an entirely new rail line in the corridor from London to the West Midlands. Such a line
would enable faster and enhanced services to be run on new and existing
lines to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and other destinations in the north of
England and Scotland, cutting journey times and increasing capacity
substantially.

High Speed Two’s purpose is to help consider the case for new high speed services from London to Scotland. As a first stage we have asked the
company to develop a proposal for an entirely new line between London and
the West Midlands.

I think the Euston bit is still happening, but has just been paused for a couple of years.

It feels like a grand designs "dream house" build, deciding that it's too expensive so making it a bungalow without any bedrooms, and then not putting the front door in just yet to save money.

I thought it was just a stand issue grand design - delayed while additional finance is being arranged, but ultimately built

Pross

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

Others have responded while I've been away. Finite amount of money and IMO the whole infrastructure was more important than HS. Not hindsight, always my opinion.

Honestly, it's quite difficult to quantify. I think at some point, you just need more track, so you need a new rail line.

Patching/making do and mending will generally get more short term bang for buck, but can be a false economy in the long-term.

But get two different cost modellers to run the numbers, and you will probably get opposite conclusions.

Proper maintenance and up grading should not be equated to patching/making do. If new lines are required fair enough but not a singular line at the expense of the whole system.

Upgrading on the existing corridor is always going to be an even bigger technical challenge though and would probably require demolition of a huge amount of lineside development. I would have thought that to get significantly increased capacity you also need to avoid too many junctions (and using stations where the platform use is already at or near capacity). Realistically we probably need to replace the vast majority of the existing rail network. The whole system needs rethinking with several high speed lines with very few stations that local lines connecting up to them but then in an ideal world most towns and cities would be flattened and rebuilt fit for the 21st century,

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

The fundamental issue with HS2 as it was originally conceived was the actual lack of demand for it. The original idea was to connect London to the West Midlands, as someone who has spent their entire life living across both these two areas, I never understood why? There never seemed to be any actual desire for West Midlander's to have easier access to London either for work or leisure purposes or vice versa, and the economic argument of boosting infrastructure, trade, job creation etc. also never really seemed to stack up.

I get the idea that as it morphed into the 'Y' network this 'connectivity' would regenerate towns and cities along the network and improve transport infrastructure, but the original idea of opening up better links from London to WM and the North never seemed as though there was an meaningful demand for it.

They would have been far better off spending the money on rebuilding local rail infrastructure and creating an efficient service across the network where it was required.

I cycle across various points around WM and Staffs in particular where HS2 will (perhaps) travel through. They are all just mass brown earth sites with no real construction seeming to have taken place for 5 or 6 years. It just feels like a colossal waste of public money in the way things have actually turned out.

It was always envisaged as being part of a country wide plan, never just London to the Midlands. The first part was to link HS1 to a new line between London and the Midlands. Now it looks like it won't go to London or link to HS1, or any further.

Here's the original idea for High Speed 2 from 2009: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100203063942/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedtwo/highspeedtwo.pdf

Network Rail’s initial work has pointed to a strong case for an entirely new rail line in the corridor from London to the West Midlands. Such a line
would enable faster and enhanced services to be run on new and existing
lines to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and other destinations in the north of
England and Scotland, cutting journey times and increasing capacity
substantially.

High Speed Two’s purpose is to help consider the case for new high speed services from London to Scotland. As a first stage we have asked the
company to develop a proposal for an entirely new line between London and
the West Midlands.

I think the Euston bit is still happening, but has just been paused for a couple of years.

It feels like a grand designs "dream house" build, deciding that it's too expensive so making it a bungalow without any bedrooms, and then not putting the front door in just yet to save money.

I thought it was just a stand issue grand design - delayed while additional finance is being arranged, but ultimately built

Past Old Oak Common, yes.

Anything past Birmingham they either have cancelled or are about to. And no plans to link it to HS1.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

The fundamental issue with HS2 as it was originally conceived was the actual lack of demand for it. The original idea was to connect London to the West Midlands, as someone who has spent their entire life living across both these two areas, I never understood why? There never seemed to be any actual desire for West Midlander's to have easier access to London either for work or leisure purposes or vice versa, and the economic argument of boosting infrastructure, trade, job creation etc. also never really seemed to stack up.

I get the idea that as it morphed into the 'Y' network this 'connectivity' would regenerate towns and cities along the network and improve transport infrastructure, but the original idea of opening up better links from London to WM and the North never seemed as though there was an meaningful demand for it.

They would have been far better off spending the money on rebuilding local rail infrastructure and creating an efficient service across the network where it was required.

I cycle across various points around WM and Staffs in particular where HS2 will (perhaps) travel through. They are all just mass brown earth sites with no real construction seeming to have taken place for 5 or 6 years. It just feels like a colossal waste of public money in the way things have actually turned out.

It was always envisaged as being part of a country wide plan, never just London to the Midlands. The first part was to link HS1 to a new line between London and the Midlands. Now it looks like it won't go to London or link to HS1, or any further.

Here's the original idea for High Speed 2 from 2009: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100203063942/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedtwo/highspeedtwo.pdf

Network Rail’s initial work has pointed to a strong case for an entirely new rail line in the corridor from London to the West Midlands. Such a line
would enable faster and enhanced services to be run on new and existing
lines to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and other destinations in the north of
England and Scotland, cutting journey times and increasing capacity
substantially.

High Speed Two’s purpose is to help consider the case for new high speed services from London to Scotland. As a first stage we have asked the
company to develop a proposal for an entirely new line between London and
the West Midlands.

I think the Euston bit is still happening, but has just been paused for a couple of years.

It feels like a grand designs "dream house" build, deciding that it's too expensive so making it a bungalow without any bedrooms, and then not putting the front door in just yet to save money.

I thought it was just a stand issue grand design - delayed while additional finance is being arranged, but ultimately built

Past Old Oak Common, yes.

Anything past Birmingham they either have cancelled or are about to. And no plans to link it to HS1.

Seems a bit silly to not connect it to HS1. It's not far and the machines will already be down there.

TheBigBean

Plus the main issue with the current government is it lame duck. They can cancel HS2, pause it or promise it will go ahead, but until Labour decide what they will do it doesn't really matter.

The Tories poll worse now than when Boris quit.

pblakeney

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

Others have responded while I've been away. Finite amount of money and IMO the whole infrastructure was more important than HS. Not hindsight, always my opinion.

Honestly, it's quite difficult to quantify. I think at some point, you just need more track, so you need a new rail line.

Patching/making do and mending will generally get more short term bang for buck, but can be a false economy in the long-term.

But get two different cost modellers to run the numbers, and you will probably get opposite conclusions.

Proper maintenance and up grading should not be equated to patching/making do. If new lines are required fair enough but not a singular line at the expense of the whole system.

Upgrading on the existing corridor is always going to be an even bigger technical challenge though and would probably require demolition of a huge amount of lineside development. I would have thought that to get significantly increased capacity you also need to avoid too many junctions (and using stations where the platform use is already at or near capacity). Realistically we probably need to replace the vast majority of the existing rail network. The whole system needs rethinking with several high speed lines with very few stations that local lines connecting up to them but then in an ideal world most towns and cities would be flattened and rebuilt fit for the 21st century,

I'm not saying that it would have been easy but 2 major problems would have been reduced, if not removed; Planning and buying land.

That said my main fear is that we are so far down the road that the budget has been blown and we will end up with a pig's ear of nothing.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

Others have responded while I've been away. Finite amount of money and IMO the whole infrastructure was more important than HS. Not hindsight, always my opinion.

Honestly, it's quite difficult to quantify. I think at some point, you just need more track, so you need a new rail line.

Patching/making do and mending will generally get more short term bang for buck, but can be a false economy in the long-term.

But get two different cost modellers to run the numbers, and you will probably get opposite conclusions.

Proper maintenance and up grading should not be equated to patching/making do. If new lines are required fair enough but not a singular line at the expense of the whole system.

Upgrading on the existing corridor is always going to be an even bigger technical challenge though and would probably require demolition of a huge amount of lineside development. I would have thought that to get significantly increased capacity you also need to avoid too many junctions (and using stations where the platform use is already at or near capacity). Realistically we probably need to replace the vast majority of the existing rail network. The whole system needs rethinking with several high speed lines with very few stations that local lines connecting up to them but then in an ideal world most towns and cities would be flattened and rebuilt fit for the 21st century,

I'm not saying that it would have been easy but 2 major problems would have been reduced, if not removed; Planning and buying land.

That said my main fear is that we are so far down the road that the budget has been blown and we will end up with a pig's ear of nothing.

Almost all land immediately adjacent to railways has already been long sold off and frequently built on, so no, planning and land purchase are not reduced by adding additional lines to existing routes.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

Others have responded while I've been away. Finite amount of money and IMO the whole infrastructure was more important than HS. Not hindsight, always my opinion.

Honestly, it's quite difficult to quantify. I think at some point, you just need more track, so you need a new rail line.

Patching/making do and mending will generally get more short term bang for buck, but can be a false economy in the long-term.

But get two different cost modellers to run the numbers, and you will probably get opposite conclusions.

Proper maintenance and up grading should not be equated to patching/making do. If new lines are required fair enough but not a singular line at the expense of the whole system.

Upgrading on the existing corridor is always going to be an even bigger technical challenge though and would probably require demolition of a huge amount of lineside development. I would have thought that to get significantly increased capacity you also need to avoid too many junctions (and using stations where the platform use is already at or near capacity). Realistically we probably need to replace the vast majority of the existing rail network. The whole system needs rethinking with several high speed lines with very few stations that local lines connecting up to them but then in an ideal world most towns and cities would be flattened and rebuilt fit for the 21st century,

I'm not saying that it would have been easy but 2 major problems would have been reduced, if not removed; Planning and buying land.

That said my main fear is that we are so far down the road that the budget has been blown and we will end up with a pig's ear of nothing.

Like I said, we are already committed to ~£50bn if it stops at Birmingham.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

Others have responded while I've been away. Finite amount of money and IMO the whole infrastructure was more important than HS. Not hindsight, always my opinion.

Honestly, it's quite difficult to quantify. I think at some point, you just need more track, so you need a new rail line.

Patching/making do and mending will generally get more short term bang for buck, but can be a false economy in the long-term.

But get two different cost modellers to run the numbers, and you will probably get opposite conclusions.

Proper maintenance and up grading should not be equated to patching/making do. If new lines are required fair enough but not a singular line at the expense of the whole system.

Upgrading on the existing corridor is always going to be an even bigger technical challenge though and would probably require demolition of a huge amount of lineside development. I would have thought that to get significantly increased capacity you also need to avoid too many junctions (and using stations where the platform use is already at or near capacity). Realistically we probably need to replace the vast majority of the existing rail network. The whole system needs rethinking with several high speed lines with very few stations that local lines connecting up to them but then in an ideal world most towns and cities would be flattened and rebuilt fit for the 21st century,

I'm not saying that it would have been easy but 2 major problems would have been reduced, if not removed; Planning and buying land.

That said my main fear is that we are so far down the road that the budget has been blown and we will end up with a pig's ear of nothing.

Almost all land immediately adjacent to railways has already been long sold off and frequently built on, so no, planning and land purchase are not reduced by adding additional lines to existing routes.

Tbh, I'd be happy if the existing lines were working properly. Then improve. Current strategy is a world leading roof on shonky foundations. Clearly I'm not going to be happy.

tailwindhome

tailwindhome

I wonder how 40% v 30% plays out in seats

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

Others have responded while I've been away. Finite amount of money and IMO the whole infrastructure was more important than HS. Not hindsight, always my opinion.

Honestly, it's quite difficult to quantify. I think at some point, you just need more track, so you need a new rail line.

Patching/making do and mending will generally get more short term bang for buck, but can be a false economy in the long-term.

But get two different cost modellers to run the numbers, and you will probably get opposite conclusions.

Proper maintenance and up grading should not be equated to patching/making do. If new lines are required fair enough but not a singular line at the expense of the whole system.

Upgrading on the existing corridor is always going to be an even bigger technical challenge though and would probably require demolition of a huge amount of lineside development. I would have thought that to get significantly increased capacity you also need to avoid too many junctions (and using stations where the platform use is already at or near capacity). Realistically we probably need to replace the vast majority of the existing rail network. The whole system needs rethinking with several high speed lines with very few stations that local lines connecting up to them but then in an ideal world most towns and cities would be flattened and rebuilt fit for the 21st century,

I'm not saying that it would have been easy but 2 major problems would have been reduced, if not removed; Planning and buying land.

That said my main fear is that we are so far down the road that the budget has been blown and we will end up with a pig's ear of nothing.

Almost all land immediately adjacent to railways has already been long sold off and frequently built on, so no, planning and land purchase are not reduced by adding additional lines to existing routes.

Tbh, I'd be happy if the existing lines were working properly. Then improve. Current strategy is a world leading roof on shonky foundations. Clearly I'm not going to be happy.

This is so far wide of the mark I don't know where to start.

rick_chasey

How many people in this discussion actually take a train on a regular basis.

What about the existing system screams "improve existing lines"? Improve how exactly?

If you take any line on a regular basis you soon see how many services run on the line, and how quickly it all unravels with one small problem.

A sticky door on a train turns a small carriage malfunction into dozens of trains being delayed or even cancelled. (yesterday)

A points failure that cannot handle the volume results in hours of cancelled trains (like this morning).

One late driver has a knock on effect for the next 4 hours for 4 different services (last Thursday).

etc, etc etc.

They're run way over capacity daily to handle the volume as it is.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

How many people in this discussion actually take a train on a regular basis.

What about the existing system screams "improve existing lines"? Improve how exactly?

If you take any line on a regular basis you soon see how many services run on the line, and how quickly it all unravels with one small problem.

A sticky door on a train turns a small carriage malfunction into dozens of trains being delayed or even cancelled. (yesterday)

A points failure that cannot handle the volume results in hours of cancelled trains (like this morning).

One late driver has a knock on effect for the next 4 hours for 4 different services (last Thursday).

etc, etc etc.

They're run way over capacity daily to handle the volume as it is.

I like how you asked that question, then gave answers.

PS - I used to use trains regularly, and they were only 3/4 full but continually cancelled so I stopped using them.

rick_chasey

I'd make a sarky remark about rhetorical questions etc but whatever.

I just don't believe any commentators on this are actually taking trains on a regular basis.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

I'd make a sarky remark about rhetorical questions etc but whatever.

I just don't believe any commentators on this are actually taking trains on a regular basis.

Hi. Use trains five days out of seven in and around Greater London and cross country.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

I'd make a sarky remark about rhetorical questions etc but whatever.

I just don't believe any commentators on this are actually taking trains on a regular basis.

I use trains 2 days out of 7

I find them pretty reliable and SWR do a good app that gives real time info

Jezyboy

Going back 5 years used them between 3/5 days a week to commute from Buxton to Stockport.

Generally worked pretty flawlessly in terms of getting me to work, but were quite slow, and occasionally it rained in the trains.

Jezyboy

I see Suella is grandstanding for the next leadership challenge.

shirley_basso

Jesus her comments are offensive and I am a white middle class straight male!

Pross

I was using trains 2 or 3 days a week before Covid. Delays were reasonably common but certainly nothing like the issues RC reguarly describes. There were occasional cancellations, mainly on the service to Cheltenham which could be a pain as that was only a once an hour direct service. Going to Bristol the biggest problem by far was over-crowding with passengers left on the platform at times with the train I preferred to use so I took to catching an earlier one. I can't work out if Rick's line is particularly bad or if he exaggerates the issue.

Pross

Jezyboy said:

I see Suella is grandstanding for the next leadership challenge.

She'll be their Corbyn. If she said the stuff she does as a white male she would be absolutely hammered.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

I was using trains 2 or 3 days a week before Covid. Delays were reasonably common but certainly nothing like the issues RC reguarly describes. There were occasional cancellations, mainly on the service to Cheltenham which could be a pain as that was only a once an hour direct service. Going to Bristol the biggest problem by far was over-crowding with passengers left on the platform at times with the train I preferred to use so I took to catching an earlier one. I can't work out if Rick's line is particularly bad or if he exaggerates the issue.

https://www.greatnorthernrail.com/about-us/how-were-performing/train-service-punctuality-and-reliability

They have to report on it (though do note, cancellations or removing usual services from the timetables don't count)