[transtraxman]

Let us put this more simply.

Would a businessman leave his car in the garage to travel to Toton or Sheffield Meadowhall? Obviously he is not in the city centre so would he rent a car or taxi to take him to his destination?

Or we might put the question another way. If the businessman had to reach Chesterfield, Barnsley, or Wakefield would he bother taking HS2?

Your starting point can be ANYWHERE in the south-east region.

Honest answers please.

[HongKongLady]

No, unless you are within spitting distance of a station the car has to be the easiest option. However the journey was going into London from anywhere it might be easier than parking in central London.

[PegasusAir]

Whilst most of you probably use trains from london and return my views are from someone who travels to London from the north-west – and the planned route is nowhere near my back garden!
The first question has to be – what are the problems that need fixing, and this should have been the subject of a report BEFORE any decision that an HS2 is required and even more so its route. Has this happened?
I have heard mentioned capacity problems between Birmingham and London, addressing the north-south divide,eliminating air travel to and from London etc, are there others?
Which problems will HS2 solve, – capacity limits between B’ham and London (if true)- yes, the north-south divide – unlikely, eliminate air travel between the north and London – definitely not.
We currently have 9 stations in the north-west with direct fast train services to London varying in time from 2hrs 8mins from Liverpoool down to 1hr 19mins from Stoke – these will be replaced with just 3 stations on the HS2. Will the existing fast trains continue to run and if so is this factored into the economics? If they do continue they will probably have more stops to improve their economics but if not a number of areas in the north-west will be worse off than now! Of course HS2 will probably be more expensive as well. It is difficult to see why anyone from the region who uses any of the stations other than Wilmslow will use Manchester Airport unless the current trains are discontinued due to the distance, congestion and the exhorbitant car park charges (£26 for over 6 hrs) at the Airport. Yes, people in Manchester itself will get to London an hour quicker but does this really help the divide – if I have a meeting at 9.30am I will simply leave home an hour later – if anything it will increase the gap to the benefit of London which I believe is the case in France with Paris.
I have no problem with the principle of the HS2 if it is based on open book economics but I can think of many ways to spend £33billion to solve the perceived problems which will benefit far more people across the region and much quicker than this project. I may however be missing something?
Sorry this has run on…..

[BigDog.]

Mixing Fast (Intercity), Average (Local) and Slow (Freight) speeds of rail traffic compromises capacity.
Add in HS and beyond (very fast)onto existing lines is impossible as the safety tolerances would result in less utilization.

The HS2 line will not only take HS traffic but also existing Fast traffic.

Taking some fast traffic from the existing infrastructure will allow far greater utilization of the existing network for more regional traffic (less car utilization?) and services as well as creating a large increase in rail freight service capacity. This will enable cargo to move from road to rail.

The HS2 is not about shaving minutes from travel times but improving (faster, greener, more cost effective) the transportation infrastructure across air and road as well as rail.

[SimonS1]

When HS1 was introduced, the prices were high and it was necessary to slow down existing trains to “encourage” people to switch. A report last year indicated passenger estimates were hopelessly optimistic, and as a result the taxpayer had been left with £4.8bn of debt.

This together with other recent goings on suggest that the ground is ripe for another great DfT/civil service cock up.

[AnthonyDunn]

SimonS1 – 04/02/2013 07:35 GMT

Have you by any chance been watching any of the BBC TV series by Dan Snow about the genesis of Britain’s railways? If you have, you might have prefaced or balanced your remarks above by acknowledging that since the railway booms and busts of the 1840s and 1870s – the latter wiped 5% off GDP and destroyed the savings of an entire generation – railways have generated debts and cost money. But where would we now be without them?

There is nothing new under the sun as regards the costs of railways so the HS1 debt is nothing new or necessarily aberrant. What is frustrating about HS1 is the chronic lack of ambition on the part of Eurostar (risk averse or what?) and the equally chronic foot-dragging by the protectionist French. The latter have ensured, to date, that no other passenger train operators have been able to use the Chunnel and fast lines on either side. Both of these may be about to change…

[AMcWhirter]

Hello AnthonyDunn

Even if the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission grant approval in the near future for DB to operate through the Tunnel it (DB) has no suitable trains in its fleet owing to delivery problems at Siemens.

When the technical issues first surfaced, DB postponed the starting date by a few years.

You may remember that originally DB had planned to start international service from London at the end of 2012 or this year at the latest.

But now the services have been delayed indefinitely as we reported last December:

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/deutsche-bahn-committed-to-international-london

It is not strictly true that the French will not allow other passenger operators access to their tracks. Yes it was true some years ago but there are a few exceptions today.

One example is Thalys which uses the Northern high-speed line between Paris and Brussels (which is also used in part by Eurostar) and another example is the LGV-Est line (linking Paris with Germany) where DB’s ICE operates alongside SNCF’s TGV.

I have read that the Spanish AVE high-speed trains are now being trialled on French high-speed tracks. Maybe they’ll see operation when through trains run between Paris and Barcelona next April.

[AnthonyDunn]

Hello Alex.

Having been a member of the Commission in a previous life (whilst in the MOD), I am reasonably versed in the why’s and wherefores. Where they enjoy reciprocal track access (Paris-Brussels and Paris-Frankfurt/Munich), the French have no problems. But the Chunnel is different and they would not have traffic rights between London and Amsterdam/Germany – which is why they have dragged their feet interminably. I would also like to know why Eurostar have been so utterly pathetic in not expanding their continental network. Any answers/explanations from them?

[AMcWhirter]

Hello Anthony

There are technical issues for Eurostar trains to run beyond Brussels and even Paris because there is a different power supply when trains run off the LGV on to “lignes classiques.”

But changes are afoot. Eurostar has ordered 10 new multi-voltage trains for operation beyond Brussels and Paris.

It is also trialling a new service this summer to Lyon and the South of France on which we have already reported.

I agree that Eurostar ought to have been more creative by now. I’ve always wondered why its Disneyland service did not stop en route at Paris CDG. Yes, the authorities would have to provide the relevant customs & immigration facilites at CDG station but there are no technical issues other than I am aware of.

Perhaps the regular 18-coach Eurostars might be too long for the platforms at CDG station ? If so then the problem might be resolved by using the 14-coach regional Eurostars.

A direct high-speed rail service linking London with Paris CDG in a couple of hours would bring windfall business to Air France and would mean passengers avoid paying APD.

It would also be a useful back-up at times of flight delays.

I have written a piece on the complexities of international rail travel for our March issue.

[LuganoPirate]

A little late to this, but picking up on a couple of points.

Immigration at CDG. This could be done at the London end. There are French immigration officers at the Channel Tunnel Car Terminal and British immigration officers the other side. Or, why not revert to immigration on the train, as was done in the past and is still done in Europe for non-Schengen countries?

18 coach trains could still be used with CDG pax sitting in the front 14 carriages. Seated is allocated on booking anyhow, so this should not present a problem.

On the subject of APD. If Eurostar stopped at CDG, how long before the government in power slaps an APD charge on Eurostar tickets? After all, it is so close to air travel, with lounges, security, immigration etc it would not be hard for them to justify.

The trial to the S of F will be interesting. At the moment you can take Eurostar to Lille, then go at break neck speed as far as Marseilles. The (correct me if I’m wrong) 1,300 kms distance is covered in about 3 hours but, the TGV connection to Cannes or Nice takes about 2.5 hours, making a station to station time of about 9 hours with changes and possibly 8 without, how many people will choose this over a direct flight into Nice?

[AMcWhirter]

The Eurostar trial will run only to Lyon and Aix-en-Provence. The special through train will run only once a week so passengers wishing to travel on other days will have to (as they do at present) change trains at Lille or Paris.

Since writing my comments above re the London-Paris CDG rail service I remembered that in 2008 Air France was investigating the possibility of running its own high-speed train between London and Paris.

It seems Air France was planning a service which would connect Paris CDG with both London and Amsterdam.

But nothing happened so I guess the plan was quietly dropped.

http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=253

[BigDog.]

Well this certainly was unexpected so soon. The Green light for HS2?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21795755

[transtraxman]

This has been published on BBC News today.

“HS2 rail plans: Think tank raises doubts over value”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22941908

[canucklad]

I whole heartily agree with the article…..

My very simple equation is this…..

Current travel time – proposed travel time = minutes saved = £33 billion = apx £1+ billion per minute

Value for money ?

Maybe for Leeds & Birmingham…for the whole of the UK…EHHH NO

[VintageKrug]

Daft to build HS2 through such lovely countryside.

Not entirely sure what was behind the statistical fudge which was used to justify the business case.

Can it, and put the money into building a decent Hub airport.

[Author]

Posts