427 replies to this topic

[hyposmurf]

From the link Mathew provided:

The last government’s command paper contains a graph showing carbon figures for air, road, conventional rail and high speed trains(4). This creates the impression that high-speed rail produces less than half as much carbon per passenger kilometre as conventional railways, and just a fraction of the emissions from cars. How did it produce these results? By selecting Eurostar – and apparently only the French section – as its example of a high speed train. French electricity is mostly produced by nuclear power, so high speed trains there create much smaller emissions than ours would cause. It also appears to have ignored the carbon costs of construction

Compare this to a paper commissioned by the Department for Transport in 2007. When construction is taken into account, high speed rail journeys from London to Manchester will produce 60% more carbon than conventional rail and 35% more carbon than car journeys. They will generate only 25% less carbon than plane travel

The business case the department has produced is just as shaky. The first thing that jumps out at you is that the government has conflated it with the cost-benefit analysis. They are not the same thing. The business case is as follows: the government shells out £25.5bn, loses a net £1.5bn in tax and gets £15bn back over 60 years from fares(9). Net loss to the government: £12bn. The cost benefit analysis (which the government calls “the business case”) produces benefits of £32.3bn(10). The department concludes that the scheme has a benefit-cost ratio of 2.7. But where did the £32.3bn come from?

There appear to be a number of holes in the proposal.

[Fran]

The campaign against HS2 is pressing for clarification on which is the new government's preferred route: BFP article.
Much as we'd like to know, I doubt it's their top priority.

Meanwhile the campaigners have quite a good website that includes lots of useful links: hs2actionalliance.org.

[Fran]

"But the Department for Transport's argument currently consists of several thousand pages of wishful thinking. "

From

www.monbiot.com

Mind you, I suspect other articles can be found to push the argument the other way.

And here is one from the senior transport campaigner at CPRE: Guardian article.

[hyposmurf]

And here is one from the senior transport campaigner at CPRE: Guardian article.

Thanks for that Fran.A quote from the article:

A case for a new high-speed railway can only be justified as part of a much wider strategy of shifting people on to rail from roads and the air, and to use the planning system more to help people travel less

Which probably is the main justification for the proiposed HS2.However I feel its more wishfull thinking than a realistic concept, to have many road users and air passengers changing their habits.This proposed new service will have to offer cheaper fares from its two main competitors, being air and road transport if its likley to be worthwhile and win these travellers over.How will HS2 offer lower costs, when the costs of project will have to be recovered in the initial years?Tax payer would possibily have to fund this, to offer the illusion that HS2 is costing the public less to use.
Maybe Im wrong and I welcome and feedback, but I'm pretty sceptical of the financial benefits to the public regarding HS2.Just have to look at what a state the Euro tunnel project was in financially after being constructed to have some idea.

[Adrian]

So will this have an impact on HS2? Saving a 20 minutes on a London / Birmingham journey may not be worth it for many, particularly as the Birmingham station will be a new station away from Birmingham New Street / Moor Street where other connections exists and there are already many services from London to Birmingham. The longer the journey, the greater the potential benefit of time saving, so HS2 to Scotland may be more useful than just stopping at Birmingham. So the line may be built, but will the demand be there to use it to capacity?

Many would choose to travel on the faster, more expensive train simply because it will be quieter, more comfortable and, frankly, posher. Very few rail projects make sense from a cost perspective. I would have no problem with any of it if it wasn't a) publically funded and b.) emerging from a tunnel so close to my town.

[hyposmurf]

I would have no problem with any of it if it wasn't a) publically funded and b.) emerging from a tunnel so close to my town.

Yes I can understand that.The main financial case behind it is that it will benefit these two cities business passengers, rather than providing a financial benefit to leisure passenegers.Its a shame then that these businesses dont provide more financial backing for it.I'm still to be convinced that rail is the cheapest mode of trainsport,so cheap that so many people are leaving their cars behind and changing to rail travel.Weve not seen any major decreases in fares,each year we see rises.Compare them to European prices and we are still well behind.

[Fran]

Confirmation that the decision about a route is now completely open, though I can't find anything on the BBC website yet:

BFP article

[hyposmurf]

Not sure whether this will have any bearing on HS2 but it appears that the goverment are looking to sell off HS1.

High-speed London to Folkestone rail link up for sale

[hyposmurf]

Looks like the public consultation will be further away now, probably due to the re-examination of the proposals, by the government

The summit heard how the public consultation on the high speed rail plans has been pushed back until at least spring next year.

Bucks Herald


This could all well change, but I didnt realise that in the report the trains per hour were per direction not a total for both directions!

Will initially pass by every two minutes (or 14 trains each way every hour). This will rise to once every 100 seconds once the network is extended further north (ie 18 trains each way per hour)

Bucks Herald
Bucks free press

[Fran]

Surely there can't be enough demand for THAT many trains?

[hyposmurf]

Surely there can't be enough demand for THAT many trains?

Shocking isnt it.I thought the max of 18 trains total sounded quite excessive.Will be interesting to see what the new goverment propose.I've heard they are looking at connecting with Heathrow/HS1 which makes more sense, which coulc alter the route.Not sure it would possibly run though.

[roob_the_doob]

I've heard they are looking at connecting with Heathrow/HS1 which makes more sense, which coulc alter the route.Not sure it would possibly run though.

People keep saying this, but I don't see it. Why would a connection to Heathrow make any sense at all? This isn't a local service providing access to an airport, it's intended to become a mass-transport system between major urban centres. And do we really want to encourage all air passengers in Birmingham and Manchester to fly from Heathrow, when they have international airports (with spare capacity) on their doorstep?

[PaulEden]

People keep saying this, but I don't see it. Why would a connection to Heathrow make any sense at all? This isn't a local service providing access to an airport, it's intended to become a mass-transport system between major urban centres. And do we really want to encourage all air passengers in Birmingham and Manchester to fly from Heathrow, when they have international airports (with spare capacity) on their doorstep?

Much of our transport infrastructure isn't integrated. I think the argument is 'why would you want to NOT have HS1 stop at Heathrow?'.
The two most popular destinations from Heathrow for passengers is Paris and Manchester. If Heathrow is not getting the third runway, we need to be able to move passengers around much more efficiently and that will include rail.
Air France have moved already on this. They are flying an A380 between Paris CDG and Heathrow twice a day, replacing 4 flights. Well done, the French. Not often you'll hear me say that!

[roob_the_doob]

Much of our transport infrastructure isn't integrated. I think the argument is 'why would you want to NOT have HS1 stop at Heathrow?'.
The two most popular destinations from Heathrow for passengers is Paris and Manchester. If Heathrow is not getting the third runway, we need to be able to move passengers around much more efficiently and that will include rail.

Absolutely, but people won't be starting their journeys from Heathrow. Local passengers will find it at least as easy (and mostly much easier) to start their journey from central London, and if you want to get from JFK to Manchester, you fly to Manchester.

Putting a 'kink' in the line to go via Heathrow will slow the journey. Every time the train stops it will dramatically increase the journey time, due to the need for extended periods of deceleration/acceleration (which is presumably why no intermediate stops are envisaged between London and Brum).

[Zoom]

A much larger footprint of potential travellers will be picked up by having an interchange at Heathrow.... just look at the footprint of people who use Ashford and Ebbsfleet to travel to Paris and Brussels.... those are people who are not in Central London... basically those stations pick up all of the travellers North East and South East of London, all of Kent, Surrey, and Sussex. For most of those people it is far easier to travel to Ashford or Ebbsfleet than to go into Central London or to fly from Heathrow.

A similar thing would happen with an interchange west of London at Heathrow... it isn't just about connecting with Heathrow, it is about providing a station to pick up all the travellers from Bucks, Oxon, Berks, Surrey, Hampshire, etc who would all travel to the Heathrow connection and then get the train from there to Europe rather than flying...

The proposed "heathrow connection" isn't in fact anywhere near Heathrow... it is near White City/Shepherds Bush so it is totally impractical as a station for everyone North West, West or South-West of London, who would instead face a long train journey into central London to catch HS1 from St Pancras.

I know for me I would far prefer the 20-30 min drive to catch a train from Heathrow than the one hour+ to St Pancras.

[David P]

Absolutely, but people won't be starting their journeys from Heathrow. Local passengers will find it at least as easy (and mostly much easier) to start their journey from central London, and if you want to get from JFK to Manchester, you fly to Manchester.

Putting a 'kink' in the line to go via Heathrow will slow the journey. Every time the train stops it will dramatically increase the journey time, due to the need for extended periods of deceleration/acceleration (which is presumably why no intermediate stops are envisaged between London and Brum).

But if you want to go from Los Angeles to Manchester or Birmingham, then you go via Heathrow (or New York). A train from LHR direct to the centre of Manchester or Birmingham could well be more attractive than going to the local airport and then having to catch a train into the city.

I think one proposal was not to take the main line through Heathrow but to have a spur into the airport. Trains would then run either from the airport or from London, so there would be no additional stops.

[Zoom]

I think one proposal was not to take the main line through Heathrow but to have a spur into the airport. Trains would then run either from the airport or from London, so there would be no additional stops.

The proposed spur was for the interchange at White City/Shepherds Bush.... they called it Old Oak Common so that people wouldn't realize how far it was from Heathrow.... so with the spur if you are travelling from Manchester or Birmingham to Los Angeles you'd have to get a High Speed train into Shepherds Bush, then transfer to a slow local train to Heathrow, then change again to get the train.... you might as well just scrap the old oak common station and have the manchester/birmingham travellers changing at Euston.

Much better if you could get a train direct to Heathrow.... one less exchange, you arrive direct to the airport... much faster, much less hassle, therefore people much more likely to do it.

And by having an interchange AT heathrow you could have more car/coach travellers arriving direct to the station at Heathrow and taking the train to Europe, which they certainly wouldn't do if they had to trek into central London and back out again. This is exactly what is going on with HS1 at the Ashford and Ebbsfleet stations. People living in South East London, Kent, Surrey are travelling to Ashford and Ebbsfleet to catch Eurostar from there rather than getting a train into London to get the Eurostar from St Pancras or them driving to Heathrow to get a plane.

[roob_the_doob]

And by having an interchange AT heathrow you could have more car/coach travellers arriving direct to the station at Heathrow and taking the train to Europe, which they certainly wouldn't do if they had to trek into central London and back out again. This is exactly what is going on with HS1 at the Ashford and Ebbsfleet stations. People living in South East London, Kent, Surrey are travelling to Ashford and Ebbsfleet to catch Eurostar from there rather than getting a train into London to get the Eurostar from St Pancras or them driving to Heathrow to get a plane.

Even if trains left Heathrow heading for Europe (which seems highly unlikely, given that it would probably add a significant time to the journey compared to St Pancras/Euston), who on earth would choose to drive to Heathrow to catch a train, and where would they park? I agree with the strategy of having intermediate "parkway" stops, but Heathrow is an absolute non-starter. Aylesbury/Bicester would make much more sense.

[Zoom]

First, there have to be through trains or the whole HS2 is a dead duck.... there is no benefit to be gained from shaving the time from Birmingham or Manchester to London.... the only benefit is to shave the time to Europe, provide a better and greener alternative to flying from those destinations and the intermediate stops.

I agree with the strategy of having intermediate "parkway" stops, but Heathrow is an absolute non-starter. Aylesbury/Bicester would make much more sense.

How do you work that out ? What is the footprint that would be served by a station in Bicester (which I believe is planned to be anyway). Its in the middle of nowhere and would only realistically serve Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire... not large populations. Aylesbury might be more meaningful but the problem with Aylesbury is that it has no motorway connections so nobody can get to a parkway station at Aylesbury.

A station at Heathrow would be able to serve the whole of the Thames Valley (Berks, Bucks, Oxon, Wilts even some of Hants and Surrey and Herts). A huge population would be served who would find driving to Heathrow to catch a train to Europe would be a far better option that travelling into London. Huge numbers of people already do this with Ashford and Ebbsfleet... Kent, Essex, Surrey, Southern and Eastern borders of London people prefer to travel by car to Ebbsfleet or Ashford to catch a train to Europe than to go to Gatwick, Stansted or Heathrow to catch a plane.

There would be a similar effect with a parkway station within striking distance of the M25 and M4/M40 eg at Heathrow/Staines/Slough.

[roob_the_doob]

A station at Heathrow would be able to serve the whole of the Thames Valley (Berks, Bucks, Oxon, Wilts even some of Hants and Surrey and Herts). A huge population would be served who would find driving to Heathrow to catch a train to Europe would be a far better option that travelling into London. Huge numbers of people already do this with Ashford and Ebbsfleet... Kent, Essex, Surrey, Southern and Eastern borders of London people prefer to travel by car to Ebbsfleet or Ashford to catch a train to Europe than to go to Gatwick, Stansted or Heathrow to catch a plane.

There would be a similar effect with a parkway station within striking distance of the M25 and M4/M40 eg at Heathrow/Staines/Slough.

How can you suggest that a station at Heathrow would serve Wiltshire, and then argue that no-one would use Bicester? Bicester is within 1 hr or so of Cheltenham, Swindon, Reading, Slough, Watford, Luton, Bedford, Milton Keynes, Northampton. Not such a small region.

Traffic round Heathrow is already ridiculous. The idea of adding to that is mind-boggling.

[Zoom]

How can you suggest that a station at Heathrow would serve Wiltshire, and then argue that no-one would use Bicester? Bicester is within 1 hr or so of Cheltenham, Swindon, Reading, Slough, Watford, Luton, Bedford, Milton Keynes, Northampton. Not such a small region.

How can you seriously suggest that someone from Watford or Luton is going to travel to Bicester.... there is no motorway connection.

Similarly there is no direct motorway connection between Cheltenham, Swindon or Reading and Bicester... however the M4 corridor (and M3 corridors) go direct to Heathrow.

Traffic round Heathrow is already ridiculous. The idea of adding to that is mind-boggling.

Traffic round Heathrow isn't too bad (I travel that way daily at the moment). Any delays right now are caused by the tailbacks from the roadworks on the M25, once the road widening is complete the road will have the capacity to deal quite happily with the traffic. And traffic is unlikely to increase significantly in that area because it has reached saturation, everyone who can and wants to travel by car does. So there are no more people who could use the road.

And I also favour building a new airport in the Thames Estuary anyway which would relieve pressure on the Western border of London and reduce road traffic on the M25 around Heathrow. And that airport in the Thames Estuary would again connect with the high speed network (eg a fast line from the airport into central London, a ocnnection to HS1 to Europe and a HS line up the East coast via Colchester, Cambridge, Peterborough, and up the East Coast Main Line route to Edinburgh).

[roob_the_doob]

How can you seriously suggest that someone from Watford or Luton is going to travel to Bicester.... there is no motorway connection.

Similarly there is no direct motorway connection between Cheltenham, Swindon or Reading and Bicester... however the M4 corridor (and M3 corridors) go direct to Heathrow.

Why fixate on motorways? It's time of travel that is important. In any case, the A41 and A34 are as good as motorways (and often better). And last time I looked, the M40 was a motorway.

[Zoom]

Why fixate on motorways? It's time of travel that is important. In any case, the A41 and A34 are as good as motorways (and often better). And last time I looked, the M40 was a motorway.

Its not just about travel time, its also about convenience and comfort if you're going to persuade people to use it.

So lets work it out... lets take Reading to Paris.... Reading to Bicester 45 mins, Bicester to Euston 30 mins, Euston to St Pancras 15 mins, St Pancras to Paris 2.15... total 3:45 hours

Instead of my option, which is travelling by car to a station at Heathrow/Slough/Staines via the M4/M3/M40 to catch a direct HS2/HS1 train straight through to Paris. I'd guess that it would be about 2.30 to Paris from Heathrow, plus say Reading to Heathrow (40-45 mins), 3:15 hours total...

So my option is 30 mins quicker and is significantly more comfortable and convenient.


And have you used the A41 or A34 ? The A34 around Oxford is awful and you can easily be delayed by 30 mins or more just simply going around Oxford. That is why nobody south or West of Oxford would travel to a station at Bicester or Aylesbury. For them it is quicker to get to the M25 along the M4 than it is to go around Oxford to Bicester. Bicester is in the middle of nowhere.

And the A41 is only dual-carriageway from M25 to Aston Clinton then it drops to slow'ish A-road... adn to the West and South-West of Aylesbury there are slow'ish A-roads. Aylesbury does not have the road connections to act as a hub.

[Fran]

I work in Aylesbury. The traffic near the town centre, from any direction, is awful, and there is no sensible route to avoid it (and no money for bypasses).

[roob_the_doob]

I work in Aylesbury. The traffic near the town centre, from any direction, is awful, and there is no sensible route to avoid it (and no money for bypasses).

Agreed there is scope for improving the road network in the region. There is no such scope for doing so around Heathrow. And bad as the traffic can be in Aylesbury or on the A34 at certain times of day, it can be 10 times worse around Heathrow.

If we're spending billions on HS2, I think they will find a few million to upgrade the roads serving a "parkway" station.

So lets work it out... lets take Reading to Paris.... Reading to Bicester 45 mins, Bicester to Euston 30 mins, Euston to St Pancras 15 mins, St Pancras to Paris 2.15... total 3:45 hours

Instead of my option, which is travelling by car to a station at Heathrow/Slough/Staines via the M4/M3/M40 to catch a direct HS2/HS1 train straight through to Paris. I'd guess that it would be about 2.30 to Paris from Heathrow, plus say Reading to Heathrow (40-45 mins), 3:15 hours total...

You're not comparing like with like. To be consisent: Reading to Heathrow, 45 mins, Heathrow to Euston 30 mins , Euston to St Pancras 15 mins, St Pancras to Paris 2.15... total 3:45 hours.

But of course, direct trains from the North to Europe won't stop at either Euston or St Pancras - they will bypass both and call at the already-existing station at Stratford.

But this is a side-show. The main point is that the only possible reason for putting a station at Heathrow is to tie-in with air traffic. The effect of that is to encourage more air traffic to an already overloaded airport, and more road traffic to overloaded roads - either that or it's a lot of money spent on a white elephant. If the point is to provide a Parkway station near the M25, such as Ebbsfleet, then somewhere around the M25/M40 near Denham makes a much better choice as it is directly on the HS2 route. I was suggesting Bicester because I'm unconvinced about the amount of use Ebbsfleet gets:

Not exactly a heavily-used carpark

[Zoom]

Agreed there is scope for improving the road network in the region. There is no such scope for doing so around Heathrow. And bad as the traffic can be in Aylesbury or on the A34 at certain times of day, it can be 10 times worse around Heathrow.

Right now I travel the M25 past Heathrow every day... and I've travelled the Oxford bypass/M40/etc too... They are as bad as each other... my estimate of 45 mins from Reading to Heathrow is based on my rush hour experience. My rush hour experience around Oxford is that it can take 30 mins just to get from one side of Oxford to the other let alone from Reading to Bicester.

Nobody from Reading or Bracknell or Slough will travel to Bicester to get a high speed train. They will have to travel by slower train into London, get a tube connection to get the HS1 from St Pancras. Nobody from Warwick or Coventry will travel to Bicester to catch HS2, they would travel into Birmingham to get teh HS2 from there. So a Bicester parkway station would be a white elephant.... Aylesbury would be even worse because travel to Aylesbury is even worse for people from Warwick/Coventry/Northampton/Reading/Oxford/Slough/Bracknell.

OTOH many many people from Reading/Oxford/Slough/Bracknell would drive to Heathrow area to get a high speed train from there.

If we're spending billions on HS2, I think they will find a few million to upgrade the roads serving a "parkway" station.

You think ? Who will pay for it ? That's not included in the costs of HS2 so it would be paid for separately, and you make the assumption that we have a joined up transport policy.

But of course, direct trains from the North to Europe won't stop at either Euston or St Pancras - they will bypass both and call at the already-existing station at Stratford.

No you haven't read the current plan. At the moment trains from the north are not going to go to Europe at all, they will terminate at Euston. The best they are proposing is to investigate making an shuttle or escalator transfer connection between Euston and St Pancras. With the current plan, if you want to go to Paris by train from Bicester you would have to go to Euston, then transfer from Euston to St Pancras, then get a different Eurostar train to Paris.

That is the most nuts part of the whole proposal in my view. If they can't make direct services to Paris from Manchester/Birmingham then its a dead duck. There is no point at all in making faster journeys from Birmingham and Manchester to London, they need to be providing faster and easier services from Birmingham/Manchester to Paris/Brussels and beyond.

But this is a side-show. The main point is that the only possible reason for putting a station at Heathrow is to tie-in with air traffic. The effect of that is to encourage more air traffic to an already overloaded airport, and more road traffic to overloaded roads - either that or it's a lot of money spent on a white elephant. If the point is to provide a Parkway station near the M25, such as Ebbsfleet, then somewhere around the M25/M40 near Denham makes a much better choice as it is directly on the HS2 route. I was suggesting Bicester because I'm unconvinced about the amount of use Ebbsfleet gets

I used Eurostar a lot last year and there was always a sizable number of people (up to 25% of the passengers) getting on/off at either Ebbsfleet or Ashford. I can't comment on the balance between the two but my guess would be that Ashford gets more use than Ebbsfleet.

I think you've picked up now that my suggestion is two-fold...
#1 to provide a 'west of London' parkway station for direct services to Europe, and for fast services to the north
#2 to provide a tie-in to air traffic at Heathrow

#1 in my view would contribute far more business use of the line than #2. Business people from west London and west of London wanting to travel to Europe (only if HS1 runs directly through to Europe without stopping at Euston for a transfer to St Pancras as currently planned - business people wont' do that). And those from west London and west of London who want to travel to Manchester/Birgimham for business and don't want to trek into London to catch the service from Euston and don't want to catch an infrequent and potentially slow cross country service to the north.

These are the people who will travel to a 'west of London' parkway... and if Eurostar is anything to go by they are the people who will provide profitable business to fund line.

#2 is likely to contribute far more consumer use of the line than latter. People from Birmingham/Manchester wanting to access a wider variety of flights from Heathrow than are available from Birmingham/Manchester. It would be an easier, faster, more reliable and greener option than these people FLYing to Heathrow for a connecting flight. I suspect business people are less likely to use the train to connect with flights but they might do.


Heathrow area is the one place where you can achieve both objectives.... thus maximising the benefits, value and attractiveness of the entire scheme.

If there is no Heathrow connection then I still think there is a STRONG case for a parkway station 'west of London' and there is VERY LITTLE case for a parkway station at Bicester or Aylesbury (for the reasons I've stated). The obvious places for a parkway station are in the M25/M40/M4 vicinity so Heathrow, Denham or even High Wycombe would be ideal locations for a well used and productive parkway station. And of those, only Heathrow provides an airport tie-in as well.

[David P]

The main point is that the only possible reason for putting a station at Heathrow is to tie-in with air traffic. The effect of that is to encourage more air traffic to an already overloaded airport,

No, it's to provide an alternative route to B'ham, Manchester etc, thus reducing the requirement for planes on these routes.

There are many references to a possible station at Bicester but no-one has mentioned Aylesbury Parkway. This station has already been built, it seems to me, right in the middle of nowhere. Does anyone know what function it is meant to serve?

[Fran]

Aylesbury Parkway. This station has already been built, it seems to me, right in the middle of nowhere. Does anyone know what function it is meant to serve?

It's meant to encourage rail commuters from areas north(ish) of Aylesbury to avoid driving into the town centre. I can't say I've noticed a reduction in rush hour traffic in the town since the station opened, but there is a lot of new housing being built on that side of the town, so it's probably preventative as much as curative.

Anyway, it's all very hypothetical, given that the new government has said they are reconsidering which route HS2 should take.

[ianbartlett]

...Aylesbury Parkway. This station has already been built, it seems to me, right in the middle of nowhere. Does anyone know what function it is meant to serve?

Aylesbury Parkway was built to serve a planned massive housing development at Berryfields and would be right in the middle of it. However, the reduction in property prices has meant that the houses have not yet been built. However, they almost certainly will be built when prices pick up. The secondary reason is as identified by Fran.

[ianbartlett]

Just a quick point about HS2 calling at Heathrow Airport.

The current plan is for it to stop at Old Oak Common where it would connect with the existing Heathrow Express/Connect services to Heathrow and Paddington. The major factor against diverting HS2 to Heathrow is where any station would actually be; how do you define where Heathrow is? A single station would need some kind of rapid transit link to each of the terminals which would be a) expensive to build and would reduce any potential time saving by having HS2 go there direct. Also HS2 would then be slower for its primary purpose of transporting people from London to Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester (after leaving HS2 at Birmingham, trains will continue onward).

It is much easier to have a purpose-built interchange at Old Oak from where existing Heathrow trains run direct to the terminals. You also avoid inconveniencing the bulk of travellers who are going from London to the Midlands and North West.