Help
Loading...
Why say yes to HS2?
| Author: Chris Howe | Published: 11th October 2010 18:35 |
Neston resident Chris Howe has started a 'Yes to HS2' Campaign. In this article, he explains what has persuaded him to throw his support behind the proposals.
First of all let me give you a bit of background information as to why I started the 'Yes To HS2' campaign. It began with me simply taking an interest in the Government's proposals to extend the UK's high speed rail network towards the North. It didn't take me long to realise there seemed to be a lot more anti HS2 protesters than there were pro HS2 supporters. With further research, I found out that the anti HS2 protesters were well organised and had support from other well-known organisations.
It is true to say that there is support for the proposals and there are organisations that are looking into the feasibility of introducing high speed rail. Yet there is still very little public backing or even knowledge of the proposed scheme.
If you haven't heard the term HS 2 or High Speed 2 before, here is some information regarding the project.
The project outline proposes that a high speed rail line will be constructed from London to the North of England. The line will be designed to take trains with a European loading gauge, basically wide body trains similar to the TGV, that will travel at speeds of up to 240mph. These trains will be modern, comfortable and fast.
The line will initially stretch from London to Birmingham with a spur finishing slightly further north than Birmingham itself. This will allow trains to join the HS2 line from the West Coast Main Line. Even with the initial line constructed, journey times to London will be slashed by 20 minutes. Eventually the line will split off in a 'Y' shape with further lines heading to Manchester and Leeds and then the hope is for an extension to Scotland.
A fleet of classic compatible trains will run from places such as Liverpool that will be able to run on conventional tracks and then run at high speeds on the HS2 line. These trains, whilst not a spacious as the European style trains, will still be fast, modern and comfortable.
The construction of a high speed line is a massive civil engineering task and requires the construction of tunnels, deep cuttings, viaducts and bridges. The cost for the whole scheme including rolling stock is said to be £33 billion. That includes a contingency for overruns and inflation. This is a lot of money - there's no getting away from that - but when you consider the positive impact it will have on millions of people's lives both directly and indirectly for decades to come, it starts to sound like it could turn out to be very good value for money. It is not yet even known if the government will foot the entire bill so therefore it is impossible to speculate on tax payer return.
In my opinion, the economic benefits will be great, with construction employing 10,000 people for six years which will directly feed back into the economy and then there are the economic benefits to the North of England afterwards.
Anti HS2 protesters will tell you that it's not that green, that 20 minutes off of a journey does not justify the cost and that it will destroy thousands of people's lives that live along the route.
I'm not going to argue that the HS2 project will save the polar icecaps or vastly reduce the UK's CO2 emissions. But you have to admit it is better for the environment than flying or driving. 20 minutes could be all it takes to dissuade somebody from flying to London instead, especially when you factor in checking-in at one of the UK's busy airports.
For me though the biggest argument for the HS2 is that the West Coast Main Line, one of the busiest rail networks in Europe, is already overcrowded, even after a £13billion, 10-year upgrade. One argument is to upgrade the WCML further, but it if cost £13billion to upgrade the line to take 125mph trains, how much will it coast to upgrade it to take 240mph trains and increase capacity for commuters and freight? It would be next to impossible. Especially when you consider that throughout the last upgrade the line mostly remained open in the day time, except at weekends.
There are arguments against, such as effects on residents and destruction of some the countryside, and it has been argued that it will not bring the benefits promised. I would argue that the engineers in charge of designing the track will do all they can to mitigate any adverse effects using tunnelling, deep cuttings, embankments and the planting of many more trees than will be cut down. Also residents along the route will be compensated for any subsequent loss in value to their properties.
We all have to remember that we live on a small cramped island with a population of 60 million people. We will always want to travel whether it be for business or pleasure, and the number of people choosing to take the train is set to double by 2035 (Network Rails own projections). So on those grounds we have no choice but to sacrifice a relatively small part of the countryside in order that the UK remains an economically and socially vibrant country.
For more information visit www.yestohs2.co.uk or search for Yes To HS2 on Facebook. Alternatively you can e-mail me on info@yestohs2.co.uk.
Chris Howe
Do you agree with Chris, or do you have a different view? If you would like to submit a message of support or a counter-argument, you can either send an article through to us by email, or, if you prefer, you may leave a comment below.
Report this article as inappropriate
Comments
notohs2At 12:44 on 12th October 2010, notohs2 commented:
I would disagree with the above comments. HS2 is certaintly not worth £33 billion (an estimate at current prices) - a few years ago this was estimated at £17billion - the actual costs are likely to be much higher. I would much rather see the money spent on upgrading existing routes to high speed - reducing first class carriages and increasing the number of economy carriages to increase passenger numbers. I would also prefer investment in the roads - as for those who have not booked train tickets months in advance it is much cheaper to travel by road. I would also prefer that services such as schools, health services and other local council services such as day services facilities for the elderly were kept instead of many facing financial cuts. HS2 equals no business case and if not convinced bear in mind the enviornmental impact. The route is set to go through an area of outstanding natural beauty - akin to a National Park and will result in many rights of ways being lost and a reduction in tourism to these areas. Many historical and listing buildings would be lost including rare fossil types and endangered habitats. Not all areas on the route can be appropriately mitigated against such as those areas with viaducts and the sweeping statement of compensation is payable is plain wrong - compensation is not payable to those who are not directly affected - ie if your house is not to be knocked down! Those living within a short distance of the route will face huge upheavel both due to the years of construction and on completion of the route. The noise and visual impact will be unbearable. Not to mention the fact that many will face a loss of value in their homes - should they be able to sell their them. There are far more important services in need of financial support and the £33 billion could be better spent elsewhere than HS2.
cheshire_guyAt 13:35 on 12th October 2010, cheshire_guy commented:
First of all upgrading the WCML might ease capacity concerns for 10 to 20 years or so and there are already construction plans in the pipeline to ease congestion near to the London end. Yes it will probably ease congestion for about 10 to 20 years. But the HS2 project is designed for the long term ie at least 60 years after the railway is constructed. The WCML will be reaching it's capacity again (after more tweaks) before construction on HS2 even begins.
With rail journeys set to double by 2033 (network rails figures not part of the hs2 report) I don't think even the stated 50% increase in capacity by tweaking the current system will be enough. that is if a 50% increase in capacity can even be achieved.
It is not the right of the people that live along the proposed route to hold the future of the North's economy to ransom just because a few thousand people might be effected, and lets face it, it is a few thousand. On the question or tourism, if somewhere is truly beautiful people won't stop visiting, that's a preposterous idea.
And yes people will be compensated. A guide for the EHS (exceptional hardship scheme) had already been published and this is without the route even being finalised. This states that people will be entitled to compensation if they live "in such close proximity to Route 3 that it would be likely to be substantially adversely affected by the construction or operation of the new line, if it wer e to go ahead along that route?".
I have know of cases when then M25 was being built of people getting payments for loss of value even though it ended up that they couldn't see nor were adversely affected by it's construction.
You do know also that the UK's countryside is for the mostly man made. The UK was once covered in forest until over hundreds of years man turned it into farm land. So to call a few rolling hills 'natural' is a bit misleading.
I'm not quite sure how anyone expects to move around when the population hits 70 million people in 20 years time.
£16bn is the projected cost for the London to Birmingham line, you might say the more technically challenging section. The £33bn that people have been stating is for the entire project including rolling stock. The entire project could take 15 years or more, so when it is put like that it isn't that much spread over 10 to 20 years. Look at the £800bn that government spent on the bank bailout in just 12 months. At least the construction will create jobs directly and then the wider benefits for decades after.
People along the route are so desperate for this not to go ahead that they will find any holes in to project they can and are completely blinded to the bigger picture.
Save our views now so the UK can suffer tomorrow. Personally I think they are being selfish and short-termist.
With rail journeys set to double by 2033 (network rails figures not part of the hs2 report) I don't think even the stated 50% increase in capacity by tweaking the current system will be enough. that is if a 50% increase in capacity can even be achieved.
It is not the right of the people that live along the proposed route to hold the future of the North's economy to ransom just because a few thousand people might be effected, and lets face it, it is a few thousand. On the question or tourism, if somewhere is truly beautiful people won't stop visiting, that's a preposterous idea.
And yes people will be compensated. A guide for the EHS (exceptional hardship scheme) had already been published and this is without the route even being finalised. This states that people will be entitled to compensation if they live "in such close proximity to Route 3 that it would be likely to be substantially adversely affected by the construction or operation of the new line, if it wer e to go ahead along that route?".
I have know of cases when then M25 was being built of people getting payments for loss of value even though it ended up that they couldn't see nor were adversely affected by it's construction.
You do know also that the UK's countryside is for the mostly man made. The UK was once covered in forest until over hundreds of years man turned it into farm land. So to call a few rolling hills 'natural' is a bit misleading.
I'm not quite sure how anyone expects to move around when the population hits 70 million people in 20 years time.
£16bn is the projected cost for the London to Birmingham line, you might say the more technically challenging section. The £33bn that people have been stating is for the entire project including rolling stock. The entire project could take 15 years or more, so when it is put like that it isn't that much spread over 10 to 20 years. Look at the £800bn that government spent on the bank bailout in just 12 months. At least the construction will create jobs directly and then the wider benefits for decades after.
People along the route are so desperate for this not to go ahead that they will find any holes in to project they can and are completely blinded to the bigger picture.
Save our views now so the UK can suffer tomorrow. Personally I think they are being selfish and short-termist.
cheshire_guyAt 13:36 on 12th October 2010, cheshire_guy commented:
£33bn is not at today's prices that takes into account overruns and inflation.
RealistAt 17:38 on 12th October 2010, Realist commented:
I was in favour of HS2 initially but the more I look at it the more I see the business case and "green" case is seriously flawed. It is interesting that Railway Industry leaders like Christian Wolmar & Chris Stokes - former head of the Strategic Rail Authority - have come out strongly against the project. Indeed HS2's own engineering consultants have described the plans as "fundamentally flawed".
Rail travel is certainly "green" but High Speed Rail isn't and HS2 have accepted that there will be at best a neutral" green" impact. The business case has been dissected by Imperial College who have found the benefits to the economy as minimal or negative - as has the CBI.
There may well be a good case for HS2 but what is particularly worrying is the rush to impose a route and start construction. It is clear there are major disagreements on whether it is the best way forward for rail transport. If it is the "100 years infrastructure" that its supporters say it is why not release all the research data (which the DfT and HS2 Ltd refuse to do) and spend a bit longer to get the decision right?
We all know what happened with the projected traffic forecasts for HS1 which used the same methodology as HS2 - a commercial and economic disaster which has cost the taxpayer billions in construction costs and subsidies and runs with trains 2/3 empty. It was recently sold at a knock-down price - more wasted taxpayer’s money.
If HS2 has such economic benefits then why do its supporters denigrate people living near the line & protecting their communities and assets? Why do they always seem to write innuendo about people they allegedly know who "have received/want compensation even though they are not adversely affected". If they genuinely believed in the economic benefits of HS2 they would surely agree that generous compensation for ANYONE affected - even in a small way - is fair and equitable. (This appears to be government thinking and it is likely that government funding to Midland and Northern regions will be cut to offset the benefits of HS2 - the money going in compensation to people affected by the project, an approach similar to France).
Why should people living along the line subsidise the North?
And no-one is "holding the North" to ransom". The current EHS "compensation" scheme only covers people who need to move because of work, increase in family size or a family death. Even then, it only guarantees 85% of the property value. Professional property surveyors have already identified losses of 12-16% in house sales not covered by the very limited EHS scheme. That's up to £32k on a £200k home. I doubt if HS2 supporters would be happy to personally contribute that amount of money to building a railway.
Supporters of the project need to be aware of the huge costs - both in building it and running it. The building costs at today's prices - as confirmed by the DfT - are £32.5Bn, with subsidy costs likely to be £3bn a year. And just because we have wasted money in the past on other rail projects and bank bail-outs does not mean we should waste even more money.
So let’s take a long hard look at the need for High Speed Rail, get all the information out in the open (not hidden in government departments) and take time to assess all the pros and cons. If High Speed Rail stacks up as its supporters insist, then decide the best way to implement it. And that should include fair and generous compensation to those affected to avoid delays and ensure that the Midlands and Northern regions benefiting from High Speed Rail pay their fair share in compensation.
Rail travel is certainly "green" but High Speed Rail isn't and HS2 have accepted that there will be at best a neutral" green" impact. The business case has been dissected by Imperial College who have found the benefits to the economy as minimal or negative - as has the CBI.
There may well be a good case for HS2 but what is particularly worrying is the rush to impose a route and start construction. It is clear there are major disagreements on whether it is the best way forward for rail transport. If it is the "100 years infrastructure" that its supporters say it is why not release all the research data (which the DfT and HS2 Ltd refuse to do) and spend a bit longer to get the decision right?
We all know what happened with the projected traffic forecasts for HS1 which used the same methodology as HS2 - a commercial and economic disaster which has cost the taxpayer billions in construction costs and subsidies and runs with trains 2/3 empty. It was recently sold at a knock-down price - more wasted taxpayer’s money.
If HS2 has such economic benefits then why do its supporters denigrate people living near the line & protecting their communities and assets? Why do they always seem to write innuendo about people they allegedly know who "have received/want compensation even though they are not adversely affected". If they genuinely believed in the economic benefits of HS2 they would surely agree that generous compensation for ANYONE affected - even in a small way - is fair and equitable. (This appears to be government thinking and it is likely that government funding to Midland and Northern regions will be cut to offset the benefits of HS2 - the money going in compensation to people affected by the project, an approach similar to France).
Why should people living along the line subsidise the North?
And no-one is "holding the North" to ransom". The current EHS "compensation" scheme only covers people who need to move because of work, increase in family size or a family death. Even then, it only guarantees 85% of the property value. Professional property surveyors have already identified losses of 12-16% in house sales not covered by the very limited EHS scheme. That's up to £32k on a £200k home. I doubt if HS2 supporters would be happy to personally contribute that amount of money to building a railway.
Supporters of the project need to be aware of the huge costs - both in building it and running it. The building costs at today's prices - as confirmed by the DfT - are £32.5Bn, with subsidy costs likely to be £3bn a year. And just because we have wasted money in the past on other rail projects and bank bail-outs does not mean we should waste even more money.
So let’s take a long hard look at the need for High Speed Rail, get all the information out in the open (not hidden in government departments) and take time to assess all the pros and cons. If High Speed Rail stacks up as its supporters insist, then decide the best way to implement it. And that should include fair and generous compensation to those affected to avoid delays and ensure that the Midlands and Northern regions benefiting from High Speed Rail pay their fair share in compensation.
cheshire_guyAt 18:48 on 12th October 2010, cheshire_guy commented:
I do not wish to "denigrate people living near the line" I also believe that they are fully entitled to compensated for any subsequent loss of value to their homes. There does seem to be a lot of scaremongering going on though, with opponents quoting that residents will have to put up 96db train noise all day, I think you would have to be standing right next to the track to get that sort of sound level. This doesn't take into account any mitigation that will be done to reduce the impact of the line for residents.
Also, I'm sorry to keep saying this, but we do live in a small country any large project will always have detrimental effects on people but we all can't decided that progress is good as long as it's not in my back yard.
If the HS2 project is such a good idea then why is it being backed by 3 political parties including the last government who in fact commissioned the last lot of studies.
It is important for people to know that the £33bn quoted is for the entire project from London to Manchester and Leeds including rolling stock. The price for construction for London to Birmingham is more likely to be around the £13bn to £17bn mark.
It's not as if the government will be spending £33bn next week, it will be spread over a 15 year period with a peak of £4bn per year in 2020 and 2021 during the peak of construction.
Constructing any large scale transportation network costs money. All projections show it would cost a similar amount to upgrade the WCML again but this wouldn't bring the 3 fold increase in available capacity that HS2 would.
Quite a few opponents have said that by upgrading section of the WCML mainly around Milton Keynes and the lengthening the current rail fleet it would be possible to achieve an increase of 51% to the current capacity. But as stated before Network Rail are predicting at least a 100% growth in demand by 2010.
Let me just add, so I don't seem to Northern centric. The HS2 scheme will also vastly increase the capacity for the southern commuter route allowing for more reliable and quicker services to operate on the Southern end of the WCML for passenger travelling from the Northern side of the London belt.
Also, I'm sorry to keep saying this, but we do live in a small country any large project will always have detrimental effects on people but we all can't decided that progress is good as long as it's not in my back yard.
If the HS2 project is such a good idea then why is it being backed by 3 political parties including the last government who in fact commissioned the last lot of studies.
It is important for people to know that the £33bn quoted is for the entire project from London to Manchester and Leeds including rolling stock. The price for construction for London to Birmingham is more likely to be around the £13bn to £17bn mark.
It's not as if the government will be spending £33bn next week, it will be spread over a 15 year period with a peak of £4bn per year in 2020 and 2021 during the peak of construction.
Constructing any large scale transportation network costs money. All projections show it would cost a similar amount to upgrade the WCML again but this wouldn't bring the 3 fold increase in available capacity that HS2 would.
Quite a few opponents have said that by upgrading section of the WCML mainly around Milton Keynes and the lengthening the current rail fleet it would be possible to achieve an increase of 51% to the current capacity. But as stated before Network Rail are predicting at least a 100% growth in demand by 2010.
Let me just add, so I don't seem to Northern centric. The HS2 scheme will also vastly increase the capacity for the southern commuter route allowing for more reliable and quicker services to operate on the Southern end of the WCML for passenger travelling from the Northern side of the London belt.
RealistAt 19:29 on 12th October 2010, Realist commented:
There is no scaremongering on noise. Current HS trains generate 105 dB(a) noise at 25m @ 300kph. HS2 will be running at 360kph and it is estimated noise levels will be 112 dB(a) at 25m. (source: Deutsch Bahn & Siemens). With 36 trains per hour that means anyone living within 150-200m will experience >96 dB(a) more than once every minute. And has much of noise comes from the pantographs, it is very difficult to mitigate without huge costs - as Hs2's senior engineer has indicated.
Then there's the impact of noise on health. Studies by Bern University and the Danish Environmental Agency identified increases in heart disease and psychological illnesses from exposure to noise of greater than 66 dB(a). That is anyone living within 1 mile (1.6km) of the HS2 line - whether in the North or the South.
The Denmark study identified 200 - 500 premature deaths from noise-induced heart disease. Denmark has a population less than 1/10 of the UK with half the population density. We live, as HS2 supporters keep telling us, in a small island - so the adverse health effects will be potentially far greater. Hs2 Ltd have refused to discuss or release data on the health impact and costs of the noise from HS2, claiming "Commercial Confidentiality". One can only ask why.
It may well be that they - like the proponents of HS2 who avoid debate and call people opposed to the scheme anti-progress or more concerned about their back-yards - know the case for High Speed Rail may be seriously flawed and not withstand scrutiny.
Then there's the impact of noise on health. Studies by Bern University and the Danish Environmental Agency identified increases in heart disease and psychological illnesses from exposure to noise of greater than 66 dB(a). That is anyone living within 1 mile (1.6km) of the HS2 line - whether in the North or the South.
The Denmark study identified 200 - 500 premature deaths from noise-induced heart disease. Denmark has a population less than 1/10 of the UK with half the population density. We live, as HS2 supporters keep telling us, in a small island - so the adverse health effects will be potentially far greater. Hs2 Ltd have refused to discuss or release data on the health impact and costs of the noise from HS2, claiming "Commercial Confidentiality". One can only ask why.
It may well be that they - like the proponents of HS2 who avoid debate and call people opposed to the scheme anti-progress or more concerned about their back-yards - know the case for High Speed Rail may be seriously flawed and not withstand scrutiny.
cheshire_guyAt 18:23 on 18th October 2010, cheshire_guy commented:
I've expanded on what I have written here. Go to www.yestohs2.co.uk and check out my article The case for High Speed 2 (HS2) answering the critics.
This project needs the backing from the people of the north. I can not emphasise enough how important it is for the future development of the north and the economy of the UK as a whole.
Pete-BAt 17:43 on 27th October 2010, Pete-B commented:
I live next to the west coast mainline which they have upgraded last year to speed up the Virgin Pendalino's - I am in the process of sorting out some form of noise barrier with Network Rail or the slowing of the trains by one third - I have done a noise study at my back door the trains hit 90db which is the limit the world health organisation say damages your hearing - to put this into perspective if you are standing in my garden talking to someone and a train goes by you cannot hear the person you are talking to and you are left with ringing in your ears - is this acceptable - no just to get to some town 5 minutes earlier? no - what is wrong with people that want to rush around at crazy speed? - if i wanted to go north say Glasgow I would fly its cheaper.
I bought my house knowing the trains were there fair enough but to increase the speed without doing a proper noise map and study is just criminal - 112db will rip your eardrums to bits I can't cope with 90db - - madness shear madness to think that residents can put up with this level of noise just to shave a few minutes off a trip oop north.
I bought my house knowing the trains were there fair enough but to increase the speed without doing a proper noise map and study is just criminal - 112db will rip your eardrums to bits I can't cope with 90db - - madness shear madness to think that residents can put up with this level of noise just to shave a few minutes off a trip oop north.
Pete-BAt 18:02 on 27th October 2010, Pete-B commented:
WARNING: From 6 April 2006 (6 April 2008 in the case of music and entertainment) the action levels were reduced - the lower exposure action values is now 80 dB and the upper action values is 85 dB. There is also an exposure limit value of 87 dB, above which no worker can be exposed (taking hearing protection into account).
Why do railways think they can damage your hearing?
Why do railways think they can damage your hearing?
cheshire_guyAt 18:38 on 27th October 2010, cheshire_guy commented:
First of all I very much doubt there will be houses along the route that will literally have the railway in their back garden. Also I'm sure the designers will do all they can to mitigate any effects of noise by using cuttings and sound barriers.
A lot of motorways that pass by houses are now having new sound barrier systems installed. The noise study will be published before the public consultation so it impossible to speculate what levels of noise residents may have to deal with before then.
Pete-B, so you're fine with plains passing over people's houses then? And causing immense noise pollution for the residents that live near airports. If we do not invest in rail more people will have to fly causing more noise pollution for tens of thousands of people, many more than will be effected by the proposed rail route. Also you failed to take into account the price of fuel over the next 15 years, flying won't be cheap for much longer, where as it will become more eco friendly and hopefully cheaper to produce electricity.
A lot of motorways that pass by houses are now having new sound barrier systems installed. The noise study will be published before the public consultation so it impossible to speculate what levels of noise residents may have to deal with before then.
Pete-B, so you're fine with plains passing over people's houses then? And causing immense noise pollution for the residents that live near airports. If we do not invest in rail more people will have to fly causing more noise pollution for tens of thousands of people, many more than will be effected by the proposed rail route. Also you failed to take into account the price of fuel over the next 15 years, flying won't be cheap for much longer, where as it will become more eco friendly and hopefully cheaper to produce electricity.
cheshire_guyAt 18:41 on 27th October 2010, cheshire_guy commented:
And one more point. It's not just about speed, it's about releasing capacity from the WCML. It just so happens that you gain more in economic benefits by building a fast line than you would save by building a traditional speed line.
Read the recently published YesToHS2 article to find out more.
http://caseforhs2.yestohs2.co.uk/
Read the recently published YesToHS2 article to find out more.
http://caseforhs2.yestohs2.co.uk/
Pete-BAt 19:12 on 27th October 2010, Pete-B commented:
Actually I am not in favour of either HS2 or planes both are using too much resources - What is wrong with working close to your work instaed of commuting?
And yes we do have railway lines in our back garden to be precise the west coast mainline is 40ft from my house and trains are doing 125mph.
No one has the right to damage anyones hearing just because you want to get there faster - slow down look at the scenery you never know you might discover something nice along the way and not damage our hearing
And yes we do have railway lines in our back garden to be precise the west coast mainline is 40ft from my house and trains are doing 125mph.
No one has the right to damage anyones hearing just because you want to get there faster - slow down look at the scenery you never know you might discover something nice along the way and not damage our hearing
Pete-BAt 19:16 on 27th October 2010, Pete-B commented:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/noise/demonstration.htm
Like it? you can have it! personally I like my hearing intact and will defend it - the railways have no right to damage our hearing and when they increase noise without protecting us then they are just plainly wrong
Like it? you can have it! personally I like my hearing intact and will defend it - the railways have no right to damage our hearing and when they increase noise without protecting us then they are just plainly wrong
RealistAt 20:34 on 27th October 2010, Realist commented:
On noise lets use facts not statements like: "I very much doubt" and "I'm sure the designers will do all they can to mitigate any effects of noise"
HS2 have publicly stated, on record, that the noise from HS2 that "the noise will be what the noise will be" (Andrew McNaughton - HS2 Chief Engineer in July 2010). And HS2 have stated that mitigation "will reduce noise level by between 2-5 dB" That is barely perceptible to the human ear. (Temple Associates - Environmental Consultants to HS2, on 14 October 2010). These comments were recorded and verified. HS2 have refused, so far, to give details of noise maps and have confirmed they will not discuss likely effectiveness of noise mitigation during the consultation. (14 October 2010)
If you are going to argue for HS2 but please do so stating facts and not surmises.
HS2 have publicly stated, on record, that the noise from HS2 that "the noise will be what the noise will be" (Andrew McNaughton - HS2 Chief Engineer in July 2010). And HS2 have stated that mitigation "will reduce noise level by between 2-5 dB" That is barely perceptible to the human ear. (Temple Associates - Environmental Consultants to HS2, on 14 October 2010). These comments were recorded and verified. HS2 have refused, so far, to give details of noise maps and have confirmed they will not discuss likely effectiveness of noise mitigation during the consultation. (14 October 2010)
If you are going to argue for HS2 but please do so stating facts and not surmises.
RealistAt 20:38 on 27th October 2010, Realist commented:
On the WCML route capacity issue, that is based on an increase in rail traffic of 200% in the next 20 years. The methodology used by HS2 is the same for HS1 - and HS1 is running at 1/3 of expected capacity. Chris Stokes - former Head of the Strategic Rail Authority - has analysed the available data and dismissed HS2's figures as totally unrealistic. To date HS2 have refused to release the baseline dataset their predictions were based on.
There are alternative proposals available which will increase capacity on the WCML to meet any foreseeable traffic increase (Rail Package 2)
There are alternative proposals available which will increase capacity on the WCML to meet any foreseeable traffic increase (Rail Package 2)
cheshire_guyAt 01:10 on 28th October 2010, cheshire_guy commented:
I know all about rail package 2, 3, 4 and 5. Networks own predictions are for a more modest 100% increase in rail usage by 2033. Rail package 2 would add up to 60% leaving a 40% shortfall. If this happened rail package 3 would have to be considered bringing the total bill for what is basically a patch up job to over £10bn.
The more you tinker with existing infrastructure the less efficient it becomes. There is theoretical limit to the capacity which the WCML could ever operate at.
The more you tinker with existing infrastructure the less efficient it becomes. There is theoretical limit to the capacity which the WCML could ever operate at.
cheshire_guyAt 01:18 on 28th October 2010, cheshire_guy commented:
No ifs buts or maybes. HS2 have considered noise from the start and are planning extensive mitigation methods where possible.
Less than 50 homes in total will experience close to unacceptable noise levels.
From HS2
Noise has been considered from the outset
Noise is and remains a priority for mitigation
Noise studies form part of the Appraisal of Sustainability
Less than 50 homes in total will experience close to unacceptable noise levels.
From HS2
Noise has been considered from the outset
Noise is and remains a priority for mitigation
Noise studies form part of the Appraisal of Sustainability
Pete-BAt 10:36 on 28th October 2010, Pete-B commented:
Cheshire Guy
The WCML was upgraded for 125mph trains through my town - no thoughts given to the residents of my town - running 4oft from my house - whole streets affected - you quote 50 homes affected for HS2 there are more than 50 affected in my street alone - please be assured 90db is far too much to live with - I know I am living with it - if they want to build high speed trains then they need to make sure it is not noisy or at a minimum of half mile away from houses - if this is impossible then don't build it.
Are you the kind of guy that thinks sweat shops are acceptable - in other words human life has less worth than getting somewhere faster or the abilty for you to buy a T shirt cheaper - no? then why do you support an over expensive railway line that will be a money pit?
As for the WCML and capacity - maybe true as far as Watford junction from Euston but rest assured from someone who can see straight into these trains the Pendalino's are virtually empty - The Midland Mainline are full - why? the Pendalino's are too expensive - they are also the ones causing the noise - take them off the track fill the tracks with cheaper Midland Mainline rolling stock sell them cheap and sip some tea while you spend an extra few minutes getting to london or oop north - whats the issue eh?
Speed does not equate good! - - if we banned commuting and every one worked within 15 minutes of there place of work then extra capacity would not be needed and lots of c02 could be saved.
The WCML was upgraded for 125mph trains through my town - no thoughts given to the residents of my town - running 4oft from my house - whole streets affected - you quote 50 homes affected for HS2 there are more than 50 affected in my street alone - please be assured 90db is far too much to live with - I know I am living with it - if they want to build high speed trains then they need to make sure it is not noisy or at a minimum of half mile away from houses - if this is impossible then don't build it.
Are you the kind of guy that thinks sweat shops are acceptable - in other words human life has less worth than getting somewhere faster or the abilty for you to buy a T shirt cheaper - no? then why do you support an over expensive railway line that will be a money pit?
As for the WCML and capacity - maybe true as far as Watford junction from Euston but rest assured from someone who can see straight into these trains the Pendalino's are virtually empty - The Midland Mainline are full - why? the Pendalino's are too expensive - they are also the ones causing the noise - take them off the track fill the tracks with cheaper Midland Mainline rolling stock sell them cheap and sip some tea while you spend an extra few minutes getting to london or oop north - whats the issue eh?
Speed does not equate good! - - if we banned commuting and every one worked within 15 minutes of there place of work then extra capacity would not be needed and lots of c02 could be saved.
Pete-BAt 11:18 on 28th October 2010, Pete-B commented:
What I am trying to say is this
The HS2 Will be like Concord - ok if you can afford to use it - but in reality a big white elephant - because every one who is sensible will still use the WCML on the slower Midland Mainline trains - why do i think this? because it is true with the current Pendalino's no-one in their right mind goes on them because they are too expensive - the rail network does need overalling but not towards speed - if capacity is required then a slow line needs putting in not this white elephant.
Pile the seats high sell them cheap - take some traffic off the road - not have a route for the select few who can afford Concord style prices - this is what railways are all about.
London from my home town = £15 on Midland Virgin = £45 - I can go in my car and park in central London for the day for less than £30 with 4 occupants - - the real price for London needs to be about a fiver to get the traffic off the road - how will the HS2 do this? it wont - just using London as an example - repeat for all northern towns - this is why we don't come up north - price not speed
The HS2 Will be like Concord - ok if you can afford to use it - but in reality a big white elephant - because every one who is sensible will still use the WCML on the slower Midland Mainline trains - why do i think this? because it is true with the current Pendalino's no-one in their right mind goes on them because they are too expensive - the rail network does need overalling but not towards speed - if capacity is required then a slow line needs putting in not this white elephant.
Pile the seats high sell them cheap - take some traffic off the road - not have a route for the select few who can afford Concord style prices - this is what railways are all about.
London from my home town = £15 on Midland Virgin = £45 - I can go in my car and park in central London for the day for less than £30 with 4 occupants - - the real price for London needs to be about a fiver to get the traffic off the road - how will the HS2 do this? it wont - just using London as an example - repeat for all northern towns - this is why we don't come up north - price not speed
cheshire_guyAt 12:34 on 28th October 2010, cheshire_guy commented:
You can't blame the price of ticked on rolling stock. It's the rail operators who set the prices. The pendolino fleet is a lot more efficient than the old diesel 125 stock and therefore are cheaper to run.
A lot of the problems with price comes from crowding at peak times. It comes down to simple supply and demand. If however you pre book a ticked a month in advance off peak then you will find the tickets can be over 50% cheaper. Tourists and people going to visit family usually have the luxury of being able to pre book tickets. Business men and woman however will always pay to travel no matter how much it costs on the day.
I'm not so sure about fast the trains being more expensive. I looked for a ticked from Liverpool to Paris return and it came in at under £100, where as a ticked booked from Liverpool to London on the day can be as much as £170.
It is the rail operators that need sorting out. I would agree that a pricing structure will have to be agreed. But you can't make sweeping statements that prices are set by the rolling stock used. If you search for greengauge21 you will find a very interesting article about high speed rail fairs and comes to the conclusion they can be set at the same prices as today's standard fairs.
Pete-BAt 15:54 on 28th October 2010, Pete-B commented:
Why can't i make the statement that the pendalino's are more expensive than the midland mainline? - this is not a rash statement it is from me travelling on the trains - i do use them you know and always book in advance to get the cheapest tickets - these advance tickets are dearer than using the car - not exactly enviromentally friendly is it to force passengers into cars because the tickets are too expensive - for example London Saturday two weeks time from my home town 51 minutes away - Midland £17.50 Virgin £33.80 for 1 person - I can do this in my car 4 occupants less than £30 including parking - its wrong so wrong on many aspects - the HS2 will not be cheaper than Virgin they will have to claw back the 33 billion from somewhere - Concord prices elite few thats all it will be - - I still say a slow track with midland mainline type rolling stock is the way to go - pile it high sell it cheap any shop keeper will tell you this is the way to profit - get your customers to use it not force them onto the roads, make it attractive to use.
Oh and for the actual issue - noise the midland mainline rolling stock go by my house at 68db that is 22db less than Virgins pendalino's -
Oh and for the actual issue - noise the midland mainline rolling stock go by my house at 68db that is 22db less than Virgins pendalino's -
You need to log in before you can do that! It's only a quick registration process to join the AMA network and completely free.
Help