Interesting to see the delay of the Mark Wild reset plan to end of year and that his top workstream is speed reductions. Let’s keep up the noise to ensure he’s looking at this.
Also big benefits for Brum here in terms of faster more frequent connections north.
Isn't the easiest solution to make passengers change at Birmingham to go North? Now obviously this would be annoying but I can't see another solution that would cost less than £10+ billion.
Very interesting and well written piece James. I’m afraid though, unlike you I am not an rail enthusiast.
Currently in the UK, rail demands 63% (that's “normal” rail + HS2) of the Transport budget every year. Yet rail only carries 8% of the total passenger count. Which in my humble opinion indicates the transport budget and it's priorities are seriously out of kilter. Especially as most of that 8% is London centric.
When (if) HS2 is finished it will never break even let alone turn a profit and so remain a never ending liability. Moreover that 8% will stay more or less the same. Meanwhile the strategic highway network crumbles.
Except only 74% of the population can drive and a smaller percentage are prepared to drive long distances.
Only 77% of households own a car and in order to do so must invest £10k and spend several thousands on maintenance.
On average over 15,000 people travel in each direction. With typical occupancy do we want 20,000 additional car journeys into both Manchester and London each day?
The Elizabeth Line has shown that given a reliable frequent service people will use it. A similar service London to Manchester will relieve all other similar rail routes. It will take traffic off the M1, M6 and M40.
Yet all of this is a side benefit because as stated in the article the actual purpose of HS2 is to enable more rail freight and enhanced local services, relieving the pressure off just about every main road in the South of the UK.
Thanks for the reply and the reasoning. I won’t go on here otherwise we’ll just end up playing comment ping-pong. But I will address your issues sometime soon in a post about Rail (and HS2 in particular). I’d be interested to get your comments when I get round to publishing it.
I appreciate that some rail (but not all) is worth the subsidy. But I am far from being convinced that the debacle of HS2 can ever be truly justified.
Chris Gibb (see his Green Signals interview) suggests 2042 as a time point for his plan. That is over 15 years away! Instead, accommodate 400m trains (as per the original plan) at Manchester, and extend HS2 to Crewe (as per the original plan). This can easily be done by the mid-2030s, and would not only solve the 200/400m train issue, but help Curzon St. become a genuine West Midlands hub. With HS2 to Crewe, trains from Birmingham (Curzon St.) to Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland would be 30 minutes faster than today! Handsacre? Forget it, it was just a sop to Stoke and Macclesfield which HS2 will bypass.
Interesting to see the delay of the Mark Wild reset plan to end of year and that his top workstream is speed reductions. Let’s keep up the noise to ensure he’s looking at this.
Also big benefits for Brum here in terms of faster more frequent connections north.
https://www.greensignals.org/podcast/sacked-from-dft-operator-the-exclusive-full-interview-with-chris-gibb/
In Chris Gibbs own words…
Isn't the easiest solution to make passengers change at Birmingham to go North? Now obviously this would be annoying but I can't see another solution that would cost less than £10+ billion.
Very interesting and well written piece James. I’m afraid though, unlike you I am not an rail enthusiast.
Currently in the UK, rail demands 63% (that's “normal” rail + HS2) of the Transport budget every year. Yet rail only carries 8% of the total passenger count. Which in my humble opinion indicates the transport budget and it's priorities are seriously out of kilter. Especially as most of that 8% is London centric.
When (if) HS2 is finished it will never break even let alone turn a profit and so remain a never ending liability. Moreover that 8% will stay more or less the same. Meanwhile the strategic highway network crumbles.
IMHO a scandalous waste of £80 Billion.
Except only 74% of the population can drive and a smaller percentage are prepared to drive long distances.
Only 77% of households own a car and in order to do so must invest £10k and spend several thousands on maintenance.
On average over 15,000 people travel in each direction. With typical occupancy do we want 20,000 additional car journeys into both Manchester and London each day?
The Elizabeth Line has shown that given a reliable frequent service people will use it. A similar service London to Manchester will relieve all other similar rail routes. It will take traffic off the M1, M6 and M40.
Yet all of this is a side benefit because as stated in the article the actual purpose of HS2 is to enable more rail freight and enhanced local services, relieving the pressure off just about every main road in the South of the UK.
Thanks for the reply and the reasoning. I won’t go on here otherwise we’ll just end up playing comment ping-pong. But I will address your issues sometime soon in a post about Rail (and HS2 in particular). I’d be interested to get your comments when I get round to publishing it.
I appreciate that some rail (but not all) is worth the subsidy. But I am far from being convinced that the debacle of HS2 can ever be truly justified.
I was struck by a recent analysis of the principles of the Swiss public transport system.
It said that the Swiss don’t really put huge effort into cost/benefit analysis or angsting about subsidy.
Their reasoning is simple. The Swiss economy is entirely built upon the foundation of excellent public transport.
They build massive new rail infrastructure without financial disaster.
It’s not the railway that’s the problem. It’s the way we run our country that makes everything so expensive. As James keeps telling us.
Chris Gibb (see his Green Signals interview) suggests 2042 as a time point for his plan. That is over 15 years away! Instead, accommodate 400m trains (as per the original plan) at Manchester, and extend HS2 to Crewe (as per the original plan). This can easily be done by the mid-2030s, and would not only solve the 200/400m train issue, but help Curzon St. become a genuine West Midlands hub. With HS2 to Crewe, trains from Birmingham (Curzon St.) to Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland would be 30 minutes faster than today! Handsacre? Forget it, it was just a sop to Stoke and Macclesfield which HS2 will bypass.