53 Comments

• Roland 10th Aug '13 - 10:42pm

  Just shows that 55% of Libdems can be fooled into believing foolish belief’s – remember the advisor (Peter Mandelson) to the tailor and emperor has told us the emperor really isn’t wearing any clothes: HS2 was just a gimmick dreamt up be New Labour to make it look modern and forward looking…

• John Innes 11th Aug '13 - 8:53am

  This is just the wrong investment. The economic case is extremely weak. There is so much to be done in de-bottle-knecking the existing railway system, flood protection (given rising sea levels), constructing affordable housing where needed, ensuring WIFI coverage throughout the rail system (travel time is not then a cost, but an opportunity to work or relax). In short, HS2 is too costly, doubtful (at best) economic benefits, negative environmental consequences, but above all the opportunity cost in terms of reduced investments ceteris paribus) in other areas id just too high. Our party leadership must be bereft of real ideas and have jumped on a train that will only lead to a high speed derailment.

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 9:44am

  HS2 is mainly about adding CAPACITY to all 3 main north-south lines connecting our top 10 cities.
  (Passenger numbers have risen 5% /yr for the past 20yrs and look set to carry on rising to fill existing capacity by the 2020s. Car fuel prices and our population are not going to drop).

  Without HS2 , demand for seats will outstrip supply – forcing seat prices UP.
  No HS2 = No seats (at any sensible price). And you cannot “work on a train” if you have no seat.

  HS2 adds 2 extra tracks alongside the routes of the WCML to Manchester the N.W. and Scotland, the Midland Mainline to Nottingham/Derby and Sheffield and the ECML to Leeds and York with trains running on to Newcastle.

  It also HALVES journey times – eg ONE HOUR each way (ie 2 hours off a return journey) from London to Manchester or Leeds. It also HALVES journey times from Birmingham to Nottingham, Sheffield or Leeds or between Sheffield an Leeds (and onwards to York or Newcastle too).

  Imagine how much more expensive, disruptive or environmentally damaging to property the alternative of “upgrading existing lines” – ie adding extra tracks alongside all 3 old lines as they wiggle through every town en-route. These long distance trains never stop at those towns – so it is FAR MORE SENSIBLE to bypass them with a new route.

  HS2 will enable more slow trains on the old lines – by moving long distance trains to the own NEW LINE.

  Having decided to build a new line, making it a fast line costs very little more. You just make that same new line straighter.

  Faster trains attract so many extra passengers (from air or road) that the energy per passenger is reduced (longer trains can carry twice as many people and the load factor is also higher) – to thus also PAY BACK THE COSTS of the new line sooner (eg Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyon paid back costs within 30yrs).

  If you can reach Preston at 200mph average, you only need average 125mph the rest of the way to either Glasgow or Edinburgh (via Carstairs) to thus NOT NEED a new line the rest of the way to Scotland. We could thus win most of the 10m /yr Scottish air market with a 3 hr journey time without needing a new line all the way (although we’d still need upgrades to remove Kendal & Penrith wiggles)

  So HS2 adds so much CAPACITY, speed and new CONNECTIVITY it is money well spent.

  And whilst HS2 costs (inflated by contingency money that may never be spent) are spread over 15 yrs, we actually plan to spend £37 billion (almost the same) on upgrading EXISTING lines in just the 5yrs of 2014-19.

  We DO plan to do BOTH – and HS2 is itself a big relief to – and thus upgrade of – our existing network.

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 10:00am

  Incidentally I AM a party member (I created EARS and was given an MBE by Paddy for my work).
  I would have voted in favour of HS2 in the poll had I heard of it.

  So Its a but of a failure of Lib Dem voice to not publicise its poll properly to party members.

• Sesenco 11th Aug '13 - 10:32am

  In the not so dim and distant past, when the Liberal Democrats were an independent campaigning movement of the centre-left, we had a well-earned reputation for our determination to protect the environment. I can recall Paddy Ashdown railing against the rape of the countryside by industrialised agriculture, and Robin Day sneering at a Liberal Assembly for debating an emergency motion about straw burning.

  Now that we’re propping up a Tory government, and our ideology is being realigned to that of the libertarian right, we are rapidly becoming the least environmentally friendly of the main political parties. First we support the Tory National Planning Policy Framework in the erroneous belief that relaxing planning controls will kick-start the economy (it will actually lead to a gerry-building boom with estates of Noddy houses in the countryside and latter-day Harry Hyamses throwing up useless office buildings for a quick profit). Then we offer a “cautious” approach to fracking, apparently ignoring the very real problems that this has caused in North America. And we’re also promoting a hugely expensive and environmentally destructive railway with no proven business case. Has it occurred to party members that the real reason for building HS2 is to gift public money to the Tory Party’s rich friends in the construction industry?

  I’m reasonably confident that HS2 will be scuppered, for the same reason that Peter Mandelson turned against it, unless the route is switched to avoid certain parts of Aylesbury Vale. But even if this happens, we’ll still be remembered for our support for the scheme, while Tory doubters and nimbyists will add to the impression that the Tories never really favoured it in the first place. “We’re the listening Party, and we listened. Those Liberals never listened to anybody” (except the libertarian right).

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 10:35am

  To answer John Innes points about the economic case.

  I agree with Vince (and the NAO) that “the economic case has yet to be made” – ie it needs to be explained better.
  As Norman Baker has said, it’s difficult for people to predict what will happen by 20:30 this evening let along the year 2030. We’d have never built the M1 or M25 without some guesswork – and too much of the Dft guesswork is still based on road schemes rather than rail.

  But our railways are full. More passengers than since the 1920s on a network since halved in size by Beeching.
  Doing nothing is not an option. Our economy would stifle if we fail to enable people to travel.

  Average car mileage actually FELL in the past 10 yrs, petrol purchases dropped 23% in the past 5yrs (source RAC), and the age profile of drivers rose (younger people are not buying cars as much) and air usage FELL through the recession (making extra runways rather less urgent)

  Meanwhile rail usage KEPT RISING through the recession (rising 9% for example in 2011).

  Alternative methods of adding this capacity would cost more or provide insufficient extra capacity.
  Lots of studies, select committees and court cases have all now found this to be true.
  Common sense says that adding 2 extra tracks alongside existing lines through every town would cost more homes and disrupt more people.

  But on the economic case, HS2 has a good chance of paying back its costs (just like other high speed lines between top pairs of cities around the world either have done (Tokyo-Osaka, Paris-Lyon) or are well on their way to doing.

  1) Rental Fees:
  This line will last over 120 years.
  HS1 is being RENTED OUT every 30yrs. The first fee covered over a THIRD of its construction cost.
  The second fee (in about 25yrs) will be higher – to probably then cover the REST of its construction cost.
  Every further rental will thus bring in pure profit – to the government that still owns the freehold.

  HS2 will have about 3 times the passenger market than HS1 – to thus command bigger rental fees.

  2) Franchise Fees – Operators like Thameslink now actually pay MORE in franchise fees than they get in subsidy. They thus earn a PROFIT for the government (in addition to their own profit). Virgin premium payments (ie no subsidy there) are gradually paying back the costs of the WCML upgrade. We may criticise rail fare rises but they ARE enabling rail to fund itself without subsidy.

  3) Extra Tax revenue. HS2 will create jobs over its long life. Any transport infrastructure does. We may debate many jobs this investment could create if made elsewhere, but we DO need this extra rail capacity.

  If HS2 created 100,000 extra jobs (which it would according to HS2 Ltd), each earning £10,000 income tax + VAT that would earn £100 BILLION extra tax over 100 yrs of HS2.

  4) Extra Air Passenger Duty. Eurostar diverts 10 million passengers /yr from airports like Heathrow – enabling them to replace short haul flights with more lucrative long haul. (Heathrow is running at near 100% capacity so that is a fair argument). The average difference between short haul and long haul APD is £100 (2013 rates) – so the outbound half of that 10 million earns the taxman £500 million extra tax each year.

  HS1 / Eurostar thus earns the taxman HALF A BILLION extra tax each year by freeing Heathrow to take more long haul flights. That’s not more flights. Its just different (more lucrative) flights.

  HS2 connected to HS1 by the Heathrow spur could free Heathrow of yet more connecting flights (the rest of the 2 million people changing planes for Paris/Brussels rather than travelling to St Pancras and Eurostar and D Bahn will soon run direct trains to Amsterdam, Germany and Switzerland).
  HS2 will carry direct trains from Manchester etc to Europe and will also take most of the Scottish air market.
  The Dft could make a lot more of that air market potential that EVERY OTHER HIGH SPEED LINE has taken.

  5) Property development and new businesses near station, The capital gains tax and business rates potential is huge. HS1 has prompted big developments near Ashford, Ebbsfleet, Stratford and Kings Cross. HS2 could do the same.

  So there is plenty of potential for the government to earn its money back from HS2.
  And our economy would be seriously harmed without this vital extra rail CAPACITY.
  HALVED journey times + extra connectivity (Europe and between Birmingham, Leeds and the N.E.) is pretty good too.

• John Carlisle 11th Aug '13 - 10:58am

  There is no business case for HS2. There is a business case for more and better trains, better signalling and control. More speed is not a big issue. I regularly meet my Government Construction Strategy colleagues in London who travel from Birmingham, Manchester and Northampton and they all say that their time on the train is most valuable as they can sit in quiet and get through work without interruption. They are all senior executives who are mainly engineers, and none has supported HS2 on a time saving criterion.
  And can someone explain this link with performance of the economy (John Jefkins: “And our economy would be seriously harmed without this vital extra rail CAPACITY”.) Indian has a massive lack of transportation infrastucture; but look how their economy has grown.
  If we build more rolling stock it is jobs now and the same goes for signalling. More trains on the lines with more passenger capacity should be investigated more thoroughly. And, remember, some of the Japanese Bullet trains run at 4′ minute intervals, so safety of more trains on the line is not an obstacle.
  It is time we thought less of celebrity projects and more of practical solutions.

• Stephen Tall 11th Aug '13 - 11:00am

  @ John Jefkins – “Its a but of a failure of Lib Dem voice to not publicise its poll properly to party members.”

  John – I posted twice on the site about the poll – here (https://www.libdemvoice.org/new-ldv-members-survey-now-live-your-views-on-david-ward-trident-allwomenshortlists-and-the-coalition-35392.html) and here (https://www.libdemvoice.org/july-lib-dem-members-survey-35433.html). In addition, every Forum member was emailed about the survey, and those who didn’t respond within 3 days emailed with a reminder. Maybe the failure isn’t ours?

• Michael Parsons 11th Aug '13 - 11:01am

  @john Jefkins
  Isn’t it cheaper to fly to Scotland (even via Frankfurt) than meet rail charges? Why should all this money go on rich men’s play things while car users (the general public) are forced off the road by extortionate green fuel duties? We (ie the vast majority of the traveling public) need better roads – and have paid many times over for them – how about a resal sand rapid upgrading of the M6 for a start? As well as building a better and far cheaper rail system for the commuter victims in the South East instead quickly? A better direct State investement destination for QE than the banks are.

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 11:26am

  @Stephen Not all members look at your site !
  Google search for high speed rail now shows this discussion but never showed the opportunity to vote in the poll.
  I have submitted papers to every MP, done research on this subject for years. You never contacted me.
  Try talking to Norman. He’d have told you.

  @Michael Parsons – without this CAPACITY our existing rail will become a rich man’s toy. Price is a factor of supply and demand. If we fail to satisfy demand growth (more likely to carry on at 5% rather than the Dft prediction of only 2%), then the cheap seats (that DO EXIST NOW) to Manchester or Scotland will soon go.

  Do compare like with like. You would not buy your plane seat on the day. Advance rail tickets are not expensive.

  Eurostar is not a “rich man’s toy”. It has taken 85% of the London-Paris air market – so it’s prices cannot be bad.
  A 3 hr journey time to either Glasgow or Edinburgh could take 70% of each London air market (plus 100% of Midland ones too) – according to the reliable S curve that now exists from market shares taken by 16,000 miles of new high speed lines recently built around the world. High speed rail DOES take air markets. So much so, that Air France recently announced that it wanted to run TRAINS.

  Ryan air recently lost an ASA court case where it tried to advertise its planes as “cheaper, faster and more reliable” than trains to Brussels. The judge found that “when you included the trip to the airport” it was the TRAIN that is FASTER, CHEAPER and MORE RELIABLE than the plane (on that route).

  HS2 can be a game changer if we handle it right.

  But we DO need a Heathrow spur built (if Heathrow remains open).
  Just as people changing planes from long haul don’t use planes from St Pancras, they won’t travel into London Old Oak Common either. Only an integral station will switch most of that third of Heathrow users that just use it to change to short haul planes to places either HS1 or HS2 will run trains to.

  And we DO need a THROUGH station – ie Euston Cross – built to straddle the gap between Euston and St Pancras rather than an old fashioned 11 platform terminal at Euston. About half HS2 trains could run THROUGH to Kent or Essex or Europe with the other half terminating at a St Pancras freed up by Eurostar and Javelin trains extended up HS2. Everybody else is converting old fashioned terminii to THROUGH stations (eg Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, Florence, Stuttgart and even us with Crossrail and London Bridge). Euston Cross is a better solution (and my idea).

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 11:41am

  @Michael Parsons

  Just to answer your road point too:
  As I said earlier, average road mileage has actually FALLEN over the past 10yrs.
  The M6 toll has too few users and recent M1 widening has less users than predicted.

  Meanwhile RAIL use DOUBLED over the past 15yrs and passenger growth SPIKED to 9% in 2011 when car fuel costs rose. Fuel tax has not risen recently whilst rail fares rose at inflation + 1 % – so you cannot argue that tax is doing it.
  Car users are clearly switching to rail.

  We used to have 12 times as many people driving as travelling by rail. Its now about 8 times as many.
  The problem is that it only takes a small shift in car users towards rail to make a large CAPACITY problem.
  That is what is happening now.

  Our railways have now filled up.
  I am not saying we should not maintain roads and still build the odd bypass (eg Stonehenge).
  But there is not enough car growth to justify as much capacity growth in roads. (Solutions chasing problems).
  There really IS a looming CAPACITY problem for our main railway lines.

  Hence the need of these 2 extra tracks – called HS2.

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 11:45am

  @Stephen Tail.
  If Lib Dem voice only boasts 1,500 of the 50,000 party members using it, your posting ONLY on YOUR website is NOT REPRESENTITIVE. I never has the time or inclination to join your site.

  Try announcing your polls to ALL PARTY MEMBERS next time

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 12:23pm

  @Sensico.
  A 2 track railway (the width of most 2 lane country roads) plus landscaping does not harm the environment.
  Although it takes more energy to move trains faster, the energy per passenger is about the same – as HS2 trains will have more than twice the seats (more carriages and double decker trains) than on existing lines and the speed wins extra passengers (ie a higher LOAD factor) from air or road.

  Air travel (eg London-Paris) emits TEN TIMES the CO2 as a high speed Eurostar on the same route.
  (source Paul Watkiss Ltd independent comparison) – although we STILL need to improve how we generate electricity.
  Power generation is due to improve by the time we build HS2 and we may even see thousands of solar panels alongside it (as the high speed line near Antwerp is powered).
  Car travel emits about SEVEN TIMES as much C02 as a train too.

  So apart from its main raison d’etre of solving a big rail CAPACITY PROBLEM (with any other road or air solution would be far WORSE for the environment), HS2 is pretty good for the environment.

  Just look at how California is justifying THEIR high speed rail on environmental grounds!
  ———————————————–
  This has nothing to do with “rich friends in the construction industry”. Osborne’s father in law will be well gone by the time contracts for new trains are awarded (in 2024). You really should not believe silly myths.
  ———————————————–
  And as for “being scuppered”, remember that the anti MPs could only muster 37 votes. They lost rather badly.
  HS2 has support of Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and SNP – so it matters not who forms the government.
  We still need important details (eg Euston Cross instead of a Euston terminal and a multi purpose Heathrow spur built EARLY ) sorted out, but the case for “HS1.2” (ie extending HS1 to Manchester and Leeds) is pretty clear.

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 12:43pm

  @Stephen Tall.

  What on earth does a poll about David Ward have to do with our transport infrastructure or HS2
  And you only announced it on a private website rather than on an email to all members (or even to somebody who has written papers on the subject like me).

  Isn’t that a bit like that planning permission notice in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
  You know – that one about demolishing earth posted in Alpha Centauri…..

  Next time, ask a bit wider.
  Some of us DO want to comment on HS2.

• Dave Page 11th Aug '13 - 12:55pm

  John Jefkins, LDV is not a “private website”. Anybody can read it from anywhere in the world. It’s about as far from the HHGGTG analogy as you can possibly get.

  You seem to be suggesting that LDV should have access to the email contact details of every member of the Liberal Democrat party. Since LDV is not part of the Liberal Democrat party but an independent website, this would at best be a flagrant violation of the Data Protection Act.

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 2:17pm

  @Dave Page.
  That may be true, but this is the first time this topic has appeared in Google – so the poll was pretty private to me before. A search for David Ward might have found it but not HS2 or transport etc etc.

  So I maintain it only represents a tiny subset of Lib Dem members. Only 3% of members are on LDV.

  I have now registered for LDV but still have not found how to search for the conversation on this subject.
  This blog still appears to be the best place to complain.

  And unlike newspaper blogs, (using Discus) you cannot edit spelling mistakes in your postings or reply directly to comments to thus thread connect replies to comments. Maybe I need some help – or maybe I’m just already losing interest.

  I do find this party is getting rather too good at alienating members these days.
  I have campaigned on this topic for years. It would have been nice to be invited to join in !
  How about emailing me directly?

  And I DO know the data protection act.
  (EARS actually uses a copy of member’s names to check logins to its website, but I could not share it with you).

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 2:40pm

  @John Carlisle.
  The main business case for HS2 is that our main rail lines are filling up to the extent that those colleagues of yours will soon find NO SEATS at any sensible price.

  I have explained a number of ways the cost can be repaid – from track leases every 30yrs (like HS1), fares, operator premiums, extra tax from jobs created, extra Air Passenger Duty from short haul slots freed up for long haul, property developments near stations etc. Journey time savings form no part of that. That is just DfT tosh more relevant to road scheme cost benefit calculations. But you cannot work on a train if you are having to stand – and by 2020 you will be standing rather too much as passenger numbers continue to grow.

  Some extra trains and carriages ARE being added in the next decade (whilst we await HS2), but Network Rail then cannot do anything more without adding NEW TRACKS. Trains already are going at 3 minute intervals (or at least 15 trains/hr with room to catch-up when there are problems). There is too little room on existing tracks for much more.

  The choice then is NEW TRACKS alongside the old ones (that wiggle through every town) or to spend less money on a new dedicated line. Making that new line a fast one mostly entails making the same thing straighter.

  Now we are already spending almost the same amount of money (£37 billion) on upgrading EXISTING railways in RP5 (2014-2019) and no doubt more again in the 3 following rail periods during the 15 years of HS2 construction.
  I do not see you saying that the economic case for that spending on existing railways has not been made.
  Or where is the economic case for the £30 billion to be spent on our roads – now that average car mileage is FALLING?

  HS2 can pay for itself (to then profits for the rest of its 130yr life) through track rental, fares, tax, APD, property etc. Have we yet paid for the M1 ? I see no tolls on it.
  We do have rather more accidents than rail – and thus rather more cost to the NHS.

• Stephen Tall 11th Aug '13 - 2:46pm

  @ John Jefkins – “I do find this party is getting rather too good at alienating members these days.”

  You may find the warmth of the welcome you receive is directly related to your tone – which so far in this comment thread hasn’t been especially friendly to those, like me, who volunteer time to run this site and don’t necessarily know which topics you’re personally interested in so that we can email you individually.

  I’m glad you’ve signed up for our Members’ Forum as it’s only when Lib Dem members do so that we can keep them in touch: welcome, and I hope you enjoy reading what’s written here and connecting with fellow party members.

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 2:53pm

  @Stephen, My remark about alienating members is not directed to party HQ rather than you personally.
  Your poll did not reveal itself on any google search on this topic.
  Only this discussion now does – and I STILL cannot find anything in LDV itself – so its STILL in alpha centauri …
  Can I still vote in this poll please?
  Perhaps we should declare it Zimbabwe style as illegal and using an old electoral roll 🙂

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 2:58pm

  @Stephen, My remark about alienating members is directed to party HQ rather than you personally.
  I appreciate your efforts. (please could you edit the word not out of my last comment as I am not being allowed to edit typos)

  Your poll did not reveal itself on any google search on this topic.
  Only this discussion now does – and I STILL cannot find anything in LDV itself – so its STILL in alpha centauri …
  Can I still vote in this poll please?
  Perhaps we should declare it Zimbabwe style as illegal and using an old electoral roll 🙂

• Jonathan Brown 11th Aug '13 - 3:41pm

  @John Jefkins – I’m glad you’ve showed up here and added to the debate on HS2. I’ve found your points very useful.

  But on the subject of LDV and the polling – it is a poll of Lib Dems who are signed up to this blog. That’s it.

  It is advertised as more representative of the feeling of the party than other polls, but that’s probably only because of the lack of other polls. Each poll covers a range of issues, and tracks (subject to the usual limitations) changing opinions on a range of issues over time. It is not meant to be a definitive culmination of weeks of policy discussion on one particular subject.

  This poll was the first one I took part in, so I don’t know if HS2 has come up previously or will come up again, but I think your criticisms relating to not being contacted about it are misplaced. The HS2 debate may not be appearing in google searches, but HS2 was just one subject of many covered in it. And, I suspect, not even one that ranks particularly highly in the priorities of most correspondents. (Not to say that when asked people don’t have an opinion, just that I would guess that most answering the poll are more concerned about other issues.)

  I voted in support of HS2, but I admit I did so with some concern about the weakness of the economic case that has been made so far and about the opportunity cost. Ultimately I support(ed) HS2 more out of a gut belief that this country needs major as well as smaller-scale infrastructure projects, and that if we don’t get HS2 going now, we’ll perhaps lose the opportunity for another generation. And I would far rather be able to argue in favour of something with evidence to back me up than ‘gut instinct’.

  I hope that the economic rationale of the smaller scale stuff will be so self-evident that even if it gets crowded out now (by HS2 or other funding commitments or cuts), we’ll still get it some time in the relatively near future. HS2 however strikes me as something that we should have built 30 years ago, and if we don’t do so now we might never get the chance.

• richard dickson 11th Aug '13 - 3:58pm

  No surprise but the trend is one way -against. As Exec Chair of a constituency decimated by HS2 (Kenilworth &Southam) it’s v frustrating that appeals to HQ for a change in policy get swept away as nimbyist by juniors staff. Requests for a high level visit from senior party leaders to meet constituents or for better compensation get ignored. Hardly true LibDem behaviour! The current situation is a gift to UKIP and Greens in 2015 unless we have a radical independent-minded candidate.

• Sesenco 11th Aug '13 - 9:04pm

  John Jefkins wrote:

  “You really should not believe silly myths.”

  Is it a silly myth that Lord Mandelson is a close personal friend of Jacob and Serena Rothschild, who principal residence at Eythrope Park borders the proposed route? I don’t think so. Lord Mandelson talks about this friendship in his autobiography.

• John Jefkins 11th Aug '13 - 11:45pm

  @Sensenco and Kenilworth folks.
  I agree that the Rothschild connection may be no myth, but the idea that this 2 track railway cannot be fitted in besides places like Eythrope park is.

  People need to visit KENT and see how HS1 got blended in OK.
  It certainly did not “decimate” anywhere. Neither will HS2 “decimate” Kenilworth.
  Did the 2 lane roads across Kenilworth “decimate” it?
  HS2 will be no wider and will carry rather more people in its 1,000 seat trains.

  Godington Park near Ashford is a similar property that you can spend a whole afternoon in its gardens (the Delphiniums are great in June). Then notice that HS1 passes right by on an embankment but you cannot hear any trains above the birdsong. It really is only half a mile from the house.

  Other people in Kent say that Lorry noise from nearby roads makes more noise (and a more CONSTANT noise) than HS1. HS2 trains will only be 38mph faster than HS1 – so will be little different.

  Whilst I agree that construction will be unpleasant and that people living right next to HS2 deserve proper compensation that includes removal costs etc, we really do need to keep this in proportion.
  Myths talk property values down.

  UKIP by the way wanted FOUR high speed lines in their last manifesto.
  The Greens say they’d be in favour of HS2 if it went all the way to Scotland.
  Well trains WILL run off HS2 to Scotland and its speed means we might never need a new line ALL the way – as just a few upgrades would enable either Edinburgh or Glasgow to be reached in around 3 hrs (or enough to win 70% of the air market).

• John Jefkins 12th Aug '13 - 12:02am

  @Jonathon.
  Glad to debate this here – but I do find it strange that I cannot connect replies to their comments (as I can on thousands of comments I make via the Discus software on newspaper blogs like the Independent or Telegraph).

  The poll does appears to have been about a million things – which is why it never came to my attention.
  Of course I should not really have expected to be “contacted” by volunteers who have no knowledge of my work on the subject. But my point is that any valid discussion of a subject does need to invite comments from people who have at least examined the subject. Otherwise any resulting poll has less validity.

  At conference we do not have a vote until we have witnessed a debate. And expert witnesses are invited to speak.

• Michael Parsons 12th Aug '13 - 1:27am

  @ John Jefkins

  Huh! Yet we already have the most expensive rail service in Europe, I read; and predicted to get more so; and pricing people off the roads, limiting popular mobility as now, is not transport progress. I notice you dodge the SE Commuter problem too – which in sufferng and numbers surely dwarfs the rail lines you want improved; and as to the M6, if the State shuffles off its duties much more, we will all need 4×4’s to go anywhere. Why should over-taxed motorists pay tolls anyway? We’ve already given far more than we get in services and roads. Surely policy should centre more on good local links to develop local economies, (local roads and reinstated branch lines): we might need fewer Kenyan and Dutch vegetables then? Think of the food-miles you could save once you cancel Johny-Head-in-Air’s Eurorail colonial master plan!

• John Jefkins 12th Aug '13 - 9:13am

  @Michael Parsons.

  I agree that rail fares are too expensive (especially for commuters who cannot take advantage of very cheap advance tickets that DO still exist). We have the contrast of some of the cheapest fares in Europe if you pay in advance (sometimes still available just the day before travel), combined with eye-wateringly high “anytime” fares for people who leave it to the day of travel.

  Fares have been increased to reduce government subsidy to the point where some lines (eg Thameslink) now make profits. Despite that, passenger numbers have continued to increase.

  Meanwhile car tax has actually been frozen and thus gone down (as inflation rose) with fuel costs rising for the long term different reason than cheap oil sources are drying up. So you could argue that rather than the government forcing people off roads, its the lack of cheap oil, higher insurance costs and road congestion.

  The government has been freezing car fuel taxes whilst raising rail fares, but average car mileage has dropped whilst rail passengers have risen.

  As for the South East, most of the £37 billion being spent on existing railways in just the next 5 years IS for extra stuff for the S.E. – ie extra commuter carriages, Thameslink, Crossrail, London Overground, and capacity improvements (longer or extra platforms, station capacity improvements in Reading or East Croydon etc etc). The north keeps complaining that too much is happening in the SE, but that’s where most rail journeys occur.

  So right now, we are investing almost as much as HS2 over the next 5 years in EXISTING railways and in stuff that will boost our economy.

  And as for good local links, yes I agree. But lets also separate off parts of our roads to make cycling safer. Right now we have carnage due to the belief that a dotted white line is enough to protect our cyclists. Holland did not used to cycle until they too made their roads safe. We are right now where they were 40 years ago. Who said that roads were just for cars?

  Rail is only best for long distance and urban journeys. In the countryside, car is king, and that is one reason why HS2 is having problems crossing countryside constituencies where few residents see any benefit from rail.

  But the M6 toll really does have too few users right now, so that is causing problems for your desire to add more lanes to the M6. We need balance here. And rail needs to be able to catch up with the vast investments already made in our roads over the past 50 years.

  HS2 is a rather more efficient way to move people between Birmingham and Manchester. With phase 2 having such a better business case than phase 1 there are people asking for phase 2 to be built first.
  Unfortunately we need BOTH, and the biggest capacity problem is London-Rugby.

  The real question is why we are planning to take so long to construct it (ie 2017-2016 or NINE YEARS is far longer than any other country would take. The Institute of Engineers suggests that 4 years is more sensible.
  That would mean phase 1 could be open by 2022 and phase 2 open by 2026.

  I agree. We should get these political approvals over with and then get building the thing – at a conventional construction schedule rather than one spoon feed by a £2 billion/yr payment plan.

  Faster construction would reduce the risk of inflationary extras or having to pay extra to prop up the old lines whilst we wait for HS2 – and it would also bring earlier revenue earning PAYBACK.

• John Jefkins 12th Aug '13 - 9:20am

  I see yet more typos that I just made that this website software does not allow me to correct.
  (Sorry but I am stupid and cannot type).

  1) I meant to say “the long term different reason THAT cheap oil sources are drying up”
  2) I meant to say “the Institute of CIVIL Engineers”
  3) I meant to say “2017-2026” (ie not 2017-2016).

  Oops, I clearly am too used to the luxury of being able to go back and edit my mistakes.

• Michael Parsons 12th Aug '13 - 9:57am

  @ John Jefkins

  I’m afraid it’s yes but from me ….
  But if we cancel HS2 we can double local invstment where it is really needed, and indeed we need to more than double it.
  But as to the “freezing” of fuel duties, it’s no comfort after having bled us white, driven us from the most convenient travel system and, moreover, without petrol and diesel and oil price-control is just a switch to the profits if price-hiking oil companies -made infinitely more dangerous by the recent US move to allow “banks” to deal in copper and oil, thus paving the way for even bigger supply-manipulation, grosser price-fixing and general scamming of the helpless consuming public.

  But HS2 like the tilting trains and “modernisation” generally is hopelessly stuck in the past. Outdated curvilinear track systems, old-fashioned tarted-up traction. If you want to build for the future forget the Eurorail French monopoly dream and go for maglev; but base it entirely on local labour, skills and resources with training from abroad if necessary.

  But as for typos they are abundant, so don’t worry, we are all hurrying these dyas..!

• John Jefkins 12th Aug '13 - 10:55am

  @Michael
  What “alternatives to HS2” would cost less then?
  We really do have a capacity problem looming on all 3 north-south rail routes connecting our main cities.

  Cancelling HS2 would therefore harm our economy. So what would you do instead?

  We are already planning to add extra carriages and some trains to existing tracks.
  The question is what we THEN do – ie by the mid 2020s when capacity will have run out.
  Would you add extra tracks alongside existing lines – ie through towns these long distance trains never stop at?
  Because that would cost more, take longer and also cost in disruption and destroy more homes.

  Would you spend rather more money on widening motorways ( I suspect you would ).
  Because road would be worse for the environment and the evidence is that demand is shifting towards rail.
  Recently built roads are not actually being used as much as predicted – so their “cost benefit” was invalid.

  I am not saying we stop maintaining roads.
  (We are actually planning to spend £30 BILLION on them in the next 5 years).

  I am just saying that rail deserves some of the action too – especially when existing lines are already full and (as more people drive) a small shift percentage shift in road to rail causes 8 times the capacity problem for rail.

  As for Maglev, that would be even more costly and Eddington rejected it as a “Grand project” (whilst NOT rejecting conventional high speed rail. China tested both and firmly rejected Maglev (even refusing now to take the one line they have got the rest of the way into Shanghai). If you do the research, you will find that high speed rail is now far from “French” and OUR capacity problem and OUR solution to it has nothing to do with “European bogeymen” dreamed up by Farrage.

• John Jefkins 12th Aug '13 - 11:52am

  @Michael

  I should also add that HS2 does also reduce the need for “local investment” on commuter routes into each city it runs to – as existing lines are freed of long distance traffic to enable more commuter trains.

  Eg extra local trains are able to use the Milton Keynes, Watford WCML or Chiltern line or Midland Mainline routes into London. More commuter seats from Rugby, Coventry etc into Birmingham. And the same for Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham etc too.

  We do need to BALANCE both local commuter needs with the need to move between the top 10 cities served by HS2.

  And since you think its French (even though designers visited Japan and Germany), I could also cite the example of TGV PROFITS (1 Billion euros one recent year) being used to subsidise loss making commuter and local lines elsewhere in France.

• Gareth Epps 12th Aug '13 - 12:22pm

  Richard Dickson comments above:-
  “As Exec Chair of a constituency decimated by HS2 (Kenilworth &Southam)…………”

  Are you REALLY saying that one-tenth of a large rural Parliamentary constituency will be destroyed by a two-track high-speed railway being constructed through it?

• Richard Gadsden 12th Aug '13 - 3:35pm

  HSR isn’t French. First line in the world was Japanese, first in Europe was Italian, biggest trainmaker is German, biggest current network is Chinese, second biggest is Spanish.

• Alex Macfie 12th Aug '13 - 3:45pm

  @John Jefkins:

  “Eurostar … has taken 85% of the London-Paris air market,”

  This is mainly people shifting from air to rail. Eurostar is no cheaper than flying (whether considering open or restricted advance-purchase tickets like for like), so presumably this is due to the convenience of travel by train, although this is negated somewhat by the airport-style check-in system and pre-book-only ticketing system (similar to planes), but air travellers perhaps don’t mind this so much as they’re used to it. But I think it’s a real shame that there is no straightforward affordable ‘walk up, buy a ticket and hop on’ cross-Channel passenger train service, and this is an example of how the Channel Tunnel has not fulfilled its potential.

• Alex Macfie 12th Aug '13 - 3:48pm

  HS2 should not lead to the running down of parallel classic rail lines, as has happened in France.

• Richard Gadsden 12th Aug '13 - 4:23pm

  Alex, sadly, it’s security theatre that is preventing easy-access Channel Tunnel passenger service. Also UKBA are incredibly inflexible about doing on-board passport / customs checks (every other international train service in Europe has on-board checks or has no checks at all because it’s within Schengen). This means that you have to pass security, passport and customs checks before boarding.

  Because it’s only the Tunnel that the security theatre applies to, we should get hop-on services on HS2, albeit that buying a ticket in advance is going to be cheaper than a hop-on ticket, just as it is at present. We might get seat-reservation-required like the TGV.

  Note that off-peak returns are not that outrageous – Manchester-London is £77.30 at present, and that’s a flexible ticket that can be bought at the ticket office five minutes before departure. There’s no reason to believe that HS2 would make that ticket unavailable or dramatically more expensive (20 years’ inflation aside).

  Just for comparison, the cheapest advance return is £25, (First: £76)
  Standard Class Anytime Return is £308. (First: £441)

  Again, the planning for HS2 assumes that the only changes to these prices is the inflation between now and 2033 when the line opens.

• Sesenco 12th Aug '13 - 9:41pm

  John Jefkins wrote:

  “Godington Park near Ashford is a similar property that you can spend a whole afternoon in its gardens (the Delphiniums are great in June). ”

  I too have visited Godinton House (no “g”) and can confirm that HS1 runs nowhere near it. Half a mile is quite a long way, even in rural Kent. Any noise from the railway will be attenuated by the cutting and the dense sweet chestnut coppice that stands between it and the house. Last summer, Godinton ran an exhibition of garden sculpture, which included bronze nude women stuck in yew hedges and a sheep made out of wire. Well worth the trip.

  HS1 certainly has caused environmental damage in Kent. The Woodland Trust confirms that its construction involved the loss of semi-natural ancient woodland. The NW section traverses open land that is already highly degraded, while most of the rest of the route runs in a deep cutting and follows the M20. All one can really see from the road are the tops of the gantries. The real horror story is outside Folkestone. Stand on top of Paddlesworth Hill and look down. What you see are acres and acres of marshalling yards that load vehicles on to trains. And you hear the constant clank-clank-clank. I suppose this is something one has to put up with if we’re to have a Channel Tunnel, and it does provide a few jobs in Folkestone. I would certainly not describe the environmental impact of HS1 as neutral.

  I believe that Jacob Rothschild will scupper HS2. His close friend, Lord Mandelson, has chucked the first rock down the mountain slope. If this doesn’t turn into a landslide, then my prediction is that Jacob will turn to another close friend, Mr Rupert Murdoch. Jacob helped fund Murdoch’s acquisition of the “News of the World” in 1969, and the two remain very close. The Murdoch press maintains a strict “never mention the Rothschilds” policy. Indeed, when Nat lost his libel action against the “Daily Mail” (an avowedly anti-Rothschild publication) none of the Murdoch titles reported the fact (I checked).

  I must add that I don’t like the fact that the ultra-rich can influence Government policy in this way, even on the odd occasion that they happen to be right.

  Now, even the most enthusiastic HS2 supporter has to admit that £42 billion is a lot of money. Are there more worthwhile ways of spending this tidy sum where the benefits are more obvious and immediate? I would argue that a tunnel to the Isle of Wight is long overdue. And a decent relief road round Bournemouth wouldn’t go amiss. Not to mention the electrification of all existing railways, something that should have been done a century ago.

• Peter Chivall 13th Aug '13 - 1:15am

  Many of those who posit the upgrading of existing rail routes and the construction of HS2 as mutually exclusive seem not to have noticed that in the next ten years virtually every city in England will be connected to every other city by electrified, upgraded rail routes running 125mph rolling stock. Even existing electrified routes like the East Coast Main line are due to have £100s of millions spent uprgrading the existing overhead electric system to improve reliability and higher speeds, while those routes designated as major Freight routes, linking major ports such as Southampton and Felixstowe to the industrial midlands will also be electrified to the same 25kV system, with improved track and signalling.
  Basically, short of building totally new lines from London to the Midlands and the North, as much will be spent under already existing plans on upgrading BEFORE HS2 is commenced, than will actually be spent on HS2 Phase 1.
  Where the HS2 planners seem to have lacked political ‘nouse’ is in not including an interchange between HS2 and the Oxford-Marylebone ‘Greengauge’ route in the Aylesbury area and run a 150mph ‘Javelin’ type service similar to the one which uses HS1 to link into commuter routes to East Kent. The anti-HS2 campaigners who happily acquiesced in the construction of the M40 because they could use it to commute to London would thus have a stake in HS2.
  Finally, HS2 would really justify itself if the 1970s Wing/Cublington hub airport plan was revived and allowed the transfer of long distance flights from Heathrow over a 20-30 year timescale. Why? a) the HS2 route runs virtually at the end of the planned Cublington runway, making it within 25mins of Central London and b) Heathrow could be gradually run down, allowing West London the chance to breathe at last.

• John Jefkins 13th Aug '13 - 8:55am

  @Sensenco

  HS1 is indeed on an embankment as it passes Godington Park.
  You may remember that it was on a bridge OVER you on the approach road.
  The only trains we heard were from the old railway line – that is further away. So the soundproofing works.

  As for the Eurotunnel site, visible from Folkestone Hill, that is not actually HS1 at all. I was CAD Manager for the design of that site. I know. And you fail to mention the rather bigger man made change of Folkestone itself – just beyond the landscaped area of the Eurotunnel terminal. Eurotunnel planted more trees than were there before.

  HS1 also put back more trees than they cut down – and any farmer changes the landscape more than a 2 track railway would. You do exaggerate the effect on the landscape – just as you also exaggerate what a few vocal people in the Chilterns may do to this vital project.

  The real question is what would happen to their businesses if we stifle growth in movement between our top 10 cities.

• John Jefkins 13th Aug '13 - 9:32am

  @Peter Chivall
  I agree with you (and Jim Steer) that there is potential for Javelin style services ACROSS LONDON too to Central Birmingham. That is the other reason I have been arguing for a Euston Cross THROUGH station instead of a Euston terminal. Half the HS2 trains could run through to Kent and Essex, almost all Eurostars could be extended as shared domestic/international trains via Birmingham international to Manchester and the freed up St Pancras could be then used to terminate the other half of the HS2 trains.

  We’d have to replace those slow Javelin trains (as the definition of High speed only starts at 160mph those 140mph trains actually break the trade descriptions act and they’d get in the way of the 225mph trains)

  The designers have rejected the idea of an intermediate station between London and Birmingham, but the Heathrow spur could be mixed use to take trains from the Chilterns line via upgraded Richmond track (a 2 track tunnel under the existing line and level crossings between Richmond bridge and Barnes) to Waterloo.

  That would enable:
  1) Diversion of say 4 HS2 trains/hr via Heathrow to Waterloo (as it would be faster for the half of the HS2 market from S. & S.W. London, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire etc to join an HS2 train at either Waterloo or Heathrow to go north than it would be for them to drag their baggage in the tube across London to reach Euston or worse Old Oak Common) Even with a 4 min stop at Heathrow and 90mph speed on upgraded tracks through Richmond, it would still be slower to spend 30mins crossing central London on the tube. Waterloo’s old Eurostar platforms could thus be used for a few HS2 trains per hour – that would also create a new Heathrow express out of HS2 stock.

  2) Those 4 slots across London could be then used for say 1 or 2 Eurostar trains from Heathrow itself (eg T5) to Europe, plus Javelin trains from Kent, and Stratford (with a possible connection to allow trains from Colchester too) to join the GWR to Reading and BRISTOL.

  3) The Heathrow spur, re-use of Waterloo platforms and a short Richmond-Barnes tunnel (under existing tracks and allotments) would enable more local commuter trains (eg double the services from Richmond to London with no extra level crossing time) and enable Waterloo to Chiltern line services as well as Bristol to Waterloo (via Heathrow).

  4) A park and ride station on the spur itself (at the end of the M40 at Denham roundabout) would not affect HS2 trains but could again be used by trains via the spur from Staines or Heathrow via West Ruislip to London.

  A mixed use “HS2 Heathrow spur” could connect Feltham and Staines via Heathrow T5 to the GWR (west) and Chiltern line as well as enabling HS2 trains from Heathrow to Europe and HS2 trains from Scotland, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Birmingham via Heathrow to Waterloo.

  The extra Air Passenger Duty earned by freeing up Heathrow short haul to take more lucrative long haul flights would not only pay for the Heathrow spur within 10 yrs of its opening. It would also fund much of HS2 phase 1.

  The Heathrow spur and “western link” from the GSW to T5 can thus be one and the same thing.
  Such joined up thinking would also help relieve tracks into Paddington, by diverting some trains via Heathrow to Clapham Junction and those empty platforms at Waterloo.

  These ideas are available in drawings and my papers (that both Norman Baker and Caroline Pidgeon have copies of).

• Michael Parsons 13th Aug '13 - 11:03am

  @john Jenkins
  It is not a matter of connecting city to city but of making travel around each city area more available and thus sustaining rural development- and that means local lines, mono-railo, trams, roads, not HS2 or 5 or whatever. Just completeing the London District Line to Oxford as orig9inally planned would be an improvement! Your grand long-distance projects seem to me something that modern telelinks increasingly reduce the need for. Also: set against maglev’s costs (and perhaps the cost of currently-researched rapid transit by elevated tube-lines, with their land-requirement potentially comparable more to pylons than to rail track) effective action for the removal by the State of pure-rent charges on land and we get more reasonable estimates.
  Note too the current SE commuter-cost charges up again b y 4% and planned to escalate further; this drain on household budgets by the anti-road lobby is an intolerable imposition; and since this charge is for season tickets talk about reducing costs by forward planning is an absurdity.
  What benefit would HS travel from say London to Glasgow produce except, by eco nomies of scale, concetrate ecoomic activity yet more in the South?

• John Jefkins 13th Aug '13 - 12:34pm

  @Michael
  Again, we need BOTH intercity AND urban rail capacity. HS2 helps both (as by moving long distance traffic to their own dedicated and more efficient line it also releases capacity for more freight, slow and commuter trains on the old line – which incidentally also means less traffic on your roads).

  And the whole point on better connections from Birmingham to Derby/Nottingham, Sheffield/Rotherham and Leeds/Bradford and the HS2 connection to the ECML to York and Newcastle is that NORTHERN cities and the NORTHERN economy gets boosted for once.

  Better internet actually INCREASES travel demand (as we end up wanting to meet more of the wider hinterland of people we encounter). You cannot holiday by hologram or clinch a sale or visit friends.

  And Maglev really IS more expensive, has less capacity and is far from “tried, tested and with enough competition” (China, Bombardier, Siemens, the French, Italians and Spanish are all trying to sell their trains to everybody)
  Japan is the only country that might build a Maglev line – and it would cost far more than HS2 for less distance (and be almost all in a boring and dark tunnel too). You cannot carry on off the end of a Maglev line to continue trains on to Newcastle or Liverpool or Glasgow or Edinburgh or Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt. You’d have to waste time changing train – which makes it slower.

  HS2 needs to be integrated into the rest of our network (ie the opposite of Maglev) – ie shared Heathrow spur and “hybrid” trains or Javelins running on and off HS2 (eg from Stoke and Crewe and other places too).

  And of course we need to carry on investment in existing lines carries on – in a balanced way.
  (The French appear to have only just decided to do the same).

• Michael Parsons 14th Aug '13 - 12:58pm

  @John Jenkins
  Well I think China also has maglev, and as to costs practice makes perfect; but again it is not enough for you to say we need both this and that and the other; policy is about choice, and HS2 sacrifices too many other choices.
  The SE commuter fiasco causes misery and overcharging to hundreds of thousands. It needs greater State-backed cash, QE paid direct as an expenditure priority (not QE via banks), far more than your HS schemes which you are already turning into stopping-trains by the sound of it.
  And again: what use are HS links to the North except to concemtrate economic activity in the South East because of the effect of economies of scale? If we want develoment we must act locally, with what we have around us in our towns and villages.

  By the way for what is it worth I have certainly clinched deals by internet, and made friends – internet friends are one of the dangers for the young, are they not, if they actually meet? And virtual reality might well offer synthetic travel experience, just as chemistry offers synthetic wine and perfume, or food-science offers laboratory-grown meat; or as a friendship robot is offering comfort on the space station right now, not that I would seek to press these points myself.

• John Jefkins 14th Aug '13 - 3:16pm

  @Michael

  Only Maglev tracks are either test tracks or the Shanghai airport line that stops short of the city centre and they have now decided not to complete. Having tested Maglev, China then decided to build the rest of their 16,.000 miles of high lines as CONVENTIONAL track – and they are already half way construction of that network.

  So its Maglev with about 50 miles (worldwide) and conventional high speed rail with about 15,000 miles already open and around another 15,000 miles (with about half of it in China) under construction or about to open by 2022 – ie that EXCLUDES HS2.

  A pretty clear vote in favour of conventional rail.

  I agree that rail fare rises of inflation +1% are unpopular. That is why both commuters and intercity deserves the investment they are getting (ie £37 billion in existing lines (over 5 yrs) plus roughly the same (over 15yrs) in HS2).
  If investment continues in existing lines, there would be 3 times as much spent on them as on HS2.

  I repeat that car fuel tax has been frozen, whilst rail fares have been rising at inflation +1% for 11 years.
  Meanwhile average car mileage has FALLEN, whilst rail usage has DOUBLED.

  Methinks that is powerful evidence for more spending on rail than on road – with spending balanced between adding both commuter capacity and intercity capacity (ie HS2).

• John Jefkins 14th Aug '13 - 3:32pm

  @Michael

  Also a train that ran non-stop up HS2 (stopping only at Birmingham International) to then come off it and stop at say Crewe en-route to Liverpool or Preston and Carlisle en-route to Glasgow or Edinburgh would hardly count as a “stopping train”.

  I agree that there should be no extra stations on HS2 itself.

  The Heathrow spur is different.
  Its HS2 trains might stop at Heathrow to then terminate at Waterloo instead of Euston.

  Other local trains might use the spur to reach the GWR or Chiltern line, but they’d not be HS2 trains.
  I am just suggesting that as spur traffic would be all slowing down for the Heathrow station, it could be mixed use to also contain Heathrow express trains extended to Reading, trains from Waterloo to Bristol and trains to the Chiltern line into London from West Ruislip as well as HS2 trains.

• Michael Parsons 17th Aug '13 - 4:57pm

  I reckon that’s complacent indifference to the needs of the people. Of course car use falls and profit-gouging train journeys increase because of unfaur and unbalanced government policy and taxes in favour oif profiteering and overpaid CEO’s.. The cost rises in the SE are not just “unpopular” (anymore than bank insurance swindles are just “miss-selling”) they are a disgraceful betrayal of the travelling, working public; as is your suggestion that so much as one penny of investment is diverted to HS2 etc away from doubling and trebling work to aid the SE system – which would also need severe action against administrators who are unable to speed things up if it is to make any timely improvement at all… And again I repeat it makes no difference if tax is “frozen” on fuel, because prices still get manipulated upwards in the absenceof State price control: it simply means the State loses out while petrol prices are forcedupwards by pirce-manipulating monopolistic corporations that av oid tax and give pay-outs to shareholders who are mainly the members of the Parliamentary crony y capitalist groups that finance their elections; claims of “supply and demand balances” are a laughable farce given the internationally rigged commodity and finance markets. Your whole bean-counting approach is just naively wide of the ;political realities of corruption and genuine need! And so what if maglev is just starting – isn’t that where we should be? starting? Or do you want to wait till we are hiring in foreign firms that have deverloped the skills fir that, just as you (I suspect) would be forced to hire in the French etc for your HS schemes. Support trains if you must, yes – b ut why put UK in the last carriage all the time?

  Moreover isn’t the scheme that you are plugging very remote in its conception from UK open debate? and suspiciously close to the EU continental rail plan? concieved long since by the EU,which seems now to have become an organisation with an enormous democratic deficit, inadequate financial control and in practcice a side-kick of the small-country smashing operations of the IMF andBIS?

• john jefkins 18th Aug '13 - 8:28am

  @Michael

  What would be complacent indifference to the needs of the people would be to ignore demand growth in passenger numbers on all 3 main north-south rail lines.

  Only HS2 adds capacity to cope with that demand growth.
  All the studies, committees and court cases have agreed that other alternatives fail to solve that capacity problem.

  What solution would you ofier?

• john jefkins 18th Aug '13 - 8:30am

  @Michael

  European Ten-T plans are only created when Member states submit their own proposals of what they themselves plan to do. Look at the rules.

  If HS2 appears on a European map it is because WE PUT IT THERE.

• David Wilkinson 18th Aug '13 - 9:21am

  John Jefkins
  Many thanks for taking the time and the trouble to argue the case for not only investment in HS2 but also pointing out to posters that BILLIONS are being invested in current lines

• john jefkins 19th Aug '13 - 5:51pm

  Thanks David

• Michael Parsons 21st Aug '13 - 9:31am

  Given the Tory RAIL slaughter in the 1960’s we are still in need of billions – the private companies are getting some four times in tax what BR got, I read, and still lcan’t make it work. Nationlisation is long ovcerdue, we suffer while Branson and co squabble over a share in the profits. Why should the tax-payer take on costs and losses while the profits are privatised? The banks are anither example. And still I need an answer: how will HS2 do anything but concentrate economic activity in the South East because of economies of scale? Just as the improved bridge took computer industry from Wales to Bristol?
  If you want to revive the UK economy, strengthen the Unions so they can negotiate a bigger GDP share for wages, which would lower the overall propensity to save far more effectively than the Coalition’s policy of punishing and looting savings and rigging the interest rates in the interests of the rich; union action would raise effective demand; and at the same the the State should direct investment to black-spots and to import-substitution. Don’t kid yourself there is no national investment money, there are £billions issued by the Bank of England, but used only to create a property bubble and higher share prices for the benefit of the weathy few.-having destroyed pensions for the many already.
  When was the EU colonial rail scheme dscussed or voted on by us? Another phony stitch up.

• john jefkins 24th Aug '13 - 1:37pm

  @Micheal
  Our rail CAPACITY solution (HS2) is OUR design rather than anything to do with the EU.
  Ten T rules are clear. A project is only included if a member state puts it there – ie they intend to build it.
  So any inclusion of HS2 in the EU’s Ten T would be because WE PUT IT THERE.

  As for private companies getting tax, the truth is that franchises like Thameslink and the WCML are now paying more in premium payments than they get in subsidy. These franchises pay the taxman now.

  The government does not want to take the risk of operating the trains, but I do agree that the East Coast franchise has been successfully publically run whilst taken into public ownership at no cost (when the previous operator broke their contract).

• Rail Planning in UK 26th Aug '13 - 11:28am

  I suppose the rail tickets are higher than the Bus and Plane in UK. I find Rail facilities costlier than bus or plane. Buy implementing this plan if the rail prices are going to be less than certainly its a good plan but if not then £42 billion is a big amount to invest on.
  Transportation prices in UK
  1. Bus – Mega bus : £ 5 -10 , National Bus : £ 10-20 (from Birmingham to London)
  2. Plane : Ryan Air use to charge like £ 39 ( from Birmingham to London)
  3. Train (virgin Rail etc ) : Have drastic rates for example in the peak hours the charges are more than £80 and some times it used to be around £ 12-15. which really makes no sense.
  lets hope for a better plan.