High Speed Two Should be Turned on Its Head! North End First!

High speed two is going to be the biggest civil engineering project in Southern England since the Channel Tunnel, and in fact both for their day , the biggest in the whole of the UK.

With the Scottish Referendum behind us, now the media is trying to paint many positive pictures about the benefits of Union, which must seem a bit trite for those follk living in the 'North of England' Traditionally or colloquoally considered to start northwards from an imaginery line from Stoke in the west to Sheffield in the East. A massive investment is to be made in infrastructure which benefits the wealthier,  high employment area of England first.

The real benefits will be firstly in jobs in the south east and London in particular where a new route is proposed with a new major terminus rebuilt at Marlebone potentially, or integration to St. Pancras International with a N London route. No matter what the route, it will be expensive and so far indications predict the first sod or pnuematic drill will sound in Greater London such that land there is bought first before the expected up tour in the economy.

So it is difficult to see the real wisdom behind the project when you think that the long-term overheating London economy could do with moving jobs north,  rather than bringing more people into London. In this , the public sector could lead the way by moving more administration jobs out of the capital and the south east, which has in fact been an on /off strategy in UK politics with the DVLA in Swansea,  Student Loans Office in Glasgow, Tax Help Line Office in the NE and so on.

House and Property Prices as a Potential Capitalist Alterior Motive?

I am very against distortions in markets caused by governments,  and this by all means has two means by which it distorts the UK economy as a whole.

Firstly it will influence property prices, even if compulsory purchases keep the direct acquisition price down. Any removal of housing stock and commercial property in London and the suburban home counties will push up prices elsewhere.  More directly there will be a need for many workers and managers, who will be drawn for such a large project from the whole of the UK as for the "Chunnel" and they will need accomodation, be that rental , hotel or bought for the senior management.

Secondly it is not about prices in London, but also about overcoming the percieved future needs for labour in London, mainly in the finance sector, which can at times struggle to attract enough people in some disciplines or has to pay them large salaries. With daily commuting from the nearer end of the West Midlands being much easier and with higher capacity at rush hour, suddenly London gains new suburbs like Coventry, Knowle and Dorridge. Lucky cockneys eh?

So therefore there can also be a major boom in house prices there too.

This is as far as the first part of the 17bn, and rising, will go in the first phase and if there was not a continuing upswing in the economy, it may well only go that far for quite some time.

Benefits of HS2 for the 'Up North'

There will be some benefits for the folk north of birmingham. Average speeds south of Brum' will increase from 70-90 mph for express trains, to 140 mph with peak runnng of 186 mph. This then secures a sub one hour run from say Birmingham International or new station. The trains are likely to be similar to the current class 395 which run on the Kent HS1 route, although the route may also be suitable for current tilting 390s. I imagine that in fact both will run, with different train operating companies buying access to different 'diagrams' in railway speak. Some diagrams by virtue of capacity on the route and intermediate stops, will maybe be 120/140mph peak speed, suitable for through services from the North and Scotland, currently running these Pendolinos. Class 395 type high speed trains could and indeed should be able to run on ordinary track and thus reach all the major cities in the North currently wired up to the West Coast Main Line (WCML)

There in lies several benefits. With a faster corridor to London, more services can be covered with any given number of trains which are economic to run on it. In other words, if a train can be routed down there be that a 395 or an older 390, then if there is a profit to be had it will run, and then that train itself will be able to do more runs per day to-and-from say Manchester.

To a point this is a win-win for passengers and T.O.C.s and railtrack or who ever owns the track bed of  HS2. However it means that there can actually be more competition for through trains from HS2 to Manchester and so on, thus pushing track access charges upwards if they are deregulated or reviewed in light of more demand by the renationalised Railtrack. Also HS2 could lock people into the benefits of the 45 minute reduction and companies will then expose themselves to super inflationary track access charges or a milking strategy will be rolled out against passengers, where the old WCML services have been locked out by new line services. This is acheived quite simply by terminals reaching capacity such as Piccadily or Glasgow Central. Once you own enough diagrams in and out of Manchester for major inter city trains then, you can block out peak time competition by literally sitting on the platform for the time currently allowed to disembark passengers, clean the train and allow for safe alightment.

We have seen the privatised rail industry as a super inflationary sector for passengers on the most attractive, non subsidised routes. Why this should be reversed with such a potential displacement of capacity is doubtful, Trains running at 186 mph top speed use a lot more energy than those running at the current top speeds of 100mph and 125 mph  depending on section of the WCML. The per mile track access charges for HS2 will be far higher than for WCML. It will be expensive and once commuters are locked into jobs in the south, prices will rise above the rate of wage inflation.

So the benefits for HS2 part 1 are dubious when actually examined under an economic historical precedent.

However when HS2 part 2 goes ahead, then that boosts inter city traffic within the whole area, making it much more attractive than the car. For trips to london, it makes it quicker than flying, although it has to be said that if you need to travel city centre to city centre, then currently Manchester and Leeds (ECML route) it is quicker by train, while Glasgow is only an hour slower than by plane when transport to the airport, check in, security, boarind and disembarking are taken into account. But do you need to get from Leeds to Manchester in half an hour if it is going to cost you sixty five quid each way? Are we not best served with more electrification of existing routes, more intra regional expresses and more London through services?

Alternative Strategy for HS2 Or Just Plain Simple More Sensible Alternatives

My suggestion would be to either turn it completely on its head, and start on the Leeds/Manchester portion or to actually not bother with HS2 as we know it today..

The alternative as I propose and have blogged on before , but here in a shopping list:

#Fully integrate advanced train protection and any resignalling needed for 140 mph running on the current WCML.
#Electrify York-Leeds immediately
# Build a diversion freight route first just diesel using the proposed Aylesbury route or the great central route, to divert the slow 50 - 80 mph freight off the WCML
# Electrify the Birmingham -Oxford- London route and make passing lanes for express services and high speed freights to overtake local or slow frieght services.
# Build new main line interconnectors (which would include the "Aylesbury" route for freight partly) between all the raidal routes out of London, in effect a peripheral m25 and an inner Northern Circle. The outer circle could be as far out as Rugby, Bedford, Reading, the inner circle using mainly existing routes and rail routes which have been made into A roads around North London in particular.
# Electrify Crewe-Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton to allow freight diversion/ displacement and extra capacity northwards.
# Make the WCML four lanes where ever possible in Staffordshire, Shropshire and Warwichshire
# Resurvey Leeds-Manchester and Manchester Sheffield for most cost effectiive routes with 125-140mph peak speed as a target, average speed non stop 100 mph.
# In the WCML southern end past Willesden and Wembly and the frieght terminals, build elevated second layer 2 to four lane tracks over the existing tracks for through expresses, with freight and stopping services using the lower deck.
# Rebuild Marlebone station with a twin level design, and connect this with electrified routes to the Oxford route, the WCML and integrate cross london trains from there and also Heathrow Direct Trains, Stanstead Direct trains, Gatwick via Thameslink
# Interconnection for the midland line would be used for through trains to the Channel Tunnel or connections to this at St Pancras.
# Resurvey the WCML in terms of upgrading current track to 125mph and 140mph, and consider building shorter high speed stretches where geography and land prices / compensation would be a good pay off.
# Consider tunnel sections northwards to Carlisle and in the Southern Uplands in the route to Glasgow which could have maximum time savings and provide new capacity by overtaking slower trains on the existing routes 'above them'
# Move away from standard track access tabulation charges to a highest bid per diagram system,  with long term ownership of diagrams and restrictions on re-sale or under utility in the contracts.

To the layman, this last point is explained as followed
Trains run to timetables and in fact those timetables of course between different operators, are shared with there being only so much capacity on the routes. Faster trains are given priority and  overtake slower frieghts of commuter trains in stretches where there are more than two lines, or  at stations which have extra platforms. Some timetabled trains are more attractive than others for passengers to get to work, or to reach the terminus from local transport in order to set out, often just outside the rush hour so they avoid hiking baggage around through masses of commuters pouring out at 0820-0845.  Some timetabled services are fast through trains, while on others they are as well making additional stops as they cannot go any faster because of slower services infront of them at the key bottlenecks on the network or WCML in particular, in towards N. London and eventually Euston.

Some of these timetables when you consider the complete traffic on the route for the day, are actually quite historic, and it can take time, or innovation to change them. The last changes were the move to 125mph pendolinos (deisgned gfor 140mph actually) and some sections where traffic can go in the opposite direction at the same time.

Current track access charges are pro rata, but amount to a given cost for a company over the years. If they instead bought out right the lease on a given timetable for say 10 years, with clauses on potential improvements to speed, then they could pay a large sum then and only a small running cost if any to track, stations and stabling points.  The most attractive timetabled trains would attract the highest bidders. The least attractive would then have low bids, and be subject to subsidy or public rail operation, but could always there after be open for new bidders to take over them. Railtrack or who ever owns the track bed and stations, then recieves a major investment at the front end which it can use on immediate pressing infrastrutural needs on that route, and also pool for long term developments and as a private company, they could invest that money in other investments in order to make a return to pay for the regular maintainance and so on. For the WCML which is electrified, that cost would most likely need to be a running cost because of the uncertainty about prices over time, and the ability for the supply chain to negotiate cheaper or greener supply purchases.

The train operating companies gain by securing their favoured timetabled trains in terms of cost-return, and over the long term in being able to secure that profitable timetable train over a long time, such that they can lease or buy newer trains to keep up with the demands for safety and reliability en route, while also pleasing passengers. They can then secure long term investment in their businesses to pay for the bid sums, and the operation and upgrades to stock or better leasing agreements with stock owners like Angel Trains.

The government gains because the rail industry has bid a market price they think is  realistic, and competed to win it. Those train services which operators  consider with bids lower than cost of running (which gets complicated) the track, stations and signalling are then considered for either subsidy, public TOC or actually to be reconsidered for actual viability and if the timetabled service could be removed  such that other trains such as freight etc could use up the capacity. 

Why HS2 Should Hit The Buffers

As you may have guessed I am anti HS2, but I am very pro railways.

Where are all those tax-payers groups on this white elephant and also talking of hundred billion sequels, on that other white elephant part II ,Trident 2? The two biggest wastes of tax payers money the current generation will see, and each will be rubber stamped in the next parliament in England at least. Right, left, centre this is why you should be involved in politics or bending the ears of your politicians at MP surgeries.

Why is HS2 such a waste of money? In principle it is my contention that it is a Keynsian economic injection to sustain the heavy civil engineering competance built up in the UK, and since it will be built south- north most likely, provide jobs for the wo'kin' classes and be a vote winner around the London and home counties area.

What does it actually intend to deliver? Well it is going to be about delivering more workers to the city of London in particular, grabbing a main artery into a massive resource of new daily commuters. In the north I can fully appreciate that faster Leeds-Manc-Brum, higher speed services would be very beneficial in helping people grasp higher paid jobs and educational opportunities. Economists on the capatilist side and some major real estate owners have decided that you will not be able to afford to buy a house in Greater London, but by George that is where you will jolly well need to work!

The thin claim to the contrary is that northerners with their jute and flax mills will be able to shoot down to London and gather investment for t'internet mill and t' weaponries factory from one of the worlds biggest centres for banking and investment.  The truth is that The City is not there to fund SMEs in t' north, and if England votes itself out the EU, there will be a major decline. Several US major banks are making contingency plans to relocate to other EU countries if the "island monkey" attitude perisists. Venture Capatilists and Modern Milll Owners use Bentleys and stay at Claridges or the Ritz. They don't take t'train. Who uses Eurostar? Not nearly as many private business people as "projected".

One thing the proponents are very keen on saying is that HSR will mean 250km/h minimum or average speeds with peaks of over 300 like the TGV. Note that they dont like talking about that in miles-per-hour because it doesnt sound as fast, and then joe public would be able to make more real life comparisons to expected journey times. So Manchester to London is near enough 200 miles, 321 km,  current pendolinos can do that with stops in under three hours. An HSR could maybe do it in an hour non stop! Wow.

Certainly though Birmingham to London would go down to an hour, thus making that huge connurbation a virtual suburb of London.

That's quick. Super. Hang on a minute, what are you realistically comparing the alternative to? Road? Manchester to Coventry can be a three hour affaire, as can Coventry to any actual destination in North London. Flying? Planes zoom along....what about getting out to airport check in , security, getting off and out and then the train into paddington or liverpool st or Waterloo...then getting to the office.

The) rail route is just then a wish from heaven to completely smash all other forms of transport for city centre to wait for it here comes the clanger, city centre. People will leave their cars and the plane in droves, er, because they want to get to the city centres. Carbon emmissions will toppel, England will be a green and pleasant quiet motorway place again.

The fact is that the cross birmingham morning jam is made by people who realistically either cannot reach their destination by train with any degree of common sense ,be that maybe of course  day's sales itinerary, or they have  have no interest in using the train because they are happy to sit in a two hour virtual car park in staffordshire as long as they have a BMW badge on their bonnet. Furthermore, they do not live in the town centres, and probably not all that near to key stops on the way like Stockport.

HS 2 serves the main purpose of supplying more wage slaves and consumers to London, which many have just rolled over and accepted as being the real future of english economic prosperity. Or rather they dont travel north of Watford Gap.

The costs are enormous. That is the rub. We could build brand new full capacity city hospitals in at least 20 of the UKs main cities and solve the 'crisis' in the NHS. We could pull all the children under the poverty line over it and give them personal tutors and free university education. We could probably make major breakthroughs on a world first basis in cures for two of the major cancers people die from in the west.

Carbon emmissions per passenger mile are not all that great ,especially if as with Eurostar there is constant off peak under occupancy.  Better than the plane, but a lot worse than the current Pendolinos which run on average on their real daytime diagrams at over three quarters full. Pricey too, i mean it will hardly be cheaper than the

Railways do need investment though and in particular the WCML south of Birmingham is slower now on average daytime diagrams than it probably was in 1982 because of under capacity. Mostly this is caused by slower freight services, some of which are diesel hauled and sub 70mph. If you could divert those to a new route with only 100mph running and then build more passing loops between Rugby and the London termini then you would be able to run pendolinos at 125mph and if you improved the current staffordshire-warwick shire Brum avoider route you could chunder along at 140mph through that bit of rural Englandshire to accelerate Manchunians on their way south.

The other issue is that of not actually wanting to go to "The City" but rather to either a company HQ in Hemel Hempstead, Slough or Maidenhead. Or as many budget travellers do now, just use London as a place you have to go through in order to sew Stanstead tenner flights to off peak saver Euston trains.

The Railway, capital letter note, was never developed to be trans home counties. Just as with HS2 , the routes all wanted to rush to the city, and even a map from as late as 1961 still shows this radial pattern in more or less its full Victorian glory. The last built  being the eventually bankrupted Great Central Main Line, which is Ironically a possible south radial route for HS2.  There are very few interconnector routes and until HS1, transrail and latterly HS2 were proposed, there has no post war strategic plan for adapting the victorian network to meet current or forseeable transport plans, apart from Beeching who proposed a biased cut, and actually closed the GCML which ten years later could have been a realistic 125mph strategic capacity route to London and places like Hemel Hempstead.

There is a need for realism here:  France had vast swaithes of low value, flat rural land to push the TGV through. Germany needs to reorientate its railways east-west again. Does England need to essentailly have a fifth radial route out of London again which is mainly isolated and passenger dedicated, enourmously costly to build and which will be very expensive to travel on with private operators?

I propose a freight relief route, using some of the GCNML from Hemel Hempstead and Tring,  140mph in rural stretches for the WCML,  widening or stacked tracks, commuter area passing loops on all routes to London, interconnectors both north and south of Rugby between the four main routes north, and a cross n london connector in the home counties to Cambridge and Stanstead in the East, while Aylesbury and maybe Reading in the west. Also the electrification of the Paddington-Oxf-Brum route in preference to Bristol, thus providing more capacity and an emergency relief route for through trains to & from the north be they frieght or passenger.

Who needs to go from Manchester to London in under 2 hours if it will cost them the future passenger, and you today's tax payer a small fortune for the route?

An Alternative to HS2- Restructuring British Railways

We can argue against the building of HS2 on many fronts: no doubt the infrastuctural investment would mark the turning point from Austerity to Stimulus in the UK , but the investment is largely folly as I discussed in my last blog and many transport, economic and civil engineering experts agree.

One of the key issues that HS2 tries to address is conjestion in the southern end of the west coast main line (WCML) , south of Rugby towards London. This is a function of three main contributing factors, given that current track bed is considered a fixed constant

1) Number of trains (including freight of course)
2) Average speed of trains
3) Capacity at main passenger termini and other "nodes"

HS2 has one main aim and a couple of side effects or co-benefits: the main aim is to decrease passenger travel time on a dedicated high speed route with no other trains that those. The side benefits are that passenger capacity increases and has a new higher ceiling for potential growth, and that freight can grow on the existing WCML.

These are all admirable strategic goals of the Railway, especially as rail freight is becoming more economically attractive in terms of road haulage prices and British businesses competing by scale. However HS2 may be a very expensive way of addressing theses issues and other solutions must be considered. We cannot have a "Gulf War" bull strategy - there must be alternatives considered in a democratic country.

Let us not forget that HS1 took 13 years to build after the channel tunnel itself was complete, and that is only 67 miles (108 km)! It also went over budget and required nationalisation to actually deliver the route. The comparison has always been drawn to France and Germany: The TGV was a typically gaulish, grandoise plan in a country with a long history of strong central government with little respect for landowners. HS2 takes prime real estate in London, the Home Counties and Cheshire plus land from industry, farming and country estates.

So despite "new build" having an allure of green/brown site cost savings, and little or no disruption to the WCML , it will most likely go over budget due to land aquisition costs, unforseen geographical challenges and the inflationary pressure such a capital project will place upon civil engineering supply in the UK and on an EU basis.

Addressing the Issues Differently.

Rather than take a very discursive route further, here are some of my own proposals per issue to solve

Terminii Capacity

1) Build Up, Under and Outwards.

HS2 could well have a new terminus, or use a swathes of London in connecting to the most prefered corridor north through the home counties. This causes massive disruption to all sorts of transport !

So rebuilding in particular Euston on multiple levels with several levels of track being stacked further out of the station. Also some degree of overhead avoiding loops can be built, such that local trains can be as the saying goes, side-lined, in order for expresses to accelerate out of Euston or have a higher average speed on the sections in over. Also these can be used for stacking ECS movements - relieving the carriage depots and platforms.

This is viewed as highly disruptive and highly expensive. However the capacity can be phased in, such that upside capacity like an extension sideways or outward platforms  or an underground element be built at low disruption and then supplements the earlier capacity when other platforms are then demolished to build up and downwards.

2) Dont' take all Capacity into London- Where do People Want to Eventually Arrive ??

Where are all these central london routed passengers going as the end of their destination? In rush hour of course a high proportion of travellers on express trains are on business or actually long distance, "red eye" commuting. However many of those are going to locations in west, north and east London or the business hubs in the home counties.

Here then we have various solutions

a) Stack- Hub- piggy back : here you run some high speed services which terminate at outlying stations which act as hubs for travel to both the centre and then utilise the local services around London from places like Watford gap.  This then decreases the final volume on the route's end, but it does not in itself reduce that much and may contribute to volume conjestion north of these points and also "platform waiting, crew change, points and shunting" congestion at those hubs as the trains have to in most cases, reverse out or find sidings.

Another way of reducing lower speed congestion while using this principle is to piggy-back in commuters on express services. This is done by taking advantage of some "yellow signals" which are in the diagram for an existing or proposed service- where an express encounters a slower train some miles infront of it, before that train enters a side platform, as siding or diverts off the WCML. So in this approach an express train calls at a key commuter station, like Milton Keynes.

A consideration in planning this is also to move people on trains NORTH to places like Milton Keynes in order to meet express services and actually reduce their journey time southbound. This way trains run counter congestion as feeder-hub services.

b) Build More Round London and Improve Inter-Transport Stations

Britain still lags far behind most of Europe on integrated transport. We had a big lead in the earlier metropolitan projects like the London Tube and in the Glasgow Area in particular, but we still lack the joined up writing in getting people swiftly and comfortable over to another transport mode, and having that transport mode have a gauranteed connectivity or good frequency.

There are several lines which run around the North and West of London in particular and some other diagonal corridors which can be expløoited and maybe double-decked or have new transmodal transport stations built at their intersections or have new chords intersecting them from main routes of all public and indeed private transport as in park-and-ride stations.

Also ignoring the London Metropolitan Area Commuter, many travellers are pretty much well forced into the terminii by ticketing or timetabling in order to affect a route out again to places further a field. This should be addressed not only by the hub approach, but by encouraging faster connecting services on other routes south of Birmingham, and more services which cross the main great rail corridors, Western, Oxford, WCML, great central, ECML and great Eastern.

For example for anywhere in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire or East Anglia, you should not need to nor be forced by cheapest ticketing to go through central London Terminii both in commuting times with arrivals before 0930 and through the day. You may have to change trains at a hub in the north, but your overall journey and transfer time should be similar if not reduced.

Number Of Trains


I touched on above that it is not just the number of trains, but the type of train of course, so the next issue, average speed is largely now a function of the slowest train in the "bottle neck".

Volume of traffic is addressed immediately by having longer trains towards maximum legnth possible for the stations on the route, and then of course lengthening stations! This has been an approach taken around London. You can then also hub people into fewer, longer, faster trains as mentioned above and those small 3 to 6 carraige trains get supplemented and replaced by longer or faster express and semi stopper services.

On these longer piggy back services, you then really need to plan and actually lock seating capacity in for those commuters: this can mean ticket management with booked seats to cluster shorter journey travellers, or those leaving at the hubs for new trans-services, into the same coach such that they are emptied for the new commuters ready to board; or closing carriages off for the whole journey: Or merging trains with new ECS at the hubs.

Merging trains is less time consuming that it was before and capacity at "hubs" or other stations or sidings could be made such that also several slower stopper commuter services can merge into a single non stop service to the terminii.

Now we have only so far talked passenger:, what about Freight ?

A key strategy for governments is to react to the end -of-oil time which will be facilitated by global warming if we choose of course to ignore the new-ice-agers sponsored by the main producers. Another issue is grid lock on motorways and finally as above, an economic pressure for more supply for rail freight.

Freight is slow in two ways: average speed and pick up times to peak speed / optimal speed from signal haults. Also freight is getting longer, which is a problem when you consider injecting more signal sections into some parts of routes in order to stack in more short passenger trains. But that is not the issue with length- the main issue is when they leave the main line and have to cross left to right from sidings - they block then double the capacity they use - the old line, the new line, and the line in the opposite direction is affected if the freight crosses to exit the line.

So to .....

Average Speed

Average speed then in general : In theory there is a max capacity, zero speed where all the sections of line are used up- not quite end to end trains but trains with their protection of seperation zones. You can then increase the number of sections and decrease average speed to push more trains along- in other words the queu would at least move. Conversely then to increase average speed for trains capable of high top speed and safe stopping distances, you have to increase the length of each section.

By in large this sectioning of the WCML has evolved over time to a perceived optimum, or at least a compromise between the needs of "compressed" capacity as you reach the terminii and the elastic speed outside.

So in an ideal world the trains move at a reasonable average speed towards the terminii where express and local must share: local accelerate fast enough to the peak speed and then are off on side lines with a level of separation which just slows the express to a lower speed, or are dealt with by a speed limit to make sections work smoothly and with higher safety margins than are really needed.

Throw in freight. It is slower and means that section length has to be managed for the expected legnth of freight and that faster trains behind that have to be able to stop ( which goes without saying actually.) But this reduces capacity at a lower average speed as well as slowing speed up the line due to "yellow" warning signals lasting longer and more red signals being met by expressess with a slow freight, yet still actually moving, infront of them.

A lot of freight even on the electrified WCML is diesel hauled due to this being economic in terms of "rail head" pick up delivery where shunting, or low speed creeping off loading is now most often conducted with use of the delivey locomotive. Diesels are not as reliable as electric locomotives today, with failures being rare but time costly problems. However at key speed ranges diesels can be slower to pick up to maximum speed than electric locos

When you have then a practical number of sections and average planned speeds are known, you eventually reach this capacity issue and have to slow down the whole route to allow in particular, more freight to run. The combination of profitable high revenue freight and more commuter services have in effect negated the advances made in tilting trains that can operate over 120mph, and we are stuck with journey times you could have seen in a 1979 timetable for many services.

An Alternative - Low Speed 2!!!

Among the different proposed routes for HS2 has been a "Marlyebone" corridor north to Aylesbury and through Oxfordshire from Thame possibly . There was existing track bed here and along the Chilterns route which is still in operation. Rather than building much parallell line to existing then, the route could be developed to deliver mostly freight traffic at lower speeds to the NW of London and round the South to Southampton in particular as a major port, and the Channel Tunnel.

There could be new line south of Birmgham connecting to the chiltern line, and some broadening of this line in rural routes to four track. On this then freights of different speeds can pass and all freight can be priortised such that journey time to the outskirts of London are actaully improved over the WCML. Nearer to london then, where space is at more of a premium,  avoiding sidings could be made so that the passenger routes that share this can avoid some of this.

Second to this, a new wide west of London avoiding line should be made, which has the advantage of crossing over several major, radial lines at speed while having junctions onto them as well, while also being then interconnected to the whole SE network south of London more quickly than current progress over London.

High Speed Link Two : HS2 Contra Arguements

High speed two is one of two grandoise Keynsian invesment projects which the last and current UK governments are committed to a certain extent.

That and Trident 2, could both prove to be the biggest waste of money the UK has ever made, lying behind Blue Streak, Trident 1 and the Darian project for that matter. Both are of purely political value- perceptions over actual utility these provide.

HS2 is proposed to solve the issue of conjestion and speed up journey times from London and also connect the north of England with the continent. On the latter, this although being an admirable proposition, in reality we are talking business travellers who will still find the plane quicker and quite possibly cheaper. The anticipated business seats on Eurostar have never reached any forecasted sorry "wishful thinking" levels and that connection is between the world's second largest financial centre and the worlds second most powerful beaurocracy.

The nature of doing business and where people who travel to London regularly live, does not reflect the northern central station approach- business travellers tend to live in the suburbs and desirably near the airport around Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool. These cities are trying to reduce car useage to the city centres, while also metropolitan public transport is being squeezed out of the low occupancy "red eye" commuting times into a marginalised service. The route can of course take airport transfer stations and park and ride stations into planning. These then affect timings, conjestion as we will discuss, and energy use.

In terms of energy use overall, HS2 is also a bit of an environmental failure: trains running at 300km/h use more energy per passenger than a 737 it is argued, and unlike the low cost budget boeing operators, off peak traffic will be run at well under capacity. You can argue that of course by 2030 it will be clean electricity, but so far the politico-economic stream is not going fast enough that way - domestic gas may start to become uneconomic by 2030 meaning a consumer market driven mass conversion to electricity.

But do we actually need to travel at 180mph and 140 mph average journey speeds from the north west of england to London?  HS2 is planned along the TGV solution - straighter new build lines, dedicated to the single use train types. However do we need this reduction in journey time, particularly on the Shorter Manchester and Birmingham to London stretches? Is there a true cost benefit?

We already have train and track which can hold 125mph average speeds over significant stretches of the west-coast-main-line and technology is in place for 140mph over some stretches. However that is given a less conjested WCML. The issue is that there is conjestion, especially at the southern end. More on that in a later blog.

Train times on HS2 could mean a sub one hour to Birmingham south and under two hours to Manchester. Is this not offering a Ferrari for motorway users, paid for by the state, when in fact a Vectra diesel is a more sensible solution totally acceptable to the punter ? Rail already outcompetes road to Manchester at least for business travelling at peak hours due to the unbelievable M6-M5 conjestion. Also rail actually outcompetes flight total travel timings, given you are not doing business at Heathrow itself, because of the connection time from the plane's pier to city centre transport hubs and the slower progress due to heavier security.

Another issue to take here is that these journey times pose a social dilema. HS2 is supposed to aid business travellers in pendling their wares in the SE of England and raising finance there. However their employees, the brightest types, can find that they can suddenly commute to far higher salaried jobs in London and the SE while still maintaining a family life in the North. Also those employees who find themselves working long hours on business trips south and working in addition on the train, may decide to snap the elastic and follow the well trodden path to riches in moving down south.

On the point of "business people travel behaviour" what does the north east offer the central and western business districts of London which become so attractive with HS2? Do we not have indpenedent, Northern traders operating purely on electronic connection to the stock exchange and other financial markets in London ?In my experience business people from the NW are travelling indeed to the SE but are visiting clients in the home counties, with connection and taxi times from proposed HS2 Terminii of well over an hour. The wise money has always been on an evening drive to a Hotel in the shires and a sporadic bombing raid on company HQs and SMEs in the SE in places like Slough, Swindon, Essex and Basingstoke.

Also intra-route: do you not create a generation of job hoppers who jump at the first opportunity on the new Leeds-Manchester-Birmingham route rather than building solid experience in their home cities? Do we not also link thousands more into a bigger environmental footprint than 20 mile commuting by car ?

So far no one has talked about that key element in any private provision, so lacking in the 1990s reail privatisation, and that is competition on the HS2 route. That is because there will not be any. There will be a main operator under license and passenger service requirement contract, and Eurostar. Therefore we will see pricing with strange elasticity: there will be a creaming policy for the volume who are steadily committed to the new route and this is a viscious circle because without competition, there is no incentive to gain volume beyond a certain point of this creaming.

No, HS2 is folly and the money could be far better used elsewhere as I will blogg shortly.