Hi all

Today it was leaked that the UK government are to approve a new high speed rail network from London to the North by 2026.

The route will run from London to Birmingham initially with extensions to Manchester and further north in the pipeline. Journey times will be 49 minutes on the initial stage but will bring Manchester under 2 hours and glasgow in just over 3 hours from London.

This isn't round the corner, but given the ease of rail and enhanced journey times, could this be the death nail for UK domestic flights, especially the London - Manchester flights that BMI (for now) and BA fly.

This could have a large effect on EDI which has strong and competitive London links.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16453869


Sandyb123

2026 is a long time, a lot could change both in aircraft and rail travel.
You never know, the UK government(s) might have succeeded in their mission to destroy our aviation sector by then. I sincerely hope they 'fail'.

Honestly I think it is to early to tell. By the time its 2026, think where the aviation industry could be. There could be new airports, more runways added at LGW/LHR etc. Even new airlines...

I don't know for sure but I don't think the rail industry could ruin the domestic airline routes. Plus train tickets cost alot of money so one advantage to the airlines.

There are no air services linking London with Birmingham or Leeds. Pax will still fly from MAN to LHR to make international connections ... you need only look at the situation in France where flights still operate from Lyon to CDG despite a TGV line (linking these two cities) having been in operation for many years.

The Anglo-Scottish situation would be different. But it will be decades if the high-speed line, assuming it ever runs all the way to Scotland, reaches Edinburgh/Glasgow.

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 2): I don't know for sure but I don't think the rail industry could ruin the domestic airline routes. Plus train tickets cost alot of money so one advantage to the airlines.

EDI is an interesting case in point. When BMI is gobbled up into IAG (BA) there will be no competition on the LHR route and I bet as a result fares will increase.

Train travel is actually generally cheaper than air travel on this route. You can buy a first class return from Edinburgh to London for £70. You can't even get to LTN and back on EZ for that.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 1): 2026 is a long time, a lot could change both in aircraft and rail travel.

14 years isn't that long in the grand scheme of things.

Sandyb123

I don't know how confident I am that it will get built, or how far it will go. But if it does, then I guess Madrid-Barcelona is a case study to look at.

How many LHR slots are used on flights that stay within Great Britain?

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 3): Pax will still fly from MAN to LHR to make international connections ...

If the high speed line itself goes to the airport and allows convenient transfers to air, then, I wouldn't assume that. FRA gets good feed from the Airport Fernbahnhof, no? But I haven't heard that's in the plans here.

[Edited 2012-01-07 16:21:23]

[Edited 2012-01-07 16:21:58]

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 4): 14 years isn't that long in the grand scheme of things.

I would agree. However, our two main political parties frequently like to scrap each others (controversial) projects like this when they are voted in after a period in opposition. LHR's third runway is a good example. I'd be rather surprised if this ever saw the light of day, especially considering the large amount of opposition to the project already.

That's without mentioning that things might get a bit frosty if the SNP get their way. I can't see how the London-Birmingham stretch can be justified on it's own. Even if you add in the expansion to Leeds/Manchester it still seems a bit unnecessary.

Personally, I think we would see a better return on our investment if we 'just' updated/modernised the current lines.

[Edited 2012-01-07 16:28:08]

Quoting tharanga (Reply 5): How many LHR slots are used on flights that stay within Great Britain?

Quite a few just did a search on the LHR website. To EDI there are 21 return flights, GLA has 12 and MAN has 25. Equaling 134 slots a day. So aprox 10% of daily movements at LHR.

There has also been talk of a rail hub at heathrow linking HS2.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 6): I would agree. However, our two main political parties frequently like to scrap each others (controversial) projects like this when they are voted in.

Yes but this was a labour idea that has been continued by the conservative coalition. I can see this happening.

Sandyb123

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 7): So aprox 10% of daily movements at LHR.

Not huge, but still high enough that it's worth thinking about how to move some of those people to rail. That'll free up slots for other purposes where rail cannot compete.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 7): There has also been talk of a rail hub at heathrow linking HS2.

Meaning, HS2 would actually go to LHR? Or there's a connection involved?

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 7): Yes but this was a labour idea that has been continued by the conservative coalition. I can see this happening.

Seems some Tory backbenchers from the regions where the line would be built are upset. Spoiling the natural beauty of the landscape is among the complaints.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 6): Personally, I think we would see a better return on our investment if we 'just' updated/modernised the current lines.

To counter that, according to the leak, they did a study comparing those options, and found that improving the existing line simply didn't offer the same benefits. For whatever that's worth - you'll have to see the study itself when it comes out to make your own judgement.

There isn't that much aviation traffic between Birmingham and London. Most of the traffic is by road. We really need the HS2 to get to Manchester quickly. Using an airport for internal flights, with the security measures as they are, is too unpleasant and best avoided.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 1): You never know, the UK government(s) might have succeeded in their mission to destroy our aviation sector by then.

The gov't love BA and always will. Big employers and vast tax income.

Quoting sandyb123 (Thread starter): This isn't round the corner, but given the ease of rail and enhanced journey times, could this be the death nail for UK domestic flights, especially the London - Manchester flights that BMI (for now) and BA fly.

Once the means to travel city-city using high speed rail has been created, to me it makes little sense to fly. Whether it is sensible to invest a reported £17 billion to build about 170Km of track is another thing. £100 million per kilometer to put 4 rails on the ground with signals and power supply? That's £100,000 per metre. Not cost effective IMO.

Not absolutely sure but I seem to remember reading that in France competition from the TGV has resulted in Air France abandoning several routes.

It may replace some flights, but mostly only O&D and U2 into LTN particularly as well as STN would be the most hard hit. I think the airlines would be sensible to offer a "codeshare" on the train journey. I believe AF & EK if not others do something similar on the TGV.

However, another thing to consider is the terminus in London. The only reference I can find in the linked BBC article is Euston. If that is the case, that is a crappy replacement for connecting flights and will largely therefore only take away the O&D pax actually visiting the city of London.

Unless the Heathrow Express is extended from Paddington to Euston, that would be one crappy journey to all London airports.

LHR - get to Kings X at ground level or via Victoria line and then an hour on the Piccadilly line, or Circle/Hammersmith/Metropolitan line from Euston Square to Paddington - all a horrible contemplation, particularly with suitcases, even more so as a stranger.

LGW - Victoria line to Victoria, then Gatwick Express or same as above to St Pancras to get the Thameslink or whatever it is called now.

It will all add a lot of time to the journey wiping out any time saving by HS2 and while those with a very tight budget may do it if cheaper, for the most part anyone with a longhaul flight ahead of them, or worse behind them, or a business flyer where time is money, they are just not going to want to deal with any of that.

Even for the O&D pax, only if you are actually visiting the city or north London is Euston going to be of any attraction vs flying into LHR and LGW and a lesser extent STN if we think of it serving Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk & Cambs markets. LCY would probably be immune as the type of pax using those services are not going to be the penny pinching type who would endure the above scenario. The only real location victim would be LTN as the Euston line passes right past its doorstep. Therefore I think there will always be a market for the BA flights even from MAN to London, LHR particularly (regardless of EK, LH & KL from the regions).

Quoting U2380 (Reply 1): I sincerely hope they 'fail'.

I don't hope they fail in building HS2. Its perfect for the corridor.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 12): I don't hope they fail in building HS2. Its perfect for the corridor.

   The environmental and economic benefits far outweigh the loss of some green belt during construction. It's typical of Britain's Nimby-ism. (Not In My Back Yard). I'm not being hypocritical, I've got a railway at the bottom of my garden!

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 11): If that is the case, that is a crappy replacement for connecting flights and will largely therefore only take away the O&D pax actually visiting the city of London.

Agreed, Euston is a sh*it hole. I'm surprised they're not using St Pancras station, it's right next door and built to handle Eurostar. It would seem logical that there will be a connection to the start of the HS1 underground link at Euston as the existing infrastructure is so connected.

Quoting tharanga (Reply 8): Meaning, HS2 would actually go to LHR? Or there's a connection involved?

There has been talk of a HS2 rail and bus exchange at Heathrow but the first reference I could find is on this wikipedia article.

Sandyb123

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 3): Pax will still fly from MAN to LHR to make international connections ... you need only look at the situation in France where flights still operate from Lyon to CDG despite a TGV line (linking these two cities) having been in operation for many years.

I can see most of the flights being ditched, with the exception of a few that are timed for the main connection banks, so as with France, I don't believe HS2 will see the complete disappearance of domestic flights where rail and air compete.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 6): I would agree. However, our two main political parties frequently like to scrap each others (controversial) projects like this when they are voted in after a period in opposition. LHR's third runway is a good example. I'd be rather surprised if this ever saw the light of day, especially considering the large amount of opposition to the project already.

This project has cross party support with all three main political parties supporting it, so I think there is a pretty good chance it will go ahead.

Quoting tharanga (Reply 8): To counter that, according to the leak, they did a study comparing those options, and found that improving the existing line simply didn't offer the same benefits. For whatever that's worth - you'll have to see the study itself when it comes out to make your own judgement.

Atkins (the engineering firm) did a report available online which provided alternatives to HS2. The recommended alternative was RP2 (Rail Package 2) which comprised of debottlenecking and upgrading the WCML (West Coast Main Line) as well as faster commuter trains. In the report, the cost-benefit ratio was significantly better than HS2 (especially considering HS2's wildly over-ambitious passenger figures). However, the problem of RP2 was that it only really benefited long-distance travel and did little to improve capacity on the London Midland commuter route into London. The cost of RP2 has also been disputed with proponents of HS2 saying that RP2 will cost significantly more than the estimate making it look expensive compared to HS2 where you get a whole new railway (I find that hard to believe but that's another story).

Having said that, some of the capacity improvements being bounced around about HS2 aren't exactly reliable.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 11): However, another thing to consider is the terminus in London. The only reference I can find in the linked BBC article is Euston. If that is the case, that is a crappy replacement for connecting flights and will largely therefore only take away the O&D pax actually visiting the city of London. Unless the Heathrow Express is extended from Paddington to Euston, that would be one crappy journey to all London airports.

It gets even worse. The Victoria line is already close to capacity - despite just having been upgraded. Just imagine how pleasant that will be with thousands of extra passengers from HS2.

This leads industry experts to conclude that if HS2 gets the go-ahead then Crossrail 2 (the Chelsea - Hackney line) will likely have to be given the go ahead too. Indeed, it is unlikely that the benefits touted for HS2 can be achieved without Crossrail 2.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 13): Agreed, Euston is a sh*it hole. I'm surprised they're not using St Pancras station, it's right next door and built to handle Eurostar. It would seem logical that there will be a connection to the start of the HS1 underground link at Euston as the existing infrastructure is so connected.

I'm puzzled by that too. I would have picked King's Cross. Having said that, Euston is due to get a major overhaul with HS2.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 13): The environmental and economic benefits far outweigh the loss of some green belt during construction. It's typical of Britain's Nimby-ism. (Not In My Back Yard). I'm not being hypocritical, I've got a railway at the bottom of my garden!

The environmental and economic benefits of HS2 are dubious to say the least.

On the environmental front, the fact that it cuts through the British countryside is , I think, a non-issue as we desperately need new infrastructure of some form. Whether that is a new runway, railway line or motorway it is inevitably going to cause destruction of woodland and countryside.

However, to get a train to travel at 250mph using a huge amount of energy. If this is clean energy then there is no issue. However if that energy comes from dirty coal plants - which many of ours are - then it is questionable as to how environmentally friendly it is. Trains travelling at 150mph would be better for the environment. Furthermore, passenger growth figures are enormous which not only require a huge modal shift but also a vast number of new passengers. More journeys suggests more frivolous travel (i.e. going to Birmingham for the weekend because it is cheap). I don't have a problem with that as I believe in freedom of movement (and low cost travel is part of that), however it is hardly good for the environment.

On the economic front, there is quite some debate about how the economic benefits have been calculated....and to be perfectly frank I think the economic case is appalling. Growth figures are by some accounts unrealistically high, the appraisal period is longer than the estimated lifespan of the trains (so the cost of replacing the rolling stock has not been included) and the benefits of time savings is likely overestimated (time spent on a train is not necessarily wasted time now that we have mobile phones and wi-fi), and HS2 will go to a new station in Birmingham which means changing stations if you want to travel beyond the HS2 terminus in Birmingham - thus loosing some of the time saving benefits (although this seems to be omitted from the report). The benefits of the new route have been calculated but the disbenefits to the old WCML have not (i.e. reduced traffic and therefore a loss of trade at stations / businesses along the route).

I am ambivalent towards HS2. I think it is great that a British government is at last spending huge sums of money improving our infrastructure, and I think it is great that it is being spent on rail travel. I do however question whether the £17 Billion is better spent on HS2, or on upgrading and expanding our conventional railway network.

Quoting sandyb123 (Thread starter): Today it was leaked that the UK government are to approve a new high speed rail network from London to the North by 2026.

To Birmingham only, it will not be completed fully to Leeds/Manchester until 2033 at the earliest.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 4): Train travel is actually generally cheaper than air travel on this route. You can buy a first class return from Edinburgh to London for £70. You can't even get to LTN and back on EZ for that.

If you are lucky and book ahead you can, but if you do the same by air you can pick up fares for £40rtn. The train is more like £300rtn in First if you are booking later.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 6): That's without mentioning that things might get a bit frosty if the SNP get their way. I can't see how the London-Birmingham stretch can be justified on it's own. Even if you add in the expansion to Leeds/Manchester it still seems a bit unnecessary.

These are the first stages of a larger HSR network. From Manchester it is ultimately planned to extend up the West coast to Glasgow with another line travelling up the East coast to Newcastle and Edinburgh. A later line would be built through Bristol to Cardiff.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 7): There has also been talk of a rail hub at heathrow linking HS2.

Unfortunately my understanding is that routing HS2 via Heathrow is no longer an option being considered.

Quoting tharanga (Reply 8): Meaning, HS2 would actually go to LHR? Or there's a connection involved?

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 11): Unless the Heathrow Express is extended from Paddington to Euston, that would be one crappy journey to all London airports.

There would be a new station and interchange in West London allowing access back to Heathrow.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 13): The environmental and economic benefits far outweigh the loss of some green belt during construction. It's typical of Britain's Nimby-ism. (Not In My Back Yard). I'm not being hypocritical, I've got a railway at the bottom of my garden!

I agree about the NIMBY-ism, but the environmental benefits are not just unproven, they are proven not to be there. I recently had the opportunity to question a leading figure on the HS2 development on this very topic, I quote the response; "that's where the case falls down". Aside of sourcing the energy needed to power these trains, there is the carbon footprint of construction which can't be ignored - it's the elephant in the room. Millions of tonnes of concrete and steel, millions of energy intensive machine hours, massive amounts of Co2 released in a construction process set to last up to 20 years. Once you include these factors and the growing efficiency of aircraft, building a single 3km strip of runway is a much greener option.

Having said all that, I'm not against HSR and HS2, but I do question the route it will be taking and many of the decisions and environmental credentials is it heralded to have. I don't believe it's going to kill UK domestic travel because it will be a London centric system, not everybody wants to travel to or via London, so there will still be a demand for inter-regional travel even if flights to London decrease. It will however affect the competitiveness of regional economies and I think the implications of this side effect to regions which will not benefit from HSR have not been fully appreciated.

I think we are going to see a resurgence in region to region flights over the next 5 years as rail fares get ever higher whilst trains become fuller, roads more congested and the plane more enticing. Many fares more than doubled at the beginning of this year meaning you could now pay £200rtn for a morning domestic EXT-MAN flight and it would still be cheaper than taking the train.


Dan  

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 15): Aside of sourcing the energy needed to power these trains, there is the carbon footprint of construction which can't be ignored - it's the elephant in the room. Millions of tonnes of concrete and steel, millions of energy intensive machine hours, massive amounts of Co2 released in a construction process set to last up to 20 years. Once you include these factors and the growing efficiency of aircraft, building a single 3km strip of runway is a much greener option.

I disagree. After all, this infrastructure will also be used by many travellers who do not want to fly, and it also helps to bring travel from roads back to the railroad.

It is good to see that it is not impossible to get modern infrastructure in the UK.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 16): After all, this infrastructure will also be used by many travellers who do not want to fly

number of BHX-London flights to be reduced as a result of this: 0. Because there are no flights.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 16): It is good to see that it is not impossible to get modern infrastructure in the UK.

but I refuse to pay for it through my taxation. If those who want the scheme fund it themselves using their own money, then I've no objections.

So 17 billion pounds, how does this compare to cost of a new runway at LHR, better yet, is the land that will be used for the lines free and clear with no environmental impact?

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 16): I disagree. After all, this infrastructure will also be used by many travellers who do not want to fly, and it also helps to bring travel from roads back to the railroad.

It will be used by many, but it still cannot be claimed that building HS2 is a green option to replace domestic flights, because it simply isn't. That is known by the people pushing it and, although I support HS2, I disagree with the pushing of such an obviously flawed rational. If it wasn't for wanting to combat flights with an overland train which is almost as quick as air travel then other options become available to increase capacity and improve the passenger experience at both a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the environmental impact.


Dan  

Quoting david_itl (Reply 17): but I refuse to pay for it through my taxation. If those who want the scheme fund it themselves using their own money, then I've no objections

What is wrong in having public infrastructure, paid for by the public? After all, it helps the whole economy.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20): What is wrong in having public infrastructure, paid for by the public? After all, it helps the whole economy.

It helps the economies served directly which in turn helps the UK economy as a whole, but that does not mean everyone benefits. Even studies by groups pushing for HSR/HS2 concede that it will have a negative effect on economic growth in regions not served by HSR as companies and investment are attracted elsewhere.


Dan  

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 13): Agreed, Euston is a sh*it hole. I'm surprised they're not using St Pancras station, it's right next door and built to handle Eurostar. It would seem logical that there will be a connection to the start of the HS1 underground link at Euston as the existing infrastructure is so connected.

Hopefully this makes Euston better.

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 14): I'm puzzled by that too. I would have picked King's Cross. Having said that, Euston is due to get a major overhaul with HS2.

Euston makes some sense due to its relative lower crowding. The King's Cross/St. Pancras pair is a bit overtaxed at the moment.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 17): but I refuse to pay for it through my taxation.

Really? Do you refuse to pay for roads? Sewers? Regular Rail? The Courts? Anyone of myriad other things paid for through taxation?

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 21): ven studies by groups pushing for HSR/HS2 concede that it will have a negative effect on economic growth in regions not served by HSR as companies and investment are attracted elsewhere.

This problem is well known in Germany, where we got 2 rediculous stops at the high speed lane Frankfurt - Cologne (Montabaur and Limburg), which are completely useless (critics call the few trains which actually do stop there RE-300, local train 300km/h). Those two stops were built to satisfy local people.

Still, isn't there a master plan available in the UK which actually could lead to modern infrastructure everywhere? Who says HS-2 is the last high speed lane to be built?

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23): This problem is well known in Germany, where we got 2 rediculous stops at the high speed lane Frankfurt - Cologne (Montabaur and Limburg), which are completely useless (critics call the few trains which actually do stop there RE-300, local train 300km/h). Those two stops were built to satisfy local people.

This mentality is also what is holding up the rail connection between FRA and HHN. While the old track and right-of-way still exists, the villages along the track refuse to give their permission to re-open the line unless the train will stop in each and every village. This again would increase the travelling time so much, that the train could not compete with the existing busses.
IMO, a stop in HHN, Simmern, Bingen, Mainz, Wiesbaden and FRA each should be enough.

Jan

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23): Still, isn't there a master plan available in the UK which actually could lead to modern infrastructure everywhere? Who says HS-2 is the last high speed lane to be built?

I don't believe there is no, just a mixture of individual road, rail and aviation policy. For many parts of regional England the population densities do not justify the expenditure for HSR, especially much of the South West and East Anglia. Ironically current trains to the South West now take longer than they did 25 years ago.


Dan  

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23): This problem is well known in Germany, where we got 2 rediculous stops at the high speed lane Frankfurt - Cologne (Montabaur and Limburg), which are completely useless (critics call the few trains which actually do stop there RE-300, local train 300km/h). Those two stops were built to satisfy local people.

Most trains go non-stop. BTW, you forgot Siegburg and Koeln-Bonn Airport. The last ICE ex CGN actually stops at all 4. Limbburg BTW I use quite ferquently, it's 20 minutes by car, same distance at FRA airport but parking was free and now is 1 € per day vs 26€ at FRA. All thse stations are useful, are served once per hour, or every 2 hours in early afternoons and helped local economy a lot.

The HSR line from CGN to FRA actually took 4 daily flights ine each direction off the air, DUS is still fully served.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23): till, isn't there a master plan available in the UK which actually could lead to modern infrastructure everywhere? Who says HS-2 is the last high speed lane to be built?

If the UK does anything on HSR they should start realising Lord Foster's plan, best would be with investpors money from Arabian state funds. There is no sense in building HSR lines now that linke LHR which will be scrapped again in 30 or 40 years.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24): his mentality is also what is holding up the rail connection between FRA and HHN. While the old track and right-of-way still exists, the villages along the track refuse to give their permission t

Jan, that would be a waste of ressources. The buses go from all directions, are quicker and cost far less, are not subsidized and earn money for the operators and the taxman. There are so many rail infastructure projects in hold which have a far greater priority.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24): This mentality is also what is holding up the rail connection between FRA and HHN. While the old track and right-of-way still exists, the villages along the track refuse to give their permission to re-open the line unless the train will stop in each and every village. This again would increase the travelling time so much, that the train could not compete with the existing busses.

Let me ask this question, those villages concerned, will the trains bypass them or go through them? I can understand someone's angst when they see the train that they need to use to get to their destination passing through their town but they have to take a bus or car to the next town or larger population center to board.

It's a problem created by empowerment, how it is corrected without actually saying that your empowerment only goes so far is the issue.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 17): but I refuse to pay for it through my taxation. If those who want the scheme fund it themselves using their own money, then I've no objections.

A lot of what you use, infrastructure wise, would never have been built then.
Including much of the aviation related stuff.

This sort of thing is what taxation is for.
Seems a whole lot more productive than paying those who could find employment building this and much else, to sit on their arse or have to take such low paid menial jobs they still get social benefits - in effect all of 'us' subsiding their stingy employers.

I personally don't want HS2 to be built. Think about the people's homes this will have to pass through and their land lost, their peace disturbed and more importantly the environmental benefits won't be gained unless the government also replaces the old coal fired power stations in this country (ha!). I think they should focus on that first, then when they have money again, upgrade the existing lines. I mean by train it doesn't take much longer currently than it does by plane. Yes the actual physical journey is longer (say 3 hours by train, 40 minutes by plane -- not accurate figures, but just an idea), you have to add onto the flight time, the time it took to get to an airport (less local than a train station) clear security, check-in etc, you're looking at +2 hours again. Add a delay to that, flying is about the same.

However in terms of killing LHR-MAN or regional flights from LHR/LGW, let's be honest, most of the passengers now are probably connecting ones. Take myself for example, I live 45 minutes drive from MAN and if HS2 was to be built, I'd still have to get an hour train journey to Manchester and then HS2 down to London, then probably change again to get to LHR. It would be far easier just to drive to MAN (or get a taxi, or even the train there!) Then go MAN-LHR-wherever only 3 legs then (home-MAN-LHR) as opposed to several train changes (if you get a delay on one, you miss subsequent ones etc).

My preference will always be flying, as opposed to getting the train

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 26): BTW, you forgot Siegburg and Koeln-Bonn Airport.

You got me   I lived near cologne, always used Siegburg-Bonn, so I am biased about that stop. Of course, people near Montabaur and Limburg see a justification of their respective stops, too  

Quoting GDB (Reply 28): This sort of thing is what taxation is for.

  

After all the financial desaster of the Eurotunnel is proof why certain projects need public financing.

Quoting planejamie (Reply 29): My preference will always be flying, as opposed to getting the train

I do not care of the method. I just want what is most efficient based on how long it takes, cost and convenience.

I just started a topic in Civ-Av, regarding BHX being linked to London in 39 minutes once the link opens.......


BHX An 'extra London Airport' With New HSR Link? (by BMIFlyer Jan 10 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22): Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 14): I'm puzzled by that too. I would have picked King's Cross. Having said that, Euston is due to get a major overhaul with HS2. Euston makes some sense due to its relative lower crowding. The King's Cross/St. Pancras pair is a bit overtaxed at the moment.

Euston is going to have a major redevelopment to accommodate HS2, so whether it went to Euston or King's Cross some form of redevelopment would be needed.

Euston has the advantage of being the traditional hub of the WCML and the fact that it is a sh*thole - so the redevelopment would vastly improve it.

King's Cross has the advantage of better connections. Not only are there more London Underground connections from King's Cross, it also has the SouthEastern High Speed routes and the Thameslink route which would vastly improve connections for anyone heading south.

Quoting BMIFlyer (Reply 32): I just started a topic in Civ-Av, regarding BHX being linked to London in 39 minutes once the link opens....... BHX An 'extra London Airport' With New HSR Link? (by BMIFlyer Jan 10 2012 in Civil Aviation)

I think this is PR Spin by the Tory party to try to deflect attention away from the fact that Heathrow needs to expand. The idea that HS2 will remove the need for a third runway at Heathrow is nonsense (and slightly ironic since the third runway at Heathrow has a better business case than HS2 - if HS2 is being done for the economy then surely the 3rd runway at Heathrow should be given precedence due to the better cost-benefit analysis).

It has been suggested that HS2 fares are likely to have a premium, so for Birmingham to become another airport for London fares will have to be significantly cheaper to offset the cost of travel to Birmingham as well as the extra time taken.

The last time I had to go to Birmingham I had to pay £45 return booking 2 weeks in advance. I have similarly booked a trip to Amsterdam from London City 2 weeks in advance at a cost of £110. So to compete on cost, the fare at Birmingham would have to be a) £45 cheaper to offset the train fare and b) probably another £30 cheaper on top of that to offset the inconvenience.

Is a £30-£40 return flight from Birmingham to Amsterdam realistic - most certainly not. In any case the inconvenience would be more than enough to put me off.

You can easily book a return to London for £25 on Virgin trains, and as little as £12 on the slower London Midland trains. And as for Heathrow, that just needs knocking down and starting again, but thats another thread.

CGN did not become an alternative to FRA, despite being linked. So I doubt it will be any different for BHX. This does not change the businesscase for the high-speed-lane, though.