beleben

die belebende Bedenkung

HS2 and decreased connectivity

with 6 comments

HS2 Ltd, August 2012, proposed WCML service patterns, Crewe to Euston

Decreased classic connectivity is a major problem in the HS2 concept, and something which its lobbyists find difficult to address truthfully. In February 2012, Centro’s publicly-funded Go HS2 high speed rail campaign claimed that “the HS2 alternative threatens stations in the West Midlands“. Part of the Go HS2 misinformation strategy is to close down discussion, and suggest that there is only one ‘alternative’ to HS2: the 51m scheme. But 51m is just one of many possible approaches to developing the classic railway.

There is no reason to believe that upgrading the West Coast Main Line would necessitate any closure of stations. Nor is there any reason to believe that upgrading of the West Coast Main Line would reduce service levels. In fact, HS2 Ltd’s “Updated economic case for HS2 (August 2012): Explanation of the service patterns” suggested that the HS2 scheme would reduce classic connectivity. As can be seen from the extract from the service table (above), the post-HS2 Crewe to London service would decrease from thirteen to eight trains per day.

Advertisements

Written by beleben

April 25, 2013 at 5:41 pm

Posted in Centro

Tagged with , ,

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Surely this is a little misleading considering that while the London Midland Crewe – London service will drop to 9 trains a day, this will be supplemented by another 19 brand new West Coast Crewe – London trains a day, calling at all the major stops in the Trent Valley, as shown on the very next page of the same document ‘explanation of service patterns’?

    This represents more than a doubling of service for major stations in the Trent Valley, from 13 trains a day to 27 trains a day to London, clearly demonstrating that HS2 would benefit, not harm, rail services in the Trent Valley.

    mr_london

    April 25, 2013 at 11:42 pm

    • Connectivity and ‘released capacity’ benefits from HS2 is a large topic, muddied by ongoing lack of information, and the activities of spin operations like Centro’s Go-HS2. When considering presentations and claims, one should remember that

      (i) the Economic Case is based on £7 billion PV of classic cuts — but nowhere is it explained where those cuts would fall, or what they would mean in annual train miles

      (ii) HS2 is also supposed to free up capacity for ‘more goods by rail’ — but accommodation of increased freight never seems to be present in visualisations of post-HS2 path utilisation.

      Because routeings and stopping patterns change (not just the number of trains per day) in HS2’s post-2026 scenario, there are questions of interpretation. This blogpost was intended to examine the Go-HS2 claims around “the HS2 alternative threatening stations in the West Midlands“. Go-HS2 have been particularly ‘concerned’ about service to Atherstone and Stone.

      But HS2 Ltd’s table — reproduced in the blogpost above — seems to suggest that the Go-HS2 statement

      ‘the HS2 alternative threatens stations in the West Midlands’

      would work equally well when rewritten

      ‘HS2 threatens stations in the West Midlands’.

      Because, in the ‘official’ post-HS2 scenario, Stone and Atherstone service would drop from 13 to 8 trains a day.

      Go HS2’s claim / implication was / is

      (a) there is only ‘one alternative’ to hs2 [namely, 51m];

      and

      (b) that alternative threatens [service levels to] stations in the West Midlands.

      Obviously, (a) is patent nonsense — there are a multitude of different ways to upgrade transport and communications networks. Network Rail was asked by the government to assess just three rail-based upgrades (Rail Package 2, Scenario B, and the 51m “Optimised Alternative” [OA]).

      The problem with (b) is that Network Rail’s interpretation of OA was just that — an interpretation.

      It did not ask 51m for clarification of their service pattern.

      beleben

      April 26, 2013 at 10:01 am

  2. One thing you may have forgotten to take into account is the some of the existing trains that stop at Stone station are in fact a BUS`s. So can i ask you this, will taking off long distance trains free up capacity to allow these train(bus) to becomes trains again.

    nigel

    April 26, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    • To what extent is bustitution (and total closure of stations like Etruria) caused by capacity shortage? It’s difficult to tell.

      In France, bustitution is widespread, simply because running trains, or stopping them at minor stations, is more expensive.

      beleben

      April 27, 2013 at 10:39 am

      • If you going to berate others for ‘spinning’ then don’t engage in it yourself.

        Chris

        April 30, 2013 at 9:56 pm

      • The spin is in asserting that Stone and Atherstone would be ‘threatened’ by ‘the alternative to HS2’, when the post-2026 illustrative service pattern put forward by HS2 Ltd would reduce quotidian services from 13 to 8.

        beleben

        May 1, 2013 at 11:37 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: