die belebende Bedenkung

HS2 and London Midland commuting

with 4 comments

As part of its contribution to the HS2 propaganda effort, Network Rail produced fact sheets about the “benefits” for commuter towns on the West Coast Main Line.

However, the fact sheets turned out to be spin sheets, with little in the way of verifiable fact.

Network Rail HS2 Hemel 'fact sheet'

Network Rail HS2 Hemel ‘fact sheet’

The weasel wording of the Hemel fact sheet is typical of Network Rail’s lamentable public relations output.

[from Network Rail Hemel HS2 factsheet]

Current situation

[…] At peak times, there are on average five trains an hour into Euston that serve Hemel Hempstead, but already 140 passengers for every 100 seats on some arrivals. […]

Impact of HS2

The capacity that would be freed up on completion of the first phase of HS2 between London and Birmingham would
allow for a significant improvement in rail services for Hemel Hempstead:

Up to six trains an hour to London Euston

According to Network Rail, there are currently ‘on average’ 5 Euston trains from Hemel. But with HS2, there would be ‘up to’ 6. Woo-hoo.

What is the real “likely impact” of HS2 on London Midland commuting to Hemel? Probably zero. Zilch. Nada.

And ditto for Berkhamsted.

Network Rail also mentioned that the “impact” of HS2 would mean “All passengers have a reasonable expectation of a seat”. But what does that mean?

If Crossrail 1 were extended to Tring, that would imply the use of ‘regional metro‘ type rolling stock, which have fewer seats than the existing Desiro trains.

Written by beleben

January 12, 2015 at 1:07 pm

Posted in High speed rail, HS2

Tagged with ,

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Come on, that’s got to be a typo. £43 billion for one extra train per hour? Its the same on the Rugby to Birmingham Line, HS2 will only take away one Intercity service from Euston. Hardly an “uplift” in capacity.


    January 12, 2015 at 2:23 pm

  2. Crossrail – I’d suggest EUS-WAT would unlock a lot of EUS throat congestion giving flexibility with MKC/BDM-EUS paths (and by extending Tring reversals via BLY to BDM these no longer get in the way on WCML Slow lines.

    Detailing at BLY should put in WCML to West chord.

    A connection at Wembley to GC-GW would facilitate EUS-COV via LMS with substantially less time penalty than current option via OOC with <25mph over some sections. Grade separated for both routes and would offer EUS-BHM and EUS-TV main line avoiding NMP and RUG so these can be blockaded for work.

    Dave Holladay

    January 12, 2015 at 4:10 pm

  3. […] Part one […]

  4. […] Part one | Part two […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: