←back to thread

61 points peutetre | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
prennert ◴[] No.42195212[source]
The original plan was to have 18 trains running every hour in each direction between London and Birmingham [0]. This is tube frequency, and very difficult to do. Therefore the specs and designs were quite expensive. But however sophisticated (or not) the trains where, a _lot_ of money is needed to buy out property holders and construction.

However, this is a complete paradigm shift in the way of travel. This would have made Birmingham a suburb of London, as you can just go to the train station and hop on the next train as you do if you were to travel from anywhere within London.

The newspapers kept reporting the "faster" travel times which only shaves off "a few minutes" for a huge amount of money. But that was not the point. The point was capacity through frequency.

Over the years, this has been watered down. Now still a huge amount of money is spent on property buyouts and nature preservation / protection (the same higher frequency trains would have needed as well), on a marginally better service.

It seems to me (maybe thats wrong) that a lot of the fancy tech that is needed for increasing frequency could be had at relatively low extra cost, because there is this high base budget that needs to be spent whatever the performance of this new rail-line. So now HS2 is the worst of both worlds: expensive works delivering only a small improvement.

[0]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82b56740f0b...

replies(6): >>42195258 #>>42195279 #>>42195405 #>>42196594 #>>42198697 #>>42204305 #
t43562 ◴[] No.42195258[source]
Capacity is about taking passenger services off other lines which greatly increases their freight capacity.

The HS2 line itself is a kind of side benefit in a sense.

replies(1): >>42209832 #
1. stuaxo ◴[] No.42209832[source]
Also their passenger capacity because there isn't such a mix of faster and stopping trains.