Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• PeterB, Cheshire

  As a frequent but irregular busines traveller on the WCML, I tend to agree with most of the comments here:
  1 I travel First Class because of the free food, drinks and wifi save costs I would otherwise incur, plus the ability to work (impossible in an airline style seat).
  2 I get a good one and and half hours work done on my Stockport / Wilmslow to London rail journey versus none in the car (4 hours unproductive) or by plane (about 1 hour longer than by train).
  3 I arrange my meetings around cheap travel times - hence I usually pay less than £80 return - knowing that I will get food and drink provided at "my desk" on the train.
  4. I regard a train as overcrowded for my purposes if I don't get a table for two to myself or share a 4 table with one other (sat diagonally opposite).
  5 I use IT to buy my tickets and I do believe that it is in this respect that the introduction of IT has led to the increase in rail passengers in that I arrange my business around the availability of tickets at a reaonable price, similarly when considering a social journey I now check out the rail prossibility. Previously, I tended just to "jump into the car" and set off.
  
  * I think that HS2 is needed primarily because of capacity issues.
  * Provided the on board experience matches my requirements, speed of journey is not a key factor - the 1hr 10 min journey time by HS2 is no real advantage over my present 1 hr 50 min journey, when I am able to work.
  * The journey to station and to ultimate destination become much more of an issue with a shorter journey (plentiful low cost parking at HS2 stations or easy interchange to wide range speedy local services will contribute more to its success than HS2's speed).
  * Because of age, I will no longer be travelling when it is completed, but don't think the requirements of the travellers then will be much different than now.
  
  What we do need however much more urgently than HS2 are improvements/ new routes so that a Virgin WCML type service can be provided on routes other than London. It is is rediculous that the Manchester to Birmingham service takes 1 hour 30 minutes for a journey of considerably less than half the distance to London (as the crow flies) and at a higher fare in a train that is less considerably less comfortable and overcrowded (by my standards at least).
  As for Bristol, Edinburgh and Glasgow - the position is even worse!
  While the Northern Hub will partly address the Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York, Newcastle issues - even then the lack of passing loops for faster services will only bring the standard of service up to a First World War standard.

• David Faircloth, Derby

  I guess most people agree with Douglas Oakervee's comment regarding capacity; I don't think anyone really knows the reasons why, but demand for rail travel is growing and as it is not known where it will end, it is sensible to plan using the best estimates available and provide new railways where they are needed.
  
  The real debate is about what sort of new railways we need; obviously, for somewhere like Greater London, Crossrail/Crossrail 2 is the best way forward, and if we are to build railways which reach further afield, then it is sensible for these to be high speed passenger ones. But what form should these take?
  
  I do disagree with Mr Oakavee on the point he has made about vanity; I believe HS2 has become a vanity project because of the speed proposed. As the bulk of us here in the UK live in the bottom half/two thirds of England, all within a couple of hundred miles or so of London, why do we need trains which will go about 33% faster than those on the Continent which have much greater distances between major population centres?
  
  If the maximum speed is reduced to 300km/hr (as on HS1) with some lines being in the 220-250km/hr range, capital costs could be reduced considerably and more existing rail corridors could be used; for example, the existing rail corridor from OOC north to Northolt Junction could just be upgraded to 225km/hr without any tunneling, as proposed by BR back in the late 1980s.
  
  BR's plans used the London-Manchester service as the bench-mark, and the projected journey time for the route was 1hr 35mins; the route proposed used a combination of upgraded, re-constructed (GCR), and new lines. It would also have crossed the Chilterns!
  
  BR's starting point seemed have been the same as Mr Oakavee is claiming for HS2; it was all about adding capacity to the WCML. But that seems to be where the similarity ends. Whereas HS2 is being built for a mixture of large size and classic compatible stock, BR's was for classic compatible stock only, and would have allowed trains to hop on/hop off at various locations; rather like we use motorways, I guess. The junctions in the Rugby area would have allowed West Midlands trains to take the high speed line to there and then peel off through Coventry, and a train making a Milton Keynes stop could have used the former LNWR route from Euston to this area, and then to join the high speed line for part of its journey northwards; simply, it had far more flexibility built into it than is found in the HS2 proposals.
  
  My preferred option for HS2 would be something along the lines of BR's proposals of the late 1980s; this wouldn't give the dramatic journey time reductions in certain corridors likely from the 400km/hr railway being proposed, but it would add capacity, gives us very high speed trains (not exceptionally high speed ones!), and - through the greater flexibility - potentially improve connectivity.
  
  It has to be recognised, however, that BR's proposals were focused on the WCML only; and if - as with HS2 phase 1 - this is the prime cause adding capacity, a route through the Chilterns is best. However, if the prime reason for the new line is to enhance rail capacity between London, the Midlands, the north of England and possibly Scotland, I believe it needs to be further east; and if the maximum speed were to be reduced from 400km/hr to 300km/hr, a route using the "M1 corridor" would be possible.
  
  I believe William Barter's comments are worthy of further investigation; I often travel by train over medium/long distances, and I have noted how, since the introduction of wi-fi on many services, members of the collar-and-tie brigade can be seen tapping away on the devices. And there does seem to be more of them. If you glance at their screens as you walk to the loo, it tends to be e-mails or spread sheets that is the subject of their attention, not some game or film or general web searching; I recently traveled from the midlands to the south coast, and my seat position meant that I could see the screen of a guy sitting the other side of the gangway, and he seemed to be working all of the way through from Birmingham to Bournemouth.
  
  Not sure how this affects the justification for HS2 though!

• nick, welwyn

  It has absolutely amazed me that a project which looks long term for a change, fulfils a transport capacity need that has been totally borne out by actual rail passenger figures over ten years and has backing of all of the major parties can have caused such a furore. From those directly affected by the route this is understandable.
  
  The sheer amount of scaremongering, myth, hysteria, inaccuracy and downright lies that have been put out mostly by the antihs2 brigade has astounded me.
  
  We have heard that it will be as wide as wembley stadium, which was then reduced to the width of the pitch when even anti hs2 people realised how ludicrous this was.
  
  We have heard that hs2 is a concrete bomb, that power stations will be built all along its length and that overhead 25kv lines give people cancer !
  
  We have heard that a near 40% savings in time i.e. 35 min savings to Brum and an HOUR to Leed-Manc is in fact only a few minutes or grudgingly 15 mins ! That Curson street isnt anywhere near New or Moor street. That hs2 fares will be massive when in fact the plan assumes that premium fares will not be charged.
  
  We have also heard how the existing network will be starved of funds yet the reality is £37 billion being spent over the next five years AS WELL AS HS2! We have heard that existing services will be slashed and journey times hugely increased. Yet there is no evidence to support this and we are years away from timetabling concerns.
  
  In brief (yippee finally you all say!) the anti campaigners should be thoroughly ashamed of their tactics. And they accuse hs2 and the govt of spin !

• Bel Eben, GB

  "It's fair enough to argue that capacity should not be expanded at any cost, but the commuter trains coming in to Euston have the worst overcrowding in the country."
  
  The Department for Transport's table RAI0201, 'City centre peak and all day arrivals and departures by rail on a typical autumn weekday, 2011', gave the following figures for morning peak (0700-0959) arrivals in London: Euston, 24782 passengers, and 28188 seats; Vauxhall (used as a proxy for Waterloo), 103380 passengers, and 79812 seats. Numbers outbound in the evening provide much the same story.
  
  The notion that "commuter trains coming in to Euston have the worst overcrowding in the country" doesn't have a factual basis.
  

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

  Gordon Findlay, Aylesbury, when StopHS2 stops retweeting stuff from "Beleben" and "Greengauge 2020", I will quite gladly ask the question myself.
  
  Until then, that's just a tad hypocritical. At least HS2NW put a name to more than 0 members.
  
  Lorentz, London: It's fair enough to argue that capacity should not be expanded at any cost, but the commuter trains coming in to Euston have the worst overcrowding in the country. No-one seems to have a problem with the £15bn-ish on Crossrail - why is phase 1 of HS2 different?

• Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

  Surely what HS2 needs is a champion that can fight its case and deal with the many nonsenses the Anti brigade keep trotting out like "destruction of woodland !" Fact is when HS1 was built many thousands of trees were planted which made the route far greener than before the line was began !
  
  As for recent cost increases most of this seems to come from putting the line in "non tunnels - ones not really needed!) and like the London Olympics a massive contingency just for the sake of it given we still have no firm plan !
  
  Those who ask why the first stage is so fast well just think of a motorway with 2 lanes for first 100 miles and you will soon realise it has to be high speed from as near to end to end as possible and unlike roads railways work better in straight lines !
  
  The question of HS2/1 links could be solved by recent change to Euston Station layout and this version needs more study.
  
  As for Chryl Gillan going on about us not having built a new line since Victorian times can't she fathom out why its called HS2 and not HS1 ( The answer can be found in Kent and St Pancras International !).
  
  

• claydon william, Norwich Norfolk

  When HS2 was being planned, I advocated the quadrupling of the existing Chiltern line corrridor, then skirting the M40 past Banbury and Warwick and entering Birmingham via Dorridge and the railway land in Small Heath. In short, essentially using as much existing transport corridor land as possible to reduce cost and litigation.
  
  IMO, capacity and Heathrow relief/ domestic aviation replacement should have been the two most important strategic aims of HS2; not necessarily speed.

• Lorentz, London

  It must be nearly August. If anything, IT and improved data networks are leading to more people work from home, either for themselves, or global businesses.
  
  A significant proportion of the trips made by rail, are those made by the young and old; both being groups that receive additional subsidy to use public transport, over and above the existing subsidy to make it affordable. Such subsidies will come under threat as Government current expenditure is reduced.
  
  There is a good case for additional capacity, but not at any cost, not based on poor quality local conducted business cases, not driven by political motives, and not at any cost.
  
  Even if the existing proposal is implemented, it will not provide for an additional percentage point in the proportion of journeys made by rail, a figure that is only just getting to 8%.
  

• Gordon Findlay, Aylesbury

  Before quoting "Chris Howe of the HS2-NorthWest campaign group" I suggest you check on who the "group"'s members are. As far as journalist friends can tell, there is only one member of HS2NW and that is Chris Howe! By all means quote Chris Howe as an individual, but I suggest you don't use the "campaign group" elevation until you have ascertained that's true. If you look at his website you'll notice he calls HS2NW an "organistation" but does not name any members. He even appears to try to deflect the issue by saying "working in partnership with..." If this isn't a deliberate attempt to deceive the press maybe Chis would like to respond by telling us how many members there are in HS2NW and list names of all the committee members.

• Leslie burge, leicester

  petrol prices and general motoring costs are the root causes of soaring passenger numbers ,Along with faster journey times .
  Motorway system is gridlocked when you need it.

• Ryan Gough, Beeston

  @ Chris Neville-Smith
  you're bang on about Bucks crowd. Equally they didn't seem so vocal about the damage to the CHilterns AONB when the Wendover, Aston Clinton, Amersham or Tring bypasses were being built...

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham

  Tony Pearce, Reading, rail use was rising long before the woes of 2008. If anything, the passenger figures shows dents in growth in the recession of 2009 and the not-technically-recession-but-nearly-one of 2012. So the pattern is that when time are good, rail travel increases.
  
  But you are right about commuter trains being packed. Do you really want to ignore the problem and let commuting become so unbearable that London firms can't recruit the staff they need?

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham

  Andrea Polden.
  
  In my opinion, the choice of route for HS2 put too much focus on speed, or at least the wrong focus on speed. The benchmark used was journey time to Birmingham, but there was only a few minutes in it. I'm more concerned about potential journey times to northern England, and in particular I'm concerned about the roundabout route for London-Leeds. I would probably have preferred something like the M1 route myself (although given the lack of support for alternative routes, I'd rather just get on with it).
  
  But journey times isn't the only problem with the M1 option. The other problem is that this route would go near a lot more centres of population, meaning disruption and noise for more people, more expense on compensation and mitigation measures, or both. It's a high price to pay, both financially and socially, for missing the Chiltern Hills.
  
  In addition, I believe the hype over environmental destruction is being massively exaggerated. The Chilterns are already crossed by the West Coast Main Line, the Chiltern Line, the M1, the A41 dual carriageway, the M40, and numerous pylons. What's more, the roads do not have a single mile of protective tunnel. Have the Chilterns been destroyed? No, of course not. So why such a big deal now over one extra two-track railway?
  
  Euston is a harder decision - but there is no painless alternative. Routing the line to connect with HS1 is no good, because the number of people who want to go to London vastly outnumber the number of people wanting to go to Paris. Dropping all London-bound passengers off in the suburbs is just unworkable. Sadly, we are running out of platform capacity and, HS2 or no HS2, we will almost certainly have to expand one station. If it's any consolation, that's much less devastation than the M11 Link Road and new bits of the A40, neither of which the HS2 antis appear to have a problem with.

• Tony Pearce, Reading

  Soaring rail journeys ? I've seen explanations that a single journey which was counted as 1 journey by British Rail is now counted by each operator as a seperate journey even though there's only 1 ticket. True or not true ? A more likely explanation is that with so much unemployment people have been forced to look further and further away from home for employment, and take whatever is offered even though it involves commuting. I like rail travel, - travelling first class at 65 mph up the Rhone and down the Rhine and through the Alps is to me Heaven. But most Commuters regard the daily grind into London and the Tube as Hell on earth. They have to get up early and get home late. They don't see their children and don't get a seat. The only papers they read are over the shoulders of others and they have to pay £1000s for that privilege. When the job markets pick up, they will all be looking for jobs nearer home asap, and rail travel might (repeat might) experience a very big fall.
  
  [Counting each train used (or available) during a journey started in 1986 -- still in the BR era. Much earlier there was a degree of double counting when manual ticket systems were in use, because through fares were not always available on demand and so some passengers rebooked en route. The ORR has estimated that modern totals are inflated by roughly 5% due to multiple counting. For more, see http://www.railhub2.co.uk/rh4/business/statistics/intro3.php —Editor.]

• Andrea Polden, Chesham

  If the argument is capacity rather than speed, why is Phase 1 to go in such a straight line through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - supposedly a protected designation - not to mention the numerous Sites of Special Scientific Interest, also protected, irreplaceable ancient woodland, and many other local nature reserves? Surely it could now be redesigned to go along the route of one of the motorways, preferably the M1, as it could then more easily link up with HS1 and not need to cause all the devastation in the Euston area.

• Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

  Ever since the SoS for Transport's casual throw away remark during the Paving Bill debate, announcing a near £10billion increase in HS2's overall potential budget, the naysayers have sensed blood - so they are going for it big time, effectively trying to fracture the previous united front of political consensus underpinning this strategy.
  
  Mandelson and Prescott are peripheral figures in Labour so their opinions don't really carry much weight now. The criticisms offered by Conservative local councils in areas where the new line is planned are also to be expected.
  
  However, I've no doubt that there have been some hastily convened meetings during the last few days, if only to reassure everyone involved where they stand. Those meetings will have been;
  
  McLoughlin with Cameron/Osborne to check that he still has their unequivocal backing on HS2 policy
  
  Cameron/Osborne affiliates with their counterparts within the Labour camp, to check that Labour (amongst those that actually matter) are also fully behind HS2. I cannot see the Hybrid Bill reaching Royal Assent before the next election so it will be for any incoming post 2015 election administration to complete the task. The Paving Bill merely enables much needed preparatory work to proceed.
  
  Assuming both of those meeting concluded with full steam ahead on HS2, all of the current goings on are just so much hot air - we'll find out soon enough how things stand when the Paving Bill has its 3rd reading in the Commons, 18th July?
  
  I watched a repeat of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) HS2 hearings yesterday - have to say it's obvious where the members of the committee stand - it's also obvious that they don't (or won't) understand the first thing about the rationale driving this plan.
  
  One PAC member (joined by the Chair, Margaret Hodge) banged on about HS2 not having any influence on increasing demand for commuter trains into London - sadly not one of the witnesses drew this idiots attention to the fact that the WCML (upgrading of which is put forward as the alternative to HS2) hosts both intercity and commuter trains and therein lies the root cause of the looming capacity issue
  
  It would appear that, yet again, there is a serious danger of ignorance, stupidity and self interest driven mendacity triumphing over logic, rational informed debate and common sense - if the naysayers do win out, future generations of UK travellers will reap a bitter harvest indeed in the decades to come!

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

  I would take the argument about technology reducing the need to travel more seriously if I thought the people saying this actually believed their own arguments. If they did, one would have thought they'd be protesting equally loudly about the proposed expansion of Heathrow. After all, the savings offered by eliminating medium/long-haul flights are much bigger than eliminating rail journeys. But they don't. With the exception of a few of the Greens, I have not seen antis utter a single word of protest against this, even though this stands to inflict noise and disruption on far more people than the entire Y network of HS2. They even responded to a consultation on Heathrow, so they have no excuse to claim they didn't get a chance to express their opinion.
  
  Maybe, just maybe, what they really mean is that technology reduces the need for other people to travel. If you're regularly standing on West Coast Main Line trains, it's your fault for not doing it by video-conference, but heaven forbid the good people of Buckinghamshire should face any constraints on their right to drive to Heathrow and fly where they like on holiday.
  
  Sorry I've been out of the loop for a few days. I've been kept busy with the Buxton Fringe. Never mind, I'll just Skype myself to Buxton next year, shall I?