-
Exactly. This is all that numbskull Lord Adonis’ (and others) fault back when HS2 was in its early stages.
Everyone who knows anything about rail knew it was always about capacity, but the Lab govt at the time felt like they had to sell it as a bells and whistles super speed upgrade. Unfortunately those soundbites then stuck.
And all this uppityness about it being focused on London is ludicrous. If you have capacity constraints you build bypasses on the most congested bit in order to enable better journeys all round. Hence why the first complete motorway was the M1 because the A5 / A41 routes to the west mids were the worst for congestion. It’s the same with rail: the WCML cannot ever hope to cope into the future as both a freight, intercity, and local rail route. HS2 not only bypasses this, but two (arguably three) other main line railways into the bargain!
Every time I see or hear of another idiot hs2 protestor banging on about “20mins time saving” “London centric” or “sort out local lines” blah blah I curse the PR people behind HS2 back in 2008/9- and then forgive the protesters (but only slightly mind you) cos they are still focusing on the false PR of HS2 from years back.
You are reading a single comment by @BobbyBriggs and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
BobbyBriggs
Yes. I used to be opposed to HS2 on the grounds that it was about sucking economic benefits to London. Then I read an article by a guy who explained how rail lines worked, and that HS2 would enable loads and loads of local services up and down the country by taking the fast trains off the existing lines, then slow local passenger and freight trains could chug along at their own speed with no gaps in service.
I think they have not communicated the objectives of HS2 very well, focusing on getting from London to Birmingham 3 minutes quicker (or whatever) isn't going to enthuse people, but decent local services might.