MP hits back in rail row (From This Is Cheshire)

it is about time Local MPs from the North West got involved. I have tried to contact local MPs and news papers regarding HS2 but have had no response. I have set up the Yes To HS2 to raise awareness of the proposals amongst the people of the North. This is a major development and will benefit us all for decades. More local people, MPs and newspapers should get behind HS2.

Before my critics say anything I worked in Warrington for several years and know you all well and understand the issues you face in particular your deprived areas. HS2 will be a disaster for this country and is immorally put together as a Fast Train for Fat Cats. YOU WILL NOT GET ECONOMIC BENEFITS unless you are at a station and you will not be getting one in Warrington. The economic evidence is that regions/towns without stations will lose investment and jobs with London being the winner if any. Listen to the arguments by all means but look at the facts and stop this nonsense www.stophs2.org, sign our petition for a parliamentary debate http://www.gopetitio
n.com/petitions/stop
-hs2.html. Geoffrey Robinson Labour MP for Coventry North attended the High Speed Lobby Day in Westminster on 25th October - which all your MPs were invited to - and now has an adjournment debate. He has realised Coventry will suffer because of HS2 and your MPs need to realise the same. £33 billion on this when we have anarchists rioting on the street due to cuts...and 500,000 public sector jobs at risk. People need to keep jobs now not suffer to fund a white elephant which won't have any benefits for 15 years. HS1 is a disaster financially and is real evidence that this is not needed or viable.

Thank you to the NotoHS2 lobby for using scare tactics once again. Anarchists rioting in the street? Now come one. Construction isn't due to start until 2015/7 by that time the UKs finances will look a lot better thanks in part to the actions the government are taking now. HS1 (High Speed 1) recently sold a 30 lease for over £2bn just under half what it cost to build with the option of selling another lease in 30 years time, I wouldn't call that a disaster.

Warrington has good links to both Liverpool and Manchester where the the new trains will stop. If the MPs of Warrington can Lobby the government enough I don't see why classic compatible trains (which can travel on both high speed and normal lines) couldn't stop at Warrington.

I hope people will ignore the £33bn quoted, that is an overly used sum to scare people. £33bn was the price given for an entire UK high speed rail network which would take up to 30 years to complete. The section currently under discussion is from London to Birmingham with a spur for trains north to join. Even when the London Birmingham section is complete costing roughly £17bn over 15 years the people of the North will benefit from less crowded trains and quicker rail journeys.

Please let me reiterate. Even the initial stage from London to Birmingham will benefit the people of the North. It will ease overcrowding on the West Coast Main Line which is good new for everyone and people who choose to travel on HS2 will still benefit from a time saving of at least 20 minutes from destinations across the North.

Please visit www.YesToHS2.co.uk for much more information and articles which back up the need for HS2 to be built.

I thought the closest the high speed link was coming to us was Newton le Willows? How will that benefit Warrington?

The facts are it will cost £33 billion - what more do any of us need to know. http://www.transport
-watch.co.uk/hs2-rep
orts.htm
Are people rioting due to spending cuts - YES! www.stophs2.org. HS2 does NOT provide value for money for this country and is environmentally irresponsible. George Monbiot http://www.guardian.
co.uk/commentisfree/
2010/may/17/high-spe
ed-rail-policy-carbo
n-emissions. www.stophs2.org

Sorry but 'yes2HS2' you could not be more wrong. HS2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 (check companies house!!) will only go to airport destinations - not cities or mainline stations. If you have to get a connecting train bang goes the reduced journey time promise! All the evidence from Europe proves that jobs get sucked into the end city - not the regional areas. The local economy will loose thousands of workers thanks to HS2. Sorry, but HS2 is the train to 'nowhere' - unless of course you want an airport shuttle service? As it stands HS2 is the equivalent of an 18 lane runway through the most beautiful parts of rural England. Mark Twain once said: : “Don’t destroy land – they aren’t making it anymore. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever”. Invest tax payers money into our existing lines, track, signals, rolling stock, stations and services. £34bn will go a long way to upgrading our national rail service and not a spade will need to go into the ground and not an additional family will be blighted. Win/win. They said you could not do it on the roads. (HSR = hard shoulder running) but they did...more capacity, less congestion, reduced journey times and less stressful driving....But even if you don't buy the 'make do and mend what we already have alternative to cutting up swathes of green and rural England then how about this - the future is already here, email, webcams, teleconferencing, web-chat, high speed broadband in the home. Who would have predicted that 20 years ago? Meetings without movement are the future - not more endless travel. The planet has finite resources - let's start getting serious about preserving them (energy). High speed trains will need nuclear power to run - where are they going to build that power station? the North West???

It's nonsence for opponents to claim that HS2 will only serve airport destinations.
Under the Adonis proposal HS2 is due to start from Euston station (as an alternative to the WCML) , stop at Old Oak Common before proceeding to Birmingham International and Birmingham Curzon St.
Since the coalition have taken over in May they are reconsidering the southern section, including at station "at or near to Heathrow" and if / how HS2 can link to HS1 and the Chunnel. They have also instructed HS2 Ltd to look at a Y-shape split just North of Brum.
So what is wrong in giving passengers the choice between HSR and classic line speeds? Also why not incorporate the main UK airports with HSR as an alternative to short haul flights?
As for nuclear power, it is a low carbon souce of electricity and is far more reliable than windmills. Only the greens could propose trains that only run when the wind blows !!!

Looks like the 'tree huggers' have sent a group text.

Ask your MP what the status is regarding the Heathrow link - HS2 Ltd will not be consulting in Spring on a connecting link. http://www.flightglo
bal.com/airspace/for
ums/transport-minist
er-predicts-end-to-d
omestic-50445.aspx

Thanks. Read all that and had a little google at the sites. Rather a bit of scaremongering and defensiveness even before it was necessary in some of those comments so they gave me a chuckle too! Not holding my breath that London is even sure where Warrington is, and yes, probably cities and airports to get the links, but I'm with 'Yes'. It can't harm to try and the sceptics can all sit back at the end of it and have a large glass of sherry to celebrate how clever they were. Go 'Yes' - Do it for Warrington! :)

@ lizzylouise, erm, from a web site you quoted, "It provides a double track connecting Euston to the WCML north of Birmingham. The line length is 180 km and the cost £16.5 bn, including optimism bias". How is the £33bn? The planning is only focusing on this stage, over the next 15 years.
Liverpool Lime street isn't an airport. Manchester city centre isn't and airport. HS2 trains will serve both these cities along with Scotland and even the possibility of Warrington with the above mentioned classic compatible trains.

Do not try to scare the people of the North, We are not so easily misled. HS2 will effect some people on a local level but the line will benefit the whole country not just the North. Millions will benefit while the people effected will be rightly compensated.

Also I'm sure that people would be happy to see 10,000 skilled jobs created for up 6 years.

If anyone is unconvinced as to what is being considered, look at the following:-
http://www.hs2aa.com
/news/uploads/DCamer
on_letter_to_CSweeti
ng_21-Oct-2010.pdf

Or try this link, if you have problems above:-

http://www.hs2aa.com
/news/uploads/DCamer
on_letter_to_CSweeti
ng_21-Oct-2010.pdf

Stop HS2 submission to the Transport Select Committee-

Stop HS2 welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry and would like to express strong support for the committees’ assertion that at a time of major public expenditure cut-backs, it is vital that every pound is invested to greatest effect. This submission focuses on HS2, the current proposals for high-speed rail, which we believe is a perfect example of the shortfalls currently embedded in transport decision making, and the methodologies used to arrive at these decisions.

1. Introduction.

The Eddington Transport Study of 2006 highlighted the dangers presented by the political momentum which had built up behind the lobby for high-speed rail which belied the facts and risks accompanying the proposed project. In relation to high-speed rail, Sir Rod made the following conclusions which unfortunately have been ignored by Government;

1.1. A new high-speed rail line between two cities would not offer the economy significant new connectivity or trading opportunities, if those cities were already a day-trip away from each other by existing rail, road or air links.
1.2. It is critical that the government enforces a strong, strategic approach to option generation, so that it can avoid momentum building up behind particular solutions and the UK can avoid costly mistakes which will not be the most effective way of delivering on its strategic priorities.
1.3. The evidence for transformational benefits is at best unproven.
1.4. A potential benefit (which should be included in the wider BCR) is that of freeing up capacity on existing rail lines. Whilst this is true, it is not at all clear that creating new networks is the most appropriate or cost-effective method to achieve increased capacity.
1.5. High speed options should be assessed coldly alongside other polices for achieving the same objective. Other transport investments are very likely to offer superior returns compared to where projects rely on new and largely untested technologies.
1.6. Even if a transformation in connectivity could be achieved, the evidence is very quiet on the scale of resulting economic benefit, and in France business use of the high speed train network is low.
1.7. In short, step change measures, such as a new nation-wide very high-speed train network, are not, in a world of constrained resources, likely to be a priority.

2. Prioritisation.

The committee asks the question; “What type of transport spending should be prioritised, in the context of an overall spending reduction, in order best to support regional and national economic growth?”. Irrespective of the context of spending reduction, the answer should surely always be the options which, after careful comparison with other options, provide the greatest overall benefit to the regional and/or national economies. Taking this question within the context of the need for reductions in expenditure, one should also take account of the projects which require the least capital investment and present the lowest risk. Additional factors, such as our commitment to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 and other negative environmental and social impacts must also form part of the appraisal process when prioritising projects.

3. Appraisal.

The committee asks the question “Are the current methods for assessing proposed transport schemes satisfactory?” In the case of HS2, they are far from satisfactory and have seemingly been misused, simply to support the desired project. HS2 represents a case of “This is the solution, now what is the problem?”. This viewpoint was echoed by HS2 Ltds Chief Engineer, Andrew McNaughton, who in a meeting with action groups from the Kenilworth and Southam constituency on 17th August 2010 stated; “We need to build something politically which is a statement of a modern form of transport. If the French can do it, why can’t we?”

The significant flaws in assessing the case for HS2 include:

3.1. Inflating passenger demand.

3.1.1. HS2 Ltd forecast background growth of 133% in long distance travel by rail (2008-2033), i.e. the growth expected without building HS2. They also claim that in the same period domestic air travel will increase by 178% and car usage by 43%.
3.1.2. However, HS2 Ltd then forecast that overall growth as a result of building HS2 will be 267%. Chapter 3 of ‘High Speed Rail for Britain’, the report produced by HS2 Ltd, states; “In 2008 there were approximately 45,000 long distance passengers per day using inter-city trains on the southern section of the WCML. According to standard industry forecasts, by 2033 long distance demand on the WCML is expected to more than double.” and goes on to state that by 2033; “Overall the number of passengers on this corridor would increase by around 61,000 (a 57% increase). This is made up of a reduction of some 84,000 trips on the WCML into London and an increase of 145,000 trips on HS2.”.
3.1.3. Other bodies are far more conservative in their predictions for the increase in rail demand. The Independent Transport Commission projects an increase of 35% (2005-30) and Network Rail projects a 70% increase (2008-34). DfT figures predict a 73% increase (2006-2030).
3.1.4. HS2 Ltd claim 8% of the 145,000 users will switch from the air. This volume is higher than current air volumes between Heathrow and the North West and Scottish lowlands combined.
3.1.5. Despite projecting a 178% increase in domestic air travel, internal flights to London has been declining year on year since peaking in 2004.
3.1.6. Growth in train travel since 1995 comes from an unsustainable modal shift from coaches resulting from lower price internet advance fares, whilst full fare demand has dropped and real prices are going up. It is more than conceivable given the proposed price increases for rail travel that modal shift could reverse.
3.1.7. All projections for the values of regional and national economic benefits start from a basis of accepting the HS2 passenger projections, and are therefore flawed.
3.1.8. Similar forecasts were made with HS1, the only comparable project. In 2009 CTRL carried a total of 9.2m passengers, this is against an original forecast of 25m for 2006.

3.2. Including unrealistic benefits.

3.2.1. The benefits to the country of HS2 are assumed up to 2085. Whilst this may be standard practice, this a high risk and well beyond any reputable economic forecasting horizon. This practice is akin to making a projection in 1935 as to how a project commissioned then would benefit and be relevant to the world of today.
3.2.2. One large error arising from using the DfT webtag methodology is that is starts from a position that all time spent travelling is wasted and unproductive. This completely ignores the fact that, notwithstanding overcrowding, many business users find the time spent on trains amongst the most productive time they have, as it allows for focussed working. It is reasonable to assume that the ability to work on computers, facilitated by wireless hotspots on trains has been a driver in the recent increase of business passengers on the railways. Although speculative, it could be argued that a reduction in journey times would be of a detriment to these travellers.
3.2.3. By assuming that time spent on trains is non-productive and inflating values by 2% p.a. leads HS2 Ltd to present a total of £28.7bn worth of benefits to the economy derived through time savings. This is made up of business users saving £17.6bn and leisure passengers saving £11.1bn. In this, HS2 Ltd has implied an average salary for business users of £70k. Whilst there may be a case claiming a reduced journey time of around 30 minutes for business travellers will be of some benefit to the economy, it is unclear how leisure passengers ‘getting there quicker’ will derive this level of benefit.

3.3. Stretching the rules on costs.

3.3.1. HS2 Ltd present discounted rates for costs. By presenting all expenditure on 2009 levels, their report ignores the costs of financing HS2.
3.3.2. Whilst assuming a commercial operator will operate HS2, HS2 Ltd ignore the fact such an operator will wish to operate at a profit.

3.4. Assuming no competitive response.

3.4.1. In line with previous DfT failures in appraisal, HS2 Ltd assume that there will be no competitive response from other transport providers. This was a key factor as to why HS1, both internally and connecting to the continent via Eurotunnel has failed to meet demand forecasts, as the response from low cost airlines and ferry operators was not considered.
3.4.2. It is reasonable to assume that other rail operators such as Virgin and Chiltern Railways will respond to the competition to their services presented by HS2, unless prevented in doing so by legislation or changes to the conditions of their franchises.
3.4.3. It is also reasonable to assume that airlines operating services from the North of England and Scotland will provide a competitive response to the introduction of HS2.

3.5. Ignoring shifting trends.

3.5.1. HS2 Ltd have made no assessment as to how shifting trends in the requirement to travel for work will affect future demand forecasts for travel. Whilst the canal builders did not see the railways coming and the railway builders did not see improvements in roads and the internal combustion engine coming, in the case of HS2 the alternatives to long distance travel are already here and progressing.
3.5.2. HS2 Ltd make no attempt to assess the impact on electronic communication on future business travel patterns. Major businesses such as VW, JLR and GlaxoSmithKline have told employees not to travel for meetings and use video conferencing instead wherever possible. Perhaps the most relevant company to cite in this respect would be ARUP, the company which designed the plans for HS2. Cisco Systems have reported that their investment in video conferencing has already paid for itself.
3.5.3. Within HM Government, G-Cloud is expected to significantly reduce the travelling requirements and Norman Baker MP has recently been given a remit of encouraging ‘non-travel’. HS2 expect that 27% of users, or 39,420 passengers per day, will not travel until HS2 is built.
3.5.4. No assessment has been made as to how home working, better connectivity delivered through high-speed broadband, or future technological advancements will reduce the requirement to travel. 15 years ago, email was hardly used (or even heard of) in the UK outside of the sphere of universities. Now it is an essential part of life and working patterns. On the completion of first stage of HS2, which is planned for in 15 years time, who knows what progressions will have been made?

3.6. Ignoring all detrimental effects.

3.6.1. Cities and towns such as Coventry, Milton Keynes, Wolverhampton and Rugby will suffer less frequent services to London.
3.6.2. In the case of Coventry, the current service to London runs three times per hour and will be reduced to one train per hour, taking approximately 25 minutes longer due to there being more stops. This severely threatens the Friargate redevelopment in the city, which is primarily concerned by building new office complexes adjoining the station site. Centro have claimed that Coventry would gain by having four services per hour to Royal Leamington Spa, but this would not happen until the track between Coventry and Leamington is doubled and electrified, and even the first stage of the ‘NUCKLE’ programme which would bring this about is now under threat.
3.6.3. HS2 Ltd make no assessment of the effect to the economy of the transport disruption which will be brought about by seven years of construction, either in road-works, works adjoining existing rail lines or the building of new track and platforms at Euston.
3.6.4. HS2 Ltd make no assessment of the loss of economic output suffered by businesses which will be forced to relocate or cease trading, lost agricultural output and decreased revenues from tourism which will come as a result of construction and operation of HS2.
3.6.5. HS2 Ltd pay no attention to the reduction of property and land values.

3.7. Overstating the economic benefits.

3.7.1. HS2 Ltd have ignored the research they commissioned from Imperial College. IC concluded that new economic growth created by HS2 would be ‘very small indeed’, maybe just £8m pa.
3.7.2. HS2 will redistribute (not create) economic activity between places. Many expert studies suggest that this is a significant effect, and that in general the larger the local economy the more it will benefit. So-called ‘agglomeration benefits’ flow primarily to the most economically powerful existing agglomerations, i.e. London.
3.7.3. London is also likely to gain because any economic growth would be concentrated in the service sector, not manufacturing or agriculture.
3.7.4. Most of the wider economic benefits claimed by government from HS2 do not depend on the new high speed connectivity, but on improvements to local services. These however would require additional subsidies which seem highly unlikely in the current economic climate. It is likely that many such local projects will not receive funding, due to HS2 requiring an ongoing estimate of 33% p.a. of the Transport Capital Budget from 2015.
3.7.5. There is no robust evidence yet on whether Birmingham would benefit and if so how much. HS2 Ltd have stated they will not have such evidence until the end of the public consultation.
3.7.6. If London and Birmingham do benefit this can only be at the expense areas not served by stations on the proposed route.

3.8. Ignoring the environmental impact.

3.8.1. Whilst the coalition agreement states; “We will establish a high speed rail network as part of our programme to fulfil our joint ambitions for creating a low carbon economy.”, the Booz Allen Hamilton report to the DfT from 2007 entitled “Estimated Carbon Impact of New North-South Line” states; “In essence, the additional carbon emitted by building and operating a new rail route is larger than the entire quantity of carbon emitted by the air services."
3.8.2. The Cato Institute Policy Analysis No 625 from Randal O’Toole in October 2008 states; “High-speed rail proposals are high cost, high-risk megaprojects that promise little or no congestion relief, energy savings, or other environmental benefits.”
3.8.3. As The Eddington Study states; “There would be significant landscape costs from building new track, including implications for biodiversity, national parks and national heritage.”

3.9. Ignoring the alternatives.

3.9.1. As previously stated, The Eddington Transport Study suggested that; “High speed options should be assessed coldly alongside other polices for achieving the same objective.”, however they have not. The options for HS2 have been assessed against the alternative of doing nothing besides what has already been committed to, i.e. effectively doing nothing. Given this, it is unsurprising that HS2 has proved to be the best solution.
3.9.2. 65% extra capacity is possible just from extra rolling stock on WCML.
3.9.3. Rail Package 2, the DfT’s own alternative to HS2 (which HS2 was not assessed against) would de-bottleneck the WCML, delivering required capacity for just £2bn and gives a better (3.63) NBR than HS2. This can all be done incrementally against need, not relying on long-term forecasts.
3.9.4. There is massive potential on The Chiltern Line and Midland Mainline. Uses which might unlock this potential have not been explored.

4. Conclusion.

In conclusion, it is clear that HS2 is the perfect case study which shows everything that is wrong in the current processes, assessments and methodology which define transport spending priorities. The methods employed for analysing this project are simply not sound. Methodologies are over complicated, out of date and completely unfit for purpose. In short they were biased towards reaching the conclusion that HS2 should be built and is in the best interests of the country. If realistic demand forecasting and Treasury rules are applied to HSR, the revised NBR stands at 0.28, meaning for every pound spent, 72p will be thrown away.

In line with Sir Rod Eddingtons’ conclusion, the challenge to be tackled was not fully understood before a solution was generated, due to intense political lobbying from advocates. The decision on this scheme was not informed by detailed appraisals of specific high-speed rail proposals, or against appraisals of other policy options for achieving the same objectives.

To quote Mark Twain, the approach regarding HS2 was more along the lines of “Start off by collecting all the facts, then you can distort them to your own purposes.”

Unfortunately gaps are being introduced into the web page address for the links above.
When you highlight the link it appears in the search bar with a gap between the r and o of Cameron, and between the i and n of Sweeting.
If you delete these gaps and click search, a pdf of Cameron's letter to a constituent will be accessable.

As a regular user of the West Coast mainline to London, I'd prefer it if David Mowat wasn't arguing the case for trains between London and Manchester, but instead representing me, his constituent, who pays through the nose (if anybody isn't aware of the jaw dropping cost of rail travel, go check it out at thetrainline.com). Even when you can get cheaper fares - typically around £100 - you are routinely obliged to stand in cramped corridors outside toilets for hours at a time when all I want to do is get to my meeting or get home.
This isn't a party politicla thing because neither this adminstration nor the last Labour administration nor the previous Tory one did anything but stand by and let this situation develop. Presumably on the basis they get to hear Richard Branson moaning about his lot in life, but not me.
David Mowat is my local MP. I don't give a flying **** about a rail link between London and Manchester and neither should he. Sort the trains out to and from Warrington.

Usual tripe from the Rukin tribe, showing a total lack of knowledge over rail/transport matters plus HS1 and HS2 in general. Scare tactics and distortions is all they can muster. Please carry on exposing your weak high speed rail understanding for all to see and judge.

I don't know about that. What I do know is Warrington is poorly served by the rail network and this issue is irrelevant to us until our own link is sorted out. Maybe David Mowat (and Helen Jones) should be asking why local businesses are asked to pay a standard £245 to stand on a cramped train for four hours before either of them start campaigning in favour of expensive rail links to Manchester. I've lived and worked from Warrington for 14 years and the situation with the West Coast mainline has been steadily getting worse over that time.

When I've had colleagues with me, it has occured to me that it would be cheaper and more comfortable to rent a limo for the day. It's scandalous

@grey_man A new map from Greengauge21 shows that Warrington will benefit from a HSR (high speed rail) service. Follow the link to find out more http://bit.ly/d2cMgl

I've just said. As a local businessman, I'm not interested. We all know from experience that it's going to cost too much and not deliver what is promised. I want to know what my local MP is going to do about the crippling costs and inconvenience of rail travel as it now stands, not add in another way for us to be fleeced.

Have you ever seen that lecture by Rory Sutherland talking aboout the Eurostar? Go look it up, but this is what he has to say:

"Why is it necessary to spend 6 billion pounds speeding up the Eurostar train when for about 10% of that money you could have top supermodels, male and female, serving free Chateau Petrus to all the passengers for the entire duration of the journey, you’d still have 5 billion left in change and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down?"

Amen.

HS2 Ltd produced a lengthy report to show that the proposed rail-link would have a net benefit and is a good thing (NBR=2.7). Organisations such as StopHS2 and HS2 Action Alliance then produced comprehensive analyses of this and point out the considerable number of flaws, dubious assumptions and other problems that mean the NBR could easily be as low as 0.28. While the truth probably lies somewhere between these two extremes it still makes the case that HS2 is not the ‘no-brainer’ that you might otherwise think! At the very least the subject should be analysed from first principles (What problems do we have? What are the best ways to solve them?) rather from the premise that ‘we are going to build the fastest railway in Europe, let’s talk about where’. It’s not that HS2 will have no benefit at all to anyone, the key point is value for money – almost certainly there are better ways to spend the country’s money on projects that give quicker and/or bigger and/or more certain benefits, and to more people.
Note there is a tendency from certain of the ‘pro-HS2’ group to deride all opponents to the scheme as some form of ill-informed NIMBYs producing distortions of the truth. Well, to me that just sounds like the words of those who are scared of losing a reasoned debate. The truth of the matter is that the anti-HS2 group includes very capable economists, engineers, scientists, business people, etc which is why when you read their reports they make valid points backed up with real numbers. So rather than just dismissing these reports out of hand I would have more respect if ANYONE of the pro-HS2 people could lower themselves to point out the errors in these arguments?
Let us also not forget that there are powerful vested interests in the pro-rail lobby which means their opinions are not made without bias. So for example I see the link made above to a Greengage21 map which somehow implies we all will benefit – but this is just some stars on a map, it does not relate to policy, spending, technical possibilities, economic justification, anything! It’s a bit similar to their previous report on how high speed rail tickets will be affordable – of course they could be to the end-user, but this is not some ‘fundamental truth’ but just depends upon how much extra subsidy the tax-payer/other rail users have to chip in. Personally I don’t see why commuters of Warrington (and every other side-lined town and city not directly on the HS network) should be paying extra for the continuing expansion of London.
If as a country we wanted to build a wide high-speed network then of course we could somehow raise the money and build it (and keep the rail infrastructure companies in clover for the next 50 years). But does that make sense? This is the question I’d like to think that someone in government is asking, but the evidence is that at the moment we are being presented with an ‘answer’ that not only does not answer this fundamental question but possibly not even any question!

I would just like to point out that I do not work for any part of the rail industry. I am merely a concerned Northerner who was concerned about the sheer amount of negative press surrounding HS2 and it seemed that Pro HS2 supporters had no real voice. What concerns me is the figures and emotive language that the critics working on a local level use to scare people into supporting their cause. I am not dismissing entirely other arguments put forward and have been in contact with organisations that have put forward viable alternatives.

The truth is, is that the WCML is already close to capacity even after the government spent £10bn upgrading it. Every projection shows an increase in rail demand and every rail insider I have spoken to only see an increase in rail demand. If HS2 were just about speed I wouldn't be supporting it, I can get to London in 2 hours anyway when I want to visit. It is primarily about capacity and making sure we have enough capacity for future rail demand.

The government has already put aside money for local routes such as electrification of the Manchester Liverpool line so it's not as if all the dft's budget for the next 20 years will only be put into HS2.

And as for HS1 I'm sure if it were connected to HS2 the numbers of people travelling by rail from the North to Europe would vastly increase.

Look. It's very simple. If I were to be asked today by a customer to travel to London for a meeting next Tuesday at a reasonable time, it would cost me and a colleague £490 to do it. For that we would almost certainly have to stand on one leg of the journey, possibly jammed up against a wall outside the broken toilet.
This has been the case for years, except it egts more and more expensive all the time. I have to travel to London at least three times a month on business.
Now I have people like you and David Mowat trying to convince me that this situation will not change, will get worse in fact, but that it's a good idea for me to contribute towards the billions of pounds needed for a new line to a completely different city on the basis that I'll still have to fork out hundred of pounds to have my nose jammed up against a door for four hours, but at least I have the chance to travel to Manchester first for the privilege?
God knows who you are and what your stake in this is, but why the hell is my local MP campaigning for this instead of getting Virgin to buy some new stock, keep their prices down and stop wittling away at the availability of cheaper tickets?

"getting Virgin to buy some new stock", They are already in the process of creating 11 car pendolinos and they will be rolled out over the next few year, unfortunately it takes time to introduce new stock. There are 2 problems with what you have suggested though. One, many station can't handle trains over a certain length so simply adding more carriages simply isn't feasibly in many situations. And two, the WCML as I have said is full, there is no room on the track or in the schedule for more trains to be added it, especially south of Birmingham were all the real bottlenecks are, it is as simple as that.

With the afore mentioned classic compatible trains there is every reality that the new service will stop at Warrington on it's return from Scotland, The train will then join HS2 just north of Birmingham and go straight to London at the same high speed as the rest of the fleet. Saving 20 minutes and meaning you won't have to stand. More rolling stock without the problems of slower trains in front and bottlenecks.

I have researched this thoroughly and always take time to make sure my arguments stack up. I am not supporting HS2 blindly. Before you get angry at MPs or supporters try and have a look at the many supportive web sites and just see what benefits HS2 will bring to places such as Warrington. Also, I am a tax payer like everyone else.

Just to reiterate I do not work for the rail industry or the government. Why is it so hard to believe that a member of the public would be concerned about the area in which he lives and therefore supports a government backed project.

I'm not convinced of who you are.

So you cannot even say for certain that the new project will even stop at Warrington, just that it might. Well that changes everything. Sign me up for billions of pounds of tax. Nothing better for a business than pie in the sky.

Nevertheless, I see you have also failed to address my major concern as a business. That is the absolutely outrageous cost of rail travel. Each year my small business spends the equivalent of a salary travelling three or four times a month to meetings two hours away.

I don't know why this isn't going in but I don't want my MP trying to convince me that it's a good idea to finance a multi-billion pound train to another city which will do nothing to keep my costs down or guarantee extra trains or offer me any benefits whatsoever. If the people of Manchester and London want it, bully for them. I just want my MP to deal with what is happening to businesses in this town. And that is asking why they are being fleeced to travel on crap trains.

"Guarantee extra trains or offer me any benefits whatsoever."

firstly, even for arguments sake a HS2 train never stopped at Warrington you will still see an increase in capacity. Classic compatible trains will definitely stop at at Glasgow and return south via the line that passes through Warrington, so there is no question that the Pendolinos will have less people on them as a large proportion of people travelling from Glasgow will switch to HS2 services. There isn't as bad a problem for adding extra services north of Birmingham so HS2 trains will add extra capacity. I can only tell you what I know now, there is no point lying and saying trains will stop at Warrington. We will know more details in the future though. Instead of being critical about the benefits of HS2 you should be lobbying your local MP to make sure trains do stop at Warrington.

You are also forgetting that the economic benefits will reach a lot further and only the cities they serve. Warrington is placed well to benefit as it sit between two major cities that will definitely be served by HS2.

Lastly, if I worked for the rail industry I would come out and say it, I have no reason to lie. If you must know I'm a self employed gardener and work in the Wirral not that that matters. And I am quiet happy to see my tax being spent on improving rail infrastructure that will benefit the North West

Sorry I skipped over the question of price again.

Simple economics says that prices will fall. Even if HS2 services are more expensive they will have the added benefit of speed and comfort so the only way for which ever rail operator has the WCML franchise in 2025 will be to compete on price. There is also about the matter of supply and demand, if demand falls for west coast services then that will also drive prices down. So in theory not only will you have less crowded trains they will be cheaper.

There's a lot of guesswork and assumptions in there. You have no way of knowing prices will be cut. You're just guessing to support your opinions. All recent announcements show that prices will continue to outrstrip inflation by a considerable margin as they have done for years and years. My experience is that Virgin will continue to reduce the availability of cheaper tickets as they also have for years and years.

You also have no way of knowing that it will increase capacity from Warrington. You're guessing. Let's assume it does, will it be enough to deal with growth in demand? Have a guess. It's all anybody's doing anyway supported by a map that somebody's pasted some stars on to.

You may have good intentions but I am still at a loss to understand why my MP is banging on about 'potential' benefits to Warrington and extolling the virtues of trains to Manchester, when his constituents are already forced to pay ridiculous fares on **** trains going to and from an inadequate train station. That should be his priority.

This is not a party political point because I don't recall either Helen Jones or Helen Southworth saying much about it either. But at least they weren't campaiging for better trains to Manchester.

I can only tell you what I know, until Feb 2011 no one will no much more not even the protesters.

I don't think HS2 can be dismissed on the basis of the information we have up to now. My aim at the moment is only to retain support by reporting the facts available. I feel it is important to redress the balance as critics use emotive language misrepresented facts in order to scare people and make their case seem stronger.

This could be the best thing that happened to the North West. After all I feel that a lot of the NWDA money was squandered over the years. Take Liverpool you can work not 5 minutes from the gleaming Liverpool One right into an area that looks like a slum.

HS2 has the potential to do some real and long term good in the North West as a whole. I know you don't live in Liverpool, neither do I but HS2 services are confirmed from Liverpool so it's not simply "a train to Manchester"

Well I have done my best, there is not really much more I can tell you, and I wouldn't wish to frustrate you any further. Please do check the full government plan in Feb though.

Well there we have it - you have your train to Liverpool. I'll help to pay for it (like I have a choice), but I will not be convinced that this is relevant for Warrington. David Mowat should work for his constituents, not in the interests of companies that are altready crippling local businesses.

I don't quite have my train to Liverpool. The train journey from my nearest train station to Liverpool takes almost exactly the same time as the train from Warrington central to Lime street, I would also have a 15 minute car journey to said station. Not that it is of any direct use to me, I do not use the train for business. My hope for HS2 goes beyond my needs, I can see the benefits HS2 will bring to the whole of the North West. So I am happy to see my tax spent on a services that I may never use.

@grey_man, I have found your warrington train. You in fact will get an extra 2 trains per hour under HS2. So yes Warrington will benefit and even Runcorn. The second Liverpool service runs non-stop to Warrington (ideally to be spaced on the opposite halfhour
from the Euston – Glasgow HS2 service calling at Warrington)

And sure enough. Train fares up by an 'average' 6.2 per cent in the New Year. Looking forward to david Mowat opposing this on behalf of local businesses.

I thought no plans had been decided yet. So how do you know how many trains will be running? An extra two trains an hour from Warrington? Really? Who are you?

I read through a large report which set out the day one services of HS2. There will be one HS2 train per hour to glasgow Via Warrington and Preston. There will also be two HS2 trains per hour calling at Liverpool, one of those will call at Runcorn and one will call at Warrington. If you look at the Dft web site you can spend many hours yourself researching HS2. The cause of the recent rail hikes is not as a result of HS2, it is due to increases in fuel costs and greedy rail operators.

Who I am isn't in question here. I have already stated my reasons for supported and that I DO NOT work for the rail industry or government. It is a sad state of offers when an individual can not support a proposal without the implication of having a vested interest.

@grey_man, if you e-mail info@yestohs2.co.uk I can inform you when I have completed a planned article setting out in full the "day 1" services which will be provided by HS2.

In the mean time if you want to debate HS2 still further you can read: http://www.dft.gov.u
k/pgr/rail/pi/highsp
eedrail/hs2ltd/techn
icalappendix/pdf/rep
ort.pdf. Page 34 onwards sets planned out services.

Not planned though are they? Proposed, surely. At the moment HS2 doesn't go any further than Birmingham.

So the fare rises are down to greedy rail operators? And who will be operating HS2?

I'm sorry mate, but there are more pressing concerns for my MP than this pie in the sky. I'm waiting with bated breath for him to stand up for his constituents against the latest completely unwarranted fare rises with no apparent investment in services or capacity. I understand that the capacity on the West Coast could be increased by up to 65 per cent for a fraction of the cost of HS2. We'd still have 28 billion in change to spend on other things.

Now see you've been listening to the protesters too much. HS2 will cost £30bn it will in fact cost £17bn, still a lot of money yes but almost half what the critics are claiming.

65per cent could be gained from train lengths that are longer than many stations can handle including Warrington. Yes it is possible but not without upgrading nearly every station along the WCML at great cost. With some stations it is almost physically impossible to make the stations long enough be able to hand the train lengths suggested. Then there is the added cost of actually adding the the new carriages to the entire fleet, the cost would be phenomenal and that is why it the package (package 1) was not taken any further by Atkins

As for any other alternatives, has the last £10bn upgrade of the WCML done anything to help, not really, it is already close to capacity. Spending a couple of billion here and there will not add any benefits, the total cost of incremental implementation of all packages is £20bn for tinkering with the WCML, is that really value for money?

The the first phase of the HS2 line will end just after Birmingham and then connect to the WCML near Stafford. So even after the London to Birmingham section is completed people north of Birmingham WILL benefit. I'm sure I have mentioned the "classic compatible" rolling stock before which will run on the WCML at standard speeds and then on the HS2 line at high speed so you will be able to get on a train at Warrington and still benefit not only from extra services but from the 20 minute time saving.

All these points are documented in the full plans outlines by HS2 Ltd. HS2 would be completely pointless without the connection to the WCML so will not go ahead without it. So although it has only been set out in the plan if HS2 were to go ahead then you would get your Warrington train, in fact 2 high speed trains an hour to London.

HS2 not going ahead will not stop rail fares increasing, it will probably make things worse as services become more over crowded and less reliable.

It is very short termist to say that HS2 should not go ahead because rail fares are going up. Britain will always need rail and all projections show that passenger numbers will increase as they have done right through the recession.

God we're like stuck records. None of it matters because nobody knows for certain if the trains will go to Warrington. It's all 'proposed' and 'possibly'. The figure of up to 34 billion is the official figure and doesn't even include some of the links. It won't be complete till 2025 even if it goes ahead. It's not firmly planned to run anywhere North of Birmingham. It won't reduce fares. It will increase taxes.

In short, it's all **** and wind. What I do know is that my MP needs to forget about all of this for now and start asking questions about the fares and service from Warrington. That is his job, not getting involved with campaigning for some proposed rail link that nobody has the foggiest idea will have anything to do with Warrington. Including you. You're guessing.

PS You are Chris Howe and I claim my £5. You are actively lobbying for this to go ahead including setting up a website, a campaign organisation, taking part in representations to government, and taking part in dozens of online discussions about this, and all for whatever reason because it is of no benefit to you. Your work includes patronising and insulting concerned residents and attacking MPs who have the temerity to represent the views of their constituents unlike, it seems, David Mowat.

Interesting comment from David Cameron about where this train will be stopping don't you think? 'Manchester Birmingham and Leeds and one or two others, no more.'

Yes that is my name, it's widely publicised as is the YesToHS2 campaign. Have you read the offensive comments the campaigners have be writing about the north? I think I have been well restrained with my comments. I am well within my rights to campaign on an issue that I feel strongly about. I am in 2 or 3 forums actually and take part in debates where ever I find them. And the issue is?

The fact that you are so heavily involved in this for God knows what reason. That you misrepresent facts such as the cost of this, timescales, economic benefits and where it will serve. That you dress up guesswork and wishful thinking as facts in the same way. That you try to dismiss the objections of local people, MPs, the Strategic Rail Authority, the CBI as irrelevant. (By the way. That's the CBI, who you would expect to be falling over themselves to achieve these much vaunted economic benefits of yours.)

Meanwhile, we have a number of immediate problems with rail travel to and from Warrington which you and for some reason, my local MPs, want us to ignore on the basis that we should focus on some unresolved plan for a train line that serves another city, will cost over £30 billion and won't be ready till 2025 at the earliest.
Nice one.

I also need, as my final word on this, to correct my quote from David Cameron. He said the line would serve Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham and one or two others 'on the way'. So no trains to Warrington then, from the mouth of the Prime Minister.
Good luck with convincing people this is of any interest or benefit to us.

You are welcome to your opinion as I am mine. I have spent many hours over the past few weeks for my own reasons researching this project. I can only go off of the official reports on the dft web site so I am not lying, if it is the case that the facts are wrong it is the governments fault not my own. To start getting personal over and issue is out of order. I have not once been offensive to you or questioned your own self.

Might I suggest if you are so annoyed by overcrowding and fair rises that you start your own campaign to lobby your local MP.

I am not being personal. I am pointing out how you are distorting facts to support your argument. I understand you have a lot of your time vested in this, if nothing else, but don't be blind to the facts because of it. You are still not addressing the fact of what the PM has said because it contradicts your whole argument. There is clearly nothing concrete about HS2 which is why nobody can agree about its cost, environmental impact, economic benefit or where it is even going.

I have written to David Mowat. I am awaiting his response. But thanks for that suggestion.

The reason I began this campaign was because I happened to agree with HS2 but more importantly because there were so many protest sites ran by people working on a local level. Not only were they misleading the public for the own ends but they were using so called 'facts' that were just wrong. Added to the emotive arguments they were putting forward I just thought it was time that there was some balance to the debate.

I do not think lying on my part would have been a good idea seeing the amount of fierce local opposition there was and still is.

@grey_man, I bet my £5 that you are Mark Eltringham of FRONT MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS LTD. See it's easy to find people's names without them already handily being all over the web.

Bully for you. :) Seeing as I've posted it on your website.

Lilke I said, a local business owner already being screwed by train companies and not wanting to be screwed twice. And certainly not wanting my local MP wasting his time on issues that are of no relevance.

I was just making a point, any google search for Yes To HS2 would of brought up my name and the various forums and web sites I frequent or run.

It wasn't necessary in this discussion to state that fact or make accusations about my intentions