UK to build high-speed rail 3 in addition to high-speed rail 2 (HS2)

Some might not be able to help but wonder, if they are ever going to see and hear something like this on the other side of the pond, the conservative leader of the country's executive branch, giving a speech (podium sign saying "high-speed rail 2 - engine for growth"):

I'm delighted to be here today, because I am passionate about high-speed rail. I think it is so important for our country, that we make sure high-speed rail works [for our country] in the way that it is working for other countries. [...]

Click to expand...

That leader, who recently actually said these words, would be David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

The news was that in addition to his support for high-speed rail 2 (HS2 for short), which is basically universally supported by both major parties, Tories and Labour, he supported the idea to expand the high-speed rail even more in what would be called "high-speed 3" (HS3 for short). The numbering stems from the countries first high-speed rail line being the link between the capital, London, to the Channel Tunnel to Europe, being called "high-speed 1", abbreviated HS1.

While plans and preparations proceed for HS2, here are the Prime Minister's words on HS3:

I profoundly believe that [High Speed Rail 2] is right. And I am delighted today [to be] looking at the potential for HS3 and effectively giving it the green light.

Click to expand...

Source:

David Cameron backs 'HS3' rail link for north of England

October 27, 2014

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29779134

Here is a map of possible HS3 links:



While the "HS3" project is sharing the "high-speed" designation with HS2, it will not be rail infrastructure built to the same specifications. HS2 will see rail operations at 200+mph, so f.e. the journey from Manchester to London (about 200 miles) will only take 1h 8mins, instead of the 2h 8mins rail takes today (a car journey would be 3 and a half to 4 hours). As in so many other cases, the HS2 lines are not only intended to offer new services and more attractive travel times, but building new, separate infrastructure will relieve that existing rail network which Network Rail says f.e. between London and Birmingham will be "effectively full" by 2024. So building new, dedicated high-speed rail infrastructure also means increasing capacity of the rail network multiple times.

HS3, in comparison, - based on the information available so far - will probably be some new infrastructure and some upgrading existing infrastructure, probably mostly with a top speed of 125mph, which is still supposed f.e. to cut the travel time from Manchester to Liverpool - a journey of about 40 miles - from currently nearly 60 minutes to 26 minutes. Most of all, HS3 is supposed to tie in the dedicated new high-speed rail services into an expanded and improved rail network in North England, offering better connections, more future one-seat rides and bringing the economic benefits of high-speed rail to even more parts of the country.

To complement above map, is an illustration of the HS2 project and all of its phases:



source:

High-speed rail's long journey

March 17, 2014

By Gwyn Topham

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16473296

Completion of HS2 phase 1 (yet unclear if that is including to Crewe, or not) is scheduled for 2027, HS2 phase 2 for 2032/33. Some have criticized that latest plans don't involve any connection within London to HS1, thus preventing any through-service and always requiring passengers to transfer from Euston to St. Pancras and to undertake a 10 minute walk or use an extra bus/taxi/tube in case they want to make any onward connection.

Here is more information on the HS3 plans as part of the Guardian's coverage:

HS3: Pennines rail tunnel key to high-speed plans for the north

Monday 27 October 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/26/pennines-tunnel-hs3-plans

Finally, here's the recent picture again of David Cameron, from the BBC story above:

In England, even the blue-blood representatives of the filthy-rich upper classes vote for high speed rail. In the US... not so much. I guess England doesn't have the "oil lobby" we have.

Or have more socially responsible filthy rich people?

Get it to Edinburgh.

Cameron is facing an election and his party doesn't do well in the north of England. That said, HS3 seems like a good idea assuming that government can actually get HS2 built on time. I'm just looking forward to Crossrail, thank you.

As for comparisons, as someone who splits time between the USA and the UK I'll say that the "conservative" Cameron is basically at the same spot on the political spectrum as the "liberal" Obama. If the UK goes UKIP, then you'd have a counterpart to Bush/McCain/Romney.

Can't disagree.

xyzzy said:

Cameron is facing an election and his party doesn't do well in the north of England. That said, HS3 seems like a good idea assuming that government can actually get HS2 built on time. I'm just looking forward to Crossrail, thank you.

As for comparisons, as someone who splits time between the USA and the UK I'll say that the "conservative" Cameron is basically at the same spot on the political spectrum as the "liberal" Obama. If the UK goes UKIP, then you'd have a counterpart to Bush/McCain/Romney.

Click to expand...

If that's conservative, then what does the Labour Party compare to?

You guys don't have an equivilent to the Labour Party, which believes in fair play for all sections of society...

Robber Barons are admired on your side of the pond, and socialists are condemned out of hand, methinks.

Ed

UK Labour is more akin to the factions of the Democratic Party like the Progressive Democrats of America that are distinguishable from the centrist/moderate factions.

There is no U.S. counterpart to the UK Liberal Dems.

Well, I got a look at UKIP's 2010 manifesto on rail. It looks more like what some of us might write if we got control of a party manifesto/platform, including bringing back the UK "Pullman" services.

So...I know where they stand on HS2 (i.e. against it), does anyone have a peg on where they are on other sorts of services? From a rail perspective at least, I think I might actually prefer UKIP on this one if their 2010 manifesto sticks around.

This is another post that is off-topic when it comes to the plans for more high-speed rail to complement HS2...

xyzzy said:

As for comparisons, as someone who splits time between the USA and the UK I'll say that the "conservative" Cameron is basically at the same spot on the political spectrum as the "liberal" Obama. If the UK goes UKIP, then you'd have a counterpart to Bush/McCain/Romney.

Click to expand...

Of course different people might have different opinions on how the political spectrum in the US compares to the political spectrum in the UK. The following one would be an example how some people might think Cameron is not on the same spot as Obama. The following suggests that Labour (probably especially since it's "New Labour") would correspond to the Democrats, while Cameron would be corresponding with the with the more moderate, establishment Republicans. The following link is a PDF file:

http://cpgeenglishclass.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/0/9/23097468/uk-us_political_spectrum.pdf

Another post that moves away a little from the original topic of the actual future rail investments in the United Kingdom.

Anderson said:

Well, I got a look at UKIP's 2010 manifesto on rail. It looks more like what some of us might write if we got control of a party manifesto/platform, including bringing back the UK "Pullman" services.

So...I know where they stand on HS2 (i.e. against it), does anyone have a peg on where they are on other sorts of services?

Click to expand...

Just about UKIP positions on rail: Many might think, that UKIP is anti-European-Union, and anti-"uncontrolled"-immigration, and UKIP certainly may not care very much about any other issues, including rail. To be specific, f.e. about high-speed rail, one was able to read in the UKIP 2010 party platform that the UK should invest in three new 200mph plus high-speed rail lines including a new line between London and Newcastle with a spur to Manchester, a London-Bristol-Exeter line and a linking route via Birmingham, so besides the London-Bristol-Exeter part this pretty much includes what HS2/HS3 is actually going to provide. Then a few years later, UKIP discovered that possibly they could get votes and differentiate themselves from the Conservatives by stating opposition to HS2. Conversely, the UKIP 2010 party platform states that the UK should "scrap the current £16 billion London Crossrail scheme and repay Government debt with the released resources", while more recently there a lot of statements by UKIP members running for office in the London metro area supporting Crossrail, because of the obvious benefits the project will bring to various districts. Some might have thought one of the more ludicrous parts of the 2010 document stated that the intent to "return London’s Circle Line to a circle", as a branch was added to this line of the subway in London (called "Underground"), so the UKIP document stated opposition to that.

Anderson said:

Well, I got a look at UKIP's 2010 manifesto on rail. It looks more like what some of us might write if we got control of a party manifesto/platform, including bringing back the UK "Pullman" services.

So...I know where they stand on HS2 (i.e. against it), does anyone have a peg on where they are on other sorts of services? From a rail perspective at least, I think I might actually prefer UKIP on this one if their 2010 manifesto sticks around.

Click to expand...

To some, this whole statement might sound like it could be a joke and there would just be the irony smiley missing after the last sentence. On the one hand, because "some of us" (it seems this is referring to some of us forum members) would write something like the UKIP 2010 manifesto because of the bringing back the UK Pullman services, could be a good example of how some forum members seem to oppose modern rail transportation, including high-speed rail, or sometimes even modern rail systems within different metro areas, oppose modern design and appearance for rail services etc. in order to insist on rail as some kind of mainly tourist-oriented services, that have the feel of the "old days" and "magic", so long-distance services have to retain their historic "diner"-look with stainless steel outer appearance, and would sometimes advocate more or less for museum trains, which bringing back the UK "Pullman" services would also allude to. So to some, it might be difficult to seriously believe that there would be people who would advocate for all of this instead of for modern rail services bringing very concrete benefits to the people, still it was probably meant seriously here.

On the other hand, it might seem like a joke to some that some might even say that the UKIP 2010 manifesto might be what "some of us would write" if they got in control of a party platform, which might be a terrifying thought to some, especially with the statement culminating in "From a rail perspective at least, I think I might actually prefer UKIP on this one if their 2010 manifesto sticks around". Once again, of course it actually might be a serious statement. Many might think that saying that one prefers UKIP is highly questionable, when taking into consideration what kind of party UKIP is, f.e. with the recent invititation of far-right Polish politician Korwin-Mikke into its alliance in the European Parliament. So while many might think it is certainly legit to both oppose or support the membership in the EU, at the same time many might be cautious to voice that they would prefer anything about the kind of political party that UKIP is, solely because the position outlined in their party platform regarding some single policy issue might sound good. In regards to the 2010 manifesto "sticking around", while many press reports described all kinds of positions taken in there as "bonkers" in the first place, even the current UKIP leader Nigel Farage himself called the manifesto "drivel" written by an "idiot" - despite Mr. Farage himself writing the foreword to it and presenting it to the public in 2010. Mr. Farage saying UKIP "will start again with a blank sheet of paper" resulted in the party having no official party platform for the 2014 election, leading some to wonder if or how people should vote for a political party without knowing what it stands for. While in some European countries official party platforms have comparatively more influence on the actual policies enacted than f.e. in the Unted States or in other countries, the statements by Mr. Farage might give some indication of how much significance the UKIP 2010 party platform seems to have:

Ukip Manifesto Was Drivel Written By Idiot, Says Farage

January 24, 2014

http://www.lbc.co.uk/ukip-manifesto-was-drivel-written-by-idiot-says-farage-84919