Make a case for a high speed stop before trains pass city by

“Instead of a dedicated HS2 station, how about a service that runs from Manchester Piccadilly or Stockport, calling at Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke and maybe Stafford before joining HS2 at Lichfield? This would require very little extra consultation, planning or construction (only possibly a few platform extensions), and the necessary infrastructure would be in place at phase 1 - seven years before Crewe's service is ready at phase 2.”

“If the Government say that Stoke could have a station but there is no funds to pay for it, would stoke and Newcastle pay the cost of construction and design.”

“Captain-swing may hold these views but others may agree with the UK Chambers of Trade who said on March 10 "Business communities across the United Kingdom back High Speed 2 for a clear and practical reason. The simple fact is that Britain's railway network, which has seen record passenger and freight use in recent years, is running out of capacity.
Without HS2, which would treble capacity, overcrowding will get worse, fares will rise, and delays will become even more common.
Chambers of Commerce around the country continue to back the development of a full, national high-speed rail network without further delay. As with any infrastructure project, they want to see it delivered on time, on budget, and complemented by sustained investment in conventional rail and road infrastructure. That would ensure that business communities everywhere continue to get good-quality connections both for passengers and freight, whether on a high-speed line or not". Dr Adam Marshall - the British Chambers of Commerce (http://tinyurl.com/3zwclln)
As I said originally, work is already planned to upgrade the existing track at Norton Bridge which will greatly improve capacity. To do more requires the two tracks from Colwich Junction to Stoke be doubled to four tracks. Is captain-swing suggesting that this could be done without taking out the homes or gardens of hundreds of home owners living alongside the railway?
The only practical way is to build a completely new line! The HS2 proposal misses all the villages and affects remarkably few houses.”

“Bernwa below is right. HS2 should be stopped in its tracks. The main beneficiary City and region from this project will be London and the South East (again!). This huge public investment should be directed to improving - and adding to - existing lines and services, thereby improving local as well as high-speed capacities. North Staffs and the North generally has much more to gain from this strategy.

Captain Swing”

“Has Mr Hunt actually moved to his constituency yet? Guess that a SOT station would be better for him when he commutes to and from home.”

“not stopping in stoke because nothing in stoke very poor area avoid at all costs”

“Mowcopman: "I see no point in a stop in Stoke, which unlike Crewe connects to nowhere."

In another story, there was a chap that confirmed that there are more users of Stoke station than Crewe, despite Crewe being a much larger station. Surely you should be stating "I see no point in a stop in Crewe, which unlike Stoke has few passengers"!”

“Where is the evidence that there will be any benefit to towns and cities across the country other than the capital? Should we look to the continent where such trains and lines already run and the ghost towns that are left in it's wake. HS2 is political posturing with an emporers new clothes mentality. Just because others have made the mistake and claim it to be wonderful doesn't mean we should follow suit. North of Watford will not benefit in anyway.”

“This article assumes that the HS2 will go ahead - I for one hope that common sense will prevail and the whole idea will be scrapped - although I am of an age where it won't make much difference to me personally.
At best, it is a status symbol aimed at catching up with countries which already have high speed trains. At worst it is a gross misuse of tax payers money on top of the present financial crisis, from which I am sure the country will never properly recover.
Okay, it creates work over a fairly long period, but so would major improvements to the existing rail and transport systems (which would benefit everyone - not just those who can afford to use it) and a major house building program which is desperately needed.
This is a relatively small island and the gains in travelling time would do very little to improve business prospects. The major gain would be in greatly increasing the commuter belt for those working in the capital, making new areas of the country ripe for buying up by those on the inflated incomes working in London gives.
The project would cause massive inconvenience and a lot of heart-ache to a large number of people, taking over green belt land which could be put to better use.
This country is rapidly becoming short of energy - a field where these large sums of money could be gainfully spent to ensure business as usual instead of relying on other countries to provide our needs at ever increasing cost - instead of throwing it away on unnecessary pipe-dreams.
Unfortunately, all the major political parties seem to be caught up in this act of folly, so I have no doubt it will end up in years of recriminations by future politicians after its completion.”

“Leaving aside, for the moment, discussions on HST2 and any new routes, more people would use the trains if they were affordable. Last August (AFTER the London Olympics) I was quoted £107.00 second-class day return on Virgin Trains from Stoke- Euston.”