Will HS2 make rail travel worse.

[Snow1964]

Very few people travelling into Paddington are actually destined to the immediate Paddington area. The vast majority are passing through onto other parts of London. So the additional connectivity offered by Old Oak Common will be an overall improvement - and an end-to-end journey time reduction for many people.
I can see that journey patterns might not be entirely symmetrical, i.e. in the morning people would alight at Old Oak Common to connect there for their end destination, whereas in the evening people might prefer to go via Paddington to join their train before departure, ensuring a seat.
It is likely that in time Old Oak Common will be significantly busier than Paddington.

If everything stops at Old Oak, with easy connections, then to some extent Paddington becomes an irrelevance, more a place to park and clean the train than a destination. I suspect for most arriving at Paddington they would be just as happy if the platform was on a loop as don’t really care where train moves to afterwards.

Different for those boarding a long distance train, as it is nicer to locate your seat and settle down before commencing a journey.

But this is not new, when I commuted into London, lots of people I worked with had a different route in morning from main line train to office, to their return. Some passageways are longer or slower, or more congested so would have to wait 2 or 3 tubes to get on, so an alternative route was quicker one way.

 

[quartile]

Lots of people saying journey time decreases are of no interest to them. That will save a nice chunk in the enhancement pot going forward for the industry as we can just maintain what we have.

That's why no one travels at 70 or more when driving on Motorways nor accelerates when the traffic light goes amber.

 

[swt_passenger]

I wonder why so many people assume things about how HS2 will work that have no basis in any public announcements, and don't seem to make sense from the perspective of the future train operator? I'm thinking of the people in this thread who assume HS2 will be reservations compulsory, or who assume a check-in procedure will exist, for example.

They are probably the usual suspects who already wanted that on their local intercity service anyway…

 

[AM9]

I really can't understand the hate for HS2 on here. Yes, there are flaws - the dropping of the eastern leg, not connecting to the Birmingham to Bristol line, and not calling Curzon St 'Moor Street High Speed' for example, but they are fixable, and almost certainly will be in time.

The most fervent objectors seem to be either NIMBYs, or those who view their rail travel needs through a pinhole, that is their journey from their local station of origin to their destination. If HS2 doesn't directly serve a significant portion of that route, then on behalf of all UK rail travellers, they are claiming that it shouldn'e be built. Once their views have been formulated, no matter how many official explanations about how the project will benefit rail travel far beyond a single fast pair of tracks and explained in ever increasing detail by informed contributors in RUK, nothing will help them shaking off their original misconceptions. Many of those questions appear to be fresh out of the anti-HS2 media sources, so maybe the mis-information that they peddled was what some of the posters wanted to hear to reinfoce their own original prejudices against HS2.

 

[Runningaround]

HS2 was thought up pre-pandemic when business trips were part and parcel of life on expenses, first class travel from an office in Birmingham to London and vice versa. It's all changed. There's more working from home despite the government that wants us to go back to the office, and teams and zoom make face to face meetings after a journey almost irrelevant and certainly much more cost effective. So if super expensive superfast trains are to replace fast cheaper services which serve places people want to to travel to (eg Wcml) and connect with then yes HS2 will make things worse. Had it been designed like the TGV network in France, connecting the furthest reaches of the UK then it would have been a triumph but as it is it won't be!

One of the reasons so many aren't returning to the office and holding meetings online is the thought of a long, packed commute into London. Making it more attractive will make returning to the office more welcome and trains will travel both ways so Birmingham and the North become more attractive to.

 

[takno]

No one's commuting from the South East to Birmingham or Manchester. The idea is quite comical.

Clearly not daily. Doing it weekly or monthly for a day, possibly with an overnight, is already a fairly normal pattern. Not everybody wants to move away from the SE when they get a job elsewhere, not all jobs are long-term enough to justify moving.

 

[AlbertBeale]

That's not how capital cost works. You don't wait until you have paid back the build cost, you spread it over the life of the project.
The high speed adds little to the emissions, but means it can compete far better against road, so should be good for the environment.

The unnecessarily high specification of the line is one of the reasons why the cost has been so ridiculously high and why the construction is so carbon intensive - and that's why HS2 is a net problem for the environment until the end of the century ... by when it'll no doubt be too late, the way the world is going. Even on HS2's own figures, any slight saving overall on operating emissions (compared with alternative ways of increasing capacity on that route) won't be balancing the carbon budget of the construction for generations.

 

[Gareth]

Clearly not daily. Doing it weekly or monthly for a day, possibly with an overnight, is already a fairly normal pattern. Not everybody wants to move away from the SE when they get a job elsewhere, not all jobs are long-term enough to justify moving.

The odd business trip to a company's regional HQ in Manchester or Birmingham but otherwise working in London isn't the same as commuting. Anyone that attached to living in the South East simply won't bother looking outside the area for work. It's the largest employment market in the country by some stretch and whilst there's room for significant improvement in the rest of the country, it always will be.

Even the other way round isn't that common and I feel whilst HS2 may make some difference to commuting patterns, it won't be nearly as significant as some are predicting.

 

[tomuk]

Moor Street and Curzon Street (with proposed new link bridge (and extra platforms for Midlands Hub/Bordesley Chords)

 

[AM9]

Moor Street and Curzon Street (with proposed new link bridge (and extra platforms for Midlands Hub/Bordesley Chords)

And the length of the bridge is about 200m. So rather than it being a walk of 'miles', it is less than the length of the longer platforms of Moor St.!

 

[BayPaul]

if it will be so profitable, why didnt the private sector take it up?

Because no one in the private sector has £100bn and the will to invest it for so long. It is also significantly easier for the government to build it, given all the compulsory purchase, the complex bills through parliament and the fact it needs to integrate with network rail sites.

Plus, why should we as a country let the private sector build all the profitable stuff, and have the private sector left with the junk?

 

[fishwomp]

And the length of the bridge is about 200m. So rather than it being a walk of 'miles', it is less than the length of the longer platforms of Moor St.!

It's a good illustration - they are really close. However - the frontage versus where the train is is just a little further. The buffer stops are a bit beyond, about 2/3rd of the length of the building I guess from this:

 

[swt_passenger]

And the length of the bridge is about 200m. So rather than it being a walk of 'miles', it is less than the length of the longer platforms of Moor St.!

Measuring using Google maps, if you go from the furthest points of the new footbridge and the estimated position of the furthest point at the front of the HS station, it’s still less than the total distance between P1 and P24 at London Waterloo.

Unfortunately people have been exaggerating this for so many years it’s passed into collective belief that they’re on different planets...

 

[AM9]

Measuring using Google maps, if you go from the furthest points of the new footbridge and the estimated position of the furthest point at the front of the HS station, it’s still less than the total distance between P1 and P24 at London Waterloo.

Unfortunately people have been exaggerating this for so many years it’s passed into collective belief that they’re on different planets...

It's just another falsehood peddled by HS2 naysayers.

 

[al78]

The high speed adds little to the emissions, but means it can compete far better against road, so should be good for the environment.

I'm not sure whether or not that has been concluded. Energy use goes up non-linearly with speed. A 40% increase in speed requires around double the energy consumption (kinetic energy goes up as the square of the speed and aerodynamic drag increases with speed), and if that energy is coming from electricity that is supplied by fossil fuel power stations, it may not compete favourably with a multi-occupant car.

To make it better for the environment, it has to start with the construction, and the electricity used to power the trains should come from renewables. Has the construction been done in a way to minimise the environmental footprint, or has it been done as cheaply as possible?

If the improved journey time encourages people to use it instead of driving, this might tip the balance in favour of the train. Trains have the advantage of being long and thin, so the energy cost of overcoming air resistance is spread out over the passengers in all the carriages (i.e. adding extra carriages increases capacity without significantly increasing the drag). I would probably use it if the price was right. At the moment, it makes no sense financially to pay well over £100 to travel by train from Horsham to Manchester and back when I can pay a little over half that to drive, and have the transport flexibility of the car when I am there.

 

[GoneSouth]

Although in theory more capacity is possible.

And the length of the bridge is about 200m. So rather than it being a walk of 'miles', it is less than the length of the longer platforms of Moor St.!

And the bridge to New Street?

Actually, I don’t care! Well, that is as long as SW to NW and NE services carry on through NS to Derby/Wolverhampton

 

[Mcr Warrior]

At the moment, it makes no sense financially to pay well over £100 to travel by train from Horsham to Manchester and back when I can pay a little over half that to drive, and have the transport flexibility of the car when I am there.

Of course, you do have to factor in all the various costs of owning / hiring / running a car (it's not just the marginal fuel cost!) and be able to drive as well.

 

[mmh]

Given the massive cost of the project, it won't be able to claim to be "in profit" for a generation or more. Just as its effect on carbon emissions, given its unnecessarily high spec and high speed - despite silly claims that it's a "green" project - will make it a net emitter until the end of the century.

Thank you. I wish more people wouldn't just disregard this. I fully expect that when (if?) the first section opens there'll be some rumblings in the public over why so much was spent on a Birmingham to London line. Once it opens, the "it'll get to Leeds/Glasgow/wherever in another 10 years" will be a far more difficult justification for it than now.

 

[BayPaul]

I'm not sure whether or not that has been concluded. Energy use goes up non-linearly with speed. A 40% increase in speed requires around double the energy consumption (kinetic energy goes up as the square of the speed and aerodynamic drag increases with speed), and if that energy is coming from electricity that is supplied by fossil fuel power stations, it may not compete favourably with a multi-occupant car.

To make it better for the environment, it has to start with the construction, and the electricity used to power the trains should come from renewables. Has the construction been done in a way to minimise the environmental footprint, or has it been done as cheaply as possible?

If the improved journey time encourages people to use it instead of driving, this might tip the balance in favour of the train. Trains have the advantage of being long and thin, so the energy cost of overcoming air resistance is spread out over the passengers in all the carriages (i.e. adding extra carriages increases capacity without significantly increasing the drag). I would probably use it if the price was right. At the moment, it makes no sense financially to pay well over £100 to travel by train from Horsham to Manchester and back when I can pay a little over half that to drive, and have the transport flexibility of the car when I am there.

By the time it opens, most of the electricity generation in the UK will be non-carbon, so doubling a very small number is still a very small number. Yes, there's a lot of carbon from its construction, but I suspect that this pales into insignificance compared to building and running a new motorway, which would probably be the alternative

 

[peteb]

Genuinely pleased that Moor St to Curzon St link reduced to 200m. That is positive, but having to change trains, whether pre-booked or not and whether any check-in or not, it's still irksome.......it's nice to get a seat and work for 2 hours going to London and eating a leisurely picnic coming home....Chiltern permits this.....

 

[Hadders]

Remember:

HS2 is about the additional overall capacity. SPeeding up some journeys is just a by-product
The additional capacity won't all be needed on day 1, but you build something like this for 50 years worth of growth.

 

[David Bullock]

I'm not sure whether or not that has been concluded. Energy use goes up non-linearly with speed. A 40% increase in speed requires around double the energy consumption (kinetic energy goes up as the square of the speed and aerodynamic drag increases with speed), and if that energy is coming from electricity that is supplied by fossil fuel power stations, it may not compete favourably with a multi-occupant car.

To make it better for the environment, it has to start with the construction, and the electricity used to power the trains should come from renewables. Has the construction been done in a way to minimise the environmental footprint, or has it been done as cheaply as possible?

If the improved journey time encourages people to use it instead of driving, this might tip the balance in favour of the train. Trains have the advantage of being long and thin, so the energy cost of overcoming air resistance is spread out over the passengers in all the carriages (i.e. adding extra carriages increases capacity without significantly increasing the drag). I would probably use it if the price was right. At the moment, it makes no sense financially to pay well over £100 to travel by train from Horsham to Manchester and back when I can pay a little over half that to drive, and have the transport flexibility of the car when I am there.

Even a carbon intensive railway is more environmentally friendly than road vehicles. The objective is to drive modal shift away from cars, having zero emissions at the point of use is an added bonus. This modal shift can only be achieved with the capacity that HS2 enables both in terms of extra intercity capacity, extra suburban capacity by building new approaches into city centres, and better connectivity at smaller stations on the existing mainlines.

On the carbon intensity of the construction of HS2, this report's least optimistic estimate is 13.29Mt/CO2e with operational carbon over a 60 year period estimated at around 5Mt/CO2e. In 2019 cars and taxis emitted around 83Mt/CO2e - over four times the emissions of 60 years of HS2. As has been said upthread, if you double a small number it is still a small number.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/400836/hs2ml-carbon_assessment_and_narrative-_25thoct13_wed_tagged_version__-_updated_0.pdf

Transport and environment statistics: Autumn 2021

www.gov.uk

 

[JamesT]

Genuinely pleased that Moor St to Curzon St link reduced to 200m. That is positive, but having to change trains, whether pre-booked or not and whether any check-in or not, it's still irksome.......it's nice to get a seat and work for 2 hours going to London and eating a leisurely picnic coming home....Chiltern permits this.....

There’s no reason to believe you wouldn’t be able to continue using Chiltern after HS2 opens. The main difference is more likely to be that services on the existing lines will gain more stops. So you’d get a little longer to enjoy your picnic.

 

[The Planner]

Genuinely pleased that Moor St to Curzon St link reduced to 200m. That is positive, but having to change trains, whether pre-booked or not and whether any check-in or not, it's still irksome.......it's nice to get a seat and work for 2 hours going to London and eating a leisurely picnic coming home....Chiltern permits this.....

Id wager it won't before much longer when it comes to the Kidderminster trains.

 

[NoRoute]

Even a carbon intensive railway is more environmentally friendly than road vehicles. The objective is to drive modal shift away from cars, having zero emissions at the point of use is an added bonus. This modal shift can only be achieved with the capacity that HS2 enables both in terms of extra intercity capacity, extra suburban capacity by building new approaches into city centres, and better connectivity at smaller stations on the existing mainlines.

By the time HS2 Phase 1 opens around 2030 it won't be possible to buy a new car which is not an electrified vehicle in some form and by the time Phase 2 opens to Manchester, sometime between 2035-2040, it's likely that most people will be driving EVs. The environmental argument for rail becomes a lot weaker when the competition is an efficient, zero emission EV.

 

[swt_passenger]

Genuinely pleased that Moor St to Curzon St link reduced to 200m. That is positive, but having to change trains, whether pre-booked or not and whether any check-in or not, it's still irksome.......it's nice to get a seat and work for 2 hours going to London and eating a leisurely picnic coming home....Chiltern permits this.....

AFAICT it hasn’t been reduced at all, even if that link bridge wasn’t built the distance front door to front door would have still been well under 200m. It was calling it Curzon St in the first place clouded the issue, the main HS2 entrance has always been shown in plans as being on Moor St, and close to the existing buildings.

 

[David Bullock]

By the time HS2 Phase 1 opens around 2030 it won't be possible to buy a new car which is not an electrified vehicle in some form and by the time Phase 2 opens to Manchester, sometime between 2035-2040, it's likely that most people will be driving EVs. The environmental argument for rail becomes a lot weaker when the competition is an efficient, zero emission EV.

HGVs still wont be electric and you can still make a solid argument for HS2 on released freight capacity, modal shift from domestic aviation and the traffic calming caused through the increased capacity on urban transport. Not to mention that battery production for EVs is very carbon intensive, and the carbon breakeven point for some electric SUVs is 100k miles (compared to their ICE equivalent). This is getting a bit OT though so I'll stop now

 

[BayPaul]

By the time HS2 Phase 1 opens around 2030 it won't be possible to buy a new car which is not an electrified vehicle in some form and by the time Phase 2 opens to Manchester, sometime between 2035-2040, it's likely that most people will be driving EVs. The environmental argument for rail becomes a lot weaker when the competition is an efficient, zero emission EV.

I kind of accept that argument, provided that we accept that things like Okehampton reopening are much worse environmentally than HS2. A fast electric train taking traffic off the roads is much better than a 2 carriage dmu plodding along mainly carrying air!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Moor Street and Curzon Street (with proposed new link bridge (and extra platforms for Midlands Hub/Bordesley Chords)

Thanks for the pic - that's pretty clear. I'm somewhat surprised they're not proposing a canopy for the whole length of the link bridge. Even though it's a very short distance, that looks like it'll be a short but very unpleasant walk on rainy days (albeit very nice on sunny days).

I think that diagram shows why the two stations need to have different names and be treated as different stations: They may be next to each other, but they still have completely separate entrances. It would be pretty confusing to people arriving there if they were advertised as parts of the same station.

To be pedantic: Extra platforms? What extra platforms? Moor Street already has 2 terminating platforms. I can see two in the picture, possibly three (it's not quite clear) , so isn't it either no change, or one extra platform?

And the length of the bridge is about 200m. So rather than it being a walk of 'miles', it is less than the length of the longer platforms of Moor St.!

I guess to be fair, the plan was for 400m long HS2 trains (is that still the plan?) So if you have a reserved seat in the front carriage of a train leaving Curzon Street...

 

[mmh]

Moor St to Curzon St is not 10 minutes. The exit of Moor St will be next to the front of Curzon St

King's Cross to St Pancras is also "not 10 minutes," Is one of the miraculous benefits of HS2 an increase in walking speed?