Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[Tetchytyke]

The Taxpayer's Alliance is a right-wing, small-government lobby group which will naturally be opposed to projects involving large government spending.

Of course there's an element of the company buying the opinion polls getting the answer they want. But HS2 Ltd conducted opinion polls up until late 2015 which were also extremely lukewarm, which is presumably why they stopped conducting them.

 

[JamesT]

I don't think it'll make any difference up here either. We can get to Kings Cross in as little as 2h40 as it is. HS2 might be faster but we'd have to go further, with a massive detour to Birmingham, so the two cancel out. You might get it down to 2h30. Worth £100bn? Hardly.

From a brief look, there's one train a day that manages 2:35, everything else is over 2:50 (and many over 3 hours). Hs2 says 2:19 for Newcastle to Euston after Phase 2. So saving more like 30 minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think it'll make any difference up here either. We can get to Kings Cross in as little as 2h40 as it is. HS2 might be faster but we'd have to go further, with a massive detour to Birmingham, so the two cancel out. You might get it down to 2h30. Worth £100bn? Hardly.

"I'm all right, Jack". This is precisely why something like HS2 should never, ever go to a referendum.

 

[The Ham]

For those who fear that HS2 has cut investment in the classic rail network, last year's spending:
- circa £2bn on HS2
- circa £4bn by NR on Enhancements (renewals were on top of this).

Also as a side note, excluding the above (but not the renewals) from the government support for the railways resulted in a subsidy of about £250 million for the general day to day support of the railways.

 

[Taunton]

I'm always reminded of the opening of stage 1 of HS1, from Gravesend to the Tunnel, which cut 15 minutes off the Eurostar journey time. Cost £1bn.

At the same moment Eurostar extended their check-in minimum at Waterloo from 15 to 30 minutes, which meant everyone now had to get there 15 minutes earlier. Net effect of the two and all that expenditure was therefore ... Zero.

HS2 seems to offer shorter journey times to Birmingham. On the other hand it seems further from the Underground than Euston. I actually used to sometimes drive to Euston and park in that big car park underneath which was full of those parking to use the West Coast services, which the HS2 construction has eliminated. I can't see any airport just removing their terminal car park for some aviation extension, can you? And I'm sure the net effect will be that the reduction in journey time to Birmingham will be more than offset by the extra messing about they, themselves, have introduced at the London end.

Don't tell me about the WCML route being out of capacity because on my last two journeys to Birmingham the 11-car Pendolino had been replaced by a 5-car Voyager, which we were all squashed into. As diagrammed it appears. And diesel under the wires all the way. Probably a bit cheaper to run.

 

[bastien]

I was pro-HS2 until recently, but now I'm not so sure. The reason - a construction machinery firm bribing MPs quite openly and brazenly. We're just too corrupt a country to pull this off, I'm afraid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't tell me about the WCML route being out of capacity because on my last two journeys to Birmingham the 11-car Pendolino had been replaced by a 5-car Voyager, which we were all squashed into. As diagrammed it appears. And diesel under the wires all the way. Probably a bit cheaper to run.

Out of line capacity, primarily south of Hanslope Jn. Not the Euston-Brum services all being full and standing.

 

[JamesT]

HS2 seems to offer shorter journey times to Birmingham. On the other hand it seems further from the Underground than Euston. I actually used to sometimes drive to Euston and park in that big car park underneath which was full of those parking to use the West Coast services, which the HS2 construction has eliminated. I can't see any airport just removing their terminal car park for some aviation extension, can you? And I'm sure the net effect will be that the reduction in journey time to Birmingham will be more than offset by the extra messing about they, themselves, have introduced at the London end.

Part of the works at Euston for HS2 are to provide better access to the Underground.
Surely nobody sane is going to drive into the centre of London in order to get a train out? You drive to a station closer to you. For which services are probably going to be better with the express trains taken off the WCML onto HS2.
Airports are generally on the outskirts of conurbations so don't have the same pressures on land.

Don't tell me about the WCML route being out of capacity because on my last two journeys to Birmingham the 11-car Pendolino had been replaced by a 5-car Voyager, which we were all squashed into. As diagrammed it appears. And diesel under the wires all the way. Probably a bit cheaper to run.

Whether it's a Pendolino or a Voyager, it's still a path. You might be able to lengthen some of the existing services that aren't at maximum, but that doesn't give you any more paths for additional services like another pair of tracks does.

 

[Tetchytyke]

"I'm all right, Jack".

So if HS2 won't benefit the Chilterns, won't benefit the north west, won't benefit the north east, won't benefit Yorkshire and won't benefit Scotland, and won't provide freight capacity, what precisely is the point of it?

And what does it bring to the table that relaying the GCR as a conventional railway for a third of the cost and a tenth of the disruption wouldn't?

"Oh it's shiny and new and must be good" doesn't really cut it.

 

[Esker-pades]

Don't tell me about the WCML route being out of capacity because on my last two journeys to Birmingham the 11-car Pendolino had been replaced by a 5-car Voyager, which we were all squashed into. As diagrammed it appears. And diesel under the wires all the way. Probably a bit cheaper to run.

Services are Voyagers because Virgin doesn't have enough Pendolinos to operate a full service. That's why one still gets Voyagers on Birmingham and Glasgow/Edinburgh via Birmingham runs. Buying more Pendolinos is a short term fix to this problem, but if a 5 car Voyager is already squashed (I'm assuming no spare seats and some standing) then a 9/11 car Pendolino will be already at over half capacity. That will fill up given the current growth. There are no more paths for additional trains, so there needs to be additional infrastructure. Adding more coaches ad infinitum doesn't solve the problem, mearly delays the time by which a solution needs to be implemented.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You might be able to lengthen some of the existing services that aren't at maximum, but that doesn't give you any more paths for additional services

The Pendolinos aren't at full length, the 350s aren't at full length, the 378s aren't at full length. Why not run bigger trains?

That's the trouble with the modern railway, they mess about with piddly little trains at high frequency then claim there's no capacity. Look at LNR with the Trent Valley stoppers.

When LNR are running everything as a 12-car in the peaks out of Euston get back to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if HS2 won't benefit the Chilterns, won't benefit the north west, won't benefit the north east, won't benefit Yorkshire and won't benefit Scotland, and won't provide freight capacity, what precisely is the point of it?

It will provide additional capacity for south WCML local services which will come under increasing demand as Milton Keynes grows and with the coming of East West Rail. MK's population is about 250K at the moment, it will be 400K. That is likely to result in a near doubling of demand.

Along those lines it will allow more IC services to stop at stations like Watford, MK and Rugby for better connectivity both to and from those places than at present, where an approach of "everyone's going to London" has had to be the way.

It will also provide additional freight paths. Proof by assertion is not proof; just because you seem to think it won't doesn't mean it won't.

And what does it bring to the table that relaying the GCR as a conventional railway for a third of the cost wouldn't?

Where's the capacity on the south end of the Chiltern Line for that? You'll just end up with the Chiltern Line being like the south WCML but with only two tracks.

And where's your evidence that a 125mph railway on the old GC alignment will be cheaper? (There is no point going any slower as traffic would just stay on the WCML).

 

[Esker-pades]

So if HS2 won't benefit the Chilterns, won't benefit the north west, won't benefit the north east, won't benefit Yorkshire and won't benefit Scotland, and won't provide freight capacity, what precisely is the point of it?

And what does it bring to the table that relaying the GCR as a conventional railway for a third of the cost wouldn't?

"Oh it's shiny and new and must be good" doesn't really cut it.

You are one person in Newcastle, so we can't establish the opinion of the whole of the North based on you, something from the right-wing bias "Taxpayers Alliance" and the Daily Express.

• It benefits commuters on the southern end of the West Coast Main Line (more trains)
• It benefits commuters on the southern end of the East Coast Main Line (more trains)
• It benefits people in "secondary" Northern towns which want but currently don't have enough fast and direct services (Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Cleethorpes, Hull etc.)
  
• It benefits passengers going from London/Birmingham to Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool etc (more and faster trains)
• It does provide additional freight capacity

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Pendolinos aren't at full length, the 350s aren't at full length, the 378s aren't at full length. Why not run bigger trains?

That's the trouble with the modern railway, they mess about with piddly little trains at high frequency then claim there's no capacity. Look at LNR with the Trent Valley stoppers.

When LNR are running everything as a 12-car in the peaks out of Euston get back to me.

You're referring to the same LNR who have just ordered a massive load of new rolling stock, far in excess of simply replacing 350/2s and 319s, in order to start maxing out far more train lengths, right?

As for Pendolinos, they do all need extending to 11-car (which sadly can't now happen), but extending them to 20-car along with the platforms won't provide additional capacity for regional expresses on the south WCML nor on the Trent Valley. Unless you would support, say, cutting one of the Birmingham services for a freight path, and having one of the Manchesters call at all stations on the Trent Valley, which would still only breathe on it?

Your point about short trains is correct, but that point needs applying primarily north of Crewe, where Northern and TPE's 2 and 3-car trains need to be 160m long at least. Maxing everything out south of Hanslope is a very minor tweak and is nowhere near enough.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And where's your evidence that a 125mph railway on the old GC alignment will be cheaper? (There is no point going any slower as traffic would just stay on the WCML).

The Borders Railway cost £10m a mile. Why would the GCR have to be 125mph? It could be 60mph and for freight alone.

 

[PR1Berske]

1: Why didn't you give the more up-to-date surveys first?
2: I can't read the telegraph article far enough, but given the similarity in date with the Express article I would estimate that they are both reporting the same survey.
3: The final poll is from 2017, whch is over a year out.

So you'll always reject polls that show opposition, but accept claims HS2 is needed which go back years?

 

[PR1Berske]

Same here for Lancaster which isn't on the new "map" either. Our local MP has started a campaign to ensure Lancaster remains a stop on the WCML for trains to London. Otherwise, we're in the same position of longer duration journeys, so HS2 would make things worse for us.

Lancaster will be one of the places guaranteed to lose its direct London route. There are a few other places where this is the case. It's the "unknown known" HS2 Ltd would rather you didn't know.

 

[Esker-pades]

So you'll always reject polls that show opposition, but accept claims HS2 is needed which go back years?

Public opinion changes over short periods of time.
The need for additional rail capacity does not.

Opinions v facts.

 

[PR1Berske]

Public opinion changes over short periods of time.
The need for additional rail capacity does not.

Opinions v facts.

When was the last capacity review carried out?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Borders Railway cost £10m a mile. Why would the GCR have to be 125mph? It could be 60mph and for freight alone.

Which would give you hardly any of the benefits. You'd free up one path on the south WCML (none in the peaks). What's that going to give you, one more Tring stopper an off-peak hour with no resilience gains? Not enough, nowhere near.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There are 9 InterCity trains per hour out of Euston (3 Manchester, 3 Brum one of which carries on to Scotland, 1 Liverpool, 1 Chester/Holyhead, 1 fast Scotland). Your point seems centred around an idea that it's "all or nothing" - of course it isn't. Lop say 2 of those out and put fast Northamptons in their place (WFJ-MKC-NMP only), rejig slow line services accordingly, and hey presto, you've just created an hourly freight path.

(I know it isn't *quite* that simple, but it is exactly in principle how such paths will be created)

On the basis of a class 2 passenger path is about equal to a class 4 "Freightliner" path , - 2 Northamptons on the fast - and staying there (without weaving over at Ledburn or Hanslope) , equal to (at least) 2 freight paths - maybe more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lancaster will be one of the places guaranteed to lose its direct London route. There are a few other places where this is the case. It's the "unknown known" HS2 Ltd would rather you didn't know.

Rubbish, it is not "guaranteed" at all that this will take place. It's worth shouting about it so it doesn't happen, but there is no guarantee it will as there is no physical reason not to serve it.

My personal view is that all trains between Crewe and Carlisle should call at all stations except Leyland and Euxton Balshaw Lane (those two being the only two genuinely local stations that didn't either get Beechinged in the former case or got reopened more recently in the latter case). Having non-stop Scottish services is just a sop to the whiners in the SNP who are miffed there isn't going to be an extension all the way to Scotland.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So if HS2 won't benefit the Chilterns, won't benefit the north west, won't benefit the north east, won't benefit Yorkshire and won't benefit Scotland, and won't provide freight capacity, what precisely is the point of it?

But it will benefit many of those places. As one example, Birmingham to Leeds currently takes 2 hours. I seem to recall reading that HS2 phase 2 could knock that down to about 40 minutes. Sheffield to Leeds has one tph that takes 40 minutes, but most trains take about an hour - pretty appalling for two such large cities just 35 miles apart. HS2 phase 2 is likely to allow frequent faster trains connecting those cities. As for the North West - even if HS2 trains don't serve Lancaster (which is hypothetical and may or may not be true), they will certainly serve Preston - and that indirectly benefits a lot of connecting towns around Preston. Even the Chilterns may benefit indirectly: The Marylebone-Birmingham trains will carry fewer passengers all the way to Birmingham, which means it'll make sense for them to stop at more intermediate stations. (To my mind, extensive skip-stopping means most intermediate stations on the Marylebone-Oxford/Birmingham route currently get a pretty bad service - much like Watford Junction/Rugby/Stafford/etc. on the WCML).

 

[PR1Berske]

Rubbish, it is not "guaranteed" at all that this will take place. It's worth shouting about it so it doesn't happen, but there is no guarantee it will as there is no physical reason not to serve it.

My personal view is that all trains between Crewe and Carlisle should call at all stations except Leyland and Euxton Balshaw Lane (those two being the only two genuinely local stations that didn't either get Beechinged in the former case or got reopened more recently in the latter case). Having non-stop Scottish services is just a sop to the whiners in the SNP who are miffed there isn't going to be an extension all the way to Scotland.

Funny, that's not what was told in evidence to Parliament:

After years of speculation, HS2 Ltd technical Director Andrew McNaughton has finally admitted that towns and cities in the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and The North West could lose direct services to London if HS2 goes ahead, for the benefit of commuters in Milton Keynes.

Giving evidence to the HS2 Hybid Bill Committee of MPs, McNaughton said;

“We take off the main line most of the long-distance non-stop services, because the purpose of HS2 is to serve cities on the long-distance network. That means in the peak we see at least 10 totally new services are available in the capacity that we released on the West Coast Main Line. We [HS2 Ltd] basically introduce 10 long-distance services, which means all those services come off the main lines.”

Towns and cities which are could see slower, reduced or no services at all to London if HS2 goes ahead are; Rugby, Nuneaton, Coventry, Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton, Telford, Shrewsbury, Tamworth, Lichfield, Crewe, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Wilmslow, Stockport, Runcorn, Warrington, Wigan, Blackpool, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Motherwell, Chester, Flint, Prestatyn, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno, Bangor and Holyhead.

 

[sprunt]

But it will benefit many of those places. As one example, Birmingham to Leeds currently takes 2 hours.

You can't win though, because "benefit Yorkshire" has been redefined as "directly benefit every small village in Yorkshire".

 

[sprunt]

Right on cue.

Funny, that's not what was told in evidence to Parliament:

So "could" now means "is guaranteed to"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Funny, that's not what was told in evidence to Parliament:

I quote:

towns and cities in the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and The North West could lose direct services to London if HS2 goes ahead

That does not mean they will. Whether they do or not is a political decision, basically. There is no technical reason HS2 cannot stop at those stations where they run through them.

 

[Esker-pades]

When was the last capacity review carried out?

You've missed the point that I made originally.

Opinions can change quickly over a brief period of time. The capacity on the rail network cannot without something changing in the infrastructure. One cannot just leave the WCML for a year, come back, and find that there's an additional 5% capacity. One can do that with public opinion.

 

[PR1Berske]

Right on cue.



So "could" now means "is guaranteed to"?

Prove to me that Lancaster won't lose its direct services to London, then.

 

[PR1Berske]

You've missed the point that I made originally.

Opinions can change quickly over a brief period of time. The capacity on the rail network cannot without something changing in the infrastructure. One cannot just leave the WCML for a year, come back, and find that there's an additional 5% capacity. One can do that with public opinion.

So there hasn't been a recent capacity review?