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

[PR1Berske]

I quote:


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.

But that uncertainty matters. HS2 could mean London gets a brand new railway line while Lancaster loses all direct trains. Can't you see why I'm against such a scheme when that is a possibility, that London is rewarded and the North penalised?

 

[The Planner]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/05/01/public-still-oppose-hs2

So to clarify the "most people are against it", the sample was 1898 people, 48% of those were against it which is 911 people? and yet in the same opinion poll only 9% of those thought it would be negative for the North?

 

[Clip]

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

But that uncertainty matters. HS2 could mean London gets a brand new railway line while Lancaster loses all direct trains. Can't you see why I'm against such a scheme when that is a possibility, that London is rewarded and the North penalised?

No you have to back up your claim that Lancaster was guaranteed to lose its direct services - you said it now you back it up dont try and turn it back onto others.

And whilst Lancaster losing a direct service - is it really that sort of place for many journeys to London? I mean its usage figures are only just that bit higher than Ormskirk but that doesnt have a direct service to London - surely for connections then Preston could perform that function could it not?

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

Prove to me that it will?

It is a proposal. It may or may not be accepted.

 

[ABB125]

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.

HS2 does benefit all those places you mention. Faster trains to Scotland from London, Birmingham, etc, better connections between Birmingham and Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle etc.
Meanwhile reinstating the Great Central Mainline may be cheaper, but provides much less capacity, as all the fast WCML trains will stay on the WCML. As for a tenth of the disruption, how does rebuilding an old alignment, doing the upgrades needed on the existing railway at either end (mainly Aylesbury to London) and building junctions to existing alignments, as well as doing something about Marylebone station, cause less disruption than building a new, segregated line with a couple of junctions and mostly brand new stations?

 

[Tetchytyke]

HS2 does benefit all those places you mention. Faster trains to Scotland from London, Birmingham, etc, better connections between Birmingham and Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle etc.

Trains are unlikely to be faster between the north east, north Lancashire and Scotland and London. Newcastle to Leeds is 90 minutes alone.

And who wants to go to Birmingham? Clearly there isn't that much of a market as XC only run one piddly little train an hour from Leeds and only two an hour from Manchester. Liverpool don't even get a train with a tea trolley there's so little demand.

HS2 is a solution in search of a problem. And for a £100bn I'd expect a bit of a stronger argument than what we're seeing now.

 

[underbank]

surely for connections then Preston could perform that function could it not?

Yes, but that means an additional change and a longer journey for those affected. And then people wonder why some people are against HS2. I think there'd be a lot less objection if some people weren't inconvenienced so others could enjoy a slightly faster service. There needs to be a GUARANTEE that people won't lose existing services and won't have to endure more changes and longer journey times if you want people to stop objecting to it.

 

[Clip]

Yes, but that means an additional change and a longer journey for those affected. And then people wonder why some people are against HS2. I think there'd be a lot less objection if some people weren't inconvenienced so others could enjoy a slightly faster service. There needs to be a GUARANTEE that people won't lose existing services and won't have to endure more changes and longer journey times if you want people to stop objecting to it.

How many people?

 

[The Planner]

And who wants to go to Birmingham? Clearly there isn't that much of a market as XC only run one piddly little train an hour from Leeds and only two an hour from Manchester. Liverpool don't even get a train with a tea trolley there's so little demand.

Clearly no one as it was only the 6th highest used station in 2017-18 and the busiest outside London?

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 is a solution in search of a problem. And for a £100bn I'd expect a bit of a stronger argument than what we're seeing now.

Why do you persist in ignoring the strong argument for it - south WCML line capacity?

And whether a train has catering has absolutely nothing to do with the demand for the journey. Otherwise you'd be decrying the massive demand from MKC to London given that the vast majority of journeys (LNR services) don't have a "tea trolley" either, simply because the journey is not long enough to have more than one cup of tea, and so if you want one you buy one at the station before boarding, and it'll be cheaper and nicer because it'll be made with actual boiling water, not to mention if you want coffee the contrast between Nescafe and a proper espresso based brew.

 

[ABB125]

Trains are unlikely to be faster between the north east, north Lancashire and Scotland and London. Newcastle to Leeds is 90 minutes alone.

And who wants to go to Birmingham? Clearly there isn't that much of a market as XC only run one piddly little train an hour from Leeds and only two an hour from Manchester. Liverpool don't even get a train with a tea trolley there's so little demand.

HS2 is a solution in search of a problem. And for a £100bn I'd expect a bit of a stronger argument than what we're seeing now.

Perhaps the reason why XC provides only those "piddly little trains" is because they don't have any spare voyagers (or any other stock for that matter) to strengthen services with. Given the near constant complaints about overcrowding on XC, I suspect that the demand is definitely there, especially if, as I read upthread, the BHM-LDS journey time is cut from 2hrs to 40 minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the reason why XC provides only those "piddly little trains" is because they don't have any spare voyagers (or any other stock for that matter) to strengthen services with. Given the near constant complaints about overcrowding on XC, I suspect that the demand is definitely there, especially if, as I read upthread, the BHM-LDS journey time is cut from 2hrs to 40 minutes.

The low speed of Manchester and Leeds to Birmingham must surely also be a factor. It's quicker to drive, and for historical reasons so far as big cities go Birmingham is quite well set up to be driven to and parked in.

 

[6Gman]

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?

You do realise that 11-car Pendolinos fill the platforms at several locations? So how could they be extended?

 

[Esker-pades]

So there hasn't been a recent capacity review?

The most recent one I can find is from 2013. That looks at the timetable which is practically the same that it is today.

 

[Aictos]

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?

Umm obviously someone has forgotten about the limitations of infrastructure that exist as platforms can only be extended so much.

The 11 car Class 390s are 262.9m long which are already longer the the 12 car Class 350s which are 244.8m long so the Class 390s cannot be extended any more and extending the remaining 9 car Class 390s to 11 cars is not going to happen for 1. Who's going to pay Alstom to build the extra carriages and 2. You're going to need DfT to agree which I doubt they will.

By the way, just some maths for you but Virgin Trains and the DfT have lengthened 61% of the Class 390 fleet which is more then can be wished for.

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.

Umm you're forgetting from May this year, the Trent Valley will actually see a increase in capacity as the London Euston to Crewe services are increased to 8 car Class 350s by not running though Stoke on Trent which is the reason for 4 cars being used in the past.

This also means London to Crewe with LNWR would be 2hrs 20mins vs 2hrs 50mins as it is at the moment

Stoke on Trent still has direct London services but they also serve Birmingham giving the likes of Northampton etc now has a direct Crewe service again, okay it's slower but it's still there.

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

They don't need to run everything as 12 cars, just the busiest services which they already do operate as 12 cars.

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

Which does bugger all for passenger services meaning no increase in passenger services and certainly no extra services that would be possible with HS2 such as those from Middlesborough, Cleethorpes not to mention that extra Liverpool service etc...

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.

Okay so where's the proof that Lancaster will lose it's direct London services because all I see here is fantasy claims.

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

Prove to me that it will!

 

[PR1Berske]

No you have to back up your claim that Lancaster was guaranteed to lose its direct services - you said it now you back it up dont try and turn it back onto others.

And whilst Lancaster losing a direct service - is it really that sort of place for many journeys to London? I mean its usage figures are only just that bit higher than Ormskirk but that doesnt have a direct service to London - surely for connections then Preston could perform that function could it not?

And so we get to another reason for my hatred against HS2. The North has to make do with "oh well, few people use the station so it doesn't matter if they change somewhere" while London gets a brand new railway with no questions asked.

Lancaster deserves direct trains to London. HS2 shouldn't be used as smokescreens for unfair cuts.

 

[The Ham]

Trains are unlikely to be faster between the north east, north Lancashire and Scotland and London. Newcastle to Leeds is 90 minutes alone.

And who wants to go to Birmingham? Clearly there isn't that much of a market as XC only run one piddly little train an hour from Leeds and only two an hour from Manchester. Liverpool don't even get a train with a tea trolley there's so little demand.

HS2 is a solution in search of a problem. And for a £100bn I'd expect a bit of a stronger argument than what we're seeing now.

Given that Crewe is due to be 35 minutes faster to London than currently, even allowing for a 15 minutes change there someone from, say, Lancashire would still have a faster journey. However they could use a local services from their local station (which may not increase the number of changes depending on where they start) to get to a HS2 station to them get to London, in broadly the same time at it takes then to get from a station which is currently served by an existing IC service.

 

[6Gman]

And so we get to another reason for my hatred against HS2. The North has to make do with "oh well, few people use the station so it doesn't matter if they change somewhere" while London gets a brand new railway with no questions asked.

Lancaster deserves direct trains to London. HS2 shouldn't be used as smokescreens for unfair cuts.

And may well still have them post-HS2.

 

[PR1Berske]

And may well still have them post-HS2.

But they may not, as evidenced by the statement to the Parliamentary committee quoted above.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They don't need to run everything as 12 cars, just the busiest services which they already do operate as 12 cars.

Then the WCML is not at capacity, is it?

no extra services that would be possible with HS2 such as those from Middlesborough, Cleethorpes

Middlesbrough? Cleethorpes? LNER aren't going to send a 5-car IEP there because there's no market. Why on earth would a HS2 train go there?

Given that Crewe is due to be 35 minutes faster to London than currently

Hmm. That's if HS2b gets built and that's if they build the crayonista tunnel avoiding Curzon Street. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And may well still have them post-HS2.

But they may not.

And if the plan was to have HS2 trains stop at Lancaster, surely HS2 Ltd would have said so?

In Government speak, "may not" means "won't".

 

[Clip]

And so we get to another reason for my hatred against HS2. The North has to make do with "oh well, few people use the station so it doesn't matter if they change somewhere" while London gets a brand new railway with no questions asked.

Lancaster deserves direct trains to London. HS2 shouldn't be used as smokescreens for unfair cuts.

I never said it shouldnt be done away with them but changing at preston really isnt that much of a problem...

Oh and no one has said they would lose them apart from you - so maybe if you stopped wishing for these things then they wouldnt happen - just a thought

 

[PR1Berske]

But they may not.

And if the plan was to have HS2 trains stop at Lancaster, surely HS2 Ltd would have said so?

In Government speak, "may not" means "won't".

You're getting at the very core reason why HS2 is such a rotten idea.

It only guarantees improving services into Euston. That is always the claim supported with great confidence.

Those of us up north have to make do with "might do" and "could be".

To answer the title of this thread directly, "because it only improves rail services to London and ignores the North." Recent responses so nothing to change my mind.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You do realise that 11-car Pendolinos fill the platforms at several locations? So how could they be extended?

One third of the Pendolino fleet doesn't have 11 cars.

Who's going to pay Alstom to build the extra carriages

The same people who are paying £100 BILLION for Gideon Osborne's vanity project?

 

[Aictos]

Then the WCML is not at capacity, is it?

I think you need to go back to school to understand the differences between line capacity and capacity of train loadings.

It has already been explained to you countless times which you choose to ignore as it doesn't suit your purposes that they cannot run more trains on the WCML as they cannot fit more trains on it which escapes your attention.

Middlesbrough? Cleethorpes? LNER aren't going to send a 5-car IEP there because there's no market. Why on earth would a HS2 train go there?

Okay so why did Virgin Trains and now LNER have plans to introduce direct London to Middlesborough services if there was no demand there?

I never said HS2 services would call there either, I just mentioned them as places that could benefit from direct London services as paths on the ECML, MML and WCML will be freed up by HS2.

 

[JamesT]

Hmm. That's if HS2b gets built and that's if they build the crayonista tunnel avoiding Curzon Street. I'll believe it when I see it.

No, Crewe is part of phase 2a.
What Crayonista tunnel? Curzon Street is on a spur, you'll get a fast train to Crewe by taking a train that doesn't go down the spur.

 

[The Planner]

In terms of train paths, yes. In terms of ultimate capacity, nowhere near.

Like most of the network, the paths are taken by small trains running at high frequencies. Or, in the case of Virgin (apart from on the first evening offpeak train), empty trains running at high frequencies.

You can't have WMT/LNR running 4-car trains and Virgin running 5-car Voyagers and tell me capacity is being used appropriately.

So what happens if the trains are extended to their maximum lengths? how much time does that buy you before you need a physical intervention?

Then the WCML is not at capacity, is it?

I'll ask again then as you must have missed it last time, what do you do once the full length trains are full?

 

[Tetchytyke]

It has already been explained to you countless times which you choose to ignore as it doesn't suit your purposes that they cannot run more trains on the WCML as they cannot fit more trains on it which escapes your attention.

They can't fit more trains on the WCML because so much of the capacity is swallowed up by piddly little trains.

If the issue is peak time capacity for commuters, longer trains at the same frequency meets that need. It's what's happening on Thameslink and Crossrail.

I think you need to go back to school to understand the differences between line capacity and capacity of train loadings.

I understand that a 5-carriage 378 trundling across the Euston throat at peak time is the issue and a 250mph vanity project won't solve it. Do you?

 

[6Gman]

But they may not, as evidenced by the statement to the Parliamentary committee quoted above.

Yes, that's what the word "may" means.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I understand that a 5-carriage 378 trundling across the Euston throat at peak time is the issue and a 250mph vanity project won't solve it. Do you?

If you think a LO train every 20 minutes (full and standing a lot of the time), or indeed the Euston throat generally, is the root of all the south WCML's problems, you really don't know much about the south WCML at all. Have you ever even used it?

It would be loads cheaper to (a) send them to Stratford instead, or (b) get rid and extend the Bakerloo back to Watford, than to build HS2. Do you not think they'd do that if it would solve the WCML's ills to get those out of the way?

That's because it wouldn't.