What if...HS2 is scrapped?

[PR1Berske]

Let me ask the question from the title of this thread, to avoid it creating a Venn Diagram with other similar threads.

What would happen were HS2 cancelled?


From this thread (and others) the answer seems to come from either

*The wider network should attract the investment it needs, countryside won't be ruined in the name of progress, money is being wasted, politicians are blinded to big ticket items, there's no justification, it doesn't help the regions, it reduces direct services to London from the regions

Or


*The WCML is congested, it will open up travel opportunities in the North, it frees up paths into London, it cuts travel times, it frees up freight paths, it's overdue investment in the UK

A discussion to run and run!

 

[6Gman]

Let me ask the question from the title of this thread, to avoid it creating a Venn Diagram with other similar threads.

What would happen were HS2 cancelled?

I'm grateful to @PR1Berske for taking us back to the original question posed in this thread.

What would happen were HS2 cancelled?

1. It would throw future large-scale infrastructure projects (in many areas) into doubt.
2. Liverpool and Preston wouldn't get the additional fast London services they are seeking.
3. Capacity issues between Stockport and Manchester would continue to restrict any potential additional services.
4. Assuming even modest continuing growth on the southern WCML services to the likes of Milton Keynes, Leighton Buzzard and the like would become more, and more, and more overcrowded.
5. Journey times, including London - Birmingham/Manchester/Crewe/Liverpool etc, Birmingham-Sheffield/Leeds/Manchester etc would be longer than they would otherwise have been.
6. Potential extra capacity on the ECML and MML wouldn't be created.
7. Maybe, perhaps, some additional funding for smaller scale infrastructure projects could occur. Whether this would provide significant benefit is hard to tell without knowing what they would be.

 

[6Gman]

Longer, but as with buses not adding much seating capacity due to the need (no bad thing) for proper wheelchair access, wheelchair accessible toilets, 2+2 rather than 3+2 seating with more legroom etc. As I said, it's a quality upgrade, not a capacity upgrade. The Northern changes add surprisingly (and inadequately in my view) little capacity.

Can't help feeling that in a year or two more people will be sharing my opinion that "I'd rather sit on a Pacer than stand on a 195" ...

 

[VT 390]

Can't help feeling that in a year or two more people will be sharing my opinion that "I'd rather sit on a Pacer than stand on a 195" ...

Is there the option for Northern to extend the 195's?

 

[tbtc]

Let me ask the question from the title of this thread, to avoid it creating a Venn Diagram with other similar threads.

What would happen were HS2 cancelled?


From this thread (and others) the answer seems to come from either

*The wider network should attract the investment it needs, countryside won't be ruined in the name of progress, money is being wasted, politicians are blinded to big ticket items, there's no justification, it doesn't help the regions, it reduces direct services to London from the regions

Or


*The WCML is congested, it will open up travel opportunities in the North, it frees up paths into London, it cuts travel times, it frees up freight paths, it's overdue investment in the UK

A discussion to run and run!

Please, take a moment to read what other people are saying, rather than repeating the same points over and over...

But, whilst I'm waiting for the kettle to boil, please explain what investment the "classic" lines would have under your alternative plans?

How would you build any new bits of railway without affecting any countryside?

Given the way that Network Rail have delivered half a job for twice the price on the GWML electrification (etc), how are you going to ensure that there would be no wasted money on the projects that you'd build instead of HS2?

How does eighteen additional services per hour from London to "the regions" manage to *reduce* services from London to the regions? Normally, when you increase something by eighteen it goes up? If you want to talk "regions" then, pray, which regions are going to get fewer London trains than they currently do?

(you can either answer these points or you can continue to avoid the questions by talking about smarter timetables and the likes, of course...)

 

[PR1Berske]

Please, take a moment to read what other people are saying, rather than repeating the same points over and over...

But, whilst I'm waiting for the kettle to boil, please explain what investment the "classic" lines would have under your alternative plans?

How would you build any new bits of railway without affecting any countryside?

Given the way that Network Rail have delivered half a job for twice the price on the GWML electrification (etc), how are you going to ensure that there would be no wasted money on the projects that you'd build instead of HS2?

How does eighteen additional services per hour from London to "the regions" manage to *reduce* services from London to the regions? Normally, when you increase something by eighteen it goes up? If you want to talk "regions" then, pray, which regions are going to get fewer London trains than they currently do?

(you can either answer these points or you can continue to avoid the questions by talking about smarter timetables and the likes, of course...)

If I have to build any new railway, I would look to reinvesting in existing lines where track could be relayed. Of course, regrettably, allowing the WCML to grow to fit its purpose might mean expanding into countryside. I would hope to minimise that.

You are asking me, a normal ordinary everyday passenger, a detailed question about project management. I cannot answer, and you know I cannot answer. You are being unfair.

18 services per hour is I assume an HS2 figure? Is it guaranteed? You know - because this forum has said it time and time and time again - that parts of the NW will lose direct services to London. Lancaster is one. Oxenholme is another. Now I know that I have said that guaranteeing timetables that way ahead is not a valid criticism, but it has to be underlined: nothing - not one square metre - north of Birmingham is guaranteed HS2 benefits. And you know it.

 

[EM2]

...nothing - not one square metre - north of Birmingham is guaranteed HS2 benefits. And you know it.

Nowhere, anywhere, is guaranteed benefit by any project of any kind.

 

[PR1Berske]

Nowhere, anywhere, is guaranteed benefit by any project of any kind.

Then HS2 advocates should stop saying that the project will benefit the North, as they keep saying.

 

[EM2]

Then HS2 advocates should stop saying that the project will benefit the North, as they keep saying.

You equally keep saying that it will not benefit the North. Not that it may not, but that it will not.
It is very likely, based on research and experience, that it will benefit the North. But nothing is guaranteed.

 

[R G NOW.]

You equally keep saying that it will not benefit the North. Not that it may not, but that it will not.
It is very likely, based on research and experience, that it will benefit the North. But nothing is guaranteed.

If you provide HS2, then I think you would have to do the northern powerhouse scheme as well, then I think we will get somewhere? This would then in my mind benefit the north and allow more people up there to reach Birmingham or London. But at what cost to have both schemes? And how long will people have to wait for it to be built? Passenger flows might decline by then with more people working from home and not travelling, because fares will have increased so much by, say 2030 no one can afford them, only the business reps and so on.

 

[6Gman]

If you provide HS2, then I think you would have to do the northern powerhouse scheme as well, then I think we will get somewhere? This would then in my mind benefit the north and allow more people up there to reach Birmingham or London. But at what cost to have both schemes? And how long will people have to wait for it to be built? Passenger flows might decline by then with more people working from home and not travelling, because fares will have increased so much by, say 2030 no one can afford them, only the business reps and so on.

Over the past ten years fares have increased above inflation, and technology has allowed a lot more home working. But passenger demand has steadily increased.

 

[6Gman]

If I have to build any new railway, I would look to reinvesting in existing lines where track could be relayed.

What does this mean though?

 

[6Gman]

If you provide HS2, then I think you would have to do the northern powerhouse scheme as well, then I think we will get somewhere? This would then in my mind benefit the north and allow more people up there to reach Birmingham or London. But at what cost to have both schemes?

The problem with "the northern powerhouse scheme" is that nobody seems very clear on what it means. Still less what it would cost.

 

[The Ham]

Then HS2 advocates should stop saying that the project will benefit the North, as they keep saying.

OK, here's something certain, by building a HS2 station in Manchester it will increase the amount of platform space in Manchester (or are you going to deny that?)

If you increase platform space then it is highly likely that it would result in more/longer trains being able to run (again I assume that you accept that this is also true?)

If you remove intercity trains from the classic platforms, where they often sit for about 30 minutes, then that could allow longer/more trains on the local services (again, is this correct?)

Given the above I find it hard to see how (assuming that there's a business case to do so) that it is not going to result in benefits for Manchester.

It doesn't matter which HS2 station location you list, wherever there's platforms removing intercity trains from the classic platforms the above is likely to follow (subject to the business case).

Then add on that having built HS2 platforms them out is possible to build NPR without the large costs of building the platforms.

Ifyou could explain to me how I'm wrong then I'm willing to listen.

However until such time, I'm likely to carry on saying that HS2 will be of benefit to the north.

 

[The Ham]

If you're desperate for me to say "yes" so you can quote me, then, I believe it has, yes.

But if you're hanging your support on one set of figures, then you will have to hope to high heaven's that we haven't reached "peak passenger". Especially because passenger flows through the area where HS2 will be built without intermediate stations won't be helped by it.

The problem is that by accepting that the growth modelled by HS2 has been exceeded leads you to very much hope that we have or are about to hit peak train otherwise we are going to be up the creek without a paddle if that doesn't happen.

If I'm wrong and we got peak passenger numbers then we're going to have a railway with more capacity than we need. However we are at about 2/3rds of what was expected for the opening of Phase 1. As such it's not going to be that far off.

As such I am very much of the view that if it's not HS2 then there's got to be something significant and a few extra trains an hour isn't going to cut it.

 

[Meerkat]

As such I am very much of the view that if it's not HS2 then there's got to be something significant and a few extra trains an hour isn't going to cut it.

Again you seem to be ignoring the alternative of not serving that demand.
The argument against building motorwaysis they soon fill up - do we want all these extra journeys made?

 

[The Ham]

Again you seem to be ignoring the alternative of not serving that demand.
The argument against building motorwaysis they soon fill up - do we want all these extra journeys made?

Whilst I accept that is a valid question, is it not better to encourage people to use rail than own a car?

If we don't cater for a reasonable amount of rail travel then people would use their cars instead.

Now even if rail isn't greener for any given journey it reduces the risk of "just popping to..." trips which are easy to make in the car but may not need to be made our may not need to be made by car.

Of course if you are using that argument you would also need to be calling for no more road schemes and no more investment in rail. Is that what you are calling for?

As it would take a VERY brave politician to suggest that, as that would be more controversial than HS2.

 

[Clip]

You are asking me, a normal ordinary everyday passenger, a detailed question about project management. I cannot answer, and you know I cannot answer. You are being unfair.

Yet you, a normal every day passenger, seems to have decided that this project designed by project managers, will fail. Even though you are very forthcoming in your lack of detailed defence you still evade questions with cop-outs which actually go against you. Making your points null and void.

 

[The Planner]

Do you have a link to the Yougov poll? Google only finds very old polls.
One of the polls suggests that people think the HS2 money should be spent on the NHS. Do you think the public would say that about more or less any public investment?

It was in the thread in general discussion, post #251
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/05/01/public-still-oppose-hs2
My response to it below.

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?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I accept that is a valid question, is it not better to encourage people to use rail than own a car?

Except in cities with a very dense rail network (which is basically just going to be London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle, if we're thinking of England, and add Glasgow if Scotland is included), "using rail" and "owning a car" are not mutually exclusive. Local bus provision will have a lot more to do with decisions on car ownership than rail.

The railway really needs to consider that - including in pricing policy where "but it costs less than the full cost of car operation" is on a hiding to nowhere.

 

[R G NOW.]

I think it is likely that hs2 will be built, changing my mind a bit on what I said in earlier posts. I list items as follows:-

1. Does the cost outweigh the savings in co2 emissions?.
2. After spending 100 billion, will people use it?.
3. How many cars would it remove from the road?.
4. Fare costs to use it, what would they set them at?.

 

[VT 390]

Is it not to late to Cancel phase 1 to Birmingham now because of the work at Euston?

 

[6Gman]

I think it is likely that hs2 will be built, changing my mind a bit on what I said in earlier posts. I list items as follows:-

1. Does the cost outweigh the savings in co2 emissions?.
2. After spending 100 billion, will people use it?.
3. How many cars would it remove from the road?.
4. Fare costs to use it, what would they set them at?.

1. Almost certainly not.
2. Almost certainly yes.
3. Probably very few.
4. Nobody knows, but probably similar to "classic" fares.

 

[6Gman]

Is it not to late to Cancel phase 1 to Birmingham now because of the work at Euston?

Not too late. The existing work could be abandoned or repurposed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not too late. The existing work could be abandoned or repurposed.

Repurposing it to some additional 12 car platforms would be good. Could it perhaps become a dedicated suburban station?

 

[The Planner]

Wrong side of the tracks, HS2 is on the fast side per se.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wrong side of the tracks, HS2 is on the fast side per se.

As LNR make heavy use of platforms 16-18 and not of 1-3, I suspect that is not a real issue.

 

[Ken H]

From what I saw on that programme the other day, the north needs more investment, having loads of people trying to ram into an already full class 142 is nothing short of ridiculous. Also it was noted that some were being left behind on a platform, having to wait for the next one, which was also full up and they are then late for work. I want to say, that this way could be damaging peoples health? Could even be worse than smoking.

Northern needs new vehicles now. West Yorks, lancashire and Gt manc need longer trains. too many short trains entering the hubs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Northern needs new vehicles now. West Yorks, lancashire and Gt manc need longer trains. too many short trains entering the hubs.

Agreed, though TPE is half of that problem. A minimum of 80m passing through Castlefield or Victoria would be a good start. If anything doesn't justify that, portion work it.

 

[anme]

It was in the thread in general discussion, post #251
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/05/01/public-still-oppose-hs2
My response to it below.

Thanks. Now, what's your opinion on making decisions on major infrastructure projects based on opinion polls?