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

[Ianno87]

Oh God. So from that image, they want to re-open Sheffield Victoria, which breaks connectivity with existing services. Fix that problem by building a 3rd station in Sheffield - which from geography would almost certainly have to be a mega-expensive tunneled station. Then they want to run a 'high speed' line along the very curvy existing line out from Victoria towards Woodhead (good luck with that). And then, further South, they have this brand new line apparently running into a dead end (unless it links to HS2 phase 2, which they say they don't want to build).

Do these guys know the first thing about railways?

The north-eastern leg from the Penistone delta junction presumably has to handle

Bradford-London (say 1-2tph)
Leeds-London (say 3tph)
Newcastle/York-London (say 3tph)
Newcastle/York-Manchester-Liverpool (say 2tph)
Newcastle/York-Manchester Airport-Liverpool (2tph)
Bradford-Manchester-Liverpool (2tph)
And
Bradford-Manchester Airport-Liverpool (2tph)

...16tph. Before weaving in the other side of the delta junction....or even wanting more than 2tph between Leeds and Manchester!

Really will require 'smart timetabling'

 

[Polarbear]

There is no proof that they won't be eye-watering, either.

Remember that HS2 will have to recoup its cost pretty damn quick. It will have to be expensive to do so. There are no intermediate stations between Birmingham and Euston so that's a captive audience with deep pockets.

We know from this thread that HS2 is not designed for the ordinary passenger, because that's why the classic lines are being left to rot with slower stoppers.

Going off current intercity prices, current rates of inflation, current season ticket prices, HS2 could cost £200 return, maybe £300, possibly higher. Season tickets must be beyond £1,500.

Cheaper and it wouldn't recoup or justify its budget. Cheaper and it wouldn't win against internal flights. Cheaper and it would lose to the existing classic line stoppers.

As others have pointed out, no one knows what fares will be charged for HS2 services. There again, can you tell me the average price of petrol in the UK in say six months time?

Basic economics will dictate the fares charged, and it's probable that fares will mirror current practice. Logically, it doesn't make economic sense for HS2 to have high fares all day, every day as the trains would run empty outside the peaks.

Although some people will stay with the classic line, many will opt for a faster journey over a cheaper, slower one. Conversely, the new line is likely to attract a significant number of people who currently drive/fly, for whom HS2 will make a viable alternative.

As for the classic lines being "left to rot", that won't be the case at all. One of the main purposes of building HS2 is to free capacity on the existing network, which will allow more regional services to operate on the classic rotes. Please remember that unlike France (where some of the classic lines do receive a relatively poor service since LGV's have been opened), the UK operates much more frequent services on many of its routes. Once HS2 is operational, the classic lines (and places like Northampton, Milton Keynes etc.) will have better services to/from London as well as to Birmingham.

 

[Polarbear]

The crayonistas at High Speed North have put their alternative plan for the Pennines and wow, it's bad.

I guess that nobody in the Spen Valley told them what a stupid idea that a high-speed link from the transpennine lines into Bradford would be.

Well whoever drew that up must smoke a heck of a lot. That's a lot of backs of fag packets that's been drawn up on....

 

[MarkLong]

There's 11 million trips between London & the North West:
View media item 3340
If we assume a £75 off peak return between London and Manchester for 5.5 million return trips over 60 years that's £25bn of income. That's 45% of the costs of building the whole scheme even if there's zero growth and doesn't count travel between other regions, nor does it rely on anytime tickets.

And do not even consider the house price will grow in related areas, to produce more income both for resident, government, and perhaps the company. Hong Kong's MTR has its main value from transit-related property developing.

 

[6Gman]

Why not increase length and frequency of Chiltern line trains, maybe some could go I to paddington. That would give extra capacity and there are probably chances to four track in places. Why must we only consider a ml, when Chiltern might be able to provide additional capacity at a lesser cost?
Marylebone Station could be double decked. Uch cheaper than Euston.

1. Increasing train lengths possible (though at a performance cost with the loco-hauled).
2. Increased frequency challenging given the congestion at each end of the route, and between Aynho Jn and Leamington (Chiltern, Cross Country and significant freight traffic).
3. Post-Crossrail Paddington may have some capacity but to what real purpose?
4. Where would you quadruple?
5. Chiltern might provide extra capacity to Birmingham, but what about the other WCML flows?
6. How could Marylebone be double-decked given the tunnel less than a quarter mile from the station throat ?
7. Might offer (some) capacity but does nothing for travel times.

 

[6Gman]

Really will require 'smart timetabling'

I know just the man to help them with that ...

 

[Peter Kelford]

£75bn? Where do you get that figure from? £55bn is the current estimated cost of HS2.

The UK has a long history of price increases on already inflated costs. Therefore, I am giving an estimate for what the cost will be after 'unforseen' costs. It will probably be between £60 and £80 billion in the end.

 

[Peter Kelford]

6. How could Marylebone be double-decked given the tunnel less than a quarter mile from the station throat ?

A quarter mile=400m. At 1:30 that's 13.3 metres. GC loading gauge only needs 5 metres.

 

[Ianno87]

A quarter mile=400m. At 1:30 that's 13.3 metres. GC loading gauge only needs 5 metres.

Having an operable track layout without vertical curves in it will rapidly reduce the achievable height to not much above zero.

 

[Peter Kelford]

WCML moving blocks could work. 140mph expresses on the CML would suffice, with the following alignment needed:

• A bit through High Wycombe, destroying an Argos, Matalan and Premier Inn (which could be rebuilt on top of the railway).

Having an operable track layout without vertical curves in it will rapidly reduce the achievable height to not much above zero.

I must respectfully point out that STP manages two levels in 400-odd metres as well.

 

[Peter Kelford]

WCML moving blocks could work. 140mph expresses on the CML would suffice, with the following alignment needed:

• A bit through High Wycombe, destroying an Argos, Matalan and Premier Inn (which could be rebuilt on top of the railway).

I must respectfully point out that STP manages two levels in 400-odd metres as well.

I should also add that I am decidedly pro-rail and would enthusiastically campaign in support of HS2 if it wasn't for the prohibitive cost.

 

[Ianno87]

WCML moving blocks could work. 140mph expresses on the CML would suffice, with the following alignments needed:

• A bit through High Wycombe, destroying an Argos, Matalan and Premier Inn (which could be rebuilt on top of the railway)
• An easement

I must respectfully point out that STP manages two levels in 400-odd metres as well.

Which part of STP? Only the MML/Thameslink are double deck and...

It's far more than 400m to Dock Jn, plus
6 platforms, just like....Marylebone today.

 

[Glenn1969]

I see HS2 as a solution to the current bottlenecks in Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. I just wish it was opening earlier then 2033. How do you propose solving these issues without HS2 because in my mind if HS2 is cancelled the money will be spent on roads or non transport priorities like the NHS instead

 

[The Ham]

I should also add that I am decidedly pro-rail and would enthusiastically campaign in support of HS2 if it wasn't for the prohibitive cost.

It only looks prohibitive because we are looking at the total cost for it and it's difficult to remember that those costs will be paid out over a 15 year period.

Even using your quoted £75bn figure that's £5bn per year, that's not much more than the £4.1bn which was spent on rail enhancements to the existing network last year. At £60bn it falls to £4bn per year, so on a par.

I get the impression that a lot of the confusion about HS2 is down to it being so big that people get lost in the size of the scale of what it needs to do.

For instance needing to deal with moving the current 11 million trips per year who travel between London and the North West as well do a lot of the heavy lifting of the 13 million passengers between London and the West Midlands as well as all the other flows which it helps with.

 

[The Ham]

Why would HS2 tickets be cheaper than the tickets today?

I see HS2 is magical in yet another way - it's free to operate?

Another way of phrasing your stats is "HS2 will pay for itself within 150 years," which is a bit harder to sell.

Based on my stats "rail travel between London and the North West will pay for HS2 in 135 years*"

* assuming that no-one extra travels by train so it remains at 11 million trips per year.

However the table linked to shows 46.8 million passengers between London and the regions which benefit from HS2. If we assume that 75% of them use HS2 services and they all have return tickets the average ticket price would need to be £63.

Again that's based on zero growth. If there's then, say, 25% growth before phase 1 opens that average ticket price falls £51 and Kris falling the more tickets are sold.

 

[6Gman]

It only looks prohibitive because we are looking at the total cost for it and it's difficult to remember that those costs will be paid out over a 15 year period.

And that it gives us an asset which will probably last 100+ years.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Chiltern trans lengths can’t be extended.

Why not? If it's because at present the platforms at Marylebone have to accommodate two train sets which would be impossible if trains were longer, could not some of the platforms be extended?

 

[Chester1]

Why not increase length and frequency of Chiltern line trains, maybe some could go I to paddington. That would give extra capacity and there are probably chances to four track in places. Why must we only consider a ml, when Chiltern might be able to provide additional capacity at a lesser cost?
Marylebone Station could be double decked. Uch cheaper than Euston.

There cannot be any additional trains on the Chiltern Main Line without further removing intermediate stops from stopping services. Denham, Ruislip, Beaconsfield etc. already have a poor service. The lack of space at Marylebone is one problem, but Paddington is by no means devoid of traffic.
Four tracking, as far as I am aware, is only possible as a loop rather than as an actual 4 track main line.
One also has the problems with capacity up the other end through Banbury, Leamington, Birmingham Moor Street etc.

With some work, the Chiltern Main Line could have additional capacity, but nowhere near enough. And not enough to take capacity away from the WCML, only to generate extra traffic on the Chiltern.

Upgrading Chiltern is not a long term solution but it would buy time. I think to make it work Crossrail would need to be extended to High Wycombe to take away calls between South Ruislip and High Wycombe, maybe 4tph. That would require a complete rebuild of the Acton-Northolt line and electrification + probably 3 passing loops north of it. Probably close Sudbury and Harrow Road too. I'd then recast the timetable to add Wembley Stadium, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park to Marylebone-Aylesbury via High Wycombe and Banbury services. With High Wycombe and Gerrard's Cross terminators replaced by Crossrail there would be 2 extra paths into Marylebone for 2 extra Birmingham services after a complete recast and stops spread out across 4 services to speed up journey times. The Birmingham end would need most of the 4 track alignment reinstated and passing loops added in the middle of the route. That's a huge expenditure to add 2 extra London-Birmingham services and it would mean swapping local service quality for quantity.

Marylebone has very poor interchange opportunities for onwards travel (and vice versa). No links to either Crossrail or Thameslink or airports. Only one tube line. Not in a major commercial area in its own right. The station has a very modest footprint, hemmed in by residential development and I can’t see how it could feasibly be rebuilt to change this, let alone remain operational during the works.

Paddington approaches will be totally full once Crossrail services are up and running so no scope to go there either.

The capacity is less of an issue than the location and interchange options. Marylebone supports 10 services which would be sufficient for services to Birmingham, Oxford and Aylesbury, it's a question of how much it would cost to divert the rest.

Rebuilding the Chiltern Mainline as a proper mainline and supporting faster and more frequent London-Birmingham services is possible but would cost billions. Further billions would need to be spent on the ECML and WCML. I can't see how much extra intercity capacity could be obtained from the MML, the current plans will fill all realistic capacity south of Bedford and at St Pancras. Playing wack a mole with bottlenecks on the existing north-south mainlines quickly makes £55bn a good long term investment!

 

[The Ham]

Upgrading Chiltern is not a long term solution but it would buy time. I think to make it work Crossrail would need to be extended to High Wycombe to take away calls between South Ruislip and High Wycombe, maybe 4tph. That would require a complete rebuild of the Acton-Northolt line and electrification + probably 3 passing loops north of it. Probably close Sudbury and Harrow Road too. I'd then recast the timetable to add Wembley Stadium, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park to Marylebone-Aylesbury via High Wycombe and Banbury services. With High Wycombe and Gerrard's Cross terminators replaced by Crossrail there would be 2 extra paths into Marylebone for 2 extra Birmingham services after a complete recast and stops spread out across 4 services to speed up journey times. The Birmingham end would need most of the 4 track alignment reinstated and passing loops added in the middle of the route. That's a huge expenditure to add 2 extra London-Birmingham services and it would mean swapping local service quality for quantity.



The capacity is less of an issue than the location and interchange options. Marylebone supports 10 services which would be sufficient for services to Birmingham, Oxford and Aylesbury, it's a question of how much it would cost to divert the rest.

Rebuilding the Chiltern Mainline as a proper mainline and supporting faster and more frequent London-Birmingham services is possible but would cost billions. Further billions would need to be spent on the ECML and WCML. I can't see how much extra intercity capacity could be obtained from the MML, the current plans will fill all realistic capacity south of Bedford and at St Pancras. Playing wack a mole with bottlenecks on the existing north-south mainlines quickly makes £55bn a good long term investment!

Indeed, look at what we've achieved with the £25bn spent on rail Enhancements since 2009 and few would say that they've seen capacity (from extra services) increase by very much.

Compare that with the number of extra services which could be possible along just the WCML corridor and I'd argue that HS2 should work out to be a good value project.

 

[The Ham]

One of the complaints about HS2 is that Coventry would loose out on the service frequency that it's got.

Now in 2009, when there were 4.5 million passengers I'd been minded to be concerned about that being the case, however now there's 7.5 million passengers I'd suggest that there's likely to be less of a concern about it loosing out as much, if at all.

 

[quantinghome]

The crayonistas at High Speed North have put their alternative plan for the Pennines and wow, it's bad.

I guess that nobody in the Spen Valley told them what a stupid idea that a high-speed link from the transpennine lines into Bradford would be.

Judging from the font I suspect this is coming from the same guys responsible for HSUK.

Update: Looking at the more detailed plan of the Sheffield area in the tweet, I'm certain it is.

 

[The Ham]

Judging from the font I suspect this is coming from the same guys responsible for HSUK.

Update: Looking at the more detailed plan of the Sheffield area in the tweet, I'm certain it is.

HSUK, the same people who proposed providing HS capacity out of London by using the MML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

HSUK, the same people who proposed providing HS capacity out of London by using the MML.

While I don't support this as a means of killing off HS2, all those 4 and 5-car trains running around suggest that the MML is not even nearly full passenger-wise (rather than path-wise) north of Bedford at least. When they're all 240+m long is when it can be considered so.

 

[The Ham]

While I don't support this as a means of killing off HS2, all those 4 and 5-car trains running around suggest that the MML is not even nearly full passenger-wise (rather than path-wise) north of Bedford at least. When they're all 240+m long is when it can be considered so.

From memory they were using it within the M25 to get out of London. They have some fairly detailed maps online which allows you to see what they are suggesting (well at least at a level which informs which side of any given road the route is passing by).

 

[boxy321]

Also worth noting it shows Chiltern and ECML to Peterborough in yellow too...

And Coventry to Birmingham is green!

 

[quantinghome]

Looking at HSUK's website they seem to have doubled down on the rhetoric and misrepresentation. Examples included failing to acknowledge obvious improvements HS2 will provide to journeys such as Leeds-Nottingham; HS2 will apparently make a whole load of existing journeys worse, including Newcastle-Edinburgh, Liverpool-Leeds and Sheffield-Stoke! The two guys involved in HSUK are former railway engineers, but their whole approach is completely unprofessional.

 

[Taunton]

Now Parliament has got HS2's poor value in their sights

HS2 will not offer value for money and risks "short changing" the North of England, a group of peers has warned.

A report from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee also said it was "far from convinced" the new high-speed railway will be built within the £55.7bn budget.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48284105

"Far from convinced" is a Sir Humphrey-ism for "how ludicrous".

 

[kevin_roche]

"Far from convinced" is a Sir Humphrey-ism for "how ludicrous".

The real 'Sir Humphrey' at the DfT, Bernadette Kelly, Permanent Secretary had quite a different take yesterday at the Public Accounts committee.

You would have to have a very large increase in costs or a much reduced benefit before I would be concerned.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/ad70c511-864f-4136-9343-d3fd0f92a85c?in=15:41:50&out=14:42:18

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Alistair Darling was on Radio 4 this morning talking about the Lords HS2 report.
He was keen for HS2 and NPR to be reviewed together to work out the best way forward which improved transport in the north quickly.
He was, of course, Labour's Transport Secretary and Chancellor when the current HS2 programme took shape (though Andrew Adonis was the real driver).
He also presided over the "no growth" phase of rail investment in the north, around 2005.
Suddenly, investment in the north is the high priority.
I don't know if he really believes that 6-tracking WCML South is unnecessary or not - he must know all about WCRM and the cost and disruption of trying to upgrade an operational Victorian railway.
They clearly think HS2 is over-specced and costs could therefore be cut on tunnelling and systems.
He also fears overspend on Phase 1 will damage Phase 2, the bit which really benefits the north (much like happened on the electrification programme).
Putting the north first is not a bad policy, but we are so far down the south-first programme it will be hard (and in places nonsensical) to stop.
Procurement is very far advanced based on the high specs (both route and rolling stock).
The contractors will be massively upset if the plug is pulled on Phase 1.
I should think any replanning to invert the project would put a delay of about 5 years into getting anything operational.

 

[Glenn1969]

Of course, if they really wanted to put the north first they could have built HS2 and HS3 starting from Leeds and Manchester working south. I'm pro High Speed Rail but I'm worried that I'll be dead before it opens up here lol