• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
A story in yesterday's Mail on Sunday about scrapping HS2 south of Birmingham (which of course doesn't recognise that it would be quite difficult to do that).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877371/Top-adviser-Boris-Johnson-urges-axe-HS2-South.html

Blah, blah, blah.

I know you did it in good faith and all, but why do we have to put these stories on the forum every time somebody pontificates forth about HS2 being "scrapped".

We seen this before with all the other disastrous decisions forced on us by our so-called "elites". They control the press, and keep drip feeding these stories. Being the good little people we are, we dutifully paste the relevant links on our forums and keep discussing it like we are supposed to do until it starts to seem a plausible, even an inevitable course of action.

I gather most families have banned dinner table conversations about the merits of dropping out of the European Union. Perhaps the forum should also adopt this for HS2 in the interests of its own family unity as this thread and its equally long predecessors are yet to generate any light? Perhaps the most interesting thing we have learnt in 133 pages is the merits of requiring people to wear helmets when riding their bikes!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Pretty much, yes. NPR and HS2 deal with different things.

Which leads to the question, assuming that we were to do away with HS2 and the money it would spend building the new platforms at places like Leeds and Manchester what would that do to the budget of NPR?

If we assume that it would significantly increase it then that could lead to two outcomes:

1) NPR is also cancelled at it is no longer a viable project as the costs have risen significantly.

2) NPR is built with a higher cost, which then makes building HS2 much cheaper and so it gets built.

I great that unfortunately that the first is most likely. As such I'm not sure that many of those who are calling for NPR rather than HS2 actually wish to have either. What do others think?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
If you don't want to read threads about HS2, just don't read them? It's not compulsory to read every thread.

If there was only a way of identifying that this was a thread about HS2, maybe the fact that HS2 isn't mentioned once in the title of the thread and so it could be argued that it was a easy to stumble into the thread and be surprised by the subject.

Other than HS2 is mentioned twice in the title.
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
A story in yesterday's Mail on Sunday about scrapping HS2 south of Birmingham (which of course doesn't recognise that it would be quite difficult to do that).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7877371/Top-adviser-Boris-Johnson-urges-axe-HS2-South.html

"Why don't we start building HS2 in the North?" makes as much sense as asking "why don't we start building skyscrapers from the top?"

I look forward to Andrew Gilligan's floating skyscraper. At least it stops him from declaring every other day that trans people are causing the death of civilisation.
 

Meole

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2018
Messages
452
Could cutting air passenger duty for internal flights be presented as a way of relieving pressure on the WCML ?
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
That would be highly controversial as it would be against any sensible environmental plan.
and a sure sign that the air and petroleum lobby climate change deniers have their feet firmly under the cabinet table, lawd help us...
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,544
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
"Why don't we start building HS2 in the North?" makes as much sense as asking "why don't we start building skyscrapers from the top?"

I look forward to Andrew Gilligan's floating skyscraper. At least it stops him from declaring every other day that trans people are causing the death of civilisation.

To be fair, NPR contains part of HS2, and the situation is clearly far worse in the North than it is on the south WCML, much as that capacity is much needed.

That said, the main issue in the North is capacity, and that could be solved in the short term with a large order of DMUs and/or bi-modes with SDO, extension of existing units (e.g. the TPE sets from 5 to 7-car) and selective platform work.
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
The building of HS2 will generate loads of dust and c02. Have the DFT worked out about the impact on the world this will add. Anyway I think it cannot be any worse than those fires in Austrailia and the volcano that's erupted. And the devastating loss of life. This is why I oppose it.
How many cars will HS2 remove from the roads and how many people will use HS2 instead of trains???? - therefore offsetting the environmental impact of the construction to 60-100 years

I think the government should be sorting out what we have already and finishing off projects already costed, such as electrifying Swindon to Bristol and Bromsgrove to Yate. Putting wires from Cardiff to Swansea makes sense first and not building railways which the rich would probably use.
What about the enviromental impact of this work ? is that not a consideration?
 

Grimsby town

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Messages
387
It also needs to be considered how long major rail projects take to develop in densely populated democratic countries. If we were to stop HS2, a shovel ready project, we couldn't suddenly start building HS3 and reopening lines. Each line would have to go through processes such as modelling, route optioneering, economic analysis, detailed design and consultation. HS3 is going through this process but it is towards the start of it currently. I imagine it will be 5+ years before construction can start.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
If you don't want to read threads about HS2, just don't read them? It's not compulsory to read every thread.
And yet every time a paper prints some of his copy we have to dutifully go off and debate it. It is just disappointing we are playing the game of such people to their rules, and in doing so normalising such tosh until it becomes inevitable.

We are privileged to be on a forum with members who have more railway knowledge in their little finger than a former hack like this Gilligan character has in their whole body. I would be frankly surprised if he could even tell the difference between a pacer and a sprinter.
 
Last edited:

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
That would be highly controversial as it would be against any sensible environmental plan.
True; but for how long? Aren't planes becoming more fuel-efficient and reducing their carbon footprint? Although if people drive to the airport that makes matters worse of course.
And railways need fuel, and unless the electricity they use is 100% renewable there's a carbon footprint there too.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
"Why don't we start building HS2 in the North?" makes as much sense as asking "why don't we start building skyscrapers from the top?"
.
Seeing as the line is double (ie four lines rather than two) for much of the journey south from Watford Gap, if congestion is such a serious problem on the rest of the WCML then it would make sense to start north and work southwards, freeing up capacity where it needs freeing up first?
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Seeing as the line is double (ie four lines rather than two) for much of the journey south from Watford Gap, if congestion is such a serious problem on the rest of the WCML then it would make sense to start north and work southwards, freeing up capacity where it needs freeing up first?
But, the most serious capacity problems are at the south. There is literally no capacity to run additional trains during peak times, and trains are at maximum length.

The capacity issues that HS2 solves further north are not as pressing.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
True; but for how long? Aren't planes becoming more fuel-efficient and reducing their carbon footprint? Although if people drive to the airport that makes matters worse of course.
And railways need fuel, and unless the electricity they use is 100% renewable there's a carbon footprint there too.
Short haul flights are the absolute worst as far as emmisions are concerned. They should definitely not be promoted where a ground based alternative exists. Electric aircraft are a long way in the future but would conversely be most applicable to shorter hauls clearly due to range issues. Perhaps someone needs to invent a way to launch such aircraft from a ground-powered linear motor railgun catapult contraption to avoid so much take off consumption.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Seeing as the line is double (ie four lines rather than two) for much of the journey south from Watford Gap, if congestion is such a serious problem on the rest of the WCML then it would make sense to start north and work southwards, freeing up capacity where it needs freeing up first?
So we can stop it at Stockport and not take it further into Manchester, given it's 4 track from there to Piccadilly? It's the same situation, only heading south rather than north, that lines diverge heading away from the city and so the bit nearest it carries traffic off several quieter branches.

And 'south' gets rather far north - Crewe in what ought to be called 'phase 1b' rather than 'phase 2a' is almost the last diverge point of ex-London (and ex-Birmingham) services heading north up the WCML. Phase 2b to Golborne gets beyond even that last diverge point.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,075
_108485539_optimised-travel_carbon-nc.png

True; but for how long? Aren't planes becoming more fuel-efficient and reducing their carbon footprint? Although if people drive to the airport that makes matters worse of course.
And railways need fuel, and unless the electricity they use is 100% renewable there's a carbon footprint there too.
Not a lot, and they have a very long way to go...
Short haul flights are the absolute worst as far as emmisions are concerned. They should definitely not be promoted where a ground based alternative exists. Electric aircraft are a long way in the future but would conversely be most applicable to shorter hauls clearly due to range issues. Perhaps someone needs to invent a way to launch such aircraft from a ground-powered linear motor railgun catapult contraption to avoid so much take off consumption.
Why? As Flanders and Swann said, "If god had meant us to fly he would never have given us the railways!"
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Why? As Flanders and Swann said, "If god had meant us to fly he would never have given us the railways!"
The catapult wouldn't greatly affect the amount of energy required for the initial long climb to high altitude anyway, on reflection, so I agree it's much better to stay on the ground wherever possible!
 

Yindee8191

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2019
Messages
159
Not building London-Birmingham is a terrible idea. The Northern sections will (amongst other things) increase the number of people going to London as they will make the journey faster. That means thousands of extra people per day changing at Birmingham (and the Metro can hardly deal with that even if it’s built by then) to get on WCML trains to London, which are already full and standing in the peaks. HS2 is meant to solve the WCML capacity problem, not make it 10x worse. Currently N-S passengers are generally split between three main lines (not equally, but they do relieve each other), while HS2 phase 1b and 2 would funnel everyone onto the WCML. It would be a disaster.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
The illustration indicates that car is better than public transport if there's 4 of you in it (i.e. average family) and similar to train. Quite a surprise. No rather than aiming to ban cars, we just need to encourage more people to travel together in a car. It's the single passenger car that's the problem, not families. Very interesting. So we need public transport aimed at the single commuter rather than family travel to shops, attractions, holidays etc. That tends to suggest better public transport targeted at local schools, workplaces etc and for longer distance single person business travel. So perhaps HS2 needs to be focussed more on single business people rather than families etc?
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
_108485539_optimised-travel_carbon-nc.png

Not a lot, and they have a very long way to go...
Why? As Flanders and Swann said, "If god had meant us to fly he would never have given us the railways!"
I've always proposed that there should be no such thing as short flights except those connecting to islands, and arguably anything over 250 miles is considered "short". No idea whey people fly from Manchester to Heathrow.....except for the bleedin' obvious where they are making a connection to a long haul - which begs the question why aren't all the airports connected to the national rail system better? So if you could get from Manchester, Newcastle, maybe even Glasgow to Heathrow direct by rail in less time than it takes to fly that distance including getting to the airport, security, 30' at the gate, taxi-ing etc they you probably wouldn't fly the first leg.
If Heathrow is the UK's major hub airport, then build a railway to it avoiding London (and connect it to Gatwick with the loose change!!)!
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
Could cutting air passenger duty for internal flights be presented as a way of relieving pressure on the WCML ?

Not sure it'd release much pressure, tax isn't the main reason flights don't exist (other than those aimed at connections to other flights at Heathrow) between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool. In the context of cutting APD to save Flybe, of all the routes they fly London to the Scottish central belt is probably the market in which they would be least missed.

I've always proposed that there should be no such thing as short flights except those connecting to islands, and arguably anything over 250 miles is considered "short". No idea whey people fly from Manchester to Heathrow.....except for the bleedin' obvious where they are making a connection to a long haul - which begs the question why aren't all the airports connected to the national rail system better? So if you could get from Manchester, Newcastle, maybe even Glasgow to Heathrow direct by rail in less time than it takes to fly that distance including getting to the airport, security, 30' at the gate, taxi-ing etc they you probably wouldn't fly the first leg.
If Heathrow is the UK's major hub airport, then build a railway to it avoiding London (and connect it to Gatwick with the loose change!!)!

Even with the change at Old Oak Common HS2 gets you that for much of the country. To actually kill off the flights it's important that through ticketing gets sorted out as well. Further afield probably would need trains directly to Heathrow to be quicker than flying - but the demand isn't big enough to justify scarce paths on HS2. And as private companies, if Heathrow or British Airways (it's their hub more than it is the UK's hub) want a high speed line to their gate they should pay for it.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,544
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I've always proposed that there should be no such thing as short flights except those connecting to islands, and arguably anything over 250 miles is considered "short". No idea whey people fly from Manchester to Heathrow.....except for the bleedin' obvious where they are making a connection to a long haul - which begs the question why aren't all the airports connected to the national rail system better?

Codesharing would help too. Presently if you use BA Manchester-London to connect with London-wherever on one ticket, and you miss the connection due to the flight being delayed, you'll get hotel accommodation, meals and free rebooking on the next flight. Annoying but not expensive and no faffing with insurance claims. Whereas if you use Avanti and the same thing happens, you're on your own. That needs to change.

In terms of connecting the airports better, HS2 will sort that for Heathrow by it being a single change at Old Oak.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Codesharing would help too. Presently if you use BA Manchester-London to connect with London-wherever on one ticket, and you miss the connection due to the flight being delayed, you'll get hotel accommodation, meals and free rebooking on the next flight. Annoying but not expensive and no faffing with insurance claims. Whereas if you use Avanti and the same thing happens, you're on your own. That needs to change.

In terms of connecting the airports better, HS2 will sort that for Heathrow by it being a single change at Old Oak.
That's not a bad idea (and one that could have happened when you went on a Virgin to catch a Virgin). problem is - and there's always a problem (!) I don't think the airlines would take the buck when it's the railway that has let you down, if Avanti got me to London late and I missed my flight THEY should pay up accommodation and a fresh ticket.
But maybe there's a middle ground where you coupld pay a touch extra on your rail ticket as an insurance so if your overall ticket is (say) Eccles to Gatwick* (the * meaning a connecting flight) then for an additional % if you miss your flight you call an number and they arrange a bed and ticket the following day at their expense.
Although isn't that what your holiday insurance is for? But if the train company's insurers can do that with one call it could save a lot of hassle for the pax when they are already stressed out?
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
To a point, but there will always be the fact that you're not only needing to use the energy to push several tons along but also to keep it up in the air.
I assume the greatest power useage is in take-off so if, somehow, either by on-board batteries, connecting to an electric line on the surface - whatever (and goodness knows, anything's possible these days) maybe in future they could substantially reduce fuel use on take-off thus lowering the carbon footprint?
The aircraft's biggest enemy is weight of course, and adding batteries adds to the weight meaning they need more power, so I suppose any electric assistance to the engines would have to come from the ground. Answers on a postcard....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top