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

[TrafficEng]

As for the information commissioner - he said it was a mistake, not that we should redraw the route now it's started to be built. He argued for it when it wasn't guff to argue it - a decade ago, but was overruled and still feel he was right. Which is fine, however now discussions of line speed (and alignment) are just hot air - because the horse has bolted, the water has gone under the bridge.

For clarity - the person quoted is an Infrastructure Commissioner, and this one is a 'she' not a 'he'.

"The Commissioners provide expert, impartial advice to the government on infrastructure".
https://www.nic.org.uk/who-we-are/

The Government are currently reviewing the scope of HS2, and quite possibly whether it happens at all. The horse may still get humanely destroyed. The water may still be diverted.

I'm sure if any of the Infrastructure Commissioners happen to be reading this thread on a public forum they will be highly amused to know their views have been equated to "hot air".

Out.

 

[MarkyT]

I assume that you're not a fan of the boomerang tunnel proposed to permit 'NPR' services from west of Manchester to enter the centre from the east, bend round and head east again, all thanks to the way HS2 has been planned ? That tunnel, after all, will have to go under central Manchester, with it's big buildings and underground rivers.

You're inventing problems in Brum for the sake of it. Curzon St is on the south eastern edge of the city centre. A tunnel leaving it could curve round the south of the city centre under mostly light industrial areas, assuming there's any actual substance to what you say about any difficulties going directly under the city centre. There's a big open site for a station box to be excavated.

A terminal can point into a city with its narrow 'head-end' at the buffer stops. The bulk of the construction in what you suggest would have to be a little further east than planned today to allow for the throat and curve at the east end, which could put the public entrances and certainly the platforms further from the city centre and Moor St and New St stations. More significantly, it would place the eastern approach at a much lower level that would probably require more surface land acquisition or possibly tunnelling. All in all, more expense I would think. The other factor is that Curzon St as a terminal is already largely designed and ready for construction, consulted, with planning formalities completed, and integrated with a broader regeneration plan. A complete change of concept would set all this back, cost billions more no doubt, and much of its benefit would be contingent on commitment to further modernisation and electrification of lines heading south and west (not that that shouldn't go ahead at some point anyway, but please remember we cannot build everything at once). To cap it all, any train coming from the eastern leg then going south via Coventry to Oxford and beyond would probably still have to reverse in the new station anyway unless you build a vast new loop line around the west of the city with connections to both the Gloucester and Oxford routes.

As I said before there's more time and opportunity to revise Manchester Piccadilly and integrate it into NPR. In that respect I agree with the Oakervee conclusions. I'd prefer a through underground design for NPR platforms, with a 'boomerang tunnel' included if necassary, as there will be a lot of east-west trains concentrated on that corridor, which will not likely be splitting and joining unlike my suggestions for XC trains Curzon Street. That shouldn't be a problem, as all trains are going to stop at Piccadilly, so the speed penalty of a tight curve will not be important. If the tunnel isn't practical then I'd accept engineering advice on that.

While on the one hand, you criticise the cost of the current scheme, much of what you suggest would add huge cost and further delay to the start of any construction.

 

[The Ham]

But we do need a southwestern extension, if we're not forever to have a situation where passengers who currently enjoy a single journey (albeit a slow and overcrowded one) won't forever be made to change trains and shuffle between stations at Brum. I struggle to see how anyone could argue against this

Where has anyone suggested that XC services will ceases to run? (I have on other thread suggested that there may be limited value in XC to run services between Birmingham and Manchester on the South Coast services with a view to improving services through Manchester, but I've also shown why XC services from the South Coast would also benefit, without the need to run across stations, from HS2).

As if they do cease to exist then there'll be a load of stations which are missed. As such, although HS2 will attract passengers from XC services, those XC services will continue to exist.

 

[B&I]

A terminal can point into a city with its narrow 'head-end' at the buffer stops. The bulk of the construction in what you suggest would have to be a little further east than planned today to allow for the throat and curve at the east end, which could put the public entrances and certainly the platforms further from the city centre and Moor St and New St stations. More significantly, it would place the eastern approach at a much lower level that would probably require more surface land acquisition or possibly tunnelling. All in all, more expense I would think. The other factor is that Curzon St as a terminal is already largely designed and ready for construction, consulted, with planning formalities completed, and integrated with a broader regeneration plan. A complete change of concept would set all this back, cost billions more no doubt, and much of its benefit would be contingent on commitment to further modernisation and electrification of lines heading south and west (not that that shouldn't go ahead at some point anyway, but please remember we cannot build everything at once). To cap it all, any train coming from the eastern leg then going south via Coventry to Oxford and beyond would probably still have to reverse in the new station anyway unless you build a vast new loop line around the west of the city with connections to both the Gloucester and Oxford routes.

As I said before there's more time and opportunity to revise Manchester Piccadilly and integrate it into NPR. In that respect I agree with the Oakervee conclusions. I'd prefer a through underground design for NPR platforms, with a 'boomerang tunnel' included if necassary, as there will be a lot of east-west trains concentrated on that corridor, which will not likely be splitting and joining unlike my suggestions for XC trains Curzon Street. That shouldn't be a problem, as all trains are going to stop at Piccadilly, so the speed penalty of a tight curve will not be important. If the tunnel isn't practical then I'd accept engineering advice on that.

While on the one hand, you criticise the cost of the current scheme, much of what you suggest would add huge cost and further delay to the start of any construction.

If I have identified the site proposed for the HS2 station (the huge open area alongside Curzon Street, bisected by New Canal St) it is already a substantial way east of the city centre and the existing stations. Adding a western throat and curve will not make much difference.

'We've already spent billions on a suboptimal plan' is, as I've said before several times on this thread, not the best argument I have ever heard in favour of a very expensive infrastructure project, particularly when the design is going to lock an obvious flaw into the network, well, forever really.

'The line towards Bristol will.need work on it' is, frankly, a rubbish excuse when that work needs done anyway, HS2 or no HS2. Again, the necessity of sticking to the letter of the current HS2 plan is being used as a reason by an HS2 supporter to avoid investment elsewhere on the network.

Why do you need to split and join XC services at Brum ? In my experience, they're as crowded south of New St as north. And if XC services were diverted onto HS2's eastern leg, it's not as if you'd need to join them because there weren't enough paths.

I have to say that, on this particular point, the same arguments keep being repeated to justify HS2-as-is, and they're bot getting any more convincing with repetition.

 

[B&I]

Where has anyone suggested that XC services will ceases to run? (I have on other thread suggested that there may be limited value in XC to run services between Birmingham and Manchester on the South Coast services with a view to improving services through Manchester, but I've also shown why XC services from the South Coast would also benefit, without the need to run across stations, from HS2).

As if they do cease to exist then there'll be a load of stations which are missed. As such, although HS2 will attract passengers from XC services, those XC services will continue to exist.

Several posters on this thread have argued that there is no need to provide a south/southwestern connection from HS2 to XC at Brum because everyone will be able to change to HS2 at Brum. That suggested to me that they were advocating XC stopped running north of Brum. Unless we're keeping XC, largely to serve Burton-on-Trent, and releasing approximately zero capacity between Brum and Derby (at least) by building the eastern leg of HS2.

 

[The Ham]

True. But if you've just travelled to London from Birmingham (or beyond) then there will be a limit to how far back up the ECML/MML/WCML you are likely to want to travel before the time/cost factors mean it makes more sense to avoid London and take a more direct route.

So there is an element of double counting including both ECML/MML/WCML and Thameslink/Watford DCs.

And at Stratford there is the potential for physical connection with HS1 (possibly even same/cross platform interchange?) whereas Euston will involve a walk/taxi/??? to connect from HS2 to HS1.

True, however what about those who have come from the SW or South and have changed at Old Oak Common or are going the other way, to get to/from the lower ECML?

 

[class26]

Except we are building for services faster than anywhere in the world's, and speeds which (many on here accept) HS2 services will never reach, and increasing cost, and reducing capacity, in the process[/QUOTE]

You are wrong, it is being future proofed which is sensible as no one , even you can predict what technology will come along in 10, 20 years time

 

[class26]

I’m fairly sure they were suggesting that underground stations would cost £10s of billions more. So you start off your proposal including them, then when you cut that bit and go back to normal stations you can claim to have saved all that money. Even though you never really intended to have underground stations to start with.

But if it was that expensive from the start it would never get the light of day.

 

[si404]

I'm sure if any of the Infrastructure Commissioners happen to be reading this thread on a public forum they will be highly amused to know their views have been equated to "hot air".

This post of yours is yet again the willful refusal to actually engage with the thrust of what I was saying, and to misrepresent it (and what the infrastructure commissioner said!).

The horse might yet get turned into glue, but it's not going to be brought back into the stable and turned from a racehorse into a pack horse. The costs of doing so will wipe out the savings - and you clearly know that to be true because you actively do not engage with it. The waters may be diverted away from the bridge but the ones we're talking about has long gone under the bridge. There's no rescoping the design speed of the alignment and so discussing changing it is a load of guff.

Nowhere does Bridget Rosewell (sorry Bridget, in the unlikely event you are bothering to read this thread, you are a woman working for the Infrastructure Commission - I apologise for using a generic he to refer to you and for getting who you belong to wrong. I just read the quotes given because that was what was being highlighted.) say that the line should be replanned to a lower design speed. She says that she has never understood the decisions made on speed, that it affected the route alignment and was a mistake. She's then suggested capping train speeds at 320km/h not 360km/h (bare in mind that the design speed is 400km/h), to save money on trains by not pushing the boundaries one which is fair enough and something that I myself said yesterday/Saturday was sensible (I went further and said 300km/h) - that is something else.

 

[The Ham]

Several posters on this thread have argued that there is no need to provide a south/southwestern connection from HS2 to XC at Brum because everyone will be able to change to HS2 at Brum. That suggested to me that they were advocating XC stopped running north of Brum. Unless we're keeping XC, largely to serve Burton-on-Trent, and releasing approximately zero capacity between Brum and Derby (at least) by building the eastern leg of HS2.

Several posters have said that adding a XC junction to HS2 wouldn't be advisable (due to lack of electrification & difficulty in providing bimodal trains which would be fast enough) and that people would be able to change trains.

I don't recall anyone even hinting that XC services would cease to run. Unless I've missed something, can you highlight where someone has done so which I've missed?

 

[MarkyT]

If I have identified the site proposed for the HS2 station (the huge open area alongside Curzon Street, bisected by New Canal St) it is already a substantial way east of the city centre and the existing stations. Adding a western throat and curve will not make much difference.

'We've already spent billions on a suboptimal plan' is, as I've said before several times on this thread, not the best argument I have ever heard in favour of a very expensive infrastructure project, particularly when the design is going to lock an obvious flaw into the network, well, forever really.

'The line towards Bristol will.need work on it' is, frankly, a rubbish excuse when that work needs done anyway, HS2 or no HS2. Again, the necessity of sticking to the letter of the current HS2 plan is being used as a reason by an HS2 supporter to avoid investment elsewhere on the network.

Why do you need to split and join XC services at Brum ? In my experience, they're as crowded south of New St as north. And if XC services were diverted onto HS2's eastern leg, it's not as if you'd need to join them because there weren't enough paths.

I have to say that, on this particular point, the same arguments keep being repeated to justify HS2-as-is, and they're bot getting any more convincing with repetition.

The planned head end of the terminus is just over the road from Moor Street's entrance and the adjacent Bullring centre. It's a few minutes walk through the St Martins Queensway tunnel to New Street. It's hardly out of the relatively compact centre, although clearly on the edge. I wouldn't want to move the westernmost entrance any further east though. I simply don't agree that reversals are the big deal you make out. Reversing as a concept was suggested by me much earlier in this thread, whereby a full length HS trains from the NW or NE could split in the 7 platform Curzon St terminus with portions working on to the South Coast or South West. That would maximise capacity per path on each northern branch while keeping half-hourly frequency on each route heading south. Each portion would be a 200m set, so considerably higher capacity than most of the Voyager formations currently used.

Here's my idea for the classic connection from the terminus throat. Platforms 1-3 would be London services, 4-5 for northern departures, and 6-7 for trains going south and west:

 

[The Ham]

Sounds good, but it is the HS2 fan club on here who are arguing tooth and nail against any expansion of the scope of the project to serve more places, or even against higher capacity on the line planned.

Except we are building for services faster than anywhere in the world's, and speeds which (many on here accept) HS2 services will never reach, and increasing cost, and reducing capacity, in the process

There's a problem, many who support HS2 want it to go ahead (as well as improvements to the existing network), however if we extend the scope of the project that increases the cost.

If we add various additional parts to the scheme then the overall cost of the scheme increases.

Given the fact that many are opposed due to the cost if there was a headline figure of (say) £200 billion then that's more likely to leave the country with no HS2 or any of the improvements which could be developed following is building (including a link to the South West).

The operational speed of HS2 is expected to be 320kph (which other countries do have lines and trains which run at that does) but with the potential for higher speeds. That potential is only to design it so that the design doesn't inhibit the potential to do so at a later date.

Likewise it could be possible to increase the frequency by lowering speeds at a later date, however to do so would likely reduce the benefits to Leeds/York/Newcastle's journey time to/from London.

Such a reduction in speed could be possible at a later date, however to do so would most likely be most beneficial if there was a further HS line following a more direct route towards the East Coast of the UK.

Such a line could run from a different London Central station to an Eastern outer hub station before going onto Cambridge and then onwards to Leeds/York before either heading to Newcastle or serving it.

We could then build another HS line from the West which connects at Old Oak Common and the Eastern outer hub station and onwards to HS1.

The cost? Probably high enough that if you put it out into the public domain that it would likely kill all HS projects. However over a 20 to 40 year period would make it affordable.

That would be in ADDITION to improvements to the existing network.

I would be surprised if many, if any, of those who support HS2 would object to the principal of extra HS lines and continued speeding on the existing network.

 

[jfowkes]

How about the argument that there should not be electrification from Brum to the south west, because HS2's opponents would try to argue that the cost of this should be considered part of the HS2 budget ? Or that there should be no connection at Brum for services from the south and south west, and that everyone should change between New St and Curzon St or travel via London ? Or the suggestion that no aspect of 'NPR' can go ahead unless HS2 is built first, or that Castlefield should be addressed by reducing services rather than building new infrastructure ? Or that Liverpool doesn't justify a high speed line ? Take your pick

With two exception, none of these are an example of a classic enhancement that has been de-prioritised (or suggested to be) as a result of HS2. They're all addons/changes to the HS2 scope, which is not the same thing.

One exception is about electrification SW of Birmingham, and that's also really a question about the scope of HS2, just on the classic network rather than on dedicated HS lines.

The other exception is the comment about Castlefield, which was not about HS2 really. Just a comment about how that poster believes the corridor's problem can be solved/reduced/mitigated.

I guess I was looking for an example of someone saying something like "we don't need to electrify the MML through Leicester to Derby and Nottingham because of HS2".

 

[D365]

But if it was that expensive from the start it would never get the light of day.

Exactly the point that I wanted to make.

I guess I was looking for an example of someone saying something like "we don't need to electrify the MML through Leicester to Derby and Nottingham because of HS2".

HS2 Phase 2b arguably makes the case for MML electrification stronger, especially since the cost of the Clay Cross - Sheffield section will no longer be borne under the Network Rail budget.

 

[The Ham]

Have a look back through this thread at the number of people arguing against other improvements to the rail network because HS2 must have priority.

Sorry, but I can't see those posts.

There are people who are questioning the justification of individual schemes and staying that they shouldn't be bundled together to create a super scheme. The problem with such a super scheme would mean that if it gets cut then all those schemes get cut in one go.

 

[The Ham]

Or you could build the network properly now rather than have some daft solution involving reversing at Curzon St.

Similarly, you could build 'NPR' first. It's not prevented by geography, technology etc. There's plenty of demand for a line using that route- much of it clogs roads across the north on a daily basis. It is politics which dictates that HS2 'must' be built first

At I've said, I'll be happy if NPR was built first.

However in doing so it would increase the cost of that project, which would put it at greater risk of being cancelled.

However it then significant reduces the costs of HS2 (as it no longer has to fund Central City stations) and so would make HS2 now likely to happen.

 

[The Ham]

Castlefield needs doing, but I'm not convinced it is as important as the south WCML because it can be solved by reducing frequencies and lengthening trains.

Indeed, however HS2 could bring benefits to Manchester, here's a suggestion as to what that could look like from a different thread:

IIRC the proposal is that the Intercity services wouldn't all go, rather some would change to bring semi fast services along the WCML.

However one thing which could happen is that by the removal of some of the long distance services between London and Manchester it could allow the extension of TPE services South of the airport providing a semi fast service from the South to Manchester.

This would provide significant capacity for those local passengers who would otherwise be missing out from the loss of London services.

There would still be at least one London semi fast service along the WCML.

This would remove 2tph (London) from Manchester whilst not really changing capacity South of the airport.

Whilst there would be more demand between Manchester and the airport with a HS2 station at the airport this would allow the potential for a lot of those passengers to be carried without adding to the semi fast services on the existing line.

However that still leaves the path of XC services from the South coast, which could then be used for other other semi fast services.

The problem is that it's going to take time to implement, however trying to do something else is likely to result in taking just as long if not longer.

It's where the is HS2 going ahead or not going ahead had been unhelpful, in that no one will invest money which is going to be wasted if HS2 goes ahead. Likewise they can't come up with a scheme without knowing if HS2 will go ahead as there's the risk that they over provide.

Now over provision isn't a bad thing, unless it means that the budget is too high and it results in that scheme being cancelled.

If HS2 had been given the full go ahead two years ago then other infrastructure may well have been developed to provide extra capacity to help until HS2 was built. Alternatively it could have been asked to fast track works around Manchester to see if improvements could have been delivered sooner.

As it is there's been delay and so little can be done until there's an answer.

 

[Noddy]

Sounds good, but it is the HS2 fan club on here who are arguing tooth and nail against any expansion of the scope of the project to serve more places, or even against higher capacity on the line planned.




Except we are building for services faster than anywhere in the world's, and speeds which (many on here accept) HS2 services will never reach, and increasing cost, and reducing capacity, in the process

There's a problem, many who support HS2 want it to go ahead (as well as improvements to the existing network), however if we extend the scope of the project that increases the cost.

If we add various additional parts to the scheme then the overall cost of the scheme increases.

Given the fact that many are opposed due to the cost if there was a headline figure of (say) £200 billion then that's more likely to leave the country with no HS2 or any of the improvements which could be developed following is building (including a link to the South West).

The operational speed of HS2 is expected to be 320kph (which other countries do have lines and trains which run at that does) but with the potential for higher speeds. That potential is only to design it so that the design doesn't inhibit the potential to do so at a later date.

Likewise it could be possible to increase the frequency by lowering speeds at a later date, however to do so would likely reduce the benefits to Leeds/York/Newcastle's journey time to/from London.

Such a reduction in speed could be possible at a later date, however to do so would most likely be most beneficial if there was a further HS line following a more direct route towards the East Coast of the UK.

Such a line could run from a different London Central station to an Eastern outer hub station before going onto Cambridge and then onwards to Leeds/York before either heading to Newcastle or serving it.

We could then build another HS line from the West which connects at Old Oak Common and the Eastern outer hub station and onwards to HS1.

The cost? Probably high enough that if you put it out into the public domain that it would likely kill all HS projects. However over a 20 to 40 year period would make it affordable.

That would be in ADDITION to improvements to the existing network.

I would be surprised if many, if any, of those who support HS2 would object to the principal of extra HS lines and continued speeding on the existing network.

The Ham has answered many of your points along the exact same line I would. The only thing I would add is most of that it’s taken well over 10 years of planning, not to mention billions of pounds to get to this point already. We have a ‘shovel ready project’. Other projects such as NPR or a SW arm are decades away from being built. Once we have one successful and popular (internal) high speed line it will be far easier and less controversial to develop other HS lines (as the Japanese, French and pretty much everyone else has done). Changing the scope will just add more money and seeing as a lot of folk think ‘HS2 is only going to save 20 minutes to Birmingham’ it’s just more reason for politicians to bin the whole thing. And we won’t get back the 10s of billions which will already have been spent on it by that point, and the remaining money won’t be put towards NPR but more likely ‘spent’ by politicians on station infrastructure in Leeds, extra trams in Manchester, and building more roads because somehow we’ve ended up in a situation where building a new railway is more controversial than building new roads.

 

[D365]

... because somehow we’ve ended up in a situation where building a new railway is more controversial than building new roads.

Exactly my thoughts, although I don't think we've built a road on the scale of HS2 in recent years though.

 

[miami]

St Asaph ? Which closed in Septemberr 1955 ?

People in St Asaph will travel from Rhyl or similar and benefit from HS2 from Crewe to Birmingham

 

[krus_aragon]

People in St Asaph will travel from Rhyl or similar and benefit from HS2 from Crewe to Birmingham

It's still a bit tenuous to mention rail-related improvements for a small place that no longer has a rail connection, alongside the likes of Edinburgh and Manchester. Mentioning Rhyl itself would be more relevant in terms of benefits to rail passengers (although it wouldn't suit the exclusive list of cities you were using).

 

[nick.c]

There's a problem, many who support HS2 want it to go ahead (as well as improvements to the existing network), however if we extend the scope of the project that increases the cost.

The need for extra capacity on the WCML has long been recognised. British Railways completed a study for a new high-speed line from the outskirts of London to near Crewe back in 1989. The January 2000 issue of Modern Railways called for the WCML to be 6-tracked from Euston to Crewe. HS2 Ltd itself was set up in 2009. Surely now in 2020, the Government should bite the bullet and give the go-ahead for Phase 1 and Phase 2a.

Phase 2b Eastern Branch maybe a different matter. Although making use of spare capacity on the London to Birmingham core to bring high speed services to the North East makes good sense and provides “regional fairness” to both sides of the Pennines, as far as I know, it doesn’t fill a capacity gap that has been recognised for decades and there are alternatives.

I hope that the Government presses ahead with HS2 to Crewe now, but takes more time to reflect on the rest. If intercity passenger growth continues its relentless climb and HS2 construction costs come in under budget (entirely possible), then I’m sure there will be a clamour for additional sections of high-speed line.

 

[matacaster]

I don't think cancelling hs2 would cause anything but joy in the world of architects, estate agents, planners, designers and all!
I. Fairness it would upset the construction companies who haven't had a chance to feed at the trough yet.
Why?
Because these people have made £9B without a spade touching the ground. They have already got their money and, because it won't be built, have no liability for any consequences of their work.

Moral of story make sure you control your budget. £9B with nothing much to show for it.

 

[Ianno87]

Moral of story make sure you control your budget. £9B with nothing much to show for it.

Other than a fully designed up, costed, consulted route that has gone through parliamentary scrutiny and recieved powers, of course.

Worth spending money to get right, don't you think?

 

[JonathanH]

Moral of story make sure you control your budget. £9B with nothing much to show for it.

Do you think they should build some symbolic mile of track in the middle of the route so that people can point to that as construction work having commenced and then plan the rest of the route?

 

[matacaster]

Perhaps it would be worth considering who benefits from hs2?

1. Londoners?
Well, if you live in London and south east, you are hardly going to pay London House prices to work for less money in the rather characterless Birmingham. If your company moved to Birmingham, perhaps the faster journey might help, but in that case you'd likely sell your London pad and buy a much cheaper bigger house in Birmingham. Should you want to get a bigger house and your firm stays in London, you are likely a winner with hs2.
2. You live in Birmingham or near. Now with hs2 you are a real winner, because you can now possibly get a job in London, with London wages and entertainment etc whilst commuting. So, your Birmingham employer loses you and even more highly paid jobs go to London.

Can someone please advise how Northern or Birmingham businesses thrive as a result of hs2 Unless whole areas of government move north?

 

[jfowkes]

Can someone please advise how Northern or Birmingham businesses thrive as a result of hs2 Unless whole areas of government move north?

Better access to clients and services in Birmingham, Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield, Leeds, York, Crewe, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[AndrewE]

Perhaps it would be worth considering who benefits from hs2?1. Londoners?
Well, if you live in London and south east, you are hardly going to pay London House prices to work for less money in the rather characterless Birmingham. If your company moved to Birmingham, perhaps the faster journey might help, but in that case you'd likely sell your London pad and buy a much cheaper bigger house in Birmingham. Should you want to get a bigger house and your firm stays in London, you are likely a winner with hs2.
2. You live in Birmingham or near. Now with hs2 you are a real winner, because you can now possibly get a job in London, with London wages and entertainment etc whilst commuting. So, your Birmingham employer loses you and even more highly paid jobs go to London.

Can someone please advise how Northern or Birmingham businesses thrive as a result of hs2 Unless whole areas of government move north?

I think you would find (if you lowered yourself enough to explore them) that there are lots of very nice areas in and around all the northern cities, and quite often within the areas served by their suburban railways. They are ideally suited for commuting into those cities, but maybe not for a second hop to London (and the onward travel from the London terminus.)
A friend of mine moved from London and was appalled to find that he had to pay more for a nice house near his work in Kenilworth!

 

[Grimsby town]

Perhaps it would be worth considering who benefits from hs2?

1. Londoners?
Well, if you live in London and south east, you are hardly going to pay London House prices to work for less money in the rather characterless Birmingham. If your company moved to Birmingham, perhaps the faster journey might help, but in that case you'd likely sell your London pad and buy a much cheaper bigger house in Birmingham. Should you want to get a bigger house and your firm stays in London, you are likely a winner with hs2.
2. You live in Birmingham or near. Now with hs2 you are a real winner, because you can now possibly get a job in London, with London wages and entertainment etc whilst commuting. So, your Birmingham employer loses you and even more highly paid jobs go to London.

Can someone please advise how Northern or Birmingham businesses thrive as a result of hs2 Unless whole areas of government move north?

Why would a business stay in London when it could have connectivity to more people (potential workers) in less time being located at the centre of the HS2 network in Birmingham. If I wanted to access the best talent in the country I'd locate in Birmingham pay London wages and enjoy my increased profits compared to locating in London sue to reduced rent.

 

[Noddy]

I don't think cancelling hs2 would cause anything but joy in the world of architects, estate agents, planners, designers and all!

Why would planners etc be delighted? HS2 will encourage development in areas close to the line-and not just housing but also things like new public transport (eg new tram links to the new stations in Birmingham and Nottingham) and new businesses who want good connectivity.

I. Fairness it would upset the construction companies who haven't had a chance to feed at the trough yet.
Why?
Because these people have made £9B without a spade touching the ground.

Er, in case you haven’t noticed massive numbers of spades have already hit the ground. Just look at Google Maps (the aerial images) between Birmingham Interchange and Kenilworth, or at Curzon Street for two quick examples.