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

[Glenn1969]

Is there still a chance that the decision could come this week?

 

[Tetchytyke]

these construction companies cleverly donated money to the only one of the three main political parties that was expressing a possible desire to cancel HS2 - and then proceeded to lobby that party to adopt the same support for HS2

Very clever strategy as the Tories- who were always going to win- are now embracing the white elephant.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Can you confirm though actual facts your theory on the rail freight market is more or less dead in your words?

Non-coal rail freight has remained static but coal freight has dropped off a cliff, so the net mileage is massively decreased.

20% drop in five years.

So, since you seem to be arguing that providing more services to places like Milton Keynes and Huntingdon is a bad thing

I think it unnecessary as both already have excellent rail links with spare capacity and- crucially- the stops add no extra capacity to the network.

Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?

If HS2 was going to cost £30bn- as they said it would- I'd probably not be opposed to it.

 

[Ianno87]

Non-coal rail freight has remained static but coal freight has dropped off a cliff, so the net mileage is massively decreased.

Decline in coal traffic has been expected for years and is accounted for in the forecasts like the Freight Market Study.


Non-coal is only static *at the moment*, unless you've got a fantastic crystal ball for the next 60 years.

I think it unnecessary as both already have excellent rail links with spare capacity and- crucially- the stops add no extra capacity to the network.

Try getting on the 0755 MK-Euston one morning. Now if the Pendolinos that currently pass through non-stop stop, with their current passengers on HS2 instead, that adds capacity *at Milton Keynes*.

HS2 has never claimed in business case terms to significantly add train paths onto the existing railway; the extra paths are those on HS2 itself. What HS2 is correctly claiming is that existing railway paths can be re-purposed to serve places like MK, where they currently pass through non-stop and are effectively useless.

Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?

If HS2 was going to cost £30bn- as they said it would- I'd probably not be opposed to it.

Cost is only one side of the equation. Costs can also be spread over many years to your hearts content if that is necessarily to make it affordable (it's already £80bn or whatever spread across 15-20 years of construction). Benefits - that last forever - are the other. Both in terms of ££, but also as a strategic choice for the UK.

 

[miami]

I think it unnecessary as both already have excellent rail links with spare capacity and- crucially- the stops add no extra capacity to the network.

Network capacity from HS2 adds hunderds of thousands of seats a day to overall capacity, and millions of extra seat-km per day

Running all WCML trains as 110mph EMUs with the same stops on the fast lines would allow far more trains per hour and a more robust timetable.

From the north west and west midlands there are 24.8 million journeys a year, almost all into euston. With those going via HS2 that will mean 34.8 million extra seats from places like Milton Keynes, Rugby and Coventry

 

[jfowkes]

Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?

The closest tool we have is a BCR analysis. The BCR for HS2 is not great, but I think it's fair to say that BCRs are terrible for getting a true answer to "is this thing worth it", especially for massive infrastructure projects. It simply becomes too hard to accurately estimate and capture all the benefits, whereas capturing the cost is pretty easy.

With that in mind, my finger-in-the air answer to "when is it probably too expensive" is when the BCR drops below about 0.5.

 

[Aictos]

Non-coal rail freight has remained static but coal freight has dropped off a cliff, so the net mileage is massively decreased.

20% drop in five years.



I think it unnecessary as both already have excellent rail links with spare capacity and- crucially- the stops add no extra capacity to the network.

Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?

If HS2 was going to cost £30bn- as they said it would- I'd probably not be opposed to it.

Can you present verified facts and figures regarding the freight theory? You know like others have managed to do numerous times to prove their point across.

 

[Noddy]

Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't, it depends what you do with the "classic" expresses.

As for increased passenger paths, HS2 won't increase paths elsewhere. It might result in the existing "classic" expresses making more station calls at places like MK or Huntingdon, (after all, slowing the "classic" expresses is the way to "persuade" people on to HS2) but that really isn't the same thing at all.

I think most of your myths have been completely by others.

I’m simply going to say that there are a number of genuinely legitimate reasons to criticise HS2, but claiming it won’t free up paths is not one of them.

 

[Noddy]

Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?

I don’t think anyone has said it’s fake news. Maybe they’ve said it just a rumour which is exactly what it is until we get an official announcement!

Regarding the cost, personally no. But I would also add that the further down the line we get the less risk there is that prices go up as archaeological sites are excavated, boreholes dug and land purchased.

It’s a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project that, unless we invent teleportation, will still be in use many centuries in the future. It’s not a temporary solution to a temporary problem. My great grandchildren’s great grandchildren will probably all be dead and it still in use every day. Just like our 190 year old railways or our 1970 year old Roman Roads, this will be around for a long time. The cost needs to be judged against that. People seem incredibly short sited in my opinion.

Regardless of whether you support nuclear weapons or not the Trident replacement is due to cost over £30 billion-and the subs will probably only have a service life of 25-30 years. The new aircraft carriers over £3 billion apiece. Again probably 30 year lifespan. So compared to that I think it’s a bargain.

 

[Tetchytyke]

With that in mind, my finger-in-the air answer to "when is it probably too expensive" is when the BCR drops below about 0.5.

If you listen to Berkeley, we're pretty much there already.

Cost is only one side of the equation.

I'll take that as "no, I'll support HS2 regardless of cost" shall I?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think it unnecessary as both already have excellent rail links with spare capacity and- crucially- the stops add no extra capacity to the network.

Fair enough if that's your opinion, but I (and I'm sure many others here) would strongly disagree about Milton Keynes. (I think Huntingdon is a bit of a red herring as it doesn't seem likely to me that, even with HS2, many long distance ECML trains would stop there.). I would remark that

1. Milton Keynes is a huge and rapidly growing town (I think I've seen a figure of 500K as a possible projection for inhabitants in the future)
2. Trains from MK to London may be frequent, but getting if you want to head North beyond Birmingham, the services are pretty inadequate - which is exactly why you need the fast trains going another route so more long-distance trains through MK can stop there.
3. I've not experienced the line through MK at peak times. I have travelled a few times on the LNR services between London and Watford, and my experience is those can be rammed even off-peak, and really need more frequent services.
4. MK is some distance out from the commuting terminus at London, and as such, you'd expect most commuter trains to be less than fully loaded past MK (in the same way that - say - SWR trains are rammed at Waterloo, but those same trains may be very lightly loaded once your'e beyond Basingstoke). So trains not being full at MK isn't necessarily evidence that more capacity isn't needed, if those trains stop at at least one more place between MK and London.

Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?

If HS2 was going to cost £30bn- as they said it would- I'd probably not be opposed to it.

The problem with asking for a cost limit is that - I'm guessing - almost none of us are sufficiently expert to know for certain at what point the cost becomes unreasonable for the benefit gained. Personally I'm concerned at how costs have risen. But the sense I'm getting is that, even at £100 Bn, the expert consensus still seems to be that there are no viable alternatives that are likely to be cheaper and deliver the same level of benefits. And that's a big part of why I would still build it at that price. If the price rises to a point where you start to see an expert consensus that it should be possible to develop viable alternatives more cheaply - that's the point where I would change my mind. But, not being an expert, I don't know at what price that would happen.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Regarding the cost, personally no. It’s a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project that, unless we invent teleportation, will still be in use many centuries in the future.

I think that's a reasonable answer, although railways only stay in existence if they serve a purpose and make money. The GCR cost £1.3bn in today's money and lasted 50 years because it served no purpose, which should act as a bit of a cautionary tale.

I’m simply going to say that there are a number of genuinely legitimate reasons to criticise HS2, but claiming it won’t free up paths is not one of them.

It won't free up many paths, and certainly not for freight. You can run more trains if they are slower, but not significantly more.

The reason why Virgin/Avanti don't stop at MKC is purely commercial.

Try getting on the 0755 MK-Euston one morning.

I lived in Hemel and even on the busiest trains there was plenty of room if you boarded in the rearmost set (unless LM/LNR short formed).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I lived in Hemel and even on the busiest trains there was plenty of room if you boarded in the rearmost set (unless LM/LNR short formed).

Genuine question... Is that relevant to Milton Keynes? I don't live along that line so I'm not familiar with the timetable or commuting patterns, but I would have guessed that the trains most commuters will be trying to board at Milton Keynes will be fast-ish ones that won't stop at Hemel Hempstead?

 

[Ianno87]

If you listen to Berkeley, we're pretty much there already.

Berkeley, and the "dissenting report" from a single known sceptic of the scheme. How he reaches his conclusions seems based on a number of quite crude assumptions and conjecture.

I'll take that as "no, I'll support HS2 regardless of cost" shall I?

If that cost justifies according benefits, then yes. The scheme does however need to be affordable. That is not the same thing as capping the cost.

 

[duffield]

Edit: I've finally waded through all the subsequent posts to the one I was replying to, and can see that the below has already been pointed out but I've left this post intact as it's a bit more expansive.

Indeed, the Lower Thames Crossing, at only 13 miles, has almost as much of an ancient woodland take as HS2.

The Green Party has, of course, not said a single word about this road project.

This took me a few seconds to find, and directly addresses the issue.

Disclosure: I am not a Green Party member and have not (yet) voted for them, but when I saw your post I immediately thought they would surely be official opposed to such a proposal.

https://southeastessex.greenparty.org.uk/news/2018/11/17/green-party-against-lower-thames-crossing/

17 November 2018

Today, Saturday 17th November 2018, the Eastern Region Green Party, including Councillor James Abbott and members of the Essex Green Parties, voted unanimously to oppose the proposal for a new crossing of the Thames by road.
...
The meeting voted unanimously that the Eastern Region Green Party could not support the proposals in its current form due to the following three considerations which it believes are inexcusable:
...
3. The Destruction of the Green Belt land, wildlife, and biodiversity.


With such a massive infrastructure project, many environmentalists have pointed to the irreparable damage the scheme would have to wildlife and surrounding natural areas.
...
The destruction seen in such a project would be inexcusable. The loss of green belt land through five ancient woodlands, protected areas designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the permanent effect it would have on our natural world and its ecosystems and wildlife has not been considered.

 

[The Planner]

The reason why Virgin/Avanti don't stop at MKC is purely commercial.

The reason they can't is the timetable not allowing it. They would coin it in with extra stops.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Genuine question... Is that relevant to Milton Keynes? I don't live along that line so I'm not familiar with the timetable or commuting patterns, but I would have guessed that the trains most commuters will be trying to board at Milton Keynes will be fast-ish ones that won't stop at Hemel Hempstead?

MKC has the fasts to Euston, and semi-fasts which stop at Berkhamsted, Hemel, Watford, etc. The fasts are naturally busier than the semi-fasts at MKC, but by Hemel/Watford they're about the same. Get in the back set on a 12-car and you'll have space, get in the front set and it's like a sardine can.

Similar applies on the ECML with the 12-cars.

Having Pendolinos stop at MKC in the peak would naturally help, though the effect may well be muted as Coventry/Rugby/Trent Valley passengers won't be on HS2.

Berkeley, and the "dissenting report" from a single known sceptic of the scheme.

It doesn't mean he is wrong. HS2 are basing their benefits on 18tph which nobody, not even the Japanese, have ever managed to run. I think his argument that 12-14tph is more realistic is pretty fair.

I think plenty of the other supposed benefits (additional productivity, for instance) are so nebulous as to be meaningless.

The more it costs, the higher the benefits have to be to justify it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They would coin it in with extra stops.

Hmm. Surely ORCATS- which divides up season ticket revenue- is already skewed towards LNR. Stopping in the peak at MKC would just fill the trains up with passengers for MKC and not Manchester passengers who'll pay £300.

 

[London Trains]

The reason they can't is the timetable not allowing it. They would coin it in with extra stops.

Not really, for many reasons:

First, they are focused on providing the fastest services possible to further distances from London, and wouldnt sacrifice journey time to add an MK stop on let's say, a Manchester service.

Also, as we see in the evening peak, they already skip MK or have it as pick up in the contra peak direction as they dont want MK commuters filling the trains up fron Euston.

 

[The Ham]

If you listen to Berkeley, we're pretty much there already.

According to Berkeley's table which provides the BCR, the lowest figure it gives is 0.66, which is you're rounding to 1 decimal place should be 0.7.

That figure is only if you exclude WEI's and of you cut the train frequency from 18tph to 14tph (a reduction of 0.778 or 0.824 when you consider that is only 17 paths with the potential for an extra one of its viable). However the drop in revenue is cited as 0.702.

Now whilst it's possible that there could be a bigger drop in revenue than the drop in the number of services, that would be very much dependent on what the changes in service provision was.

For instance, whist the service frequency or of London would need to fall the frequency to other places wouldn't necessarily need to, of you then had more services splitting on route.

However that fails to understand if the cut in services is actually needed.

It appears to be based on the fact that no other HS lines have that many trains and that could also be true of HS2. However that fails to acknowledge a key point, HS2 will use ETRMS Level 3, which is the very thing which many opposed to HS2 suggest would allow more trains to run on the existing network.

As such this should allow more capacity than lines which do not have it, and so it's not surprising that HS2 would be able to increase by 1.21 the number of services it could run by using such a system.

Others with better understanding of signals would probably be able to explain why 200 seconds between trains is sufficient and why we don't need to extend this by nearly 1 minute to 257 seconds between each train.

 

[London Trains]

The reason they can't is the timetable not allowing it. They would coin it in with extra stops.

Also with some platform rejigging at MKC it may be possible to call more services there but they choose not to, and as an extra effect this would stop the WFJ stop on the xx:23 Birmingham being possible as the Glasgow would catch it up

 

[Glenn1969]

I presume they don't want long distance trains to fill up with short distance commuters

 

[Noddy]

I think that's a reasonable answer, although railways only stay in existence if they serve a purpose and make money. The GCR cost £1.3bn in today's money and lasted 50 years because it served no purpose, which should act as a bit of a cautionary tale.



It won't free up many paths, and certainly not for freight. You can run more trains if they are slower, but not significantly more.

Fair enough but I think HS2 serves a purpose! (And will make money). I suspect the GCR would still be around a highly successful railway today if it wasn’t for grouping and then nationalisation. The deep dislike of duplicate lines in the 60s did for it. A better example of folly would be some of the GWR branches in Devon opened in early 20th century, but they were nothing like HS2.

Regarding paths I think we’re going to have to agree to strongly disagree.

This took me a few seconds to find, and directly addresses the issue.

Disclosure: I am not a Green Party member and have not (yet) voted for them, but when I saw your post I immediately thought they would surely be official opposed to such a proposal.

https://southeastessex.greenparty.org.uk/news/2018/11/17/green-party-against-lower-thames-crossing/

As the Lower Thames Crossing is a nationally significant infrastructure project shouldn’t it be the national party leading on this rather than a (very) local party?

 

[AM9]

Not really, for many reasons:

First, they are focused on providing the fastest services possible to further distances from London, and wouldnt sacrifice journey time to add an MK stop on let's say, a Manchester service.

Also, as we see in the evening peak, they already skip MK or have it as pick up in the contra peak direction as they dont want MK commuters filling the trains up fron Euston.

That's at present because there's only one route that has to carry the fastest Avanti trains along with the LNRs (I.e. their fasts which are intermediate services if they are considered in passenger terms). Once the fastest trains are removed, the ability of expresses to call at MK without destroying paths will allow better long-distant journeys for those passengers not starting/finishing at one of the locations served by HS2 stations.

 

[83A]

Very interesting item on YouTube regarding HS2 by a qualified rail engineer, putting some of the anti propaganda to bed.

 

[AM9]

Very interesting item on YouTube regarding HS2 by a qualified rail engineer, putting some of the anti propaganda to bed.

Probably some here will call it 'fake news'.

 

[CdBrux]

One of Concordes basic problems was a lack of range. The Atlantic was pretty much maximum, it couldn’t cross the Pacific without refuelling. LHR to Sydney required to stops for gas iirc.

At the start of my career I worked with an engineer who himself had started his career on the Concordre project. He gave a classic example of how the politcal aspect of the project had resulted in not setting a good scope as the range was good for London and Paris to NY but not even for Frankfurt to NY. Hence Lufthansa, which could have been a potential customer, had no reason to buy one!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Regarding paths I think we’re going to have to agree to strongly disagree.

You can run 4 at 100mph for every 3 at 125mph, if memory serves me right (happy to be corrected). So assuming you slow the classic trains down (not a great selling point for Rugby, Coventry, etc) you'll squeeze a couple more through, three at a push. This might allow one semi-fast on to the fasts, bringing in one freight path an hour.

It is an improvement but hardly world-changing stuff, which is why the snowballing cost is such an issue. HS2 have spent £7bn- the entire cost of HS1- and managed to pull down a derelict carriage shed and a decent pub and, er, that's it.

 

[Bald Rick]

If we look at the example of the Woodsmith Tunnel.

It's only a conveyer belt, but given its 20+ miles long the ~2 year construction period is still quite impressive.

Even if rail tunnels take double or treble the time to build, we still save decades in theplanning process
Noone really cares if a tunnel goes under their feet.

Noone will fight an act of parliament vesting the land below a certain depth in the hands of a state body.

Key issue though is that unlike services tunnels / conveyor tunnels etc, railway tunnels carry trains and people. And people need to be able to get out in the event if an incident. Whilst trains push around large amounts of air, particularly at high speeds. Therefore for long rail tunnels you either need regular shafts to allow people to escape (and rescue staff to get in), or a third tunnel to perform the same function. Plenty of people will fight Bills laid before Parliament where surface access is required, and further surface access to build said surface access.

 

[Bald Rick]

You can run 4 at 100mph for every 3 at 125mph, if memory serves me right (happy to be corrected)

Memory doesn’t serve you right. Between 50mph and 125mph linespeed doesn’t really affect capacity if you have trains stopping at stations on the section, assuming the most effective signalling possible.

The technical headway on the WCML on the approaches at Euston (linespeed 50mph) is 90 seconds, and on the WCML anywhere between Watford and Rugby (linespeed 125mph) is also 90 seconds. If everything ran non stop from Euston to beyond Rugby, you could get 20tph, comfortably. If everything has the same stopping pattern, you could run 15tph.