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

[The Ham]

Also note that a transatlantic flight from Manchester via Heathrow is often no more expensive than one from Heathrow direct, so airlines are giving the passenger the journey to Heathrow for virtually free.

That works all the time that there's some passengers paying something to fly between London and Manchester, but as an airline would you be willing to continue to run that service of there's enough passenger demand from the local area (i.e. just around London)?

Having said that with the competition from the direct flights to the US from Manchester it could be argued that such flights would need to continue. However with lower costs for the Manchester services it would be hard to compete on cost grounds and with a longer journey time as well it's not likely to be viable long term and certainly not that attractive to passengers.

 

[Skymonster]

Also note that a transatlantic flight from Manchester via Heathrow is often no more expensive than one from Heathrow direct, so airlines are giving the passenger the journey to Heathrow for virtually free.

It’s called proration, and simplistically it enables an airline to split the “profit” between the Manchester-London and London-New York flights meaning the domestic flight add-on is often extremely cheap - far cheaper than buying a separate rail ticket. It’s another reason why the disjointed, non-integrated HS2 approach that is currently being proposed will fail to produce significant modal shifts outside of he point-to-point domestic markets.

 

[The Ham]

It’s called proration, and simplistically it enables an airline to split the “profit” between the Manchester-London and London-New York flights meaning the domestic flight add-on is often extremely cheap - far cheaper than buying a separate rail ticket. It’s another reason why the disjointed, non-integrated HS2 approach that is currently being proposed will fail to produce significant modal shifts outside of he point-to-point domestic markets.

In which case where within the Heathrow site would you position the station? Which you've been asked before.

 

[miami]

While there are benefits to traveling to manchester airport to get a flight to heathrow for onward connections (itinerary protected from manchester for example), the downsides often outweigh them.

If you're flying from anywhere other than terminal 5, you have to get a bus transfer and go through security again. Total time from wheels up at Manchester to wheels up at Heathrow other than T5 is at least 160 minutes. While I've done taxi to gate in under 5 minutes at T3, I'd give it at least 30 minutes before wheels up, putting a MAN arrival to LHR departure time for T5 at at least 2h40 (30 minutes at MAN, 70 in the air, 60 Minimum Connection Time T5).

For any other terminal it's 3h10 from MAN arrival, and having to go through security twice and a bus. And Manchester isn't great, they've been de-premiuming for a while now, I'd far rather go through the dedicated checkin/security/lounge at T5 than fight through Manchester, get a plan, face a bus gate, then a walk from the north side of T5 to the south to get to the lounge.

However that's the MCT. Experience in my itinerarys typically means a 2-2.5 hour layover at Heathrow, so you're looking at least 3h30 from MAN arrival to LHR departure.

With HS2 it's 50 minutes from MAN arrival to OOC, 15 minute wait for a Hex, 15 minutes to T5, so 1h20, then an hour for leisurely security etc. Throw in 30 minutes padding, you're looking at MAN arrival to T5 departure in under 2 hours. I'd go for a 1400 train from Airport to get a 1600 flight. Others who are more paranoid with security might go for a 1300 train for a 1600 flight.

That's a 1600 flight from any of the terminals though, not just T5.

To get a 1600 flight from Heathrow now you'd have to get a 1350 flight from Manchester, meaning arriving at Manchester at 1320, an extra 40 minutes.

On the way back I can be from enterring passport control and out of heathrow in 10 minutes tops. 10 minute wait for the express, 15 to OOC, so 35 minutes. Average 10 minute wait for a train to Manchester is 45 minutes, and at airport station 95 minutes from landing.

There's no way the plane can compete with that. Even with perfect connections it would take 130 minutes from LHR arrival time to Airport arrival time.

These times are massively stacked in favour of the airport too -- the assume a taxi arrival/departure rather than public transport, they also assume that the nearest HS2 station is airport (if you're nearer Crewe or Picadilly then the savings are even bigger)

The only benefit of flying from Manchester is that your itinerary is protected, as long as you arrive at the airport about 50 minutes before travel. If your flight is cancelled or delayed, the airline has to cover you under EU261, put you on the next flight, put you in a hotel, compensate you, etc.

With HS2 that protection doesn't apply until you arrive at heathrow, but that's not enough to keep Birmingham-London flights going.

 

[camflyer]

In which case where within the Heathrow site would you position the station? Which you've been asked before.

Underneath the 3rd runway? Get two infrastructure jobs done at the same time.

 

[Skymonster]

In which case where within the Heathrow site would you position the station? Which you've been asked before.

Underneath the central area, running parallel with the runways and exits at either end for T2 and T5. T3 will be knocked down sooner or later so doesn’t matter and T4 will survive with a link just as it does now.

 

[Ianno87]

Underneath the central area, running parallel with the runways and exits at either end for T2 and T5. T3 will be knocked down sooner or later so doesn’t matter and T4 will survive with a link just as it does now.

Right, OK. Now tell us the rest of the alignment to tie into that, and how clashing with all the various other underground (rail and non-rail) infrastructure at Heathrow is avoided.

And quantify the penalty to non-Heathrow passengers and how this is outweighed by the benefit to passengers bound for Heathrow. And how it ties into new terminals associated with future expansion of Heathrow (that such a station could be in completely the wrong place for)

And how many years HS2 will be set back by to achieve this.

 

[BayPaul]

Underneath the central area, running parallel with the runways and exits at either end for T2 and T5. T3 will be knocked down sooner or later so doesn’t matter and T4 will survive with a link just as it does now.

Unfortunately it's 2400m from T2 to t5a. Even from the end of the pier at T3 to t5c (neither of which are near the check in area is 720m). Whatever happens you'll need a transit ride, so you may as well have a train from OOC. This is before the issue that a station in this location is under the main apron and fuel tanks, inside the secure area, tangled up with the other tunnels etc.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Easier option. Demolish and grass over Heathrow as it really is a design shambles.

Build a new airport aligned with HS 2, or re-develop Birmingham airport which is already aligned.

The London lot can then justify the southern HS2 as it will take them less time to the new airport as existing Piccadilly line to Heathrow.

 

[AM9]

Easier option. Demolish and grass over Heathrow as it really is a design shambles.

Build a new airport aligned with HS 2, or re-develop Birmingham airport which is already aligned.

The London lot can then justify the southern HS2 as it will take them less time to the new airport as existing Piccadilly line to Heathrow.

"The London Lot" a) don't need to justify HS2, the case has been made many times, b) for most Londoners, Crossrail (which will also stop at OOC) will probably be much quicker than getting on HS2 (even if they could from Euston), and c) those that don't want to share with the plebs, and somebody else is paying their fare, there's always HEX.

 

[Bald Rick]

Underneath the central area, running parallel with the runways and exits at either end for T2 and T5. T3 will be knocked down sooner or later so doesn’t matter and T4 will survive with a link just as it does now.

As others have said...

It’s 2,600m for the middle of T5 to the middle of T2, so where are you building the 400m platforms on that stretch? Which passengers are walking the 2,200m (nearly 1 1/2miles) to the non served terminal, assuming they are at the right end of the train? Or do they have to get a transit link?

And how deep is this going to be, to get under all the airside tunnels, the Piccadilly at least once probebaly twice, the Heathrow Express at least once possibly 3 times, at least one road tunnel, etc?

And how do you think Heathrow will feel about digging what would be an enormous 4 platform underground cavern right underneath live taxiways, aprons, and fuel lines?

 

[camflyer]

Easier option. Demolish and grass over Heathrow as it really is a design shambles.

Build a new airport aligned with HS 2, or re-develop Birmingham airport which is already aligned.

The London lot can then justify the southern HS2 as it will take them less time to the new airport as existing Piccadilly line to Heathrow.

And what would be the cost of a brand new airport?

Grassing over Heathrow would also turn the area into the biggest unemployment blackspot in the country.

 

[Bald Rick]

Easier option. Demolish and grass over Heathrow as it really is a design shambles.

Genuine question - easier by what measure?

 

[Glenn1969]

Apparently Chris Packham has written to the High Court seeking a judicial review of the decision to proceed with HS2 on the same environmental grounds that scuppered Heathrow last week. Does he have a hope of succeeding?

 

[popeter45]

Apparently Chris Packham has written to the High Court seeking a judicial review of the decision to proceed with HS2 on the same environmental grounds that scuppered Heathrow last week. Does he have a hope of succeeding?

no real chance, the long term environmental argument is really in favour of HS2 (electric trains with only real environmental impact is construction but even thats negligible in grand scheme of things) compared to Heathrow (would actively cause a uptick in local CO2 emissions long term)

 

[Grumpy Git]

Genuine question - easier by what measure?

Heathrow is a terrible airport, Schipol is a million times better laid out. It's also a long way from anyone not based in the south

 

[Bald Rick]

Heathrow is a terrible airport, Schipol is a million times better laid out. It's also a long way from anyone not based in the south

A little hyperbolic, I feel, and doesn’t answer the question.

 

[Grumpy Git]

A little hyperbolic, I feel, and doesn’t answer the question.

Oh I know its pie in the sky, but I can always dream. But then again I have to hope I live long enough to see it happen!

 

[158756]

no real chance, the long term environmental argument is really in favour of HS2 (electric trains with only real environmental impact is construction but even thats negligible in grand scheme of things) compared to Heathrow (would actively cause a uptick in local CO2 emissions long term)

Will it necessarily matter whether it's better than air travel though? The facts are that HS2 (or any other infrastructure) is not carbon neutral, and that the government are legally committed to achieving carbon zero.

 

[The Ham]

Will it necessarily matter whether it's better than air travel though? The facts are that HS2 (or any other infrastructure) is not carbon neutral, and that the government are legally committed to achieving carbon zero.

They are required to be carbon neutral by 2050, the argument could be made that because HS2 produces it's carbon prior to 2050 that by being very low carbon after that point that it achieves the government's policy.

 

[camflyer]

Heathrow is a terrible airport, Schipol is a million times better laid out. It's also a long way from anyone not based in the south

Surely for you using Schipol from a regional airport would be a better solution than spending tens (if not hundreds) of billions to move a hub airport to be slightly closer to you.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Surely for you using Schipol from a regional airport would be a better solution than spending tens (if not hundreds) of billions to move a hub airport to be slightly closer to you.

I did have a metaphorical tongue in cheek.

 

[Peter Kelford]

The environmental and (specifically) carbon credentials of HS2 are a lot better than those of a third runway at Heathrow, so even with the precedent set by the recent court case, it's doubtful that this legal action will stop anything.

For goodness' sake, I don't get it as to why people are so concerned about the environmental case and the 'out of my area' argument. It discredits legitimate concern about large infrastructure projects such as whether it's being done efficiently.

And what would be the cost of a brand new airport?

Grassing over Heathrow would also turn the area into the biggest unemployment blackspot in the country.

Or you could build something new there. That said Heathrow is going to be near-impossible to move. Take Al-Maktoum or PKX as examples of how that's failed even in countries with government-controlled airlines and air industry.

 

[The Ham]

For goodness' sake, I don't get it as to why people are so concerned about the environmental case and the 'out of my area' argument. It discredits legitimate concern about large infrastructure projects such as whether it's being done efficiently.

There are often concerns about projects being done efficiently, however that's often not the argument being made with regards to HS2.

Even when it is it's part of a bigger argument, often with key phrases like "White Elephant" "20 minutes faster" and "better to improve local services".

The problem is that StopHS2 (key user of the White Elephant) have produced a briefing document against HS2 which clearly states (they even have an image for it so they clearly don't want people to miss it) that HS2 will produce up to 100,000 new passengers a day.

How can something with that many new passengers be something which few are going to use?

If something's a White Elephant then you need to show how it's not going to be used, not show that it will.

Arguments like HS1 didn't meet its passenger numbers don't wash when the current data shows higher growth rates between London and the region's which benefit from HS2 than there should have been by now, with the average being comparable to the start of Phase 1 services and those regions which would benefit from Phase 1 having already exceeded flows for after a few years of phase 1 operation (which would have attracted more passengers due to the extra capacity and increased frequency).

 

[Ianno87]

no real chance, the long term environmental argument is really in favour of HS2 (electric trains with only real environmental impact is construction but even thats negligible in grand scheme of things) compared to Heathrow (would actively cause a uptick in local CO2 emissions long term)

Plus the amount of scrutiny Phases 1 and (currently) 2a have been through in parliament as part of the hybrid Bill process should make them inherently more defensible on environmental grounds.

 

[Bald Rick]

Plus the amount of scrutiny Phases 1 and (currently) 2a have been through in parliament as part of the hybrid Bill process should make them inherently more defensible on environmental grounds.

Exactly - there is an Act of Parliament authorising HS2, there most certainly isn’t for Heathrow R3.

 

[JonathanH]

The problem is that StopHS2 (key user of the White Elephant) have produced a briefing document against HS2 which clearly states (they even have an image for it so they clearly don't want people to miss it) that HS2 will produce up to 100,000 new passengers a day.

That might just be the point on which a judicial review would succeed - if the review determined that the only way to meet the carbon target is to apply draconian restrictions on travel in the future, something which generates new journeys rather than modal shift could well be illegal.

 

[nidave]

HS2 phase one to Birmingham will have no impact on air travel as there are no flights between the two cities. HS2 to Manchester will have minimal impact on air travel because (a) the vast majority of the point to point market has already moved to rail when the Virgin high-frequency timetable was introduced and (b) the connecting flights market will not shift to rail because of the farcical decision to force rail passengers to transfer trains at OOC. Its only when HS2 goes to Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh that it might reduce domestic air travel to a degree. Anyone betting when that will be, or even if it will happen. The way things are going, HS2 to Scotland by 2050 might be a tad optimistic.

What about cars removed from the M1/M6? you think there wont be a shift from road to rail due to HS2?

 

[Skymonster]

What about cars removed from the M1/M6? you think there wont be a shift from road to rail due to HS2?

I was clearly and specifically addressing air travel

 

[miami]

Phase 1 alone will make getting to Heathrow from the north a far easier than now, saving an hour on the current time, making it more frequent than flights from Manchester, and faster for almost all users.

Who would land at Heathrow and have a choice of being back at home in say Wythenshaw or Hale Barns in 90 minutes, vs the hastle of going through security and on average not even been on the plan at heathrow within 90 minutes.

HS2 via OOC actually makes the day flights from JFK reasonable to take