Despite the government's announcement, should HS2 be cancelled?

[Wyrleybart]

If people took the environmental crisis as seriously as it ought to be taken (which many on this forum seem not to), then the modal shift would happen by virtually all internal-to-the-UK (and indeed within Europe) passenger flights being banned anyway in the next few years.

That would need the population to be demonstrably led by the politicians in the UK. It is possible the Senedd have embarked on this with the modal shift away from the WAG contributed air service between Valley and Cardiff.

It is only a small shift so far though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure I fully agree: it uses quite a lot of existing stations (Euston, Manchester, Waverley, Glasgow Central, for example), and services are, and always were, planned to continue beyond the dedicated line, to Liverpool, stoke on trent, Scotland, etc. While the relatively long stretch of dedicated line is a bit more the French approach, the lack of stations out in the sticks is much more German in it's approach, so HS2 feels more like a hybrid between the French, German and British way of doing things.

Now of course there are new stations, birmingham curzon street for example, but really, from a passenger perspective Curzon Street is more like an expansion of Moor Street (and really should just have been called that to avoid the confusion).

Euston and Manchester Piccadilly's HS2 stations are, like Curzon St, basically brand new stations next to the existing ones.

 

[LittleAH]

There are relatively few UK domestic flights. For instance the entirety of the London to Manchester capacity in a day would fit on one 11 car Pendolino.

A ban on intra-Europe flights would mean a considerable reduction in travel, by contrast - weekend breaks, other than to Paris, Brussels and nearby, would no longer be possible.

London to Manchester - there were over 500,000 journeys by plane in 2019. That's nearly 1400 a day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

London to Manchester - there were over 500,000 journeys by plane in 2019. That's nearly 1400 a day.

OK, two and a bit 11 car Pendolinos then. It's still tiny compared with rail or car.

 

[Falcon1200]

To be fair, they were never very quick, running via circuitous routes with 90mph trains.

The Edinburgh/Waterloo Eurostar connectors were worked by HSTs, and the only circuitous part of the route was getting from the ECML to Waterloo.

That's a good demonstration of what benefit can be had for a lot less money. £152m is small change compared to the cost of HS2 or Crossrail.

And the number of passengers who will use the Portishead branch is even smaller change compared to HS2 or, already, just months after opening, the huge traffic on Crossrail.

 

[LittleAH]

OK, two and a bit 11 car Pendolinos then. It's still tiny compared with rail or car.

London to Central Belt of Scotland - circa 5 million journeys per year. You're very much glossing over things.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And the number of passengers who will use the Portishead branch is even smaller change compared to HS2 or, already, just months after opening, the huge traffic on Crossrail.

The thing that's key about HS2 and Crossrail is how many new journeys they've enabled and to what extent they've enhanced them, not simply who uses it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

London to Central Belt of Scotland - circa 5 million journeys per year. You're very much glossing over things.

And they'll still fly with HS2 unless you build it all the way to Carstairs. Under 2 hours is your magic figure for a rail journey.

 

[Grimsby town]

The thing that's key about HS2 and Crossrail is how many new journeys they've enabled and to what extent they've enhanced them, not simply who uses it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==



And they'll still fly with HS2 unless you build it all the way to Carstairs. Under 2 hours is your magic figure for a rail journey.

2 hours might be the point you'll finish all flights off including most connecting flights but clearly a 50 minute reduction will reduce flying. You only have to look at the WCML upgrade and its impact on flying. The 50 mins might be enough to scare the low cost airlines away from the route as they need very high seat occupancy to operate.

Replying to your earlier point. Manchester had around 500k journeys to Heathrow by plane pre-covid. Thats quite a bit more than a single pendo can handle. Only HSR can reduce domestic flights.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only HSR can reduce domestic flights.

Most Manchester flights are for connections. Old Oak Common will help here more than the journey time reduction. Given how dire Manchester Airport is, train is already far quicker to London itself.

 

[Watershed]

The Edinburgh/Waterloo Eurostar connectors were worked by HSTs, and the only circuitous part of the route was getting from the ECML to Waterloo.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I was referring to the Manchester Piccadilly to Waterloo service, which ran via Shrewsbury, Bristol and Salisbury (and is the reason why there are still route Warminster-Salisbury tickets for e.g. Shrewsbury to London).

 

[Falcon1200]

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I was referring to the Manchester Piccadilly to Waterloo service, which ran via Shrewsbury, Bristol and Salisbury (and is the reason why there are still route Warminster-Salisbury tickets for e.g. Shrewsbury to London).

Thanks for the clarification, but the wording I quoted seemed to refer to all the services, not one specific train! And was the route you mention not simply a case of a TOC linking separate services into one - Surely this was not advertised as Manchester's link to Eurostar, as the Edinburgh train was?

 

[Grimsby town]

Most Manchester flights are for connections. Old Oak Common will help here more than the journey time reduction. Given how dire Manchester Airport is, train is already far quicker to London itself.

Most but I think I read around 25% weren't still. Old Oak Common is certainly a massive improvement in connectivity to that area of London. If you are going to central London the train is pretty quick thats not really the case if you are going to areas near Heathrow or Thames Valley. The loss of those 25% of passengers may be enough for British Airways to give up on those flows or reduce flights to a token connecting service.

I took Eurostar to Amsterdam travelling from Manchester recently. The 2 hour journey time meant I had to spend £100 on a hotel to catch an early cheaper service. HS2 means I don't need that hotel which makes me more likely to use Eurostar over flying. It's probably not going to remove all flights between Manchester and Paris but it should reduce them when the total journey time is likely to be less than 4.5 hours even with the change of trains.

 

[Roast Veg]

The ability to remote work on the train does enable longer distance business trips and avoidance of getting up at 5am.

I'd point you in the direction of sleeper services and their modal share for long distance services. They "save" an early morning too, yet people still choose other modes on the same journeys.

HS2 (if built in full) is more like a French LGV. Dedicated stations and a dedicated line throughout.

Germany and Switzerland build Neubaustrecken (new build lines) that specifically benefit the clockface connectional timetabling (Takt). They integrate with normal lines, and while there are a few e.g. Kassel-Wilhelmshoehe there are generally not dedicated stations.

Our network is more like Germany's than France's.

It's not like France's at all, since the "dedicated stations" aren't in the middle of some field (excepting the now defunct Eastern Leg stations). It's a lot more like the Shinkansen. You even acknowledge it yourself:

Euston and Manchester Piccadilly's HS2 stations are, like Curzon St, basically brand new stations next to the existing ones.

What exactly is the problem here? The German network struggles awfully with station capacity issues - just look at Köln, full to breaking point. This is our chance to get money committed for a project that gets high speed rail right to the heart of the three most important cities we have, and unlock capacity for conventional rail at the same time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd point you in the direction of sleeper services and their modal share for long distance services. They "save" an early morning too, yet people still choose other modes on the same journeys.

Because (a) CS is very expensive, and (b) most people can't sleep well on them.

What exactly is the problem here? The German network struggles awfully with station capacity issues - just look at Köln, full to breaking point. This is our chance to get money committed for a project that gets high speed rail right to the heart of the three most important cities we have, and unlock capacity for conventional rail at the same time.

Because, in a time of austerity, it's a nice to have.

 

[Roast Veg]

Because (a) CS is very expensive, and (b) most people can't sleep well on them.

Most people can't take a meeting on a moving train either, even with a good internet connection.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most people can't take a meeting on a moving train either, even with a good internet connection.

I've done meetings from a train several times. Why can they not?

Not everyone spends their whole working day on meetings, either.

 

[Kingston Dan]

And they'll still fly with HS2 unless you build it all the way to Carstairs. Under 2 hours is your magic figure for a rail journey.

Not true at all. Reekie - London centre to centre is already only about 20-30 minutes shorter by plane with a 4hrs 20min journey. Getting it down to even 3.5 hrs (as HS2 will) will have a massive effect on the 3+ million air journeys per year. Just as it did between Barcalona and Madrid or London and Paris.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not true at all. Reekie - London centre to centre is already only about 20-30 minutes shorter by plane with a 4hrs 20min journey. Getting it down to even 3.5 hrs (as HS2 will) will have a massive effect on the 3+ million air journeys per year. Just as it did between Barcalona and Madrid or London and Paris.

Most people aren't travelling centre to centre. They're travelling suburb to centre, or suburb to business park.

That's why if 2B is built, the Manchester Airport Parkway station is absolutely essential - without it the effect of 2B is negative, not positive. Huge swathes of rich south Manchester and north Cheshire's business people drive and park at Stockport or the airport to go to London. They aren't going to drive to Piccadilly.

It's also why Edinburgh Airport is going to be more convenient to many Edinburghers than Waverley. (I don't know Glasgow as well).

(It's a shame there's no equivalent planned in at the London end - OOC in my understanding won't have parking - an M25 Handy Cross Parkway would have been, er, handy! At least OOC is close to Stockley Park)

 

[Roast Veg]

Not everyone spends their whole working day on meetings, either.

Indeed they don't - and they'd rather be either in an office or at home, not somewhere in between!

 

[AlbertBeale]

It's funny that people who are against HS2 are also against new rolling stock such as the 777s. It like they want to keep living in the Dark Ages.

Eh? What's the evidence that people critical of HS2 are also critical of the 777s? Most "ordinary" people who are critical of HS2 (which includes most people I know) wouldn't know a 777 if it came up and bit them!

 

[irish_rail]

It's funny that people who are against HS2 are also against new rolling stock such as the 777s. It like they want to keep living in the Dark Ages.

Me perchance?!
No, id just like a future where travel is actually cheaper, more enjoyable and pleasant. Thats why I don't see 777s as particularly great, as they are less comfortable than what they replace.
And as for HS2, I just don't see it enhancing the countries prospects. Money could be better spent to help haul us out of this post brexit hole , but instead we will throw good money after bad "because its too late to cancel "

 

[778]

Will the environmental mitigation will be scaled back to cut costs? Would not want that to happen.

 

[Starmill]

which also often lacks good connections with the existing network even at stations

That's hardly going to be an issue for HS2 though, is it? London Euston and Old Oak Common simply couldn't be any better connected by bus, Underground, and local and regional rail. Birmingham Interchange and Manchester Airport will be very well connected by local and regional rail and by bus, as well as by air of course. Birmingham Curzon Street will be very well connected by tram and by regional rail from next-door Birmingham Moor Street. The now-cancelled East Midlands Hub would have been no different, with a connection by tram and bus, and by extensive enhancement to regional rail.

We aren't building a British version of Villanueva de Cordoba Los Pedroches, or even Limburg Sud. It's really difficult to see how this is a problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

vainglorious vanity project if ever I saw one

That's your opinion and that's fine. But nobody is convinced HS2 is a good idea because they're "in awe" of it. They think it's a good idea because of its practical uses.

 

[AlbertBeale]

... a vainglorious vanity project if ever I saw one

That's your opinion and that's fine. But nobody is convinced HS2 is a good idea because they're "in awe" of it. They think it's a good idea because of its practical uses.

I accept that last bit as being the case for many of the proponents of HS2 on this forum (even if I think their judgement is wrong).

But much of the cheerleading for HST from politicians and industrialists is nothing to do with a judgement of how useful it might be compared to other approaches to enhancing rail capacity; it's more to do with vainglorious willy-waving, and "why can't we have glossy new railways like country X does?", together with lining the pockets of the owners of big construction companies.

And - almost irrespective of any of that - I see the overriding need as being for transport solutions which slash carbon emissions now, not ones which only start to be a net benefit at the end of the century (having been a not insignificant part of the problem in the interim) when we need dramatic changes in the next few years if we're to sustain an ecosystem which is comfortable for our species. In that context, every penny spent on HS2 is a (potentially lethal) diversion from what we ought to be doing.

 

[crablab]

And - almost irrespective of any of that - I see the overriding need as being for transport solutions which slash carbon emissions now, not ones which only start to be a net benefit at the end of the century

How do you propose to do that without investing in public transport and supporting active travel?

 

[Starmill]

it's more to do with vainglorious willy-waving, and "why can't we have glossy new railways like country X does?"

Do you have some examples of this? To me, this sounds like hyperbole and a drastically over-emotional take. I've seen nothing of the kind personally.

I can assure you that the Full Business Case has nothing of this kind in it, and it in fact analysed the costs and benefits of the project according to the standard English framework for transport schemes (WebTAG). Have you in fact read the FBC? If you have not done so, it is very difficult to see how you can have come to informed conclusions about the project's outcomes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

not ones which only start to be a net benefit at the end of the century

I'm afraid that you're mistaken in this line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

It's a shame there's no equivalent planned in at the London end - OOC in my understanding won't have parking - an M25 Handy Cross Parkway would have been, er, handy! At least OOC is close to Stockley Park

I'd turn this on its head and say that much more money should be going into dedicated busways to connect the various parts of Greater Manchester and West Midlands plus bordering areas to Manchester Airport and Birmingham Interchange. They're hardly difficult to build, it's straightforward to single a dual carriageway and turn half of it into a dedicated busway. It only needs that little bit of extra capital spend, and the political willingness to sacrifice road space. This then releases some land for housing which would otherwise have been earmarked for car parking next to the stations, which we sorely need. Even your fancy Cheshire folk will use a bus if it's running on a dedicated route, is reliable and frequent and starts early and finishes late.

 

[Energy]

I'd turn this on its head and say that much more money should be going into dedicated busways to connect the various parts of Greater Manchester and West Midlands plus bordering areas to Manchester Airport and Birmingham Interchange. They're hardly difficult to build, it's straightforward to single a dual carriageway and turn half of it into a dedicated busway.

Ignoring the fact that we can't direct money away from HS2 since this money comes from future fares, bus ways aren't that cheap. The Cambridgeshire bus way costed £181 million for 16 miles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd turn this on its head and say that much more money should be going into dedicated busways to connect the various parts of Greater Manchester and West Midlands plus bordering areas to Manchester Airport and Birmingham Interchange. They're hardly difficult to build, it's straightforward to single a dual carriageway and turn half of it into a dedicated busway. It only needs that little bit of extra capital spend, and the political willingness to sacrifice road space. This then releases some land for housing which would otherwise have been earmarked for car parking next to the stations, which we sorely need. Even your fancy Cheshire folk will use a bus if it's running on a dedicated route, is reliable and frequent and starts early and finishes late.

With the best will in the world this isn't feasible from the Cheshire villages. I suppose you could push them to railhead to Crewe instead, but you can't get rid of P&R in this sort of place.

 

[MattRat]

Ignoring the fact that we can't direct money away from HS2 since this money comes from future fares, bus ways aren't that cheap. The Cambridgeshire bus way costed £181 million for 16 miles.

I wouldn't use UK costs as an example. Everything in the UK is overpriced, especially at the moment.

 

[Starmill]

With the best will in the world this isn't feasible from the Cheshire villages. I suppose you could push them to railhead to Crewe instead, but you can't get rid of P&R in this sort of place.

Most of these people aren't coming from villages of 100 people or fewer though which cannot support a local bus. They're coming from places like Hale, Knutsford or Middlewich. They don't use the existing local bus and train services because they correctly point out that they're complete crud!

You don't need to get rid of park and ride entirely, as at the London end. Only push it further out and smaller in scale, so it doesn't take up more valuable land.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

Ignoring the fact that we can't direct money away from HS2 since this money comes from future fares, bus ways aren't that cheap. The Cambridgeshire bus way costed £181 million for 16 miles.

All such money should be in addition to the HS2 budget, not instead of it. The Leigh guided busway has delivered perfectly good value for money, but these were all cases where a road wasn't already there.