HS2 - A vanity project?

anti-pacer · 3 Aug 2016

There are many comments on BBC Radio Sheffield's Facebook page about HS2 after a brawl broke out at Barnburgh Primary School near Doncaster. Basically the school hall couldn't handle the numbers who wanted to attend an anti-HS2 meeting.

The comments on this Facebook page are mainly calling HS2 a vanity project and claiming there will be no economic benefit to South Yorkshire. Also a few are claiming that with better signalling the existing network could cope with a capacity increase.

What would you say to these people? Do you think they're right or way off the mark, and if so why?

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS · 3 Aug 2016

If it is said to be a vanity project because there will be no benefit to South Yorkshire, remember the two bifurcated legs are to serve the very large conurbations of both Manchester and Leeds as area hubs on both sides of the Pennines.

You could use the same argument about Liverpool, as stated about South Yorkshire, but logic decrees the major power-bases are the ones to be served.

gordonthemoron · 3 Aug 2016

They said the same about the M1

anti-pacer · 3 Aug 2016

The arguments posted are claims that no economic benefits will reach South Yorkshire. What evidence is there to suggest there will a? The M1 hasn't done anything to boost it.

6Gman · 3 Aug 2016

In my opinion (I stress opinion) there is a "vanity" element to HS2 as in "other Western European countries have x miles of HSR, we only have y" ...

So what?

Different countries have different geography, population distribution, travel patterns etc etc

However, I also feel there is a need to develop rail capacity.

I don't think HS2 is the right solution, but it's the only one on offer.

As to the critics mentioned I would say - "what do you mean by a vanity project?" and take it from there.

BuryBlue · 3 Aug 2016

It's an argument about capacity. Personally I think the money would be better spent on 4 tracking (where possible) and electrifying the Chiltern Main Line (and sorting out its ancillaries, like the LUL Amersham branch), along with HS2 Phase 2 being constructed (which is actually useful), but there are varying perspectives.

HSTEd · 3 Aug 2016

Chiltern Main Line would need a total reconstruction of Marylebone to more than twice the size to handle that.

That would cost some enormous sum before you even begin the track upgrde.

CdBrux · 3 Aug 2016

anti-pacer said:
The arguments posted are claims that no economic benefits will reach South Yorkshire. What evidence is there to suggest there will a? The M1 hasn't done anything to boost it.

if the M1 was closed do you think South Yorkshire would rejoice then?

Philip Phlopp · 3 Aug 2016

HSTEd said:
Chiltern Main Line would need a total reconstruction of Marylebone to more than twice the size to handle that.

That would cost some enormous sum before you even begin the track upgrde.

You've no ambition, that's your problem.

HSTEd · 3 Aug 2016

Philip Phlopp said:
You've no ambition, that's your problem.

No, I prefer less ambitious projects like building a huge polder complex in the North Sea, Severn Estuary and Irish Sea and ultimately wish to convert the Irish Sea into a reservoir.

Ambition is not my strong suit.

J-2739 · 3 Aug 2016

BuryBlue said:
It's an argument about capacity. Personally I think the money would be better spent on 4 tracking (where possible) and electrifying the Chiltern Main Line (and sorting out its ancillaries, like the LUL Amersham branch), along with HS2 Phase 2 being constructed (which is actually useful), but there are varying perspectives.

4- tracking is expensive and like you hinted can't be done everywhere. Fast services would still have to share track with stoppers at places where it can't be done so overall journey times wouldn't be significantly shortened. That's before you go on about how much disruption it will bring to services.

Personally, I think they should just get on with HS2. It's being built a new alignment separate from other mainlines so little to no disruption would be brought to existing track and will provide extra capacity to relieve overcrowded existing services for years to come.

ivanhoe · 3 Aug 2016

Paul Sidorczuk said:
If it is said to be a vanity project because there will be no benefit to South Yorkshire, remember the two bifurcated legs are to serve the very large conurbations of both Manchester and Leeds as area hubs on both sides of the Pennines.

You could use the same argument about Liverpool, as stated about South Yorkshire, but logic decrees the major power-bases are the ones to be served.

You could argue that it is a vanity argument full stop. Will Bury or Rochdale , Dewsbury or Castleford be net beneficiaries of HS2 going to Manchester and Leeds? I doubt it . When HS2 was first muted, it was all about fast journeys between the North and London. When people cottoned onto the fact that you were knocking off 30 minutes it was all about capacity.. People from South Yorkshire and indeed Merseyside have every right to question what HS2 as it stands will do for their areas. God knows why you bought Liverpool into your Post but I've come to expect that from you.

MarkyT · 3 Aug 2016

I think the captive/classic compatible arguments have distorted matters throughout the history of the project and created unrealistic expectations. Liverpool argues it is not being adequately served because it's not getting a dedicated GC gauge branch all the way to the bufferstops, like Manchester . . . for say two trains an hour. That is a ludicrous argument as the port city will nevertheless get a significantly faster and better intercity service to London using Classic compatible rolling stock with around 75% of the journey by distance on the high speed line itself once the extended Phase 1 is completed to Crewe. The service will also be able to continue to serve the important stop at Runcorn and possibly Liverpool south Parkway if the platforms could be extended. The Crewe extension could also achieve around 40 minutes journey time savings to Glasgow, a very worthwhile improvement. Also it looks like Sheffield Midland may be served now by CC via Chesterfield, the journey from London amounting to 85% of the distance on high speed, and it is likely Stoke on Trent and Stafford may get a similar service concept. This is sensible in my view, spreading the benefits of the new trunk route to many cities in the north. The idea of building full UIC gauge branches to every destination is ridiculous and destroys the main benefit of using rail technology, that is its compatibility with existing networks, a feature that makes it stand out from other theoretical possibilities touted by those who claim rail is outdated. Almost all high speed networks around the world have developed incrementally, building main trunks and extending and adding branches as markets develop whilst penetrating city centres via existing infrastructure, improved as necessary of course. Even in Japan, where the initial Shinkansen network had to be entirely segregated due to gauge compatibility. some more recent extensions are shared with other traffic on converted narrow gauge lines, the Mini Shinkansen routes, using Japan's equivalent of classic compatible trains with a smaller body profile to fit through the former narrow gauge bridges and tunnels.

J-2739 · 3 Aug 2016

ivanhoe said:
You could argue that it is a vanity argument full stop. Will Bury or Rochdale , Dewsbury or Castleford be net beneficiaries of HS2 going to Manchester and Leeds? I doubt it . When HS2 was first muted, it was all about fast journeys between the North and London. When people cottoned onto the fact that you were knocking off 30 minutes it was all about capacity.. People from South Yorkshire and indeed Merseyside have every right to question what HS2 as it stands will do for their areas. God knows why you bought Liverpool into your Post but I've come to expect that from you.

Of course HS2 will benefit those places! The point of this high-speed rail is not branching into all towns so everyone is a winner. It's going to provide a fast and frequent service into and out of London as well as providing a relief to existing high-speed services. The people in those four towns would catch a train/tram to Manchester Piccadilly and/or Leeds.

As for the Liverpool bit, I'm confused as well, since Liverpool is getting HS2, albeit on existing track.

EDIT: Got beaten to it!

TheKnightWho · 3 Aug 2016

anti-pacer said:
The arguments posted are claims that no economic benefits will reach South Yorkshire. What evidence is there to suggest there will a? The M1 hasn't done anything to boost it.

Are you joking?

dviner · 3 Aug 2016

Well, if there are no direct benefits to the Marlow Branch, then it must totally be a vanity project!

158756 · 3 Aug 2016

HS2, north of Birmingham, is a political project. The question is though, who is it meant to please? If it isn't going to Liverpool or Sheffield, are the politicians determined to stop it going to Leeds and Manchester?

Yes those places have some capacity constraints on routes to the South, but if the problem was looked at entirely on a financial basis, with no politics involved, I can't believe we'd spend £20bn to solve it.

MarkyT · 3 Aug 2016

dviner said:
Well, if there are no direct benefits to the Marlow Branch, then it must totally be a vanity project!

The Thames Valley should get very good interchange to the north via Old Oak Common, saving a Central London tube transfer. From Marlow you'll have to change at Maidenhead as well though!

HSTEd · 4 Aug 2016

158756 said:
Yes those places have some capacity constraints on routes to the South, but if the problem was looked at entirely on a financial basis, with no politics involved, I can't believe we'd spend £20bn to solve it.

If HS2 was entirely on a financial basis, with no politics involved, it would cost a tiny fraction of what it is programmed to cost.
There would be no tunnels outside the M25 for one thing, its far cheaper to just go through the Chilterns than under them etc.

AM9 · 4 Aug 2016

dviner said:
Well, if there are no direct benefits to the Marlow Branch, then it must totally be a vanity project!

Thinking further, London and the South-east rail travel area includes about 20m residents and very few of them are within 20 minutes travelling time of either OOC or Euston. So what will HS2 do for them? Given that they will be making a much greater financial contribution to the line, maybe they should withdraw their support.

If this selfish attitude is allowed to drive nationally strategic projects, we will go back to anglo-saxon settlement lifestyles.

dviner · 4 Aug 2016

MarkyT said:
The Thames Valley should get very good interchange to the north via Old Oak Common, saving a Central London tube transfer. From Marlow you'll have to change at Maidenhead as well though!

Marlow to Birmingham changing at OOC - assuming 0 mins to change trains, you'd need an OOC to Birmingham journey time of approx 45 mins to beat a car.

Mind you, looking at National Rail, if I wanted to be at New Street by 9:30 am tomorrow, I'd need to catch the 00:17 from Marlow and wait over 3 1/2 hours at Maidenhead...

Just as well I don't live in Marlow any more (or need to go to New Street that often).

p.s. no, HS2 isn't a vanity project.

Chris125 · 6 Aug 2016

158756 said:
HS2, north of Birmingham, is a political project.

Eh? Phase 2 improves the business case for the whole scheme - it unlocks the full capacity benefits of the first phase and impacts a far larger swathe of the country.

po8crg · 10 Aug 2016

Chris125 said:
Eh? Phase 2 improves the business case for the whole scheme - it unlocks the full capacity benefits of the first phase and impacts a far larger swathe of the country.

Yeah, it's Metcalfe's Law.

Value of the network is the number of connections. Cost is length of the connections.

So Phase 1 is London-Birmingham (one connection) but costs 119 miles worth.

Phase 2 is London-Manchester, London-Leeds, Birmingham-Manchester, Birmingham-Leeds (four connections) costing 216 miles worth. Even if you count the two non-London connections as half the value of the London ones, that's still a 50% better cost-benefit ratio.

The real calculation is, of course, a good deal more detailed than that - it includes the real costings for tunnels, bridges, stations etc (so not every mile costs the same), includes the benefits for the classic-compatible connections to Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow, includes the through-stations at Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Crewe Hub and Toton.

But the back of an envelope that Phase 2 is about 50% more cost-benefit than Phase 1 is pretty much right.

Once we've built HS2, extensions are going to have a really good cost-benefit ratio: Newcastle, Hull and Liverpool are all going to have much better cases, because they will each be connected to a host of places on the network (Hull and Newcastle to Leeds, Toton, Birmingham and London, and to each other if both are built; Liverpool to Manchester, Birmingham and London). All three improve the case for a Manchester-Leeds link because it will then allow Liverpool-Newcastle and Liverpool-Hull links.

It's a classic network effect: adding a new place to the network links it to all the places on the network, so the number of links grows as the square of the number of nodes. If your benefits grow quadratically and your costs linearly, then bigger networks are more efficient.

Now, because of physical constraints, this doesn't work quite as well for a transport network as a data network (for a computer, you could do Manchester-Leeds via Birmingham without a problem; for a train, that would take far too long, so you need a trans-Pennine link), but it remains an important point.

RichW1 · 11 Aug 2016

Given the Intercity journeys I do, I can see we desperately need HS2 to take the core centre to centre traffic off the existing lines. Then there's freight, that gets forgotten. HS2 will free up core route capacity too to a point. Then 'crushload' trains can be consigned to history. Two networks - one with Intercity/regional (or ICR services as I'm now calling them) that will links towns with large cities with 125 to 140mph capability in places in the distamt future, and an HS2/3/4/5 network to serve populations in excess of 1million or so, but most stations will be serving metro areas of several millions. It's common sense to me.

Side note but important... we take an Anglocentric point of view too. If you live in Edinburgh or Glasgow, getting to Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds, let alone London is a joke in terms of train times. This is bad for business, bad for GDP and bad for investment potential. They deserve better and so do we to be linked with the Scottish centres. If we want a UK, we have to think like it, not just think the country ends at Leeds or Manchester. Newcastle gets a raw deal too but not as bad as the Central Belt.

anti-pacer · 13 Aug 2016

TheKnightWho said:
Are you joking?

South Yorkshire is one of the poorest counties in the country. Look at Doncaster. Fantastic road and rail links but hardly prosperous

TheKnightWho · 15 Aug 2016

anti-pacer said:
South Yorkshire is one of the poorest counties in the country. Look at Doncaster. Fantastic road and rail links but hardly prosperous

That doesn't qualify you to say that the M1 has done nothing for it.

NSEFAN · 15 Aug 2016

anti-pacer said:
South Yorkshire is one of the poorest counties in the country. Look at Doncaster. Fantastic road and rail links but hardly prosperous

Consider then how much worse things would be if those transport links weren't there! :lol:

J-2739 · 15 Aug 2016

anti-pacer said:
South Yorkshire is one of the poorest counties in the country. Look at Doncaster. Fantastic road and rail links but hardly prosperous

Just to let you know, the M1 came before the miners strike.

Grimsby town · 15 Aug 2016

It's only vanity project if you're against. It always makes me laugh that the oppenents to HS2 mention that reports don't take into account the fact that people work on trains but then conveniently forget to mention the pshycological and productivity benefits of being able to leave your house 40 minutes later when commuting from Birmingham to London. I also wonder if they have ever tried to work on laptop in a full standard class coach.

MonsooN · 29 Aug 2016

Whenever I talk to someone in my neck of the woods about HS2, they always complain that we in the North East won't see a benefit as it's not coming here and are therefore against it.

A train from Newcastle to London Kings Cross currently takes around 3 hours, but there's one non stop service each day thst only takes 2 hours and 35 minutes. With the extra capacity HS2 would open up on the ECML, there could be more of these services each day, so, even though the trains aren't physically going any faster, you can still get to London from Newcastle almost half an hour quicker (more if they ever upgrade to 140mph on the ECML)

I don't think it's a vanity project at all but i do think that the direct and indirect benefits (such as the example above) haven't been communicated to the public particularly well.

HS2 - A vanity project?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member