And he is doing well from selling them "Ice Cream". Slightly tricky for him to practice as surveyor as he got chucked out of RICS for misconduct a while back so infrastructure project cost bashing is is new employment.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)
- Thread starter ABB125
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
This year I have been looking into the HS2 project and its possible effects on the current UK railways as part of my dissertation. My project title is ; Is the High Speed 2 rail link the answer to Britain’s rail ‘crisis’? I have a few questions put together in a questionnaire linked below intended for regular rail users. All answers remain anonymous.
Any participation would be greatly appreciated.
LINK: https://www.esurveycreator.co.uk/s/efed361
Regards,
Stefan . LJMU
Any participation would be greatly appreciated.
LINK: https://www.esurveycreator.co.uk/s/efed361
Regards,
Stefan . LJMU
The link takes you to a login screen.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Here's an interesting anti-HS2 (but pro-rail) report by the National Economic Foundation (NEF).
https://neweconomics.org/2019/03/a-rail-network-for-everyone
Apparently it was commissioned by Friends of the Earth, which gives you some idea of the motivations behind it.
There's a summary in the Guardian, which is rather less thoughtful: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...orth-midlands-london-new-economics-foundation
The main report has been written by people who know the gory detail of recent railway operation, economics and upgrade programmes (one of them is Paul Salveson).
Instead of HS2, it proposes a 10-year £22.4 billion programme of classic upgrades along all three main lines.
This includes multiple flyovers, four-tracking (eg Coventry-Birmingham), electrification of everything in sight (Holyhead anyone?) and reopening all the closed lines you could possibly want (eg Woodhead, Waverley, Colne-Skipton, Bangor-Caernarfon).
There is plenty of interesting meat, but I did enjoy the unfortunate mention of the upgrade of "Warrington Bank Key".
It says it will take 10 years, but to me it looks more like 50 years at Network Rail's usual pace (with all the planning and land purchase issues, not to mention technical challenges).
Examples of the WCML upgrade elements:
The main thrust is that the business case for HS2 does not add up, and that the regions are disadvantaged and need major local investment instead.
https://neweconomics.org/2019/03/a-rail-network-for-everyone
Apparently it was commissioned by Friends of the Earth, which gives you some idea of the motivations behind it.
There's a summary in the Guardian, which is rather less thoughtful: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...orth-midlands-london-new-economics-foundation
The main report has been written by people who know the gory detail of recent railway operation, economics and upgrade programmes (one of them is Paul Salveson).
Instead of HS2, it proposes a 10-year £22.4 billion programme of classic upgrades along all three main lines.
This includes multiple flyovers, four-tracking (eg Coventry-Birmingham), electrification of everything in sight (Holyhead anyone?) and reopening all the closed lines you could possibly want (eg Woodhead, Waverley, Colne-Skipton, Bangor-Caernarfon).
There is plenty of interesting meat, but I did enjoy the unfortunate mention of the upgrade of "Warrington Bank Key".
It says it will take 10 years, but to me it looks more like 50 years at Network Rail's usual pace (with all the planning and land purchase issues, not to mention technical challenges).
Examples of the WCML upgrade elements:
The main thrust is that the business case for HS2 does not add up, and that the regions are disadvantaged and need major local investment instead.
Last edited:
As much as I support HS2, at least a plan as substantial and detailed as this one provides a real alternative to HS2, rather than some of the stuff our esteemed members come up with. Not so sure about Edinburgh - Carlisle though...
Yeah, the NEF report is a good step for identifying useful interventions, but I imagine some of them are effectively required with or without HS2.
Like, for example, Crossrail to Tring, which was supposed to happen but got kiboshed by the government.
Like, for example, Crossrail to Tring, which was supposed to happen but got kiboshed by the government.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,934
No it didnt, TfL wanted it but didnt want to stump up any cash for it. Would have made a mess of the slow lines south of Tring anyway.
You get just two half-assed mainline upgrades for that £22.4bn. You definitely don't get anything else unless the upgrades are incredibly naff!
The WCML modernisation was estimated at £14.5bn in 2002 (£23.2bn in 2018 pounds), so full whack upgrade would cost all the budget FoE propose. On seeing this huge figure for WCML upgrading, most of the upgrades were cut, reducing the scope and thus the cost - but also the benefit. The cost estimate in 2006 it was 'only' £8.6bn (£12.2bn in 2018 pounds) - half of the FoE budget for three lines and not really upgrading much.(source).
I thought the DfT were the lead supporters for it, rather than TfL? Hence why TfL didn't want to stump up cash - they assumed the DfT would do that as they were the ones asking for it.
Last edited:
Sorry, but not sure the title of your thesis makes sense. No single project can be "the answer to Britain's rail 'crisis'".
The crisis - if there is one - would be made up of many elements; HS2 may address some, but clearly not others.
Sorry.
I'm intrigued by "quadrupling north of Crewe" (as one example of several I could choose). If they mean south of Winsford to Weaver Jn that would involve:
Rebuilding Winsford station;
Major demolition of residential properties and/or Winsford Industrial Estate;
Quadrupling the Vale Royal Cut Weaver bridge;
Rebuilding Hartford station - which is already in a cutting;
Quadrupling the Dutton Viaduct (good luck with that one!).
Multiply that by all their other schemes and that budget looks very optimistic.
And of course, by the time you've done all of that, you may as well have just built an entirely new line between Crewe and, let's say, somewhere just south of Wigan.... Build it for a higher speed while you're at it, perhaps?
That's as maybe, I think you have chosen a bad example to criticise. If rail needs capacity expansion then it should be done.
a) half the prep and land acquisition has already been done (in the 1930s) and I don't think there are any houses or many business sheds that close to the track.
b) So what? How much did the A556 replacement (M6 - M56) link road cost? And are you aware that that grade separation of M6 junction 19 is about to start?
Not saying we don't need HS2, but upgrades of lots of peripheral connecting and parallel lines shouldn't be ruled out simply because quicker access to London has been provided. If anything quadrupling (or re-quadrifying) of lots of main lines will be needed - in fact lots are already overdue.
I particularly enjoyed this bit:
Adding a new track leaving the
existing WCML at Rugeley, avoiding
Colwich Junction and Shugborough
Tunnel, rejoining the four-track
north of Stafford.
Let’s say it starts a mile or so south or Rugeley, for example at Handsacre. And then it rejoins the four track near the next station north of Stafford, let’s say Crewe. As it’s a new line, you may as well make it a fast one.
Adding a new track leaving the
existing WCML at Rugeley, avoiding
Colwich Junction and Shugborough
Tunnel, rejoining the four-track
north of Stafford.
Let’s say it starts a mile or so south or Rugeley, for example at Handsacre. And then it rejoins the four track near the next station north of Stafford, let’s say Crewe. As it’s a new line, you may as well make it a fast one.
The plan is neither substantial nor detailed, and does not provide a real alternative to HS2. It is the half *rsed thoughts of a handful of people who really should know better.
It forever amazes me that individuals or small groups like this think that with a few person-days of work they can come up with ‘much better’ alternatives than something that has taken thousands of person-years of detailed study and development. Particularly in the estimating / risk assessment department: “Oh that’s project is way too expensive, however my alternative is nice and cheap because we can do it, err, cheaper”
But it looks like it would have to be a slow line to keep NEF happy ideologically!
I’ve just scanned the report. Some of the estimates are absolute fantasy. To be fair some are over estimated. But most of it is, well, rubbish. Risk is assumed at 40%, when the standard allowance even after some proper development (which this has not had) is 64%. Oops, the price has just gone up £9.5bn already.
And in all of it, the report makes the classic crayonista error of saying what should be done, but without much mention of what problems are solved and what benefits are realised in terms of increased capacity, reduced journey times, better performance etc; nor how any such benefits are calculated.
Finally, I see that one thing proposed to be done by saving cash from not building a new line into the biggest city in England, is to instead build a new line into the biggest city in Scotland (Carstairs - Rutherglen with a ‘connection’ to Edinburgh).
I need a lie down.
And in all of it, the report makes the classic crayonista error of saying what should be done, but without much mention of what problems are solved and what benefits are realised in terms of increased capacity, reduced journey times, better performance etc; nor how any such benefits are calculated.
Finally, I see that one thing proposed to be done by saving cash from not building a new line into the biggest city in England, is to instead build a new line into the biggest city in Scotland (Carstairs - Rutherglen with a ‘connection’ to Edinburgh).
I need a lie down.
Geezertronic
Established Member
I'd hate to see how many years of rail disruption and bus replacement would do to passenger figures if that report was enacted...
So easily forgotten that just for the Trent Valley 4 tracking part of West Coast Route Mod, the Trent Valley stations didn't have weekend rail services, with *all* Euston-North West/Scotland trains diverted through the West Midlands with 45 minutes on journey times, for well over 3 years.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Some people just have incredibly short memories!
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,934
Personally I gave up when it said the Cov corridor needed 4 tracking regardless of HS2 without any reason why and with what services to fill it. Let alone our favourite question of "what happens at either end?" It is just a list of schemes that have been thought up previously with nothing new or what they solve or release. Apart from Ledburn (which wouldn't give you a lot anyway) how does it solve south of Rugby?
squizzler
Established Member
It's all good and well to instigate debate over whether the country needs HS2 and what alternatives might exist to the project but there is one small flaw in that plan - we already had the debate is long over and construction has began.
The instigators of the report are bound to know this and presumably have no belief or perhaps even any desire to reverse the progress so far. What is their motive?
I hope that the real reason is that to keep strategic rail planning on the public agenda now that HS2 is a done deal. There is no reason not to have an equally ambitious upgrade programme as that which they propose in addition to HS2 (if the current renewals programme doesn't already count as that). Still, continued agitation can only help make the case for further electrification and other improvements, all of which will be more viable off the back of increased rail usage facilitated by HS2 anyway.
The instigators of the report are bound to know this and presumably have no belief or perhaps even any desire to reverse the progress so far. What is their motive?
I hope that the real reason is that to keep strategic rail planning on the public agenda now that HS2 is a done deal. There is no reason not to have an equally ambitious upgrade programme as that which they propose in addition to HS2 (if the current renewals programme doesn't already count as that). Still, continued agitation can only help make the case for further electrification and other improvements, all of which will be more viable off the back of increased rail usage facilitated by HS2 anyway.
I think that's too noble a motive. People will rage against something they dislike even beyond the point it's a done deal.
With the other current pressures on government at the moment, it's not infeasible that dropping HS2 or reducing its scope could be on the table in order to get something else through. As noted previously, phase 2 is not yet committed (even though that's the part that adds much of the value to most of the country)
With the other current pressures on government at the moment, it's not infeasible that dropping HS2 or reducing its scope could be on the table in order to get something else through. As noted previously, phase 2 is not yet committed (even though that's the part that adds much of the value to most of the country)
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
Let's take a look at the rail lines which serve Leeds for commuters...
Leeds' most solid commuter rail services are on the Airedale, Wharfedale and Harrogate lines. It is not a coincidence that these lines have a relatively insignificant amount of intercity or regional trains on them. All stations have a minimum 2 tph, sometimes higher. And more frequent services are planned for Harrogate where there are no capacity constraints. Airedale and Wharfedale is now so busy just with commuter trains that longer trains are planned rather than frequency enhancements.
The Calder Valley and Castleford lines have reasonably frequent commuter services, but the stopping patterns are somewhat disrupted by the need to run semi-fast regional services on the same lines. Nevertheless, some additional services are planned on these lines in the near future.
The York/Selby, Wakefield and Huddersfield lines have relatively poor commuter services as they share their tracks with intensive intercity services. The Huddersfield line may get an improved commuter service subject to the £3 billion TRU project going ahead. But long term the only way these lines will see metro-frequencies at local stations is the removal of intercity services onto separate tracks - i.e. HS2 and NPR.
Your post is therefore presenting a false choice between new high speed lines and commuter services. It's possible to do both at once, and in some cases you simply can't get better commuter services without building new lines.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
Van Halen used to put a rider into their concert contracts that there must be a bowl of M&Ms backstage, with all the brown ones taken out. Rather than being a sign of Diva-ish behaviour, this was in fact a smart way of checking whether the concert venue had actually read the contract or not. If they hadn't sorted out the M&Ms, there were probably more significant problems as well.
I have developed a similar test for suggested railway developments: does it include Bradford Crossrail? If it does, it's a sign the proposal has problems.
This report thinks Bradford Crossrail is a super idea, better than having Bradford directly on the NPR route. And it suggest it will cost £280m for a tunnelled route. That's a pretty serious health warning for the rest of the report.
Total closure Crewe to Hartford Junction for .... 12 months? 18 months?
And quadrupling the Dutton Viaduct? 2 years?
And what people need to realise is that if the Government does drop or downscale HS2 it won't be so that they can fund Bradford Crossrail, Platforms 15 & 16 at Piccadilly or reopen Caernarfon!
It will be to remove the investment from the PSBR.
That’s brilliant. I have a similar view when any one of Skipton-Colne, Uckfield-Lewes, Aberystwyth-Carmarthen or Tweedbank-Carlisle gets included.
This report manages, quite impressively, to propose the reopening of 5 of these four schemes (it proposes and budgets for the last one twice, amusingly with estimates that are rather different).
SideshowBob
Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 179
I'm opposed to HS2 mainly because I believe it will benefit no part of the country other than London, and that a high-speed line between Liverpool and Hull is needed significantly more urgently.As the title says.
I am a supporter of high speed rail in general, but I believe that the current plans for HS2 are far from perfect. Nevertheless I am a (reluctant) supporter of HS2. However, many people are opposed to HS2. Why is this?
Reasons I can think of include:
Is there anything I haven't thought of? Replies from both sides of the debate are welcome.
- Causes fairly significant environmental damage (although significantly less than a motorway!)
- Is built for speeds twice as fast as what we currently have
- Isn't a rebuild of an existing alignment
- Exists entirely so that businessmen and well paid bankers and executives can get to London quicker
- Status