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

jayah · 18 May 2019

Ianno87 said:
I don't the % of traffic carried by Chiltern is actually that high. Although trains are well loaded, a good chunk is to the likes of Bicester and Banbury. I was on the 1815 off Marylebone a few weeks back, and I was only one of maybe 3 or 4 getting off at Snow Hill.

The easy capacity fixes have by and large been done. The extra capacity is being provided to meet demand at the busiest times of day.

The £10 tickets are to fill this capacity at the times of day it is not required. Exactly like today.

London Overground and Bakerloo line are half length.

Hull and Grand Central ditto.

Virgin Trains fleet is still a large part 9 cars.

East Midlands Meridians have very low capacity.

Chiltern aren't full length either.

3 paths for maritime shipping container trains north on the WCML in the evening peak.

LNER Azumas coming soon...

RailUK Forums

Clip · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
Most of the trains to East Midlands are very low capacity indeed.

Much of the traffic to West Midlands is already carried on Chiltern and in turn is being stimulated by extremely low fares.

Predict and provide went out of fashion for roads a long time ago. Once you have made all the easy capacity fixes like forcing non time sensitive freight to run at night and lengthening the trains you need to ask should we really be spending £60-100bn to provide capacity for £10 tickets from London to Birmingham?

I think youll find that much of the traffic to the west midlands is carried by either Virgin or London Midland(or whatever theyre called) with 12 departures in the 2 hour peak to Euston and I believe that they are all max length trains too and Chiltern has 4 departures in the same time period.

I mean in total thats an awful lot of trains carrying people from Brum to London overall but imagine what you could do if you at least took away at least half of those New Street departures and filled them instead with services that would in the whole be local ones - thats kind of what HS2 is going to do - so you repeat that for Manchester Leeds Sheffield and you kind of then understand when people talk about capacity gains form it.

Also you mention non time sensitive freight - the problem with your idea is that those trains then have to sit in good yards for hours on end taking up valuable space and costing money and then what happens to the extra costs? I guess its passed on to the consumer at the end of the line like everything else. So its just not as easy to turn round and say 'run it at night' because everything has a cost

jayah · 18 May 2019

Ianno87 said:
The £20 fares are on LNWR, not Virgin (they are £76 upwards). A revenue generatoon tactic by them.

Buy an LNWR ticket and there's a good chance you'll be standing until at least Milton Keynes.

I didn't specify a TOC. They are all using the same track capacity. Pile it high, sell it cheap and then demand the taxpayer funds a step change in capacity at the expense of the NHS, Social Care etc...

DynamicSpirit · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
There are already 6 tracks as far as Watford. The Overground trains are half length.

The Bakerloo Line needs to be pushed out onto its own infrastructure and the DC lines electrified with AC and or extended northwards to better relieve the outer suburban commuter traffic.

So now you're in the realm of rebuilding an existing commuter line in a built up area, which is clearly going to be a lot more expensive mile-per-mile than building a brand new line through open countryside (as well as all the disruption to existing rail services that would cause). And you'll still need to rebuild Euston - presumably with very expensive new underground platforms - otherwise there won't be any capacity there to absorb the extra trains that your scheme would presumably provide. And how would the Bakerloo line get is own infrastructure? Since it sounds like you want to turn the DC lines into fast tracks, the only possibly way would be to build brand new tunnels and lots of new underground stations for the Bakerloo line, to replace the perfectly good existing surface stations. How expensive do you think that would be? (Hint: Compared to the benefits you'd get for it, probably a lot more expensive than HS2).

jayah said:
Building a £60-100bn HSL to Leeds is not needed to relieve the southern WCML.

That's misrepresenting HS2. Aside from that the current figure is £55bn, HS2 does a lot more than relieve the Southern WCML. It also relieves the similarly overcrowded Southern MML and ECML. And in the Midlands and North, provides much needed extra capacity into Manchester and Leeds, as well as speeding up some of the currently ridiculously slow journey times between many Northern cities. Can you explain how your proposal to put the Bakerloo line on its own infrastructure would achieve any of those things?

ChiefPlanner · 18 May 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
So now you're in the realm of rebuilding an existing commuter line in a built up area, which is clearly going to be a lot more expensive mile-per-mile than building a brand new line through open countryside (as well as all the disruption to existing rail services that would cause). And you'll still need to rebuild Euston - presumably with very expensive new underground platforms - otherwise there won't be any capacity there to absorb the extra trains that your scheme would presumably provide. And how would the Bakerloo line get is own infrastructure? Since it sounds like you want to turn the DC lines into fast tracks, the only possibly way would be to build brand new tunnels and lots of new underground stations for the Bakerloo line, to replace the perfectly good existing surface stations. How expensive do you think that would be? (Hint: Compared to the benefits you'd get for it, probably a lot more expensive than HS2).

That's misrepresenting HS2. Aside from that the current figure is £55bn, HS2 does a lot more than relieve the Southern WCML. It also relieves the similarly overcrowded Southern MML and ECML. And in the Midlands and North, provides much needed extra capacity into Manchester and Leeds, as well as speeding up some of the currently ridiculously slow journey times between many Northern cities. Can you explain how your proposal to put the Bakerloo line on its own infrastructure would achieve any of those things?

The DC line is a very slow route - max line speed is about 45 mph and the way the line was squeezed into the LNWR solum gives a good number of very tight alignments - think not just of the Wembley area , but of the dive unders near there , the Harlesden cutting , the very friendly association with the Bakerloo at Queens Park.

There are no worthwhile and easy interfaces at Watford Junction with the fast lines - putting them in would need a very expensive grade seperation and probably demolition of the station. Some might approve of that.

The Euston area is tight enough , and well covered elsewhere. Finally - the DC has basic 2 aspect signalling , which thins out north of Harrow and Wealdstone.

jayah · 18 May 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
So now you're in the realm of rebuilding an existing commuter line in a built up area, which is clearly going to be a lot more expensive mile-per-mile than building a brand new line through open countryside (as well as all the disruption to existing rail services that would cause). And you'll still need to rebuild Euston - presumably with very expensive new underground platforms - otherwise there won't be any capacity there to absorb the extra trains that your scheme would presumably provide. And how would the Bakerloo line get is own infrastructure? Since it sounds like you want to turn the DC lines into fast tracks, the only possibly way would be to build brand new tunnels and lots of new underground stations for the Bakerloo line, to replace the perfectly good existing surface stations. How expensive do you think that would be? (Hint: Compared to the benefits you'd get for it, probably a lot more expensive than HS2).

That's misrepresenting HS2. Aside from that the current figure is £55bn, HS2 does a lot more than relieve the Southern WCML. It also relieves the similarly overcrowded Southern MML and ECML. And in the Midlands and North, provides much needed extra capacity into Manchester and Leeds, as well as speeding up some of the currently ridiculously slow journey times between many Northern cities. Can you explain how your proposal to put the Bakerloo line on its own infrastructure would achieve any of those things?

There are many commuter lines being built in built up areas including one right under Central London from one side to the other. It is far cheaper than tunnelling under the part people actually want to travel to London from and continuing for another 200 miles.

The Bakerloo line is already in its own tunnel until Kilburn.

jayah · 18 May 2019

Aictos said:
I disagree, plenty of reasons which have been explained to you why HS2 is starting from Euston not Manchester.

For starters it frees up capacity on multiple mainlines eg London to Birmingham on both the Chiltern and West Coast Mainlines by sending IC services via HS2 meaning improved services on the classic lines.

In Birmingham, it frees up platform capacity at New Street by sending IC services onto HS2 by providing more platform capacity for local services and the same applies at Moor Street and Snow Hill.

More local and regional services must be good and this is only possible with the freed up capacity provided by HS2.

Freeing up platforms at New Street by having IC and regional services segregated into separate stations is just daft and another example of the poor connectivity afforded by HS2.

Polarbear · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
There are already 6 tracks as far as Watford. The Overground trains are half length.

The Bakerloo Line needs to be pushed out onto its own infrastructure and the DC lines electrified with AC and or extended northwards to better relieve the outer suburban commuter traffic.

Building a £60-100bn HSL to Leeds is not needed to relieve the southern WCML.

But as has been explained throughout this thread, building additional tracks parallel to the current WCML would be prohibitively expensive. It would also require much more acquisition of land, demolition of properties etc.

The Euston-Watford DC lines are pretty busy as it is, and any rebuild would be highly disruptive for many years, for relatively little gain. It would be very difficult to extend the DC lines north of Watford, without a total rebuild and/or re-siting of Watford Junction - which would not be easy nor cheap.

Yes, some train lengths could be extended, but using existing infrastructure, that would only give breathing space for a short space of time. Additional rolling stock also costs money too.

Adding additional tracks in a few places around the WCML pinch points does nothing for the long term capacity requirements for the MML, ECML , the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire etc.

Polarbear · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
The Bakerloo line is already in its own tunnel until Kilburn.

Queens Park actually.

Esker-pades · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
There are already 6 tracks as far as Watford. The Overground trains are half length.

The Bakerloo Line needs to be pushed out onto its own infrastructure and the DC lines electrified with AC and or extended northwards to better relieve the outer suburban commuter traffic.

Building a £60-100bn HSL to Leeds is not needed to relieve the southern WCML.

Just to clear this up:
Your solution to not having to build HS2 is to build another set of double tracks parallel to the southern end WCML? That's literally what phase 1 of HS2 is.

jayah · 18 May 2019

Clip said:
I think youll find that much of the traffic to the west midlands is carried by either Virgin or London Midland(or whatever theyre called) with 12 departures in the 2 hour peak to Euston and I believe that they are all max length trains too and Chiltern has 4 departures in the same time period.

I mean in total thats an awful lot of trains carrying people from Brum to London overall but imagine what you could do if you at least took away at least half of those New Street departures and filled them instead with services that would in the whole be local ones - thats kind of what HS2 is going to do - so you repeat that for Manchester Leeds Sheffield and you kind of then understand when people talk about capacity gains form it.

Also you mention non time sensitive freight - the problem with your idea is that those trains then have to sit in good yards for hours on end taking up valuable space and costing money and then what happens to the extra costs? I guess its passed on to the consumer at the end of the line like everything else. So its just not as easy to turn round and say 'run it at night' because everything has a cost

The idea that we have to run container trains from Felixstowe to Manchester through the evening London commuter peak to free up 'valuable space' by the docks is amusing! The cargo is not remotely time critical and takes weeks to transit from Asia.

As for train length, I would suggest only a minority at Euston are actually 11 car Pendonline or 12 car suburban stock especially counting Overground. On EMT the trains are barely 300 standard seats.

Esker-pades · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
The idea that we have to run container trains from Felixstowe to Manchester through the evening London commuter peak to free up 'valuable space' by the docks is amusing!

As for train length, I would suggest only a minority at Euston are actually 11 car Pendonline or 12 car suburban stock especially counting Overground. On EMT the trains are barely 300 standard seats.

The majority of Pendolinos are 11 car. Thus, your suggestion is wrong.

jayah · 18 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Just to clear this up:
Your solution to not having to build HS2 is to build another set of double tracks parallel to the southern end WCML? That's literally what phase 1 of HS2 is.

There are already 6 tracks between Euston and Watford. Two of them are being wasted. Most of HS2 is in a tunnel from central London to the M25. That is rather different to sending Bakerloo from Kilburn to Zone 4 without using the WCML.

jayah · 18 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
The majority of Pendolinos are 11 car. Thus, your suggestion is wrong.

Try counting all of the trains at Euston not just the ones operated by Virgin.

Polarbear · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
As for train length, I would suggest only a minority at Euston are actually 11 car Pendonline or 12 car suburban stock especially counting Overground.

Seriously? I suggest you go & have a look at Euston at the peaks then. For factual information there are 35 x 11 car and 22 x 9 car 390's - therefore the majority of pendolinos are in fact 11 car.

Esker-pades · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
There are already 6 tracks between Euston and Watford. Two of them are being wasted. Most of HS2 is in a tunnel from central London to the M25. That is rather different to sending Bakerloo from Kilburn to Zone 4 without using the WCML.

A new underground railway from London to Zone 4. How does that benefit Birmingham commuters? How does that benefit all the northern cities served by phase 2 of the project?

jayah said:
Try counting all of the trains at Euston not just the ones operated by Virgin.

Then I don't follow your argument.

If it's the generic "not all trains are full length", that's been covered to death on this thread (so much so that my signature has been changed to reflect it). The search function is your friend.

Clip · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
The idea that we have to run container trains from Felixstowe to Manchester through the evening London commuter peak to free up 'valuable space' by the docks is amusing! The cargo is not remotely time critical and takes weeks to transit from Asia.

As for train length, I would suggest only a minority at Euston are actually 11 car Pendonline or 12 car suburban stock especially counting Overground. On EMT the trains are barely 300 standard seats.

You really dont understand logistics very well do you.

You cant count the overground because they dont go to Birmingham which is what I and you were both talking abotu and most of them are now 11 pendos and 12 car LM jobs. And theyre pretty bloody full all morning. And evening. And a lot through the day too.

So thats a lot of trains a lot of very full trains all vying for the same infrastructure.

I posted something from Camden junction a few pages back which showed just how busy it already is - go look if you want too - then tell us that something decent shouldnt be done

DynamicSpirit · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
There are already 6 tracks between Euston and Watford. Two of them are being wasted. Most of HS2 is in a tunnel from central London to the M25. That is rather different to sending Bakerloo from Kilburn to Zone 4 without using the WCML.

They are not being wasted. Assuming you're referring to the DC lines, they are being used by TfL to provide local services to all the local stations between South Hampstead and Watford Junction. And maybe you missed ChiefPlanner's post #2165 above, which explained in some detail why those lines would be completely unsuitable for anything other than the local services that currently use them.

jayah · 18 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
A new underground railway from London to Zone 4. How does that benefit Birmingham commuters? How does that benefit all the northern cities served by phase 2 of the project?

Then I don't follow your argument.

If it's the generic "not all trains are full length", that's been covered to death on this thread (so much so that my signature has been changed to reflect it). The search function is your friend.

There are still people suggesting the easy capacity fixes have been exhausted. They haven't even got close.

Birmingham trains are sharing the same track capacity as containers trains and underground trains. The fact that moving the Bakerloo line and container trains off the WCML frees up paths is self evident.

Esker-pades · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
There are still people suggesting the easy capacity fixes have been exhausted. They haven't even got close.

Birmingham trains are sharing the same track capacity as containers trains and underground trains. The fact that moving the Bakerloo line and container trains off the WCML frees up paths is self evident.

Where do you put those freight trains?

Where do you put the Bakerloo Line trains?

Even if you do have capacity on the Watford DC Line, how do you address the points raised by the post I have quoted below?

ChiefPlanner said:
The DC line is a very slow route - max line speed is about 45 mph and the way the line was squeezed into the LNWR solum gives a good number of very tight alignments - think not just of the Wembley area , but of the dive unders near there , the Harlesden cutting , the very friendly association with the Bakerloo at Queens Park.

There are no worthwhile and easy interfaces at Watford Junction with the fast lines - putting them in would need a very expensive grade seperation and probably demolition of the station. Some might approve of that.

The Euston area is tight enough , and well covered elsewhere. Finally - the DC has basic 2 aspect signalling , which thins out north of Harrow and Wealdstone.

jayah · 18 May 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
They are not being wasted. Assuming you're referring to the DC lines, they are being used by TfL to provide local services to all the local stations between South Hampstead and Watford Junction. And maybe you missed ChiefPlanner's post #2165 above, which explained in some detail why those lines would be completely unsuitable for anything other than the local services that currently use them.

They are wasted. The trains using them are half length. Difficulties over alignment and two aspect signalling is not a reason to write off upgrading two existing tracks into Euston. The idea is not to integrate them with the FLs. The challenges of changing Euston to make HS2 work illustrate what is possible.

jayah · 18 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Where do you put those freight trains?

Where do you put the Bakerloo Line trains?

Even if you do have capacity on the Watford DC Line, how do you address the points raised by the post I have quoted below?

The points highlighted are not show stoppers in the context of the discussion.

They read more like the typical rail industry can't do mentality, which usually comes to the fore when the actual answer is we want to do something else.

Freight trains have already been discussed. Cargo going on ships to Asia does not need to be on the WCML in the peaks.

Esker-pades · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
They are wasted. The trains using them are half length. Difficulties over alignment and two aspect signalling is not a reason to write off upgrading two existing tracks into Euston. The idea is not to integrate them with the FLs. The challenges of changing Euston to make HS2 work illustrate what is possible.

Show on a map how you would solve the, as you put, difficulties in alignment of the Watford DC line. If you have an actual solution, I'm sure that the railway industry would love to hear, given that the greatest minds in the industry think HS2 is a better solution to the problem.

jayah said:
The points highlighted are not show stoppers in the context of the discussion.

They read more like the typical rail industry can't do mentality, which usually comes to the fore when the actual answer is we want to do something else.

Freight trains have already been discussed. Cargo going on ships to Asia does not need to be on the WCML in the peaks.

You have no idea where you will put the freight trains and the Bakerloo Line then. I am glad we've cleared up that you don't have any solutions that can stand up to the most basic of interrogation.

jayah · 18 May 2019

Polarbear said:
Seriously? I suggest you go & have a look at Euston at the peaks then. For factual information there are 35 x 11 car and 22 x 9 car 390's - therefore the majority of pendolinos are in fact 11 car.

LNWR seat finder suggests the vast majority of Euston peak services are 8 cars not 12.

jayah · 18 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Show on a map how you would solve the, as you put, difficulties in alignment of the Watford DC line. If you have an actual solution, I'm sure that the railway industry would love to hear, given that the greatest minds in the industry think HS2 is a better solution to the problem.

You have no idea where you will put the freight trains and the Bakerloo Line then. I am glad we've cleared up that you don't have any solutions that can stand up to the most basic of interrogation.

I have explained exactly what needs to be done with them. You aren't interested in the answer.

These greatest minds are complaining about capacity while offering £20 peak fares to Birmingham on 8 car trains.

Glenn1969 · 18 May 2019

I can see why people think longer trains is the answer. I just don't see why thinning out frequency solves the problem. It just makes people wait longer for a train on which particularly in the peak they may have to spend a long time standing up. You need supply if you want to meet demand which I think is suppressed by inadequate infrastructure on the classic lines, and if you want to force people out of their cars onto trains the trains have to offer an adequate product. Which right now I'm not convinced they do

jayah · 18 May 2019

Glenn1969 said:
I can see why people think longer trains is the answer. I just don't see why thinning out frequency solves the problem. It just makes people wait longer for a train on which particularly in the peak they may have to spend a long time standing up. You need supply if you want to meet demand which I think is suppressed by inadequate infrastructure on the classic lines, and if you want to force people out of their cars onto trains the trains have to offer an adequate product. Which right now I'm not convinced they do

For years it has been understood that you need to manage demand AND supply. If we had taken the same approach to aviation London would be ringed by four runway hubs.

The actual train capacity problem is the London commuter belt and you already have the DC lines as a third pair of tracks going halfway to the edge of it, but using tube stock and half length Overground trains while non time sensitive freight still uses the slow lines in the peak along with 12 car slow line trains still being the exception not the rule.

Clip · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
There are still people suggesting the easy capacity fixes have been exhausted. They haven't even got close.

Birmingham trains are sharing the same track capacity as containers trains and underground trains. The fact that moving the Bakerloo line and container trains off the WCML frees up paths is self evident.

Birmingham trains dont really share the same lines as the underground train

DynamicSpirit · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
They are wasted. The trains using them are half length. Difficulties over alignment and two aspect signalling is not a reason to write off upgrading two existing tracks into Euston. The idea is not to integrate them with the FLs. The challenges of changing Euston to make HS2 work illustrate what is possible.

No, they are not being wasted. They are being used to provide local services. The fact that the Euston-Watford stoppers and the Bakerloo line trains are not all 12 carriages does not mean that that line is not serving a useful purpose: It is serving a very useful purpose: Serving all the stations between South Hampstead and Watford Junction.

Can you please stop ignoring the questions that other people keep asking you and explain:
(a) How you would continue to serve these stations after you've (hypothetically) removed the stoppers from this route to provide more long distance/outer suburban services?
(b) How you would resolve the situation north of Watford Junction, where there are only 4 tracks, which are essentially full.
(c) How your proposal to repurpose the DC lines would relieve congestion on the ECML and Midland Main line, and how it would increase capacity around Leeds and Manchester, and how it would reduce journey times between northern cities.
(d) How much you think it would all cost by the time you've sorted out the signalling, rebuilt the DC lines, sorted out the situation at Watford Junction, provided more capacity at Euston, and come up with some alternative means to serve all the existing DC line stations?

Esker-pades · 18 May 2019

jayah said:
LNWR seat finder suggests the vast majority of Euston peak services are 8 cars not 12.

The generic "not all trains are full length", has been covered to death on this thread (so much so that my signature has been changed to reflect it). The search function is your friend.

jayah said:
I have explained exactly what needs to be done with them. You aren't interested in the answer.

Your answer was to remove Bakerloo Line trains from the Watford DC line so other trains could run. Others have explained why this does not help (slow speed, alignment difficulties, re-modelling of Watford Junction etc.), yet you continue to insist that this is the answer. You have provided no evidence for your claims that the Watford DC line can be re-aligned, despite being offered the chance.

You also suggested removing freight trains from the WCML. It is true that freight trains use some paths which could be replaced by passenger trains. But, you have not said where the freight trains would go, despite being given the chance.

You have suggested lengthening trains, despite this argument being raised and dismissed every couple of pages on this thread. At its basics, lengthening trains to their maximum can only happen a certain number of times before there is no capacity. At that point, even if demand is increasing, no additional capacity can be provided to meet the increasing demand. Adding additional carriages is a short term solution. HS2 is a long term solution. You will also note that even the 12 coach trains leaving Euston are full at peak times. What do you do to those trains which are already at maximum length and already full?

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

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member