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

jayah · 19 May 2019

Bald Rick said:
The reason it’s tunnelled is that it’s cheaper than building on the surface through residential North West London. I know the people who did this piece of work. The same applies alongside the WCML. To get a extra 2 tracks alongside the WCML from London to anywhere you care to mention inside the London Metropolitan area will be cheaper in tunnel than on the surface. Therefore, I’m afraid, you’re wrong.

There are over 50 freight paths each way every day on the WCML between Wembley and MK. Fewer than a third of them are to or from Felixstowe. Some of those are going to or from Daventry and therefore must use the WCML. The majority of the freight is to/from various locations in and around London and the South East. In any event, the cross country routes from Felixstowe and Southampton to the Midlands and north west are also at capacity, and plans to provide more capacity are very, very expensive. ‘Most’ freight (ie more than half) therefore does need to use the WCML. Therefore I’m afraid you’re wrong on this count too.

How would you do these detours, particularly without disadvantaging the people who use the stations on them? How would diverting the Met to Watford (which was proposed, but is not now happening) reduce demand on the WCML. (I’ll answer that one for you. It wouldn’t, the studies showed that)

How can it do both of these ? I don’t understand. If it is taking traffic south of Wembley it needs to be on the D.C. lines. If it is removed from the D.C. lines then you are building new tunnels through North West London, and we are back to point one.

You are in danger of answering your own questions.

How does Bakerloo service Kilburn to Wembley without using the WCML?
In a tunnel.

More than a third of freights are Felixstowe and both Hams Hall / Daventry are accessible via Nuneaton.

RailUK Forums

jayah · 19 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Indeed it wouldn't. Who's going to take a one hour journey when you can take a 20 minute one?

Watford LUL to London is nothing like an hour on the Met and High Street to Euston is nothing like 20mins on the DC lines.

jayah · 19 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
No, it isn't, once again.

The primary benefit is effectively to 6-track the south WCML due to a lack of capacity (that those two extra tracks are nowhere near the other 4 is irrelevant, as there is no intention to stop trains on those two tracks south of Birmingham anyway). The primary benefit of this is twofold - make existing services more punctual and reliable by adding resilience, and releasing a number of paths on the south WCML itself to add more local and regional services[1]. That it makes journeys to Birmingham and points north a bit quicker is a side benefit. Without the primary benefit, there is no way it would even be being considered.

[1] A very large part of which is to serve MK's long distance and commuter market - a town that is most probably going to have a population of well over half a million if not more by the time it has finished - and a very middle-class population, too, so a prime market for InterCity rail.

I invite you again to actually read the HS2 business case.

There is a very large financial loss from the scheme which in a CBA is weighed against the non cash benefits be they time, wider economy, environmental.

HS2 is an environmental disaster.
It doesn't achieve modal shift from car or air.
Most of the new rail journeys are completely new journeys.
The economic gains are modest.

Far and away the bigger benefit that scrapes the BCR over the line is the value of time saved by the rail users. If these benefits actually existed they could be charged as fares.

They don't and they aren't.

You may have your own opinion about the benefits of HS2. But that is what the business case actually says.

Bletchleyite · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
The current detour via Watford High Street slows the DC lines considerably. The WCML needs to be a viable 6 track railway. The Met line can take over High Street enabling the 6 lines to run alongside the FL/SL.

Unless you’re going to get rid of all the local stops and the Bakerloo it would not achieve an even nearly adequate speed up.

Bletchleyite · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
Watford LUL to London is nothing like an hour on the Met and High Street to Euston is nothing like 20mins on the DC lines.

I didn’t mention the Met. The fastest service is the non stop LNR, so people use that.

jayah · 19 May 2019

MarkyT said:
I don't think it was the scheme planners that were dishonest, but rather the delivery contractors and construction managers who have been institutionally and commercially incentivised to present an overly optimistic perspective in the face of problems encountered. Lessons can and must be learned otherwise the UK might as well just give up building anything big and new.

Everybody involved on that project knew for months that December 18 was total nonsense. The project should not hide behind the so say dishonesty of the contractors.

jayah · 19 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I didn’t mention the Met. The fastest service is the non stop LNR, so people use that.

The proposal is to remove the detour via High Street and run the DC lines along the WCML.

High Street would divert to the Met Line and Watford LUL would close.

Currently High Street is 50mins to Euston and Watford LUL is 42mins to Baker Street.

Bletchleyite · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
The proposal is to remove the detour via High Street and run the DC lines along the WCML.

High Street would divert to the Met Line and Watford LUL would close.

Currently High Street is 50mins to Euston and Watford LUL is 42mins to Baker Street.

I know what the proposal is, and the simple fact that the direct Slow Line service is so much quicker renders all of that completely irrelevant.

Because that bit of the WCML is on an embankment, it would also be insanely expensive.

EM2 · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
Diverting freight from Felixstowe to Trafford via Bury St Edmunds and running longer trains on WCML, WCML and MML have no basis in rationality whatsoever.

Really?

Until you can clearly illustrate how all this is going to work, when people like Bald Rick who do this stuff day in and day out have already shown how it won't, then the answer to this question is 'yes'.

EM2 · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
It is not my job to provide you with the minutiae of how to solve every problem.

When the people whose job that is have demonstrated why your solutions do not work, maybe you should accept that? Why should we continue to accept your unfounded, unplanned, uncosted ideas?

jayah · 19 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I know what the proposal is, and the simple fact that the direct Slow Line service is so much quicker renders all of that completely irrelevant.

Because that bit of the WCML is on an embankment, it would also be insanely expensive.

An embankment!
The arguments you use to try and shoot down alternatives to HS2 mighy be viewed as risible.

Did you know HS2 are proposing a 10 mile tunnel under half of Manchester?

jayah · 19 May 2019

EM2 said:
When the people whose job that is have demonstrated why your solutions do not work, maybe you should accept that? Why should we continue to accept your unfounded, unplanned, uncosted ideas?

They have demonstrated nothing other than the fact the quoted cost envelope for HS2 is a compete work of fiction and the value of time savings attributed to the lines users are completely made up.

Esker-pades · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
Diverting freight from Felixstowe to Trafford via Bury St Edmunds and running longer trains on WCML, WCML and MML have no basis in rationality whatsoever.

Really?

Bury St Edmonds and then where?
There's already a limited capacity via Soham because of the single track section.
Limited capacity through Peterborough.
Then where do you send it? Via the ECML? No chance. Via Stamford and the MML? What happens when you get up to the Trent Junctions? How on earth will you get through the Hope Valley given the capacity problems there? So far, you've got your train as far as Bury St Edmonds, and then it's had to stop.

The longer trains point has been done to absolute death. I already wrote a response to it, which you ignored entirely. Read it.

jayah said:
You are in danger of answering your own questions.

How does Bakerloo service Kilburn to Wembley without using the WCML?
In a tunnel.

And how much will this tunnel cost? Will it be worth it? Can TfL afford it (no, they can't). Your solution to not spending lots of money on HS2 is to spend lots of money on a tunnel in London. I don't think commuters in Birmingham, Manchester or elsewhere will be very happy about that, and rightly so. What a load of....

More than a third of freights are Felixstowe and both Hams Hall / Daventry are accessible via Nuneaton.

And how do you get Daventry services to Nuneaton? Send them via the WCML. What happens between Rugby and Nuneaton? The down line becomes a single not double track. Are there paths for freight in between the passenger services? Yes, but they are used already.

What about freight going up from Daventry to Coatbridge, Crewe or Carlisle? Send them away from the WCML to clog up some other line. Which doesn't work, because the other line gets clogged up.

Esker-pades · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
They have demonstrated nothing other than the fact the quoted cost envelope for HS2 is a compete work of fiction and the value of time savings attributed to the lines users are completely made up.

This statement has no evidence to support it.

jayah · 19 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Bury St Edmonds and then where?
There's already a limited capacity via Soham because of the single track section.
Limited capacity through Peterborough.
Then where do you send it? Via the ECML? No chance. Via Stamford and the MML? What happens when you get up to the Trent Junctions? How on earth will you get through the Hope Valley given the capacity problems there? So far, you've got your train as far as Bury St Edmonds, and then it's had to stop.

The longer trains point has been done to absolute death. I already wrote a response to it, which you ignored entirely. Read it.

And how much will this tunnel cost? Will it be worth it? Can TfL afford it (no, they can't). Your solution to not spending lots of money on HS2 is to spend lots of money on a tunnel in London. I don't think commuters in Birmingham, Manchester or elsewhere will be very happy about that, and rightly so. What a load of....

And how do you get Daventry services to Nuneaton? Send them via the WCML. What happens between Rugby and Nuneaton? The down line becomes a single not double track. Are there paths for freight in between the passenger services? Yes, but they are used already.

What about freight going up from Daventry to Coatbridge, Crewe or Carlisle? Send them away from the WCML to clog up some other line. Which doesn't work, because the other line gets clogged up.

You are seriously advocating a long lead, high risk project that will easily end up the thick end of £100bn to provide amongst other things 'more freight capacity' while citing a piece of single line Soham and semaphore signals at Edale as bona-fide reasons why some pretty obvious alternatives are 'unworkable'?

There is probably a quote coming about these 'rail industry greatest minds'.

MarkyT · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
Did you know HS2 are proposing a 10 mile tunnel under half of Manchester?

And a very useful piece of infrastructure that will be to bypass the Stockport bottleneck, especially so if, as mooted, it also carries NPR trains.

kevin_roche · 19 May 2019

Bald Rick said:
I’ve explained quite a few times how you can’t simply say “£x per seat over 60 years”, as you must allow for the cost of capital. At standard rates £3 now has to be £23 in 60 years at today’s prices to allow for that.

Besides, a full 5 car 444 would barely cover its own operational costs. And Basingstoke / Guildford to Woking won’t cover costs to Heathrow.

The suggestion in the Heathrow Southern Railway proposals is that those trains go beyond Heathrow to Oal oak Common and Paddington. When I was working in West London I would havbe happily paid extra for a good service to Paddington rather than change at Reading or take the tube from Waterloo and change twice.

jayah · 19 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
This statement has no evidence to support it.

If the users value this time saved, charge them higher fares. We will soon find out if they exist or not.

EM2 · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
An embankment!
The arguments you use to try and shoot down alternatives to HS2 mighy be viewed as risible.

Did you know HS2 are proposing a 10 mile tunnel under half of Manchester?

And? London Tunnel on HS1 is effectively 13m long, with a brief open-air interlude at Stratford.

Esker-pades · 19 May 2019

@jayah If you are against HS2 because you think the problems can be solved with the existing infrastructure, you should show it. I, and many others, have demonstrated why your plans won't work. Now, you can show why they do work, if you so wish. The lack of proof or evidence says something else: you can't because they don't.

They are not alternatives because they don't work.

jayah said:
You are seriously advocating a long lead, high risk project that will easily end up the thick end of £100bn to provide amongst other things 'more freight capacity' while citing a piece of single line Soham as a bona fide reason why some pretty obvious alternatives are 'unworkable'?

There is probably a quote coming about these 'rail industry greatest minds'.

Just to be clear, I am not in the railway industry.

If you read my post, you will find I cite a lot more than the single track section of line near Soham (which you still haven't said how to overcome).

I suggest you read whole comments rather than picking out a few words and responding to them.

jayah said:
If the users value this time saved, charge them higher fares. We will soon find out if they exist or not.

Non-sequitur.

jayah · 19 May 2019

MarkyT said:
And a very useful piece of infrastructure that will be to bypass the Stockport bottleneck, especially so if, as mooted, it also carries NPR trains.

There is already a bottleneck and it involves Platform 13/14 at Piccadilly. HS2 terminating from the south isn't really a solution as you need the extra two tracks as well.

Esker-pades · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
An embankment!
The arguments you use to try and shoot down alternatives to HS2 mighy be viewed as risible.

Did you know HS2 are proposing a 10 mile tunnel under half of Manchester?

I remind readers that this user's solution to not having to build this tunnel is to build another tunnel:

jayah said:
How does Bakerloo service Kilburn to Wembley without using the WCML?
In a tunnel.

jayah · 19 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
If you are against HS2 because you think the problems can be solved with the existing infrastructure, you should show it. I, and many others, have demonstrated why your plans won't work. Now, you can show why they do work, if you so wish. The lack of proof or evidence says something else: you can't because they don't.

They are not alternatives because they don't work.

Just to be clear, I am not in the railway industry.

If you read my post, you will find I cite a lot more than the single track section of line near Soham (which you still haven't said how to overcome).

I suggest you read whole comments rather than picking out a few words and responding to them.

Non-sequitur.

The many other specious examples used are equally specious. You have made your point that you want HS2 at all costs and any obstacle to the many alternatives, no matter how trifling, proves beyond any doubt they don't and can never work and HS2 is the only answer.

Reality is catching up. HS2 costs are half baked, the benefits made up, and the redistribution of taxpayers money to wealthy business users is toxic.

The scheme is politically and economically impossible. We are where Crossrail was last Summer. It is only a matter of time before reality bites.

jayah · 19 May 2019

FelixtheCat said:
I remind readers that this user's solution to not having to build this tunnel is to build another tunnel:

Far cheaper to build one tunnel where it is needed than 20 more where they are not.

It has been done before and is being done on two other Underground lines right now.

Clip · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
high risk project that will easily end up the thick end of £100bn

you will have to show how you come to this conclusion of a £45 billion overspend on the project - with real workings out and also why you think building 2 new lines alongside the WCML as it currently is would be cheaper.

MarkyT · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
There is already a bottleneck and it involves Platform 13/14 at Piccadilly. HS2 terminating from the south isn't really a solution as you need the extra two tracks as well.

As I understand it, the most likely outcome is NPR would have its own subsurface platforms on the east side of Piccadilly station, probably built directly under the HS2 terminal development, and the tracks would continue via a central Manchester tunnel to surface somewhere to the East of the city.

EM2 · 19 May 2019

Do you really, honestly, think that everyone involved in the planning of HS2 didn't look at all these other possibilities first?
Do you really, honestly, think that they weren't investigated, analysed, costed, and found wanting?
Do you really, honestly, think that a few people sat round a table with a map, drew a line on it, and then said 'That's HS2'?

AM9 · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
... How does Bakerloo service Kilburn to Wembley without using the WCML?
In a tunnel. ...

Well, Kilburn Park to Queens Park is about 500m of tunnel, - then there's the problem of another 7500m of twin tunnels together with another 6 subterranean stations, which in order to meet current standards, four would be something like Bermondsey and two like Canada Water, with turn back facilities at Queens Park and Wembley Central.
Doesn't sound particularly cheap, indeed given the much lower cost of tunneling now, those stations might even make it more expensive than Old Oak Common to Ruislip HS2 tunnels.

Esker-pades · 19 May 2019

jayah said:
The many other specious examples used are equally specious. You have made your point that you want HS2 at all costs and any obstacle to the many alternatives, no matter how trifling, proves beyond any doubt they don't and can never work and HS2 is the only answer.

So why haven't you demonstrated this?

Also, I'm not that pro-HS2. When this thread started, I was quite lukewarm in my support. Your comments, and those of other anti-HS2 people have convinced me through the sheer awfulness of the arguments that HS2 is the best solution. You made me pro-HS2. Well done!

Reality is catching up. HS2 costs are half baked, the benefits made up, and the redistribution of taxpayers money to wealthy business users is toxic.

Again, you have shown no evidence when making these claims.

The scheme is politically and economically impossible. We are where Crossrail was last Summer. It is only a matter of time before reality bites.

Again, you have shown no evidence for these claims.

jayah said:
Far cheaper to build one tunnel where it is needed than 20 more where they are not.

20?! Where have you got that figure from? And, they are required: to get HS2 trains into the city centre.

Point of order: it would be 2 tunnels for the Bakerloo Line extension: one for northbound trains, one for southbound trains.

Also, it isn't needed. That's what we have the Watford DC Line for.

It has been done before and is being done on two other Underground lines right now.

Finally! We have a fact. Tube lines can be extended people.

AM9 · 19 May 2019

EM2 said:
Do you really, honestly, think that everyone involved in the planning of HS2 didn't look at all these other possibilities first?
Do you really, honestly, think that they weren't investigated, analysed, costed, and found wanting?
Do you really, honestly, think that a few people sat round a table with a map, drew a line on it, and then said 'That's HS2'?

Unless he's just another anti-HS2 troll, that's probably just what he does think which is why these parroted comments keep getting posted.

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

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member