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

AM9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The proposed Bakerloo extension to Lewisham is down for £3bn with 4 stations.

The infrastructure proposed for Manchester is needed now. I can see the merit for longer trains but think they have to be able to operate to the same frequency at least to have the desired effect. I presume that infrastructure doesn't happen if HS2 is cancelled

I'm not an expert, just a sometimes frustrated passenger campaigning for a better service

jayah said:

We are where Crossrail was last Summer. It is only a matter of time before reality bites.

Click to expand...

Crossrail was largely constructed last summer. They are now in that last niggly 5% of the work that is often so difficult to manage, especially with all the complex interfaces involved.

FelixtheCat said:

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!



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



Again, you have shown no evidence for these claims.



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.



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

Click to expand...

In Leeds there is a lot of demolition and a new station.

The reason all these new stations detached from connections and existing transport networks are needed is because HS2 captive trains are largely incompatible with the existing infrastructure.

MarkyT said:

Crossrail was largely constructed last summer. They are now in that last niggly 5% of the work that is often so difficult to manage, especially with all the complex interfaces involved.

Click to expand...

The niggly 5% has just added 20% to the bill. And there is still a good deal of uncertainty.

jayah said:

The proposed Bakerloo extension to Lewisham is down for £3bn with 4 stations.

Click to expand...

Do you think that will overrun in cost or timescale?

Glenn1969 said:

The infrastructure proposed for Manchester is needed now. I can see the merit for longer trains but think they have to be able to operate to the same frequency at least to have the desired effect. I presume that infrastructure doesn't happen if HS2 is cancelled

I'm not an expert, just a sometimes frustrated passenger campaigning for a better service

Click to expand...

They need to sort out the Piccadilly / Oxford Rd / Ordsall corridor.

A new 10 mile tunnel appearing at Ardwick ending at Piccadilly doesn't do this.

MarkyT said:

Do you think that will overrun in cost or timescale?

Click to expand...

I can say with confidence it will result in economic benefits to the local area will be far cheaper than HS2.

jayah said:

In Leeds there is a lot of demolition and a new station.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information.

The reason all these new stations detached from connections and existing transport networks are needed is because HS2 captive trains are largely incompatible with the existing infrastructure.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The reason is because there isn't space to build more platforms at Birmingham New Street or Manchester Piccadilly. And, HS2 trains are compatible with existing infrastructure because they will use the existing infrastructure from the moment phase 1 opens.

Your comment is again full of basic factual inaccuracies.

jayah said:

They need to sort out the Piccadilly / Oxford Rd / Ordsall corridor.

A new 10 mile tunnel appearing at Ardwick ending at Piccadilly doesn't do this.

Click to expand...

They are solving two distinct, but important problems. HS2 solves the Stockport corridor. Nobody is pretending it is a solution to the Castlefield corridor...until NPR can make use of the HS2 infrastructure instead of relying on the Castlefield corridor.

jayah said:

I can say with confidence it will result in economic benefits to the local area will be far cheaper than HS2.

Click to expand...

Which means sod all in reality.

jayah said:

They need to sort out the Piccadilly / Oxford Rd / Ordsall corridor.

A new 10 mile tunnel appearing at Ardwick ending at Piccadilly doesn't do this.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a better answer would be to bring forward the NPR Liverpool -Manchester works and incorporate the Manchester approach tunnel into this parallel work stream, so it will be ready before HS2 arrives.

6Gman said:

How many stations have the capacity to handle 20 coach trains?

Where is this "elsewhere"?

Click to expand...

France does 24-car TGVs while many places have trains of 15 long passenger carriages or more (ICE 3 in Germany, 15-car IC3s in Denmark etc.)

jayah said:

The niggly 5% has just added 20% to the bill. And there is still a good deal of uncertainty.

Click to expand...

Rail magazine is forecasting up to a 2-year delay, with opening in December 2020 instead of 2018.

jayah said:

In Leeds there is a lot of demolition and a new station.

The reason all these new stations detached from connections and existing transport networks are needed is because HS2 captive trains are largely incompatible with the existing infrastructure.

Click to expand...

Or...because there isn't room for those connections without massive disruption and associated costs?

Peter Kelford said:

France does 24-car TGVs while many places have trains of 15 long passenger carriages or more (ICE 3 in Germany, 15-car IC3s in Denmark etc.)

Click to expand...

Wrong, they don't operate trains of that length at all and it can be proven:

The longest SNCF TGVs are the TGV Atlantiques which are 10 coaches, the other TGV fleets are 8 coaches long.

Proof of formations

The longest TGV type trains in the world at the moment in regular service are the Korea Train eXpress with 18 coaches per set.

Proof of formation

Denmark's IC3 services run in formations of 3 and 6 coaches not 15.

Proof of formation

The only accurate part of your post is that DB do run their ICE3 services in multiple of 16 coaches long ie two separate Class 403s operate as one train.

As to the UK, are you seriously proposing we spend billions on lengthening platforms across the UK which also include signalling/track modifications etc???

That would far outcost HS2 in it's entirely!!!

Bald Rick said:

I’ll say here what I say many times. I simply can not understand the delusional capability of people who think that their ideas for alternatives that they may have dreamt up in an idle moment on the kitchen table are going to be better than a rail industry developed has been worked on for a decade by hundreds of professional engineers, transport planners, environmental experts, consents experts, economists, property experts etc.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it comes from 50 years of bad decision making from the so-called industry experts and politicians, going back as far as Beeching. It was the same "experts" who brought us the WCML improvements which caused years of distruption, massive cost, and very little actual improvement after all that. The same "experts" who've brought us the delayed Thameslink. The same "experts" who've been downgrading local services, reducing station platform length even in more recent times when public transport is back in vogue, the result being that lots of areas have a substandard train system unable to cope. It's just one fiasco after another. So, I think Joe Public have every right to be sceptical about the experts.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Can I summarise your proposal to improve capacity on the WCML south of Watford? It appears to be:

Extend the Bakerloo Line, in Tunnel, for around 8km and 6 Underground stations. Let’s say £3-£4bn.

Straighten out the loop of the D.C. line around Watford (which will save, at best, 30 seconds), that will be around £400m (it includes 2 large viaducts, about £20m of commercial property, and is adjacent to the busiest long distance main line in the country)

Extend the Met to Watford Jn (£400m). Remember that’s this scheme is about improving connections to/from Watford, not improving connections to/from central London.

So £4-5bn of infrastructure. Which would take around 12-15 years to deliver from a standing start.

Implications:

Watford High St would only be accessible from the Met line. This station has nearly as many inbound passengers from the D.C. line stations south thereof than passengers for London. They are going to the jobs and retail in, err, Watford High Street. These people would lose out.

The journey time from Watford Jn to Euston via the D.C. lines would be c 42 minutes. All trains would still need to stop at all stations between Watford Jn and Wembley, and Queens Park to South Hampstead. Harrow to Wembley currently has a minimum of 10tph all day.

Without additional slow line capacity into at Euston, or additional platforms there, we couldn’t run many more additional D.C. line services. Perhaps an extra 2tph if we’re lucky. So stations south of Harrow to Wembley Central lose frequency.

Watford Jn to Baker St would be c 47 minutes. Watford Junction to Euston Square (comparable to Euston main line) would be c55 minutes. No one would use it for that journey.

Therefore what we would have is:
* improved connectivity between Watford and London via the Met Line, (that no one would use)
* reduced connectivity between Watford and the D.C. Line (which people do use)
* an increase in capacity and marginal reduction in journey time between Watford and London via the D.C. line - which would still be less frequent and more than double the journey time of most existing ‘LNR’ services on the slow lines (and therefore no one would use it)
* no extra paths on the WCML, and no extra capacity, at all, north of Watford.
* delivered 2031-35

This doesn’t feel like a good use of £4-5bn.

Whereas Phase 1 of HS2 costs £27bn, and provides:
8-10 new passenger paths per hour on the WCML south of Birmingham / Lichfield
3 new passenger paths per hour on the WCML into Birmingham
Significant reduction in journey times to almost all WCML destinations
More services calling at Watford, both for London and the north
Limited disruption to existing WCML services during construction.
In 2026.

Forgive me if I have got something wrong in this assessment.

underbank said:

Perhaps it comes from 50 years of bad decision making from the so-called industry experts and politicians, going back as far as Beeching. It was the same "experts" who brought us the WCML improvements which caused years of distruption, massive cost, and very little actual improvement after all that. The same "experts" who've brought us the delayed Thameslink. The same "experts" who've been downgrading local services, reducing station platform length even in more recent times when public transport is back in vogue, the result being that lots of areas have a substandard train system unable to cope. It's just one fiasco after another. So, I think Joe Public have every right to be sceptical about the experts.

Click to expand...

I don’t know how often you used the WCML pre 1999, but I’d say that knocking 20% off most long distance journey times and improving frequency by between 50-200% for long distance services (and much more for some stations in the midlands) is rather more ‘little actual improvement’

I also don’t know how often you used Thameslink before 2009, but I’d say that approximately doubling capacity on Thameslink services and significantly improving connectivity and cross London journey opportunities is a pretty significant improvement also.

I’d also like examples of where platforms have been reduced in length such that train lengths have had to be reduced, or reduced local services, any time in the last quarter of a century.

I’ll offer you the same advice I offer to anyone who decries the work of rail industry professionals. Go to the Network Rail website, get yourself a job there, work your way into the posts that decide these things, and do it better.

jayah said:

The reason all these new stations detached from connections and existing transport networks are needed is because HS2 captive trains are largely incompatible with the existing infrastructure.

Click to expand...

Let's think about this, in what way is the main reason that the HS2 services going to be incompatible with the existing network?

Primarily is down to them being 400m long, which is the very thing which is being called for with 20 coach trains.

Therefore all the platform building which shouldn't be being done because it's costing a lot because it's part of HS2, should be done so that we don't have to have HS2 and it'll be cheaper because it's not pay of HS2 (even though the same works will be being done.

I think that about sums up the argument.

Bald Rick said:

Can I summarise your proposal to improve capacity on the WCML south of Watford? It appears to be:

Extend the Bakerloo Line, in Tunnel, for around 8km and 6 Underground stations. Let’s say £3-£4bn.

Straighten out the loop of the D.C. line around Watford (which will save, at best, 30 seconds), that will be around £400m (it includes 2 large viaducts, about £20m of commercial property, and is adjacent to the busiest long distance main line in the country)

Extend the Met to Watford Jn (£400m). Remember that’s this scheme is about improving connections to/from Watford, not improving connections to/from central London.

So £4-5bn of infrastructure. Which would take around 12-15 years to deliver from a standing start.

Implications:

Watford High St would only be accessible from the Met line. This station has nearly as many inbound passengers from the D.C. line stations south thereof than passengers for London. They are going to the jobs and retail in, err, Watford High Street. These people would lose out.

The journey time from Watford Jn to Euston via the D.C. lines would be c 42 minutes. All trains would still need to stop at all stations between Watford Jn and Wembley, and Queens Park to South Hampstead. Harrow to Wembley currently has a minimum of 10tph all day.

Without additional slow line capacity into at Euston, or additional platforms there, we couldn’t run many more additional D.C. line services. Perhaps an extra 2tph if we’re lucky. So stations south of Harrow to Wembley Central lose frequency.

Watford Jn to Baker St would be c 47 minutes. Watford Junction to Euston Square (comparable to Euston main line) would be c55 minutes. No one would use it for that journey.

Therefore what we would have is:
* improved connectivity between Watford and London via the Met Line, (that no one would use)
* reduced connectivity between Watford and the D.C. Line (which people do use)
* an increase in capacity and marginal reduction in journey time between Watford and London via the D.C. line - which would still be less frequent and more than double the journey time of most existing ‘LNR’ services on the slow lines (and therefore no one would use it)
* no extra paths on the WCML, and no extra capacity, at all, north of Watford.
* delivered 2031-35

This doesn’t feel like a good use of £4-5bn.

Whereas Phase 1 of HS2 costs £27bn, and provides:
8-10 new passenger paths per hour on the WCML south of Birmingham / Lichfield
3 new passenger paths per hour on the WCML into Birmingham
Significant reduction in journey times to almost all WCML destinations
More services calling at Watford, both for London and the north
Limited disruption to existing WCML services during construction.
In 2026.

Forgive me if I have got something wrong in this assessment.

Click to expand...

You have got most things wrong in that assessment. I won't repeat what has gone before.

FelixtheCat said:

Thanks for the information.



Wrong. The reason is because there isn't space to build more platforms at Birmingham New Street or Manchester Piccadilly. And, HS2 trains are compatible with existing infrastructure because they will use the existing infrastructure from the moment phase 1 opens.

Your comment is again full of basic factual inaccuracies.

Click to expand...

HS2 has both classic compatible and HS2 captive fleets.

The Ham said:

Let's think about this, in what way is the main reason that the HS2 services going to be incompatible with the existing network?

Primarily is down to them being 400m long, which is the very thing which is being called for with 20 coach trains.

Therefore all the platform building which shouldn't be being done because it's costing a lot because it's part of HS2, should be done so that we don't have to have HS2 and it'll be cheaper because it's not pay of HS2 (even though the same works will be being done.

I think that about sums up the argument.

Click to expand...

I am not calling for 20 coach trains.
The platform building proves that arguments against platform extension for 10 car Azumas on the MML and 12 WCML car suburban stock are bogus.

jayah said:

HS2 has both classic compatible and HS2 captive fleets.

Click to expand...

That's supposedly being scrapped in favour of all classic compatible.

jayah said:

You have got most things wrong in that assessment. I won't repeat what has gone before.

Click to expand...

I agree with the OP, it is a good assessment.

jayah said:

HS2 has both classic compatible and HS2 captive fleets.

Click to expand...

Nope, captives are highly unlikely to happen.

LOL The Irony said:

That's supposedly being scrapped in favour of all classic compatible.

Click to expand...

Being or been?

The Planner said:

Nope, captives are highly unlikely to happen.

Click to expand...

HS2 is unlikely to happen!

But does that mean you are left with a choice of 200m - much shorter than an 11 car Pendonlino and 400m which won't work almost anywhere on the existing infrastructure?

Bletchleyite said:

I agree with the OP, it is a good assessment.

Click to expand...

Well you and he will be travelling from Watford Junction to Baker Street on the Met, while everyone else is going to Euston.

Bald Rick said:

I don’t know how often you used the WCML pre 1999, but I’d say that knocking 20% off most long distance journey times and improving frequency by between 50-200% for long distance services (and much more for some stations in the midlands) is rather more little actual improvement’

I also don’t know how often you used Thameslink before 2009, but I’d say that approximately doubling capacity on Thameslink services and significantly improving connectivity and cross London journey opportunities is a pretty significant improvement also.

I’d also like examples of where platforms have been reduced in length such that train lengths have had to be reduced, or reduced local services, any time in the last quarter of a century.

I’ll offer you the same advice I offer to anyone who decries the work of rail industry professionals. Go to the Network Rail website, get yourself a job there, work your way into the posts that decide these things, and do it better.

Click to expand...

And yet the HS2 sirens tell us upgrading existing lines is futile and prohibitively disruptive and expensive.