You do enjoy making every issue sound intractable and every problem sound insoluble don't you?
-
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
Esker-pades
Established Member
Longer trains take longer to clear the signal sections. At some point, the length of the trains reduces the number of paths available.
If the trains are longer, then the platforms have to be made longer in order to allow the longer trains. Some stations can't have their platforms made longer (Coventry as an example), so you're stuffed.
If you insitst on coming up with such awful "solutions", it will be pointed out.
Glenn1969
Established Member
But with the trains twice as long there isn't room for them all on the platforms at St Pancras. Or any more that the new operator might like to add
Plus how does your solution for Watford solve capacity issues elsewhere on the network? My red line is longwe trains at the same frequency. But where do they go particularly between Watford and Bletchley/MKC?
Plus how does your solution for Watford solve capacity issues elsewhere on the network? My red line is longwe trains at the same frequency. But where do they go particularly between Watford and Bletchley/MKC?
HS2 makes a colossal financial loss. That is why it needs huge sums of benefits from the value of time saved to make a so called business case.
The sort of business case that only exists in the public sector - spending £bn on things that lose even more money.
Glenn1969
Established Member
Nobody knows whether HS2 makes a loss in the long term because it hasn't opened yet
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Crayonista: I've got an idea for solving the housing crisis. Instead of building more houses, why don't we just build a colony on the moon and force people to live there instead!
Professional: That won't work. It cost far more to do that than to just build enough houses.
Crayonista: your thinking is still firmly rooted in a box.
Professional: Besides, the moon isn't suitable for people to live on. It doesn't have an atmosphere.
Crayonista: You do enjoy making every issue sound intractable and every problem sound insoluble don't you?
As I've said before - I am personally sceptical about HS2. But when I read the abysmal, idiotic, insane arguments presented by the anti-HS2 representatives, I think it is, in fact, a good thing. They would be better off saying nothing at all.
Spending £60-100bn of taxpayers money is no longer economically or politically viable.
Esker-pades
Established Member
Provide the evidence.
Crayonista: But they built houses at Ashford!
If it provides £101bn of return on the investment, then it is. Again, you haven't provided any evidence for you assertions.
Like the NHS, you mean? Or education? Or prisons? Or the army? Are your seriously arguing we should shut down everything that doesn't make money?
Also, please read my post #2433.
Upgrading the WCML to a viable 6 line formation to Watford is not remotely beyond the realms of possible.
Esker-pades
Established Member
Bald Rick and numerous others have provided evidence that this is not the case without serious capital expenditure (on the same level as HS2 but with a fraction of the benefits). It is now your turn to provide evidence to the contrary.
(Note: References to it happening in Ashford are not answers, because not everything that happens in Ashford can happen elsewhere.)
Where did I say 15tph will all need to stop at all stations to Harrow? Why is there even a station at on the WCML with a service frequency of 15/15/30, next door to the Jubilee Line with 25tph to London?
You are trapped in your mentality that everything not HS2 must be discredited and shot down. You aren't interested in a reasonable debate on the merits of alternatives.
Yes, I use Wembley, because it was the specific place you mention in your OP! And Watford, because I understand that the below is what you propose:
And your answer, as seen below, is "nowhere, they just terminate there".
----
So all these billions provides no benefit for passengers outside the M25 other than not having Watford-London passengers on their train?
----
The jayah solution to -
MML having full 5-car services = make them longer, it's easy
DC line having pretty empty 5-car services = spend billions to increase capacity
Esker-pades
Established Member
Because the WCML is at capacity. There are not enough paths to have the trains required to stop at Harrow & Wealdstone.
In what way, honestly, has the discussions of your points not been reasonable? It has been pointed out at great length why your "solutions" don't work, or don't provide as high a cost:benefit ratio as HS2. Your responses have been filled with claims that lack evidence, or even a foundation in basic facts.
Glenn1969
Established Member
Maybe because people from Harrow and Watford actually want to go to places that are not London?
Note to Crayonistas- the world doesn't end at Watford Junction however much they would like to think otherwise
HS2 will transform rail travel and travel opportunities for thousands of people across the whole country. I just wish we had started building it 20 years ago
Note to Crayonistas- the world doesn't end at Watford Junction however much they would like to think otherwise
HS2 will transform rail travel and travel opportunities for thousands of people across the whole country. I just wish we had started building it 20 years ago
To say there is no benefit outside the M25 is to completely misunderstand the entire concept.
Are the DC line trains now pretty empty? I find that hard to believe. The 3rd pair of lines need to be a viable 90mph railway, minimum 8 cars. That is a big change in capacity as is making the Bakerloo line 30tph to Wembley rather than 10. Watford is currently taking half the slow line train capacity while the DC lines are not pulling their weight.
MML has the infrastructure but not the trains. If there isn't the demand to fill, them what is HS2 really for?
The ratio is vanishingly small.
There are millions of people in this country. Most of them never take a long distance train. Even fewer will ever use HS2 let alone feel transformed.
Social Care, housing or the NHS on the other hand...
Glenn1969
Established Member
Mention of non transport priorities- That is my argument against nationalisation but for this topic is utterly irrelevant
You have made no attempt to calculate a BCR for any of this, so are in no position to make such pronouncements. A lot of your replies indicate you are having real difficulty even understanding the alternatives let alone evaluating them.
So now the WCML is at capacity, there aren't the paths at Harrow? You still haven't got your head around 6 viable lines? Current peak pattern at Harrow is 6tph LUL 3tph LO and 6tph LM. That capacity could easily be carried, and more, on a viable 3rd pair of lines, which the DC lines today are certainly not.
The fact you have trains from Berkhampstead and Tring lifting traffic at Harrow illustrates where the WCML is failing.
Other fallacious assumptions like calling at Willesden are equally misconstrued as a 30tph Bakerloo line really would not need this.
In the context of HS2 being scrapped it is highly relevant.
Glenn1969
Established Member
HS2 isn't going to be scrapped
Your deluded vision assumes the world ends at Watford and nobody might want to go any further. I am one of those that would benefit from HS2/HS3/NPR. I live 200 miles from London and only need to travel to London 2 or 3 times a year. I do however travel fairly often to Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Derby and Birmingham. All of which are nowhere near London and on or just off HS2. It is a game changer for regional connectivity and capacity
But of course you don't care about that do you because you are in the London bubble
Your deluded vision assumes the world ends at Watford and nobody might want to go any further. I am one of those that would benefit from HS2/HS3/NPR. I live 200 miles from London and only need to travel to London 2 or 3 times a year. I do however travel fairly often to Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Derby and Birmingham. All of which are nowhere near London and on or just off HS2. It is a game changer for regional connectivity and capacity
But of course you don't care about that do you because you are in the London bubble
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
I really hope that first quote was a mistake and not trying to take my words about the rolling stock out of context.
The arrival of HS2 into Manchester will remove the 1 Euston via Crewe and at least 1 Euston via Stoke, that's a path a way so 4 paths.
There is no remotely viable business case for HS2. If those value of time benefits exist to users, charge higher fares so that it pays it's way.
It is also politically toxic. It benefits few, unlike genuine public services, and will be scrapped or drastically scaled back as the hopelessly optimistic costs come home to roost. Then will come the alternatives.
Nobody would try to argue there is a business case for the army. But they can see the point of having one.
On the contrary valuable capacity from Bucks and Northants is being wasted lifting demand from Watford and Harrow that should be on the 3rd pair of running lines.
That is quite a long way outside London.
But given the number of tiny trains operating outside London even in the peaks, it is true to say that most capacity problems are far more easily fixed.
£60-100bn could actually reduce journey times across the north but that won't happen when so much money is spent ironically on the city pairs e.g. Leeds to Birmingham that are already pretty well connected.
4 paths is not a lot. A new pair of lines through Piccadilly is perhaps 15tph. Not much to show for a £10bn tunnel.
Last edited by a moderator:
Esker-pades
Established Member
Long distance journeys.....
DC Line trains are pretty full; that's why they are in the process of going up to 4tph.
Timetable:
Let's say you do remove all Bakerloo Line services from the Watford DC Line. That leaves you with only the 4 all stations services. Those services take 48 minutes end to end. Your XX:00 stopping service arrives at Watford Junction at XX:48. Add the other 4, that's a departure at XX:00, XX:15, XX:30 and XX:45.
Say we add a non-stop service to the Watford DC Lines. That leaves at XX:12, and would have to arrive at Watford Junction at XX:51. (It leaves just before one stopper, arrives just after the previous one.) That's a time of 39 minutes. That is 6 minutes over the time a non-stop run would take (estimate at 33 minutes given data from RealTimeTrains - this and this). If one increases the line speed, that will only increase the time penalty for stopping at stations in comparison to a stopper. Given that trains on the slow lines take 14-15 minutes to do London to Watford non-stop, this makes any run pointless. Either, one doesn't have stoppers on the Watford DC Line (which makes it pointless), or one does have stoppers, which renders any limited stop running on the Watford DC Line pointless.
Population increases, increased mobility of said population, shift to more environmentally friendly modes of transport. HS2 not only addresses long distance travel, but by removing the long distance trains from the conventional network, more commuter services can run. One doesn't have to use HS2 to have benefit from it.
You haven't provided costings for your schemes for me to compare to HS2. Instead, I have used the assumptions from other forum users who have unpicked your "solutions", users who have in-depth knowledge of how the UK railways work.
The Watford DC Lines are for stopping services south of Watford. They are viable.
LO services are now 4tph. The 4th is currently a training service, so is not in passenger service yet.
None of this benefits commuters in and around Birmingham or Manchester, which HS2 does.
The shock: People get a train that takes less time to get them to their destination.
The number of assumptions that have had to made demonstrate that you have not gone into enough detail, nor provided enough evidence.
You have no evidence for this statement.
You have no evidence for these statements. If the alternatives put forward are even close to the quality of yours, God help us.
The financial case for HS2 which is what any real business would call the business case, is a published document. It is tens of £bn underwater.
As for your analysis of how a 3rd pair of lines would work, you have still misunderstood much of what has gone before. Your mindset is still locked onto the current LO service stopping everywhere taking 50mins as the starting point. They are not pulling their weight.
It only takes a change in prime minister to someone desperate to appear populist in the media, especially one with a constituency on the route (but not on the WCML).
https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...4/conservative-members-want-leadership-rivals
Axing HS2 is the number 2 policy of the Brexit Party.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news...05/17/farage-brexit-party-is-in-it-to-win-it/
Unfortunately, it is pretty clear that it will be scrapped fairly soon after a change in prime minister.
Your assuming there will not be a general election won by Labour soon or that a new Tory Prime Minister will have the authority to make such large decisions this year. The Conservatives and DUP together have 323 out of 639 voting MPs. I suspect some of the candidates will propose pausing and reviewing plans not scrapping the whole. That throws some red meat to Tory members along the route while not wasting major political capital early in their tenure. While its possible a Tory hard brexit government could sweep to power this year its far from a guaranteed outcome. The vast majority of MPs against HS2 either represent a constituency along the route or are brexiteers of the populist type with "alternative facts" and dislike of experts.
Facing Back
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2019
- Messages
- 904
Good evening all. This is my first post here so please be gentle....
For context, I'm a great fan of HS2. If anything I think that it is not ambitious enough.
I have a question - and it is a question - I'm not a railway insider, my massive expertise comes from 30 years of travelling on the things and my recent extensive reading of these forums.
I believe that Its pretty much a moot point for HS2 - although I recognise not all here share that view.
But why is it "impossible" to add capacity on the MML from St Pancras without adding platforms? I know it doesn't solve the issue but I'm interested in the technical points.
I understand that there are 4 platforms and 5 trains per hour at peak times. I understand that currently 5 car trains are often 2 per platform. With 5 tph though, even 9 or 10 car trains could stay there for 40 plus minutes? What is the need for extra platforms in order to allow for 9 or 10 car trains instead of 5s at the current frequency?
I'm happy with "its expensive" or `'very difficult" or "there is no reason too" but I'm interested in the why's.
Thanks
For context, I'm a great fan of HS2. If anything I think that it is not ambitious enough.
I have a question - and it is a question - I'm not a railway insider, my massive expertise comes from 30 years of travelling on the things and my recent extensive reading of these forums.
I believe that Its pretty much a moot point for HS2 - although I recognise not all here share that view.
But why is it "impossible" to add capacity on the MML from St Pancras without adding platforms? I know it doesn't solve the issue but I'm interested in the technical points.
I understand that there are 4 platforms and 5 trains per hour at peak times. I understand that currently 5 car trains are often 2 per platform. With 5 tph though, even 9 or 10 car trains could stay there for 40 plus minutes? What is the need for extra platforms in order to allow for 9 or 10 car trains instead of 5s at the current frequency?
I'm happy with "its expensive" or `'very difficult" or "there is no reason too" but I'm interested in the why's.
Thanks
Polarbear
Established Member
Yes, happy to do so as long as people like you refuse to give a straight answer to any question that’s remotely difficult to answer.
You continue to wail against HS2 - fine, not everyone agrees with the current plans. But when any of your “ideas” are challenged on the basis of what can realistically be achieved, you respond by using sarcasm and patronising comments.
Provide us with facts, evidence & polite, respectful responses, and you will get the same in return.
- Status