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

Ianno87 · 8 Aug 2019

The Nomad said:
For the love of God. HS2 IS ABOUT CAPACITY.

For the love of Dog, I know that (as numerous previous post I've articulaed)

The point I was responding to was the infrastructure north of Darlo was to separate fast and slow trains, not add more trains (due to constraints south of Darlo). So the only benefit, *in this example* was a few minutes journey time in one train per hour. That would be it.

Railwaysceptic said:
What a redundant post! The evidence is the fact that the ECML works very well.

What evidence? Not if you want to run more trains it won't.

RailUK Forums

Railwaysceptic · 8 Aug 2019

EM2 said:
Not at all. I'll issue you the same challenge as I did to others regarding the WCML.
Download the Timetable Planning Rules and the Engineering Access Statement from the Network Rail website.
Open up Real Time Trains for a whole day's movements at Finsbury Park. And then do the same for Peterborough and Doncaster.
Get some graph paper.
Plot all those movements on a graph, following all the rules, and then show us the results.
If you can find capacity, apply for a very well paid job in operational planning management.

Another empty sneer. As is well known to all who are interested in railways, train timetabling is a highly developed skill requiring an aptitude for mathematics and a deep knowledge based on experience of the particular section of railway. Demanding of someone you disagree with that they construct a timetable is ludicrous. Let me admit openly and without any sense of shame that I'm certain I'm incapable of creating even a basic timetable.

All of this however is irrelevant. I have not suggested there is a problem with the current timetable; nor have I suggested the ECML is not a busy railway. My point is the opposite: that the ECML works well despite being busy.

matacaster · 8 Aug 2019

What is the issue with creating extra capacity between London and Birmingham by extending platforms etc on route from Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill and using 11 or 12 coach trains, improving signalling and some 4 tracking? Obviously there would be some difficulties and costs, but surely these would be a fraction of HS2. This would provide a meaningful increase capacity, but as people say that's what its all about, not speed. There seems to be an undue interest in clogging up the southern WCML slow lines with stopping trains, particularly Milton Keynes, is this anything to do with the planners being based in .... Milton Keynes (LOL)?

jfowkes · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
What is the issue with creating extra capacity between London and Birmingham by extending platforms etc on route from Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill and using 11 or 12 coach trains, improving signalling and some 4 tracking? Obviously there would be some difficulties and costs, but surely these would be a fraction of HS2. This would provide a meaningful increase capacity, but as people say that's what its all about, not speed. There seems to be an undue interest in clogging up the southern WCML slow lines with stopping trains, particularly Milton Keynes, is this anything to do with the planners being based in .... Milton Keynes (LOL)?

You don't get anywhere near the same level of extra capacity by just doing that kind of incremental improvement. And it would cause a lot of disruption on the Chiltern Line while it was carried out.

Ianno87 · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
What is the issue with creating extra capacity between London and Birmingham by extending platforms etc on route from Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill and using 11 or 12 coach trains, improving signalling and some 4 tracking? Obviously there would be some difficulties and costs, but surely these would be a fraction of HS2. This would provide a meaningful increase capacity, but as people say that's what its all about, not speed.

A fraction of the cost, but only a fraction of the capacity (and more trains won't fit at Marylebone).

You're talking about extended the length of, in practice, two trains per hour. It'll get you few years of growth, then back to square one.

HS2 provides capacity for 18 entirely additional 400m long trains per hour into Euston, and will accommodate growth for many, many years.

Quite a difference.

There seems to be an undue interest in clogging up the southern WCML slow lines with stopping trains, particularly Milton Keynes, is this anything to do with the planners being based in .... Milton Keynes (LOL)?

No. The TOC planners and DfT specifiers are nowhere near MK. MK just validate what the TOCs bid, and that is based on what the DfT specifies.

NR at MK don't (and indeed can't) just throw in extra stops to suit self-interests.

(There is one example of an MK stop being added to the 0807 Euston-Liverpool, at Virgin's commercial choice, to provide extra Euston-MK commuting capacity. That's it).

anme · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
What is the issue with creating extra capacity between London and Birmingham by extending platforms etc on route from Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill and using 11 or 12 coach trains, improving signalling and some 4 tracking? Obviously there would be some difficulties and costs, but surely these would be a fraction of HS2. This would provide a meaningful increase capacity, but as people say that's what its all about, not speed. There seems to be an undue interest in clogging up the southern WCML slow lines with stopping trains, particularly Milton Keynes, is this anything to do with the planners being based in .... Milton Keynes (LOL)?

Some additional capacity could possibly be created in this way, but it would be much much much much less than HS2 would provide.

jfowkes · 8 Aug 2019

Railwaysceptic said:
All of this however is irrelevant. I have not suggested there is a problem with the current timetable; nor have I suggested the ECML is not a busy railway. My point is the opposite: that the ECML works well despite being busy.

Even if the ECML works well now, this assumes that nothing will change. Is there not the need to increase the capacity and resilience of the ECML for the future?

matacaster · 8 Aug 2019

Ianno87 said:
A fraction of the cost, but only a fraction of the capacity (and more trains won't fit at Marylebone).

You're talking about extended the length of, in practice, two trains per hour. It'll get you few years of growth, then back to square one.

HS2 provides capacity for 18 entirely additional 400m long trains per hour into Euston, and will accommodate growth for many, many years.

Quite a difference.

**** I would have thought new platforms underneath Marylebone would be far easier than doing anything near Euston and much cheaper than tunnelling north for many miles underground from there.
**** why only two trains per hour? with better signalling + some loops surely this can be improved - Hudds - Manchester mainly two track 6 trains per hour.

No. The TOC planners and DfT specifiers are nowhere near MK. MK just validate what the TOCs bid, and that is based on what the DfT specifies.

NR at MK don't (and indeed can't) just throw in extra stops to suit self-interests.

(There is one example of an MK stop being added to the 0807 Euston-Liverpool, at Virgin's commercial choice, to provide extra Euston-MK commuting capacity. That's it).

**** ok, you win there, but the capacity IS there if MK and south stoppers were put in new tunnel and made part of the underground. No need to go all way to Birmingham at all. Remove those stoppers and how many extra long distance trains could we get in present WCML

YorkshireBear · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
**** ok, you win there, but the capacity IS there if MK and south stoppers were put in new tunnel and made part of the underground. No need to go all way to Birmingham at all. Remove those stoppers and how many extra long distance trains could we get in present WCML

What happens when we get towards Norton Bridge, Stafford etc? While Norton Bridge works released capacity this is currently being swallowed up.

What happens at stockport?

Polarbear · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
**** ok, you win there, but the capacity IS there if MK and south stoppers were put in new tunnel and made part of the underground. No need to go all way to Birmingham at all. Remove those stoppers and how many extra long distance trains could we get in present WCML

Unfortunately, that wouldn't address any capacity concerns north of MK, for example, the Rugby to Birmingham corridor, nor free up any capacity in south Manchester.

Ianno87 · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
**** ok, you win there, but the capacity IS there if MK and south stoppers were put in new tunnel and made part of the underground. No need to go all way to Birmingham at all. Remove those stoppers and how many extra long distance trains could we get in present WCML

So what you're saying is, put two new tracks, in tunnel, for at least 50 miles out of London, right into Euston, but with the extra cost of adding tunnelled stations to it.

Well done, you've invented HS2, but more expensive and with fewer benefits.

Esker-pades · 8 Aug 2019

Railwaysceptic said:
To those of us who live in the real world, none of your list is creating a major problem and the ECML works very well day after day. I repeat my point, south of Darlington the ECML does not need upgrading. That vast fortunes could be spent to secure improvements does not mean it's necessary.

You haven't done so, but there are at least 10 people on this forum who can verify that I actually exist.

Very simply: you are wrong. Trains are regularly held up on the double track section between Digswell and Woolner Green junctions. Especially at peak times. Ditto around Peterborough. Ditto around Doncaster. Ditto on the approach to Kings Cross. Ditto through Northallerton.

Network Rail, who I trust to identify capacity issues more than you*, clearly feel the need to spend money on Werrington grade separation, 6 tracking out of Kings Cross and 4 tracking between Huntingdon and Peterborough. It's almost like these infrastructure constraints pose significant capacity issues.

Repetition does not make the point any more valid.

*Feel free to say why you are more qualified than people who work in Network Rail to comment on matters of railway infrastructure. If you have qualifications/experience in timetabling, planning etc., then I'm happy to be corrected.

matacaster · 8 Aug 2019

Ianno87 said:
So what you're saying is, put two new tracks, in tunnel, for at least 50 miles out of London, right into Euston, but with the extra cost of adding tunnelled stations to it.

Well done, you've invented HS2, but more expensive and with fewer benefits.

**** doing a 50 mile tunnel shouldn't be that much more expensive (when the cost of land and property is considered) over a shorter one particularly if one avoids the complexity that is underground at Euston. Maybe choose a different London destination station. The TBM's to do a short tunnel won't be much cheaper than to do a long tunnel - maybe just need new cutting heads.

-How many miles of tunnelling is HS2 predicted to do now?

Esker-pades · 8 Aug 2019

Duplicate.

Esker-pades · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
**** doing a 50 mile tunnel shouldn't be that much more expensive (when the cost of land and property is considered) over a shorter one particularly if one avoids the complexity that is underground at Euston. Maybe choose a different London destination station. The TBM's to do a short tunnel won't be much cheaper than to do a long tunnel - maybe just need new cutting heads.

-How many miles of tunnelling is HS2 predicted to do now?

Doesn't quite answer the point. Your suggestion doesn't do anything to solve capacity issues anywhere north of Milton Keynes. So, we'd have to come up with additional plans to solve all those other capacity issues on the WCML. Overall, little money would be saved, and there would be less capacity created.

Ianno87 · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
**** doing a 50 mile tunnel shouldn't be that much more expensive (when the cost of land and property is considered) over a shorter one particularly if one avoids the complexity that is underground at Euston. Maybe choose a different London destination station. The TBM's to do a short tunnel won't be much cheaper than to do a long tunnel - maybe just need new cutting heads.

"Shouldn't be that much more expensive"

Bit of a meaningless statement that one unless you've done a full costing exercise. And included stations in that (say £750m a pop or so).

You're going to have to expand Euston in either case, so no cost saved there either.

-How many miles of tunnelling is HS2 predicted to do now?

About 30/40-ish I think.

RLBH · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
-How many miles of tunnelling is HS2 predicted to do now?

Quite a few more than if people who live between Birmingham and London weren't demanding that it be put in totally unnecessary tunnels purely on grounds of aesthetics.

matacaster · 8 Aug 2019

Ianno87 said:
"Shouldn't be that much more expensive"

Bit of a meaningless statement that one unless you've done a full costing exercise. And included stations in that (say £750m a pop or so).

You're going to have to expand Euston in either case, so no cost saved there either.

About 30/40-ish I think.

Why does a new tube line have to go into Euston? That's just a historic destination for WCML.

jfowkes · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
Why does a new tube line have to go into Euston? That's just a historic destination for WCML.

Well it has to go somewhere! Where would you suggest that would be more suitable and/or cheaper than Euston?

PR1Berske · 8 Aug 2019

RLBH said:
Quite a few more than if people who live between Birmingham and London weren't demanding that it be put in totally unnecessary tunnels purely on grounds of aesthetics.

Why should people who live on the route but with no intermediate stations have to suffer watching a train whizz past them?.

I'm being serious here. HS2 can't benefit the whole nation by destroying the countryside, smashing through historic buildings, tearing through local communities and all even without giving people the chance to use it.

If my preferred option of scrapping the whole thing isn't possible then forcing it out of business through demanding tunneling for the whole route is second.

PR1Berske · 8 Aug 2019

Ianno87 said:
"Shouldn't be that much more expensive"

Bit of a meaningless statement that one unless you've done a full costing exercise. And included stations in that (say £750m a pop or so).

You're going to have to expand Euston in either case, so no cost saved there either.

About 30/40-ish I think.

I suspect what we might hear from Boris is exactly that: scrapping HS2 but keep the current works around Euston so at least that's expanded. A workable compromise that doesn't embarrass the government too badly.

PR1Berske · 8 Aug 2019

Ianno87 said:
So what you're saying is, put two new tracks, in tunnel, for at least 50 miles out of London, right into Euston, but with the extra cost of adding tunnelled stations to it.

Well done, you've invented HS2, but more expensive and with fewer benefits.

Well done, you're being patronising.

I've always said that work should be centered on where it matters. If the route into Euston is congested then focus on that, and that alone.

There is no need to go to Birmingham without intermediate stations if it's just Euston in need of modernisation.

NoMorePacers · 8 Aug 2019

Whilst I appreciate that some people's theories seem rather fanciful and possibly stupid (such as the ECML being perfect south of Darlington), and people have every right to disprove them respectfully, it doesn't help by making snide, uppity remarks aiming to morally one-up yourself over your target by invoking fallacious reasoning* like, "oh, you have to work in infrastructure design and timetable planning in order to have an opinion that differs to my own", is crap logic and unhelpful to explaining why they are wrong.

*Another example of this would be someone going into a restaurant, eating disgusting food and getting food poisoning. If this person then goes to the restaurant to complain and the chef/owner's response is to tell them that they should open their own restaurant and cook their own food before critiquing their's.
*Similarly, I do not need to form my own United Kingdom, my own British Parliament, my own European Union, host my own EU Referendum and host my own Brexit process in order to criticise the current government's approach to it.

But, I digress.

Adsy125 · 8 Aug 2019

PR1Berske said:
Why should people who live on the route but with no intermediate stations have to suffer watching a train whizz past them?.

I'm being serious here. HS2 can't benefit the whole nation by destroying the countryside, smashing through historic buildings, tearing through local communities and all even without giving people the chance to use it.

If my preferred option of scrapping the whole thing isn't possible then forcing it out of business through demanding tunneling for the whole route is second.

But the point of HS2 isn’t that everyone can use it, as has been explained to you many times. It is that by taking the long distance passengers of the WCML, MML and ECML it will be able to release capacity for more local and inter regional services for people to use, because that is the cheapest way of creating the amount of capacity needed.

si404 · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
Why does a new tube line have to go into Euston? That's just a historic destination for WCML.

True, but it is also
1) a terminus that needs rebuilding in the middle term whatever happens with HS2

2) linked to a tube station on three north south (and one E-W at Euston Square) tube lines, maximising that axis - with the E-W axis served by OOC

3) HS1 type moaning about a terminus change (Inc for E Midlands and Yorkshire passengers that actually will use a different terminus) is avoided.

PR1Berske · 8 Aug 2019

Adsy125 said:
But the point of HS2 isn’t that everyone can use it, as has been explained to you many times. It is that by taking the long distance passengers of the WCML, MML and ECML it will be able to release capacity for more local and inter regional services for people to use, because that is the cheapest way of creating the amount of capacity needed.

But you see, you accept that that's logical. You accept that it should go across the country without intermediate stations, so people who live on the route are denied high speed rail, they can only use existing services. You actually accept that as fair and reasonable.

I don't. I just do not see the logic in building a new line at £55bn which people can't use.

Were I in power, and God I wish I was, I would demand intermediate stations every two or so miles, out of the maximum £55bn budget. If it can't be done, tough.

JonathanH · 8 Aug 2019

PR1Berske said:
Were I in power, and God I wish I was, I would demand intermediate stations every two or so miles, out of the maximum £55bn budget. If it can't be done, tough.

And ribbon development, new roads etc all along the route?

sprunt · 8 Aug 2019

NoMorePacers said:
Whilst I appreciate that some people's theories seem rather fanciful and possibly stupid (such as the ECML being perfect south of Darlington), and people have every right to disprove them respectfully, it doesn't help by making snide, uppity remarks aiming to morally one-up yourself over your target by invoking fallacious reasoning* like, "oh, you have to work in infrastructure design and timetable planning in order to have an opinion that differs to my own", is crap logic and unhelpful to explaining why they are wrong.

To be fair, Railwaysceptic's entire argument to counter the works that people who do have the requisite expertise have said are needed, over a number of posts has been "No, they aren't needed" with absolutely no attempt at an explanation for why the experts have got it wrong. At that point, it's not entirely unreasonable to come back with "Okay, why don't you show us how more capacity can be extracted from the existing infrastructure."

JonathanH · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
What is the issue with creating extra capacity between London and Birmingham by extending platforms etc on route from Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill and using 11 or 12 coach trains, improving signalling and some 4 tracking? Obviously there would be some difficulties and costs, but surely these would be a fraction of HS2. This would provide a meaningful increase capacity, but as people say that's what its all about, not speed. There seems to be an undue interest in clogging up the southern WCML slow lines with stopping trains, particularly Milton Keynes, is this anything to do with the planners being based in .... Milton Keynes (LOL)?

Wouldn't this also be slower than the WCML and therefore not move any of the custom off the existing services on that line?

The Ham · 8 Aug 2019

PR1Berske said:
But you see, you accept that that's logical. You accept that it should go across the country without intermediate stations, so people who live on the route are denied high speed rail, they can only use existing services. You actually accept that as fair and reasonable.

I don't. I just do not see the logic in building a new line at £55bn which people can't use.

Were I in power, and God I wish I was, I would demand intermediate stations every two or so miles, out of the maximum £55bn budget. If it can't be done, tough.

Let's put it this way then, if you need to have stations every few miles each is it that we don't see Virgin running their services so that they call at more stations (as they miss quite a lot)?

The reason being is that they can attract more people doing longer journeys from doing so than it stopping in a lot more places.

If every Virgin train stopped at MK they would carry a few more people, but more of them would be over the short distance at the Southern end. This would leave a lot of empty seats further north.

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

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member