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

The Ham · 8 Aug 2019

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

Yes it would be slower. You may get a few switch, but mostly not. In reality all that it will do is attract new people to those services (no bad thing) but it's not going to improve capacity on the WCML.

Having done that, what about the MML & ECML, what scheme do you build for them? What about the capacity improvements for XC from the removal of the city to city travelers? Now add the costs up, is it close to HS2's costs and what improvements have you made to capacity?

Probably closer to, if not more expensive, with a lot less capacity added.

RailUK Forums

si404 · 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.

If you were in power, why not just scrap it, rather than playing stupid games that try to pretend to build it but everyone can see are deliberate attempts to wreck it while pretending to care.

Ianno87 · 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.

.....why? There's not even notable hamlets every 2 miles where HS2 passes! When there's a perfectly good WCML right there to serve the local flows.

Currently the WCML (to a large extent) "can't be used" at the southern end by people who live along it. Stand on MK in the morning peak and watch a procession of Pendolinos speed through non-stop. Not much use are they?

HS2 opens up intermediate access to the WCML without needing the cost of new station infrastructure itself.

The problem is you're seeing HS2 as some sort of seperate component to the rail system as a whole. Forget the HS2 name - it's really the new WCML fast lines (that, by not having stations), are not falsely constrained by having to follow the existing WCML.

RLBH · 8 Aug 2019

PR1Berske said:
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.

Just as well that it's not destroying the countryside, not smashing through any significant number of historic buildings (even given this country's attitude that anything that anyone has heard of must be Historic and Preserved), and goes to some lengths to avoid built-up areas.

Any realistic alternative to HS2 is going to look an awful lot like it in a great many respects. One of the key ones is that it will be non-stop between London and the Midlands. It's relieving lines for the southern WCML; they can either be built as fast lines for non-stop expresses, or slow lines for stopping trains. There's no significant cost difference between the two, but the second option means that you get 125mph expresses screaming through commuter towns without stopping whilst commuter multiple units stop at such major places as Steeple Claydon (population 2,278) and Sulgrave (population 380).

Adsy125 · 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.

So do you propose that all the motorways in the country should have exits every time a road goes over or under it? Or do you propose that all trains should be all stations, as otherwise people who live at the stations they pass miss out? It’s the same logic...

anme · 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.

I look at this thread every couple of months and see that the arguments get no more logical.

The Nomad · 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.

It is entirely logical for the new lines to be faster and have fewer stations. The stations already exist on the current network. So it’s entirely logical to use the current stations for the local services BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE THE LOCAL PEOPLE ARE. It’s entirely logical to build a new limited-stop, high speed line away from every hamlet BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE PEOPLE AREN’T.

And thank God you’re not in power.

6Gman · 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.

Because the people en route (think Nuneaton or Crewe) will have better travel options on the existing WCML if the fast long-distance trains - which already pass through many places without stopping - are moved to HS2.

6Gman · 8 Aug 2019

PR1Berske said:
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.

And what would be the purpose of an "expanded" Euston?

6Gman · 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.

I do hope that is a typo for 20 or 40.

Otherwise I fear you really have fallen off the edge of reality ...

anme · 8 Aug 2019

6Gman said:
I do hope that is a typo for 20 or 40.

Otherwise I fear you really have fallen off the edge of reality ...

I am fairly certain PR1Berske is strongly in favour of HS2 and writes these posts to discredit anti-HS2 campaigners. His/her arguments are so comically ridiculous that I find myself far more convinced about HS2 after reading them.

matacaster · 8 Aug 2019

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

ah, but its about capacity and not speed (so we are told repeatedly). There is no particular reason underground trains cant travel at 100mph. If trains on WCML no longer stopped at Milton Keynes, they wouldn't have any choice. Anyway MK is only a commuter place and a few minutes here or there wont make much difference.

jfowkes · 8 Aug 2019

@matacaster Can you summarise your proposal again? I'm not managing to piece it together from your posts, sorry.

Ianno87 · 8 Aug 2019

matacaster said:
ah, but its about capacity and not speed (so we are told repeatedly). There is no particular reason underground trains cant travel at 100mph. If trains on WCML no longer stopped at Milton Keynes, they wouldn't have any choice. Anyway MK is only a commuter place and a few minutes here or there wont make much difference.

HS2 provides capacity with speed as a side benefit.

Your proposal is more expensive, indeed provides the capacity (sort of), but loses the extra speed benefits. It makes no sense relative to HS2.

Aictos · 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.

Do you even know what High Speed IC operations mean? By your post above, you come across as having no idea at all!

Railwaysceptic · 8 Aug 2019

jfowkes said:
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?

The recurring mantra of HS2 protagonists is that this new railway is going to absorb all the fast trains, leaving the "classic" main lines running north from London with masses of spare capacity. I'm keeping an open mind about this theory but any thinking about creating more capacity on these lines should bear this theory in mind.

Railwaysceptic · 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.

*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.

I agree with entirely with your post except for one thing: I have not said the ECML south of Darlington is perfect. I have said it does not need upgrading which is quite different. No railway is perfect. When HS2 is finally built, it will not be perfect but that will not mean it immediately needs upgrading.

Railwaysceptic · 8 Aug 2019

The Nomad said:
The ECML works well does it? You've missed the repeated chaos in the last month where one small part of the OHLE fails and most of the north to south network is stuffed, or are you wilfully blind? Were you at Leeds with the LNERs cancelled and a thousand people trying to cram onto a full Cross Country to Sheffield? Or the laughable full TPE to Manchester, then the full WCML to London.

All railways occasionally malfunction. My point is that the route works well in general. This forum is full of threads where people complain about the inadequacies of their train service. I have not found a similar thread about the ECML.

EM2 · 8 Aug 2019

Railwaysceptic said:
All railways occasionally malfunction. My point is that the route works well in general. This forum is full of threads where people complain about the inadequacies of their train service. I have not found a similar thread about the ECML.

All routes work well in general. But that's because they don't have more trains than there is capacity for. With more capacity, you can run more trains. And with passenger numbers growing, there is a need for more trains.

Aictos · 8 Aug 2019

Railwaysceptic said:
I agree with entirely with your post except for one thing: I have not said the ECML south of Darlington is perfect. I have said it does not need upgrading which is quite different. No railway is perfect. When HS2 is finally built, it will not be perfect but that will not mean it immediately needs upgrading.

If the ECML doesn’t need upgrading why pray are Network Rail spending money on untangling Kings Cross throat, Werrington Junction to name just two major projects?

Me thinks you have no idea what is actually needed in reality!

Sceptre · 8 Aug 2019

PR1Berske said:
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.

If an appreciable increase in capacity could be realised by just adding an F road to the Euston throat and a few platforms to the station, don't you think NR would've figured that out by now?

Ianno87 · 8 Aug 2019

Sceptre said:
If an appreciable increase in capacity could be realised by just adding an F road to the Euston throat and a few platforms to the station, don't you think NR would've figured that out by now?

Given Boris's form (Cable Car), building a bit of railway infrastructure that is useless in isolation would be ironically appropriate.

Sceptre · 8 Aug 2019

Ianno87 said:
Given Boris's form (Cable Car), building a bit of railway infrastructure that is useless in isolation would be ironically appropriate.

I believe the technical term is "Arabfly Dangleway".

PR1Berske · 8 Aug 2019

Sceptre said:
I believe the technical term is "Arabfly Dangleway".

You perhaps have answered your own question. Politicians like the big ticket item over the mundane solution, so perhaps tinkering with Euston is the right thing to do while HS2 is an enclosure full of white elephants into which we're boldly marching.

EM2 · 8 Aug 2019

PR1Berske said:
You perhaps have answered your own question. Politicians like the big ticket item over the mundane solution, so perhaps tinkering with Euston is the right thing to do while HS2 is an enclosure full of white elephants into which we're boldly marching.

There is no mundane solution. They have all been explored, and do not offer anywhere near the same benefits, for the same cost, in the same time, with the same or less disruption.

Sceptre · 8 Aug 2019

If you're wanting a Prime Minister to not be swayed by big-ticket items, then I don't think Boris "Arabfly Dangleway" "Garden Bridge" "Explosive Shipwreck International Airport" Johnson is your man.

Ianno87 · 8 Aug 2019

PR1Berske said:
You perhaps have answered your own question. Politicians like the big ticket item over the mundane solution, so perhaps tinkering with Euston is the right thing to do while HS2 is an enclosure full of white elephants into which we're boldly marching.

An expanded Euston without any extra capacity to get actual extra trains into it would be the white bloody elephant.

You just don't (or won't) get this do you?

If you say Smart timetabling, I'll cry...

PR1Berske · 8 Aug 2019

Ianno87 said:
An expanded Euston without any extra capacity to get actual extra trains into it would be the white bloody elephant.

You just don't (or won't) get this do you?

If you say Smart timetabling, I'll cry...

I don't think that I will ever get it. Never have.

Thing is, I've held this view from the very start. When it was about speed, I didn't get it. When it was about capacity, I didn't get it. When it was confirmed that places like Lancaster would lose direct trains to London, I didn't get it. When it was admitted that ticket prices could cost more than flights, I didn't get it. When it was admitted that you can't catch a HS2 train because they're no intermediate stations, I didn't get it. When it's clear that there are no direct connections between HS1 and HS2, I didn't get it.

This forum is usually so grounded, so sensible, so cost wary, so suspicious of big ticket items, so when it appears to universally adore HS2, I simply don't get it.

EM2 · 8 Aug 2019

PR1Berske said:
I don't think that I will ever get it. Never have.

But the question is why? What is it specifically about HS2 that you don't get, or should I say that you don't believe in? All the alternatives have been shown to be lacking, so what else is there?

PR1Berske · 8 Aug 2019

EM2 said:
But the question is why? What is it specifically about HS2 that you don't get, or should I say that you don't believe in? All the alternatives have been shown to be lacking, so what else is there?

I am not convinced by the argument that a national railway line should benefit so few people, directly, so for such money. It's always come across as a rich man's project, putting the rich onto a fast line and reducing the rest of us to the slow ones.

Imagine spending £55bn on the regions? So much more opportunity, and unless Boris does the right thing, wasted.

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

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member