• 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)

Status
Not open for further replies.

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Lancaster and HS2 - currently the service spec (for modelling, draft timetables and the like) has no London-Lancaster via HS2 trains. It does have Birmingham-Lancaster trains.

That said Crewe Hub plans proposed (with a northern chord) a London-Liverpool/Lancaster train. And other noises suggest that the train pencilled in as London-Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Preston train might be able to extend to Lancaster (or Blackpool).

Nothing is definite, but there's definitely a desire to serve Lancaster with London HS2 trains, even if there wasn't initially.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
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.

So how would people from MK travel to the north? And how would people from the north travel to MK?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
The total cost of an employee is usually more like double their base salary, even for roles that don't have the rigorous training, generous pensions etc. that are typical in rail. It wouldn't surprise me if one extra train driver cost well over £100k/year.

Indeed, however I was setting the figure artificially low so I couldn't be accused of over starting the savings of the six drivers which weren't required for those services.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I do love this forum for educated posts like the two above which are based on facts, you can't argue with facts

Thanks, it's funny how those who oppose HS2 tend to appear miss such posts when it comes to replying to the thread.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
There is no firm evidence for premium pricing of HS2 services, or for special reservations or boarding restrictions, no matter how often it’s been posted in this forum...
No "evidence" but statements about standing being banned did make the national press.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
No "evidence" but statements about standing being banned did make the national press.

Virgin was proposing to ban standing, they are no longer in the running for HS2. However it wasn't clear as to whether it was something that they wanted to implement on HS2 or just their own access proposal to Liverpool.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
But ... but ... Lancaster !

:rolleyes:

...or Chris Stokes' comment about there being virtually zero source for extra services because the InterCity services still needed to serve places like Macclesfield and Wilmslow, forgetting to mention that Macclesfield has 1 Virgin Trains service in the morning peak and three others whilst Wilmslow also had 1 but sees 6 other services in the morning peak.

Assuming there's scope to lengthen those services or passengers will shift from them to HS2 services (and some are XC services so that's very likely on both counts) they don't need to be served by retained services to cater for demand.

As an example it could be that XC run a Manchester service down to Coventry (through New Street) using a class 390 to cater for passenger numbers on those corridors.
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
This is part of the reason why a lot of people are anti-HS2 - the awful, awful PR. If I just listened to the government PR, I would give zero expletives about HS2. It's only experts from this forum (and the poor arguments from anti-HS2 people) that have got me to such a pro-HS2 position.

Interestingly, one of the antis on Twitter (who I swear has HS2 in his saved searches) is complaining about the idea that HS2 should do better PR because, supposedly being a quango, HS2 shouldn't be allowed to do PR whatsoever.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Interestingly, one of the antis on Twitter (who I swear has HS2 in his saved searches) is complaining about the idea that HS2 should do better PR because, supposedly being a quango, HS2 shouldn't be allowed to do PR whatsoever.

HS2 is a quango, or what's more euphemistically termed these days an "ALB" - Arms Length Body.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
That said Crewe Hub plans proposed (with a northern chord) a London-Liverpool/Lancaster train. And other noises suggest that the train pencilled in as London-Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Preston train might be able to extend to Lancaster (or Blackpool).

Nothing is definite, but there's definitely a desire to serve Lancaster with London HS2 trains, even if there wasn't initially.
Half hourly HS2 portions detached at Crewe could alternate, serving both Lancaster and Blackpool every hour.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Half hourly HS2 portions detached at Crewe could alternate, serving both Lancaster and Blackpool every hour.
perfectly possible in theory. The via Warrington portion probably would have enough time to get that bit further before it needs to get back, and the skip Warrington portion definitely has the time to get beyond Preston.

As for Carlisle, it is a more useful place to call Scotland trains than Carstairs, though splitting is a bit more complex.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The point about serving Lancaster, I guess, is all about whether a 400m station will be built for full-size HS2 trains.
Otherwise it can be served by 200m trains much as now, by splitting a double service somewhere like Preston or Crewe.
The long-term intention is to run 400m trains to Scotland, splitting into Edinburgh and Glasgow portions at Carstairs.
That would preclude these trains calling at Lancaster (or anywhere without 400m platforms).
But there's nothing to stop 200m trains calling.

Virgin's proposals about reservation-only trains were part of its submission to the Williams review on ticketing.
It has nothing to do with the current VT franchise or potential Virgin-operated HS2 services (now looking unlikely).
A number of high speed railways have reservation-only services, including SNCF and RENFE.
The other HS2 bidders might have the same views.
The DfT would in any case decide.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
There's near zero chance of London-Scotland HS2 trains stopping at Lancaster. Birmingham-Scotland, however, absolutely would stop. And London-Liverpool/Lancaster (splitting at Crewe) is looking likely with a full Crewe hub plan (and maybe without).
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
How do you know this?
Logical deduction.

The Scotland trains are 400m long and there's no paths to split them south of Carnforth (and probably Carstairs, but hopefully it's OK to do it at Carlisle). There's no way Scotland's proposed HS2 service is being reduced for no other reason than to better serve Lancaster!

Lancaster calls on Scotland trains have to justify
1) slowing down the Scotland trains which only stop twice or thrice in the modelled service as Scotland does gain massively from time savings.
2) the expense of lengthening the platforms

That's a tall ask given that Lancaster-Scotland would have the Birmingham-Scotland HS2 train, and any TPX trains on the west coast, to Scotland. London-Lancaster is thus the only reason to do it. But why when there's a Preston terminator in the modelled plans that can be extended one stop north, and also a proposal to have an additional West Coast 200m unit attached to the other Liverpool train with Preston and Lancaster given as the places suggested for serving? And that's before we look at classic line London-Lancaster service that might exist...

Obviously it can't be ruled out entirely this early into the process, but there's easier solutions that serve Lancaster that don't cause as many problems.
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
So how would people from MK travel to the north? And how would people from the north travel to MK?

You seem to have identified a problem here I might have predicted! o_O

Perhaps a change + stopper from previous station from North and similar starting from MK to station to North + change?
 

Nagora

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2018
Messages
43
You couldn't be more wrong.

HS2 is to alleviate some of the long distance journeys directly to allow local routes to increase. The biggest capacity constraint is trains at different speeds. HS2 is principally to put those high speed, limited stop services onto a dedicated faster, straighter route so that the local trains can stop more and be more frequent.
I don't think it's going to reinstate local traffic to the Lakes, let me get the train to Bristol airport and construct the three miserable miles of track needed so I can get on the train at Belfast International at the other end, or repair the devastation done to the seasonal Cornish traffic by the Beeching cuts. It's crazy that we're even thinking about HS2 when there are major ports and airports not on the rail network.

HS2 is not a non-functional thing; it will create all sorts of benefits. It will also cost almost three times NASA's estimate for returning to the moon with a permanent base.

HS2 is needed a lot less than a whole range of other rail network problems. Jesus, if they could start with removing the three steps at the top of the ramp in Paddington that are the only things* preventing wheelchair access from the Circle line to the mainline platforms it would be more useful! Probably (only probably) be cheaper too.

*I'm discounting the single, frequently out of order, lift.
 

Yindee8191

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2019
Messages
159
I don't think it's going to reinstate local traffic to the Lakes, let me get the train to Bristol airport and construct the three miserable miles of track needed so I can get on the train at Belfast International at the other end, or repair the devastation done to the seasonal Cornish traffic by the Beeching cuts. It's crazy that we're even thinking about HS2 when there are major ports and airports not on the rail network.

HS2 is not a non-functional thing; it will create all sorts of benefits. It will also cost almost three times NASA's estimate for returning to the moon with a permanent base.

HS2 is needed a lot less than a whole range of other rail network problems. Jesus, if they could start with removing the three steps at the top of the ramp in Paddington that are the only things* preventing wheelchair access from the Circle line to the mainline platforms it would be more useful! Probably (only probably) be cheaper too.

*I'm discounting the single, frequently out of order, lift.
I sort of agree that, perhaps, £56 billion could be spent better. However, this post falls into the trap that so many anti-HS2 posts (and tweets) do, which is to presume that the money is being spent on something which is merely to improve the railways, not to fix a huge and very pressing problem: WCML overcrowding. I see this sort of argument a lot, and it annoys me that alternatives are, invariably, never suggested. If you want to scrap HS2, what are you going to do about the WCML? With £56 billion, there are surely options, however most cost as much as HS2 and are less useful. I have yet to see an actual, credible alternative (the GCR argument has been repeatedly disproven and adding more tracks to the WCML is hugely costly and fairly useless). If you can come up with one that is significantly cheaper, please do explain it to me and I will be happy to support it. Until then, HS2 is our best bet.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
I don't think it's going to reinstate local traffic to the Lakes, let me get the train to Bristol airport and construct the three miserable miles of track needed so I can get on the train at Belfast International at the other end, or repair the devastation done to the seasonal Cornish traffic by the Beeching cuts. It's crazy that we're even thinking about HS2 when there are major ports and airports not on the rail network.

HS2 is not a non-functional thing; it will create all sorts of benefits. It will also cost almost three times NASA's estimate for returning to the moon with a permanent base.

The price isn't really an HS2 problem though. Quite simply, infrastructure comes expensive. Since you mention Bristol... look for example at the Portishead line, which will cost well over £100 Million. And that's for 3 miles of new single track (plus some freight track upgraded for passenger use) and one station - with no capacity for more than one DMU per hour, probably carrying an average of 40-50 passengers. Compare that with the 18tph of HS2 trains from London, plus more trains from Birmingham, to the North - each train carrying hundreds of passengers, often for distances of hundreds of miles - and you start to see the cost/benefit ratio of HS2 really isn't excessive compared to what rail schemes usually cost. (And you'll find much the same if you look at road schemes).

I totally agree with you that there are loads of other places around the country where there is a desperate need for rail investment. But I don't agree that building HS2 is somehow less important or worse value for money than all the other possible things you could do. The likely benefits of HS2 are so huge that I would expect it to be much better value for money than most of the smaller schemes you might propose.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I don't think it's going to reinstate local traffic to the Lakes, let me get the train to Bristol airport and construct the three miserable miles of track needed so I can get on the train at Belfast International at the other end, or repair the devastation done to the seasonal Cornish traffic by the Beeching cuts. It's crazy that we're even thinking about HS2 when there are major ports and airports not on the rail network.

HS2 is not a non-functional thing; it will create all sorts of benefits. It will also cost almost three times NASA's estimate for returning to the moon with a permanent base.

HS2 is needed a lot less than a whole range of other rail network problems. Jesus, if they could start with removing the three steps at the top of the ramp in Paddington that are the only things* preventing wheelchair access from the Circle line to the mainline platforms it would be more useful! Probably (only probably) be cheaper too.

*I'm discounting the single, frequently out of order, lift.

However, HS2 is being done alongside spending on the existing infrastructure. As this table demonstrates:

View media item 3339
As £25bn has been spent on enhancements to the existing network since HS2 was announced in 2009.

That figure doesn't include, maintenance, new trains, HS2 or the vast majority of the spending on Crossrail.

It has also risen each and every year over that time period, including in the last three years as spend on HS2 had started to be a significant amount.

It also has to be viewed in the light of the appropriately 100 million single journeys a year (predicted 300,000/day). At £56bn (excluding any local service benefits produced) that's less then £10 for the build costs.

Based on the current network maintenance costs and scaled for the size of the network then that's <£1 in HS2 maintenance costs. However even then that figure would be too high compared to the actual, due to fact that there's some very expensive bits on the existing network, not least due to drainage issues (or more accurately the lack of good/any drainage) which HS2 shouldn't suffer from. Add in the ability to drive alongside the track for narky the whole route and it allows maintenance teams to get to where they need to be and therefore do more work in the same maintenance window (little walking down the track before work can start).

There's going to be things which would improve matters which aren't obvious at the moment, including journey time improvements between places miles from the HS2 network.

One such example is that by using existing services (based on to Paddington/Euston times) changing at Old Oak Common would be comparable for Southampton/Birmingham and faster for Southampton/Manchester, Leeds, York, Scotland, etc.

Yes you'd have to change twice, but that's been allowed for, but it would also provide a more frequent service (2tph in addition to the current 1tph on a direct service and also (for locations other than Birmingham) in addition the the current 1tph involving a change at New Street.

That's going to allow XC to cater for more people at the intermediate locations. That's before you consider the possibility of changes to the existing services or new schemes which could reduce the number of changes or the complexity of changing trains get to Old Oak Common (such as the often suggested Southampton to Paddington service or schemes like the Southern Approach to Heathrow. The latter of which could enable users from a lot of the SWR network to benefit from a 4tph service between Woking and Old Oak Common, so would enable connections with the 3tph to Manchester and the 3tph to Birmingham, rather than being limited by the Reading/Basingstoke corridor).

With regards to the 3x the return to the moon costs with a permanent base, what is your source for that? As the figures I've seen are for the short term getting back to the moon, with a moon base being established beyond the end date of that funding. It also would only benefit a few people (really only a few, not the perceived few of HS2. Which would have the same passenger flow as Waterloo station or the whole of the TGV network, even thought it's 1/3 the size of the TGV network).
 

Andrew*Debbie

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
315
Location
Llanfairpwllgwyngyll ...
Is there anything I haven't thought of? Replies from both sides of the debate are welcome.

I'm opposed to the HS2 project because I'm certain it will be cancelled before completion.

2020 or 2021 there will be a leaks followed by an investigation showing that HS2 will need an additional £xx billion and come in 3-5 years behind schedule. The government of the day will cancel the project, leaving us with an expensive tunnel from Euston to nowhere and bits of disconnected infrastructure from Old Oak Common to Crewe.

Euston will be a mess, the cancellation having come at the worst possible phase. In the end money will be found to complete some portion of the work at great cost, leaving Euston with 12 usable platforms.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
Euston will be a mess, the cancellation having come at the worst possible phase. In the end money will be found to complete some portion of the work at great cost, leaving Euston with 12 usable platforms.
Why 12? Phase 1 only takes two platforms, 17 and 18 which are already closed.
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
I'm opposed to the HS2 project because I'm certain it will be cancelled before completion.

2020 or 2021 there will be a leaks followed by an investigation showing that HS2 will need an additional £xx billion and come in 3-5 years behind schedule. The government of the day will cancel the project, leaving us with an expensive tunnel from Euston to nowhere and bits of disconnected infrastructure from Old Oak Common to Crewe.

Euston will be a mess, the cancellation having come at the worst possible phase. In the end money will be found to complete some portion of the work at great cost, leaving Euston with 12 usable platforms.

It's not just Euston though, the mass of work around the Berkswell, Balsall Common, and Birmingham Interchange site plus towards Water Orton (including the Pylon relocations) would presumably be affected as well by any cancellation. And those are just the areas by me - I presume a significant amount of work has been done elsewhere as well
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
It's not just Euston though, the mass of work around the Berkswell, Balsall Common, and Birmingham Interchange site plus towards Water Orton (including the Pylon relocations) would presumably be affected as well by any cancellation. And those are just the areas by me - I presume a significant amount of work has been done elsewhere as well

It is fairly reasonable to assume that phase 1 would get built, as to not do so would leave some fairly embarrassing and obvious boys of work to be left to track and ruin.
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
It is fairly reasonable to assume that phase 1 would get built, as to not do so would leave some fairly embarrassing and obvious boys of work to be left to track and ruin.

Of course they won't, they will just leave big holes in the ground - or that seems to be what some posters believe :)
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Of course they won't, they will just leave big holes in the ground - or that seems to be what some posters believe :)

Conversely, some posters seem to believe that once government projects are started they're impossible to cancel.

There's no telling what will happen until the review concludes. Don't discount how politically popular cancelling or drastically reducing it would be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top