• 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!

HS2 Review ongoing

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,027
If HS2 was to be built entirely in tunnel then faced with the choice of HS2 taking an hour to London and the WCML taking 90 minutes I would opt for the latter. Can think of few things worse than hurtling through a tube at 200mph for an hour!
Now you're starting to sound like a Victorian scientist :D. Does the TGV not have any tunnels and haven't you been through the Channel Tunnel?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,027
Agreed - nobody seems worried about the trees cut down by potentially re-opening something like Skipton - Colne or Aberystwyth - Carmarthen... despite "young" trees working harder than old trees (and therefore being better environmentally)... it's just another example of the double standards when it comes to HS2 (a new alignment) compared to reopening some old failed Victorian route.
I thought that was on existing/old railway alignment. And the parts that weren't were built on by roads, so no extra despoilment of the environment if it was built as a median railway or over it as a viaduct.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,027
So you're saying that they can't build on new bits of land so that it takes the straightest path, but it's okay to build on land where a previous line once was? The argument gymnastics is impressive.

It's the same argument as NIMBYs at the edge of a town are opposed to new houses being built next to them because that's building on the greenbelt, smugly ignoring that their houses was probably built on greenbelt 20 or 50 years ago. But that's okay, because it's already built. And if it's already built, it's part of what makes Britain Great so needs to be protected.
No, the land has already been ruined by development, so to speak, so why bother protecting it. It's unlikely to have as much of an impact on wildlife and the environment, so there is a compromise between let's block a much-needed new rail line just because it runs too close to my house and let's despoil large swathes of previously untouched countryside(land use change is a reasonable chunk of world CO2 emissions driving climate change) just to drive the cost down so we do yet another public project on the cheap and spent the extra 30bn on new nukes instead. There is no need to support literally everything the rail industry proposes or does because we're rail enthusiasts. We can do HS2 better and we should do it.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Forgive me if this has already been asked on the thread, but attempting to draw a comparison with HS2 costs, how does the originally stated cost of Crossrail compare to the last known actual costs of that particular project?
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
We can do HS2 better and we should do it.

Whilst I agree that HS2 could be better, the general principle of it (i.e. a new line providing more capacity linking our major cities freeing up existing line capacity) are broadly correct, are they not?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
No environmental benefit-the destruction of lots of people's homes and woodlands and open countryside when there is an alternative. All the property that had to be bought can be sold now to fund it.

What is the alternitve then?
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
No, the land has already been ruined by development, so to speak, so why bother protecting it. It's unlikely to have as much of an impact on wildlife and the environment

Actually if the old formation is still separate from the ‘open countryside’ then it is likely to be richer in wildlife and trees etc than the open countryside (which is probably farmed) and providing a linear park and wildlife motorway effect. Also old lines often have a fair few people living very close in converted stations and workers cottages
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Forgive me if this has already been asked on the thread, but attempting to draw a comparison with HS2 costs, how does the originally stated cost of Crossrail compare to the last known actual costs of that particular project?
They value engineered the cost down by ~1.9bn to get final approval from 17.8 to 15.9bn which has turned out to be a slight work of fiction. So 0 or ~1.9bn currently depending on which view you take!!!

Circa 1bn was cut by reducing contingency.
 

Domeyhead

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2009
Messages
386
Location
The South
We can use more of the large supply of brownfield land we have-we've already gone too far ripping up our countryside with motorways and ribbon development-we have the chance to stop now.
Is there brownfield land close enough to the alignment to warrant a slight deviation? Or are you proposing to zig-zag the alignment to utilise them? Can you point out where along the route such options exist?
 

Domeyhead

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2009
Messages
386
Location
The South
No environmental benefit-the destruction of lots of people's homes and woodlands and open countryside when there is an alternative. All the property that had to be bought can be sold now to fund it.
Have you considered how many properties would be destroyed by widening the existing WCM not only in London but also from Leamington through Coventry to New Street? Or do those houses not count? It"s actually more than HS2(1). I already pointed out that only 10 hectares of ancient woodland would be lost to HS2(1) but you don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I thought that was on existing/old railway alignment. And the parts that weren't were built on by roads, so no extra despoilment of the environment if it was built as a median railway or over it as a viaduct.

Actually if the old formation is still separate from the ‘open countryside’ then it is likely to be richer in wildlife and trees etc than the open countryside (which is probably farmed) and providing a linear park and wildlife motorway effect. Also old lines often have a fair few people living very close in converted stations and workers cottages

I'm agreeing with @Meerkat here - this idea that re-opening old lines wouldn't involve the things that HS2 is criticised for (cutting trees, destroying wildlife habitat, removing people from their houses etc) is a little disingenuous... I know that some enthusiasts treat former railway formations as some kind of sacred land (and anyone who buys it and builds on it should happily shrug their shoulders and walk away if we ever want to rebuild a railway...) but in the real world any additional line (whether new alignment or abandoned historic route) would cause trees to be cut down, people to leave their houses etc... I'm getting more than a little tired of the "one rule for HS2, another rule for re-opening some ancient Victorian line" stuff.

Building HS2 on the route of the GCR would have been a daft idea (no spare capacity at the London end, no use to Birmingham, would mean a lot of disruption for significantly fewer benefit than HS2) but we'd have significantly more enthusiasts in favour, as long as it was following an alignment that some Victorians one chose to build on. I hope people know that they weren't mystics, following cosmic ley-lines or anything... just some greedy entrepreneurs trying to build something that they hoped would be profitable (the kind of thing we hate Souter etc for nowadays).
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
nobody seems worried about the trees cut down by potentially re-opening something like Skipton - Colne or Aberystwyth - Carmarthen
Amusing that we have managed to get HS2 and Aberystwyth-Carmarthen into the same discussion!
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
Brexit Party because they only like roads and hate public transport. Green Party because.. Umm haven't quite worked that one out yet.

At the time they changed their policy on high-speed rail, the leader of the Green Party was Natalie Bennett. When she ran for a seat on Camden Council in 2014, Natalie Bennett's registered address was in Somers Town, just east of Euston.

Interestingly, the European Greens ran on a pro-HSR manifesto in this year's Euro elections. The Green manifesto was mostly based on that manifesto, but deleted the stuff about HSR for some reason.
 

Meole

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2018
Messages
452
Green Party is completely opposed to HS2.
Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, said in Channel 4 Dispatches broadcast:

“Ministers are right to doubt HS2 – this vanity project is a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money and it’s time they put it out of its misery. HS2 is already inflicting environmental vandalism on our countryside and woodlands as the cost of the project continues to spiral. Ditching this project would save billions.”
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
At the time they changed their policy on high-speed rail, the leader of the Green Party was Natalie Bennett. When she ran for a seat on Camden Council in 2014, Natalie Bennett's registered address was in Somers Town, just east of Euston.

Interestingly, the European Greens ran on a pro-HSR manifesto in this year's Euro elections. The Green manifesto was mostly based on that manifesto, but deleted the stuff about HSR for some reason.

I don't believe the Green Party here (E&W) opposes more high-speed rail as such, but they want to prioritise transport developments which are more socially useful and environmentally positive than this particular HS proposal, which is seen as over-specified, unnecessarily destructive and elitist.

The Euro-Greens are also not blindly gung-ho for any and every HS rail proposal; as I understand their position, they want better rail infrastructure in general, but not regardless of the costs in any particular case. For instance, when I was in Turin, and came across the office used by the local anti-TAV [TAV = the high-speed line proposed between Turin and Lyon] campaign (it was an the same building as another organisation I'm connected with), I understood from what I saw that green campaigners opposed many aspects of the plan as it impacts the Susa Valley, as well as its financial basis. (The Green Party as such is much weaker in Italy than in many western European countries, and I saw nothing actually from that party, so I refer here to green campaigners rather than a green party, to avoid making too specific an assertion.)
 

Domeyhead

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2009
Messages
386
Location
The South
The Greens knowledge of railway specifics is woefully inept and when questioned on their policies they simply descend into dogma. For instance they want "nationalisation" but don't seem to know why, or even what Network does or that it is already public. As for HS2 they forget that its existence facilitates not only a doubling of north south rail freight capacity but a huge diminution of UK domestic flights which in turn reduces demand for new runways. But Caroline Lucas is given a free ride by the media for some reason.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
Well I'm sure Nathalie Bennett will have her views heard more often. She has been 'elevated' to sit in the House of Lords.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Now you're starting to sound like a Victorian scientist :D. Does the TGV not have any tunnels and haven't you been through the Channel Tunnel?

Channel Tunnel is 30 miles?

Manchester - London is 190 miles?

Also a bit of a challenge NOT to tunnel when the English Channel is in the way.

:D
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
It's only the southern part of the corridor; even that is disputed; if it is a problem, just build new platforms and/or stop trains at other places other than Euston. Very easy.

Oh Lordy! Not this one again!

You've said before that trains should go to "places other than Euston" without actually saying where that could be that would actually work.

And it's not just the southern part of the corridor. How can you fit extra trains between Manchester and Stockport without new build?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
In 2009 (when all the 390's were 9 coach trains) the average loadings would have been "X" we don't know "X" but that doesn't matter. What we do know was that "X" was enough to justify the running of the services.

Now if we apply a figure to "X", for arguments sake let's say it's 41.7%. Again it doesn't matter for this argument what the figure is but it's just too show something.

41.7% of 479 is 200 (& there you were wondering why I'd used such a random figure).

Now fast forward to 2018 and rail growth has seen this figure jump to 340, however given the mix of train lengths it's not as easy to apply the same percentage figure as was the case in 2009. However if we were to assume that HS2 were to be operational now then compared to the 1,100 seats per train we'd see a figure of 30.9%

This is still a bit behind the 459 to bring us to parity to the 2009 figure, however HS2 isn't set to open now, even on the original 2026 date is 8 years beyond the last data we have.

To reach the 459 figure would require growth of 35%. That's a lot of growth, but not insurmountable given that there's 8 years in which to achieve it.

It works out at 3.8% growth per year, which is fairly high. However even then that wouldn't be particularly comparable, as the class 390's had been operating for about 8 years by 2009 and so had seen growth due to their introduction.

A fairer comparison would be the opening of the full network in (originally) 2033, which is 15 years after the current data. To hit the 459 figure (so that the HS2 services were as well loaded as the 390's were in 2009) would still require 35% growth. However as it's over a longer timeframe it means annual growth of 2.03%.

However given the announcement about the potential delay to opening this could result in the HS2 services reaching those at the same points of opening (i.e. the opening of Phase 1 and full opening) but with lower growth rates as the dates for those openings are then later.

Assuming a 2031 date for phase 1 growth would need to be 2.35% whilst full opening in 2040 would be 1.38%. Either of which are fairly likely, even without any significant changes. However the opening of even a part of HS2 would be significant in terms of changes, as such it is very likely that by 2040 HS2 services will be as busy as the 390's were in 2009. I would also suggest that HS2 would also be fairly likely to see it's services as busy as the 390's were in 2009.

Now because the 390's stop at more stations than the HS2 services there's a need for the growth to be more to see the same loadings. However with such low growth figures required it's still very probable that by 2040, or very shortly (i.e. within a year or two) after that loadings would be reset to the same percentage as the 390's saw in 2009.

The reason for this post? To combat the argument that HS2 would be a White Elephant (i.e. something of little use), as if HS2 is a White Elephant then so was the purchase of the class 390's back in 2002, add they would have been expensive playthings of the rich. Who would need to get to Manchester quicker, as the internet and email is reducing the need for people to travel. No other train company is looking to run services at 140mph we should just stick to 125mph like everyone else.

Funny that few arguments like that were put forward in 2001, even though things didn't work out all the well (i.e. no 140mph running), yet I doubt that Virgin have been disappointed by the growth seen.

If people wish to see HS2 cancelled you need to show why HS2 will be a White Elephant, I've shown you why it won't be. Now it's your turn to rebuff what had been put here.
 

Northhighland

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2016
Messages
606
The rail network needs extra capacity for sure. If not HS2 then I haven’t seen an alternative that is viable.

Do nothing has a huge cost in terms of lost economic growth. Especially for the North. This nation desperately needs to rebalance the economy.

Fast reliable transport is a key part of that.

We must separate poor management of the project from the need to do the project.

UK companies I fear do not have the required skills to deliver this on time and cost. Surely for this size of undertaking someone somewhere else in the world has done this and could supplement the skills the UK based team obviously lacks?
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,027
Have you considered how many properties would be destroyed by widening the existing WCM not only in London but also from Leamington through Coventry to New Street? Or do those houses not count? It"s actually more than HS2(1). I already pointed out that only 10 hectares of ancient woodland would be lost to HS2(1) but you don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact.
I have no problem with HS2 if it's built in tunnel/old railway alignment. In response to your earlier question,for the optimum alignment environmentally,the tunnel under the New North Main Line(which HS2 trains could utilize)could be cancelled,except for a short section under the Ruislip stations for that sections of the line. Then,an extension of the tunnel near Amersham and Chesham from the Ruislip turn-off at the eastern end and to near Quainton Road where it rejoins the ex-GCR alignment. It would run above ground on the old railway alignment(with a short tunnel for the new section near Brackley) as far as Woodford Halse(following the current alignment) where the tunnel starts again until Birmingham interchange. I would consider an extension of the tunnel from Castle Vale all the way to Birmingham Curzon St,but,in terms of Phase 1, that would be the perfect alignment.Tunnels would be able to take a straighter route and that means a higher speed limit on that section at least and shorter journeys. And,as the New North Main Line is mostly disused, it could be incorporated into the railway at ease with minimal environmental impact and save a lot of money for tunnels in open countryside,preserving the landscape elsewhere. The expensive property bought on the Amersham-Chesham part route of HS2 on the parts of route which I propose to put in tunnel could be sold to fund the extra tunnels I propose.
 

Meole

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2018
Messages
452
HS2 money now needed for land bridge to Ireland from Portpatrick as proposed by BJ, a road only crossing apparently, just as well as the PWJR closed in 1965.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
I have no problem with HS2 if it's built in tunnel/old railway alignment. In response to your earlier question,for the optimum alignment environmentally,the tunnel under the New North Main Line(which HS2 trains could utilize)could be cancelled,except for a short section under the Ruislip stations for that sections of the line. Then,an extension of the tunnel near Amersham and Chesham from the Ruislip turn-off at the eastern end and to near Quainton Road where it rejoins the ex-GCR alignment. It would run above ground on the old railway alignment(with a short tunnel for the new section near Brackley) as far as Woodford Halse(following the current alignment) where the tunnel starts again until Birmingham interchange. I would consider an extension of the tunnel from Castle Vale all the way to Birmingham Curzon St,but,in terms of Phase 1, that would be the perfect alignment.Tunnels would be able to take a straighter route and that means a higher speed limit on that section at least and shorter journeys. And,as the New North Main Line is mostly disused, it could be incorporated into the railway at ease with minimal environmental impact and save a lot of money for tunnels in open countryside,preserving the landscape elsewhere. The expensive property bought on the Amersham-Chesham part route of HS2 on the parts of route which I propose to put in tunnel could be sold to fund the extra tunnels I propose.

HS2 decided to tunnel under the New North Main Line because it's cheaper and quicker to build. Going back to the original plan to utilise it isn't going to save you anything to use elsewhere and also precludes any possible use of the NNML for other services.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
Without quoting I agree with The Hams post above. The notion that video conferencing etc will reduce travel making HS2 not necessary is not so. I regularly travel to meet clients and have group meetings. Often it is the only way and always will be. Video conferencing may SLOW growth a bit but not replace it.
HS2 money now needed for land bridge to Ireland from Portpatrick as proposed by BJ, a road only crossing apparently, just as well as the PWJR closed in 1965.

Election bluster. Will never happen.
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
Without quoting I agree with The Hams post above. The notion that video conferencing etc will reduce travel making HS2 not necessary is not so. I regularly travel to meet clients and have group meetings. Often it is the only way and always will be. Video conferencing may SLOW growth a bit but not replace it.

I've said it before and I've said it again: videoconferencing replacing commuting is always five years in the future, just like hydrogen replacing diesel is always five years in the future.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
After buying them first, with full defensible justification made in front of Parliament, compensation, and a number of years' notice.

I find debate is better when all facts are presented

Has the owner of the Bree Louise got his money yet? He only lost his pub 21 months ago.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
I've said it before and I've said it again: videoconferencing replacing commuting is always five years in the future, just like hydrogen replacing diesel is always five years in the future.

Just like amazing developments in the railway industry (unlike the fare rises to pay for them) are always five years in the future?

If people wish to see HS2 cancelled you need to show why HS2 will be a White Elephant, I've shown you why it won't be.

No you haven't, you've just waffled a lot.

The idea that growth will continue unabated is, frankly, ridiculous. ECML passenger numbers are down. There are only so many people who want to go to Birmingham. Virgin Trains in the peak are half-empty, LNR/WMT capacity issues are caused by small trains, the idea that there's all this untapped usage is a sham and a lie.

HS1 domestically became a "success" by getting rid of the classic expresses, I see no evidence HS2 won't simply do the same thing. The line is immensely expensive and immensely destructive and the whole business case is based on hot air and unsubstatiated conjecture.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,532
HS1 domestically became a "success" by getting rid of the classic expresses, I see no evidence HS2 won't simply do the same thing.

HS2 explicitly *will* do the same thing. That is the whole point.

If you are on a train from Warrington, Crewe or Stafford that doesn't stop between that station and London, the route your train takes really doesn't matter unless you like the sensation of passing at 125mph (or slower) through stations and passing slower trains.

It might also allow people who live in Watford or Milton Keynes to make direct long distance journeys to places they currently can't easily get to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top