• 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.

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
This is exactly the point. Lets use round number. A generation is 25 years. Railways started 1825. 200 years ago plus the generations at the time have benefited from Victorian infrastructure. The same will be true for HS2. Spending on infrastructure benefits many future generations and the current ones. Spending on nurses is extremely limited. Generate the wealth and you then can employ more nurses etc.

We are of one here but my blood pressure goes through the roof when I listen to TV or radio debating show where the panelists, who know absolutely nothing spurt pure drivel and the audience lap it up. I think some of us believers on here really need to get on these shows to put the case!
One example - Last week Alistair Darling (who is against HS2) on the Radio 4 Today programme asked why we were spending all this vast amount of money on HS2 when there were 40 yr old Pacers still running around ? As we know they are already being withdrawn irrespective of HS2 or not and will be gone in weeks now but those kind of comments colours the publics opinions and if those opinions get too strong it will become a no brainer for whoever is in government at the time to scrap it. Popular move, vote winner etc and to hell with the countries future transport needs.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
The point that is lost on the public when they say we could build so many hospitals, employ so many nurses or teachers instead of HS2 is that HS2 is investment in permanent infrastructure, within reason there for all time. The money for nurses etc will run out and then what ?

Infrastructure enables the economy to be more efficient which then enables business to generate money and thus governments to tax which will pay for nurses , teachers etc

You simply must put in the infrastructure first otherwise slowly this country will not only grind to a halt but will be overtaken by many countries in productivity and efficiency so when an international business is looking where to locate it will NOT be the UK

The scheme may not be perfect but it is the one we have and it needs to be built.

Agreed - it's maybe not quite the scheme I'd design if I were trusted to be left in charge of the nation's crayons, but it's a one-off cost (compared to things that will require ongoing subsidy) and should be seen as such.

Yes. It seems most people don’t understand the difference between revenue and capital expenditure.

Then there’s the issues of scale and relative spending. 50bn is a massive quantity of cash but it would barely run the NHS for 4 months or the UK education system for 6 months.

It's the Gillian McKeith phenomena... remember when she used to show a family's weekly food laid out on trestle tables... of course it looked obscene - dozens of meals together was bound to... £50bn looks like a lot of money to most people - we feel we could buy a lot of things for that - but when you compare that spending (on something intended to last for decades, something intended to bring in large revenues too - something easily forgotten on these threads) against the ongoing funding required to pay for things like Nurses/ Teachers... it really winds me up. I'm left of centre but get frustrated by the "what about schools and hospitals" argument - it's like the "think of the children" argument that the woman has in The Simpsons - HS2 shouldn't be seen in the context of completely different spending - fine if you want to compare it to other transport infrastructure (HS2 or another few runways or re-opening various backwater branchlines) but comparing HS2 to the NHS is only done by those desperate to make a political point.

Reusing an old trackbed doesn't damage the countryside because the damage was done already. Building a new line is very different

Not necessarily true if the old alignment has been abandoned for over half a century and has returned to nature, or perhaps has had some of its earthworks and structures removed with the land added to adjacent fields. In some places former alignments are barely visible in open fields. In others they are equally invisible but heavily built over.

I'm with Mark here - when we are talking about railways closed fifty(plus) years ago, we are talking about some significant growth - even if not the trackbed, the embankments may need to be chopped down and reformed (given that a number of lines closed due to the cost of upgrading shoddy Victorian earthworks making their future uneconomic).

A review panel should include a wide range of opinions

...as long as you are okay with similar panels reviewing each and every rail project that is delayed and/or goes over budget... be careful what you wish for... yet another example of HS2 being treated to different rules...
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
I'm with Mark here - when we are talking about railways closed fifty(plus) years ago, we are talking about some significant growth - even if not the trackbed, the embankments may need to be chopped down and reformed (given that a number of lines closed due to the cost of upgrading shoddy Victorian earthworks making their future uneconomic).

Also, a new alignment will mainly go through intensively farmed fields, which have very low ecological value compared to a trackbed that's been left essentially left to return to nature for 50 years.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
So which one 'damages the countryside' the most?

Sellafield destroys the countryside even more, if we're comparing apples and watermelons.

If the question was "do you want a new motorway or a new HS2?" you might have a point. But as it isn't, you don't. (Spoiler: one can be against pointless new motorways AND pointless new railways).
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
...as long as you are okay with similar panels reviewing each and every rail project that is delayed and/or goes over budget...

If we're talking about projects as a) expensive and b) mismanaged as HS2, I'd welcome it.

A review panel can't be stuffed with people from one camp. If the whole panel were anti-HS2 I'd not agree with that either, much as I think HS2 is a waste of money and will be a white elephant.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Agreed - it's maybe not quite the scheme I'd design if I were trusted to be left in charge of the nation's crayons

Bingo.

Up here the Metro is crumbling all for want of a £500m investment. Think what a couple of billion- a pipe dream for us- could do for the north east's transport. Same in Leeds, same in Manchester, same in Liverpool.

I'm not against investment, I'm against *this* project.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
The difference, of course, is that Skipton-Colne exists as a trackbed.

Reusing an old trackbed doesn't damage the countryside because the damage was done already. Building a new line is very different.

Potentially it does, and can - in fact - have a worse impact.

Some of our best wildlife corridors are based on abandoned railway and canal routes.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Not necessarily true if the old alignment has been abandoned for over half a century and has returned to nature, or perhaps has had some of its earthworks and structures removed with the land added to adjacent fields. In some places former alignments are barely visible in open fields. In others they are equally invisible but heavily built over.

Plus old railway lines were built around old constraints - land ownership, geographical features, higgledy piggeldy to join up existing bits of railway, etc.

Case in point - look at the route the old Cambridge-Bedford line took through Sandy and Potton. Hardly conducive to modern expectations of journey time to actually be an attractive alternative to the car. Hence East West Rail (a "reopening" of Cambridge-Bedford of sorts) looking at new alignments to give journey times that mean the scheme actually stands a chance of achieving its objectives of a fast Home Counties transport link.

Just because an old line existed doesn't mean reopening exactly as it was is possible or even desirable. To make it useful involves new alignments, land purchase, etc.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
If we're talking about projects as a) expensive and b) mismanaged as HS2, I'd welcome it.

A review panel can't be stuffed with people from one camp. If the whole panel were anti-HS2 I'd not agree with that either, much as I think HS2 is a waste of money and will be a white elephant.

Why will HS2 be a White Elephant?

It is predicted to have ~100 million passenger movements a year (personally given that growth is significantly above that predicted I think that there's a fair chance that it's likely to exceed this).

To put that in perspective that's comparable to the total number of passengers which use the whole of the TGV network, but on a HS network 1/3 the size.

It's also worth noting that if HS2 opened today the percentage loadings of the trains would be about 75% that of the 390's in 2009 and quite probably be more loaded (in percentage terms) than the 390's were at introduction.

(IIRC there was no answer to my question as to why people think HS2 is a White Elephant the last time I asked it).
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,694
Location
London
AlbertBeale said:
PS - certainly the people opposing HS2 at its southern end around Euston have been the opposite of Murdoch-ite Telegraph-reading types!


You seem to forget that BoJo's dad is one of those protesters and there is a very well connected (and funded) local anti lobby group* that prefer to work behind the scenes, *one of whom has even made it on the the review panel...
(JoJo couldn't have anything to do with HS2 while at DfT...)

I never spotted BoJo's dad involved in the many meetings around the Euston area - which involved large numbers of people who were the opposite of well-connected and well-funded. As grassroots a lot of people as you'd find, in my judgement.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Here's a picture of a high speed line running through virgin countryside and the alternative is just next door as a comparison:
foiextract20190519-15990-muzb3z-5_1.png


This is Hollingbourne between Maidstone East and Ashford. The road is 28 years old, - the railway 16 years, hence the different tree densities. So which one 'damages the countryside' the most?

The comparison is even more stark when you consider that the average 3 lane motorway maxes out capacity for free-flowing traffic somewhere around 5000 vehicles per hour. So, maybe 6-7K people at most, allowing for average occupancy. The Southern section of HS2 is planned to have 18tph with 1100 seats per train - so a capacity of 20K people/hour. In other words, for less than half the land-take you get 3 times the passenger capacity. (Although to be fair, motorways do take lorries too, which HS2 can't).
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
The comparison is even more stark when you consider that the average 3 lane motorway maxes out capacity for free-flowing traffic somewhere around 5000 vehicles per hour. So, maybe 6-7K people at most, allowing for average occupancy. The Southern section of HS2 is planned to have 18tph with 1100 seats per train - so a capacity of 20K people/hour. In other words, for less than half the land-take you get 3 times the passenger capacity. (Although to be fair, motorways do take lorries too, which HS2 can't).

But HS2 of course frees up space for more freight trains on the existing network.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
I've been meaning to ask about freight on HS2. Obviously during the day it's full of passenger services, but is there any benefit to using it for freight at night? Or is it just too limited/expensive to be of use?
 

Sprinter150

Member
Joined
31 Aug 2018
Messages
104
I've been meaning to ask about freight on HS2. Obviously during the day it's full of passenger services, but is there any benefit to using it for freight at night? Or is it just too limited/expensive to be of use?

This is from 2012, so a little out of date, but it probably still applies:

10. Freight on HS2

10.1.1 � Our proposition is to restrict HS2 to
high speed passenger services with
the potential for increased freight
capacity on the existing network. This
provides significant safety benefits
to HS2 through the avoidance of
the risks of operation of mixed traffic
(i.e. passenger and freight).
10.1.2 � The proposal led to some consultation
comments, principally from a leading
rail freight operator. The operator
accepted that in the daytime the
HS2 route would be fully used by
passenger services but proposed the
opportunity to operate some freight
traffic in late evening or overnight
periods.
10.1.3 � We have considered the implications
of this proposal and whilst the
specification we have used to
design the HS2 route alignment
(e.g. gradients) does not technically
preclude freight, we do not
recommend freight operation in
the late evening or overnight. Such
operation would impinge on the time
set aside for essential inspection,
maintenance and renewal of the
infrastructure. This maintenance
window is based on very clear
international experience where
intensive high speed operation is
undertaken safely and reliably during
the day with all maintenance activity in
the short time frame reserved through
the night.
10.1.4 � The cost of a more constrained
infrastructure management regime,
should it be possible to develop it,
would need to be factored into the
freight access charges. Additionally,
the consultation route included the
costs of provision of noise mitigation
and safe operation in tunnels arising
from high speed passenger trains only
during the proposed operational hours.
There would be additional cost and
mitigation needed for running freight
at night which we have not included in
our proposals.
10.1.5 � We propose that the HS2 technical
and environmental specification
should continue to be developed for
passenger operation only, making
no additional provision for freight
operations. The focus for freight
should continue to be on beneficial
use of the significant released capacity
on the classic rail network. Should
commercial opportunity warrant
it, however, the entirely different
proposition of operating high speed
trains carrying freight such as postal
traffic during normal operational hours
could be practicable.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
Bingo.

Up here the Metro is crumbling all for want of a £500m investment. Think what a couple of billion- a pipe dream for us- could do for the north east's transport. Same in Leeds, same in Manchester, same in Liverpool.

I'm not against investment, I'm against *this* project.

Everyone has their own favourite “if HS2 was cancelled” project. Mine happens to be Manchester Piccadilly 15&16...

However I’m certain that cancelling HS2 would not divert money to these local transport projects. The money would just disappear. We’d just have the local projects in the same position and no new S-W-N railway for 50 years. Because if HS2 is cancelled a new S-W-N rail alignment won’t happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this, I’m sure of that.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
It's also worth noting that if HS2 opened today the percentage loadings of the trains would be about 75% that of the 390's in 2009

But they would simply be displaced from the current network. If HS2 is built people will use it- the classic WCML will be changed to make damn sure- but that doesn't make it useful.

I also think the higher ticket prices charged to recoup the investment- as are charged on HS1- will stifle growth.

The Southern section of HS2 is planned to have 18tph with 1100 seats per train - so a capacity of 20K people/hour.

Even in peak times there aren't 20,000 people with an overwhelming urge to get to Birmingham 10 minutes faster.

There certainly aren't 20,000 people willing to pay a massive premium to get to Birmingham 10 minutes faster. Virgin's existing peak services are half-empty because of eye-watering fares, HS2 fares will only be higher again.

And as HS2 won't stop to serve the communities it will demolish...
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,532
But they would simply be displaced from the current network. If HS2 is built people will use it- the classic WCML will be changed to make damn sure

Yes, but that is the whole point. It means the fast lines can become semi-fast lines - a more even and frequent service at Watford, Berkhamstead, Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard, Milton Keynes that isn't possible at the moment.

And as HS2 won't stop to serve the communities it will demolish...

It doesn't need to stop - those people already have access to the existing lines or live in places where they wouldn't want residential expansion anyway.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
It doesn't need to stop - those people already have access to the existing lines

So we're demolishing their community to build a railway line but it's ok, they don't need a station, because they already have a railway line.

That's quite some logic. It's a mystery why 72% of the population don't think HS2 will benefit them and nearly half want it scrapped.

It means the fast lines can become semi-fast lines - a more even and frequent service at Watford, Berkhamstead, Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard, Milton Keynes that isn't possible at the moment.

Those stations already have a very frequent service into London, with plenty of spare seats (I know, I commuted from Hemel for years).

I'm not seeing anything to change my mind that HS2 is a monumental waste of money.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Even in peak times there aren't 20,000 people with an overwhelming urge to get to Birmingham 10 minutes faster.

There certainly aren't 20,000 people willing to pay a massive premium to get to Birmingham 10 minutes faster.

FFS...

18tph (making a total capacity of 20,000 passengers per hour per direction) serves all of the following (possibly more):
Birmingham
Stafford
Crewe
Runcorn
Liverpool
Manchester
Warrington
Wigan
Preston
Glasgow
Edinburgh
Newcastle
Darlington
York
Leeds
Sheffield
Chesterfield
East Midlands Hub


..oh and the time saving to Birmingham is closer to to 40 minutes than 10 anyway.

Moderators: In future, can posts that are so astonishingly and demonstrably devoid of fact just be deleted directly from the thread, please, to aid informed discussion on this matter please?
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
Those stations already have a very frequent service into London, with plenty of spare seats (I know, I commuted from Hemel for years).

I'm not seeing anything to change my mind that HS2 is a monumental waste of money.

This assumes that passenger growth is zero or less. But passenger numbers are rising - not only that, they are rising faster than the assumed growth figures that the case for HS2 was based on. All those extra passengers have to go somewhere.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Even in peak times there aren't 20,000 people with an overwhelming urge to get to Birmingham 10 minutes faster.

Aside from Ian's point about HS2 serving many more destinations a lot more than 10 minutes faster, that doesn't change the point. I compared 20 K capacity on HS2 with typically 5 K vehicle capacity on a motorway - but in practice neither will run at capacity. For a motorway, 5 K vehicles/hour means you're bordering on congestion and jams. I'm guessing the majority of motorways actually see closer to 1 or 2 K vehicles/hour during the day (I don't have exact figures). Even if - for the sake of argument - most HS2 trains run only half full, that's still taking an awful lot more passengers than would typically be using a motorway, despite that the motorway takes up far more land space.


That's quite some logic. It's a mystery why 72% of the population don't think HS2 will benefit them and nearly half want it scrapped.

Public opinion tends not to be a very good way of determining what engineering projects are going to be useful.

Besides, probably 95% of the population of the UK didn't benefit from the Jubilee Line extension to Stratford, and I would guess at least 90% of the UK population won't benefit much from Crossrail. Is that a reason for not doing those projects?

Those stations already have a very frequent service into London, with plenty of spare seats (I know, I commuted from Hemel for years).

I guess you haven't tried to make journeys like Watford to Manchester, or Milton Keynes to Preston recently then? Those kinds of journeys are currently pretty inconvenient because so many of the Virgin trains just pass through these major centres without stopping: They can't stop at quite important stations precisely because the WCML is currently trying to double up as a long-distance high-ish speed line - a problem that will be solved nicely by HS2.

Also, I haven't used the commuter services on the WCML that much, but I have sometimes travelled between Watford and London - usually off-peak, and I've almost always struggled to find a seat. I'm guessing those trains tend to empty out the further you get from London, but at the London end, it certainly looks to me like more capacity is needed.
 
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
309
Moderators: In future, can posts that are so astonishingly and demonstrably devoid of fact just be deleted directly from the thread, please, to aid informed discussion on this matter please?
Who decides which posts come under this category please? Surely the vast majority of postings are opinions or projections with very little facts being known. I don't feel I know enough facts on this to even form an opinion, but live in hope that those that do will make the right decision and soon.
Everyone should be allowed their opinion however much others might disagree. It does not seem fair to me that moderators should be expected to intervene unless someone is being particularly provocative, as a small minority seem to be. Live and let live.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,694
Location
London
Also, I haven't used the commuter services on the WCML that much, but I have sometimes travelled between Watford and London - usually off-peak, and I've almost always struggled to find a seat. I'm guessing those trains tend to empty out the further you get from London, but at the London end, it certainly looks to me like more capacity is needed.

It could be that more capacity is needed around north London, but that doesn't of itself justify HS2 of course.

In terms of earlier points about lobbying, and who benefits from major projects, "follow the money" is often a good guide to whose influence and involvement is more or less self-serving. See, for instance, the latest HS2-related story in Private Eye - on pg 14 of the current issue. The boundary between vested interests, and what in some contexts would be called corruption, can sometimes be difficult to discern.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,532
"follow the money" is often a good guide to whose influence and involvement is more or less self-serving

Do infrastructure companies have any right to make money, or should they be nationalised, work for free or not exist at all?

Plenty of them issue profit warnings and similar when things are tough.

I suspect people might argue that tax should never be spent on products of a private company?
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Maybe, maybe not, but I'd rather save the money than blow it on this project.

If you invest in HS2 then there's an argument that it'll increase the numbers using the existing rail network, meaning that the existing rail network would need more investment.

If you don't invest in HS2 or something like it then chances are there'll be less money available for investment in other rail projects.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
18tph (making a total capacity of 20,000 passengers per hour per direction) serves all of the following (possibly more):

When did Curzon Street move to Newcastle?

HS2 isn't going to any of those places. Phase 47, estimated to be built by 2060, might. HS2 is off to Birmingham.

So you might want to wind your neck in.

This assumes that passenger growth is zero or less.

Growth is not never-ending. Population growth has slowed to 0.5%, even before Brexit. And I'm still not sure how getting to Birmingham 10 minutes faster will encourage modal shift away from road, as HS2 fares are likely to be higher than classic fares and it is the eye-watering fares charged which prevent modal shift.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
- most HS2 trains run only half full, that's still taking an awful lot more passengers than would typically be using a motorway, despite that the motorway takes up far more land space.

But the question isn't "should we build HS2 or a motorway" so I have no idea what relevance this has to anything.

If HS2 won't run at capacity then there is no business case for it. And I'm not seeing 20,000 people demanding to get to Birmingham a bit quicker.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Who decides which posts come under this category please? Surely the vast majority of postings are opinions or projections with very little facts being known. I don't feel I know enough facts on this to even form an opinion, but live in hope that those that do will make the right decision and soon.
Everyone should be allowed their opinion however much others might disagree. It does not seem fair to me that moderators should be expected to intervene unless someone is being particularly provocative, as a small minority seem to be. Live and let live.

Everyone is allowed their own opinion.

Doesn't mean they're allowed their own facts.

The time-saving is
When did Curzon Street move to Newcastle?

HS2 isn't going to any of those places. Phase 47, estimated to be built by 2060, might. HS2 is off to Birmingham.

So you might want to wind your neck in.

Not sure that's called for.

HS2 is going to a lot of those places listed, and classic-compatible will serve others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top