• 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.

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
Clearly I now realise there is no TGV from Paris to Strasbourg at all because the last 7 miles are accomplished over conventional network track.

If it was just the last couple of miles into Liverpool that were conventional you'd have a point. But it's 50 miles from Crewe, so about a quarter of the total distsnce. Stop trying to be deceitful.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
309
11 months, 116 pages and surely it must be time to agree to disagree? Clearly people are not going to change their opinions, and some of the comments border on patronising and even insulting. Pantomime season is around the corner, but as regards HS2, it must be time to cease the "Oh yes it is" "Oh no it isn't " arguing whether it is good or bad. Clearly some people have plenty of spare time.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
If it was just the last couple of miles into Liverpool that were conventional you'd have a point. But it's 50 miles from Crewe, so about a quarter of the total distsnce. Stop trying to be deceitful.

36 miles from Crewe to Liverpool, approximately half of which is 125mph. Which means that 80% of the journey is on HS2, and 90% at potential speeds of more than 2 miles a minute.

Meanwhile, it’s 150 miles from France’s 4th largest city to the nearest LGV. What’s your point?
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,231
Location
Torbay
If it was just the last couple of miles into Liverpool that were conventional you'd have a point. But it's 50 miles from Crewe, so about a quarter of the total distsnce. Stop trying to be deceitful.
Many TGV service routes in France started initially with significant classic mileage, including those to large cities along the Mediterranean coast. I don't like Liverpool HS2 services sharing the Grand Junction between Crewe and Weaver Jn either, not because of the distance involved as such though, but due to the traffic type and speed mix and its density over a considerable length of double track that cannot be widened easily. While HS2 trains could be given superior priority over all other traffic, that cannot stop delays caused by failures or performance problems afflicting preceding heavy freights of which there are many on the route. NPR probably has a solution to this that could allow HS2 Liverpool trains to bypass this section and remain on dedicated HS infrastructure for longer, but I don't have a problem with the trains using the classic tracks for a while until that new route is developed. Some of the phased TGV route developments in France took decades to complete, and were subject to considerable political uncertainty. The fact that in UK, such a new Liverpool approach may have to wait a while shouldn't be a reason to cancel the rest of the scheme for 'new infrastructure envy' reasons compared to Manchester. As I explained before, Manchester really needs its new access route in tunnel because the Cheadle Hulme - Stockport - Piccadilly corridor is completely full. Valuable capacity released by replacing Pendolinos on the existing track with HS2 trains on the new infrastructure could allow development of better local and regional services on that corridor. As far as Manchester airport, this new pair may also be used by NPR trains in the future, if they choose a route via the airport, which seems likely.
 

Polarbear

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2008
Messages
1,705
Location
Birkenhead
OOC is London, with fast interchange on to Crossrail?

With respect, Old Oak is certainly not central London (and it's not in zone 1 either). Crossrail would not be able to cope with the demand that would be put upon it, if HS2 were to terminate at OOC. Crossrail is being built to alleviate a very busy Central Line and stuffing Crossrail trains full of people coming off HS2 services won't allow for that.

Also, Crossrail runs on an east/west axis, and for many HS2 customers, a further change would be necessary to get to the final destination. Contrast this with Euston, where you can travel in multiple directions (and with further options once Crossrail 2 is built).
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
And isn't that another significant problem with HS2? It can't go into OOC, soon to be a purpose built modern interchange between different forms of London based travel, so has to go into Euston, a cramped and out of place not-quite-this-not-quite-that compromise with worse transfer options?

Choosing Euston over OOC just because more Northerners have heard of the latter (which essentially is all the justification HS2 has for calling there) is not enough reason to build the thing.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
And isn't that another significant problem with HS2? It can't go into OOC, soon to be a purpose built modern interchange between different forms of London based travel, so has to go into Euston, a cramped and out of place not-quite-this-not-quite-that compromise with worse transfer options?

Choosing Euston over OOC just because more Northerners have heard of the latter (which essentially is all the justification HS2 has for calling there) is not enough reason to build the thing.

I'll give you the benefit that you hadn't seen the post before yours.

If you had read it then you'd have provided a reasoned response to the points made.

However I will ask my question again, which no one ever seams to answer, what is the alternative to HS2?

If those opposed to HS2 want to stop HS2 they need to provide this answer. This isn't just me but the review as well.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
And isn't that another significant problem with HS2? It can't go into OOC, soon to be a purpose built modern interchange between different forms of London based travel, so has to go into Euston, a cramped and out of place not-quite-this-not-quite-that compromise with worse transfer options?

Choosing Euston over OOC just because more Northerners have heard of the latter (which essentially is all the justification HS2 has for calling there) is not enough reason to build the thing.

Another post of rubbish.

As you well know, Euston is being comprehensively extended and rebuilt to be anything but cramped, and a purpose built modern interchange between different forms of London based travel. Indeed more ‘forms’ than OOC. Euston tube station is being rebuilt and adding a direct link to the Met / Circle Line. Euston will have vastly superior transfer options than OOC can ever have.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
I'll give you the benefit that you hadn't seen the post before yours.

If you had read it then you'd have provided a reasoned response to the points made.

However I will ask my question again, which no one ever seams to answer, what is the alternative to HS2?

If those opposed to HS2 want to stop HS2 they need to provide this answer. This isn't just me but the review as well.

I can't count the number of times I've answered your "what is the alternative" question. Indeed loads of people have answered your question, you just won't accept the answers.

I concede that Euston/Camden works are too far gone to cancel, so they can be completed. Everything else HS2 related - everything - would be scrapped under a PR1Berske government and that's the end of it.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I concede that Euston/Camden works are too far gone to cancel, so they can be completed. Everything else HS2 related - everything - would be scrapped under a PR1Berske government and that's the end of it.

Wrong, again. It can all be cancelled, as the main works contracts instructions have not been let. It’s notable that despite plenty of opportunity, it hasn’t been cancelled.

In any event, why would you spend a couple of billion quid to provide a load more capacity at Euston / Camden if it can’t be used?
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
I can't count the number of times I've answered your "what is the alternative" question. Indeed loads of people have answered your question, you just won't accept the answers.
Because those with the knowledge and the experience have shown that they will not work. None of them can provide the benefits that HS2 can for a similar spend or timescale.
 
Last edited:

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,416
They signed the lease in 2015 and HS2 didn't get through Parliament until 2017. The meaty part of the business is still at Canary Wharf, too.

in line with regulation changes HSBC split its retail bank away from the investment bank. The investment banking is still in Canary Wharf, the retail bank has moved to Birmingham.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,231
Location
Torbay
Another post of rubbish.

As you well know, Euston is being comprehensively extended and rebuilt to be anything but cramped, and a purpose built modern interchange between different forms of London based travel. Indeed more ‘forms’ than OOC. Euston tube station is being rebuilt and adding a direct link to the Met / Circle Line. Euston will have vastly superior transfer options than OOC can ever have.
And it's only about a 5 to 10 minute walk between Euston and St Pancras, with its International, Kent HS1 domestic and Thameslink connections. Many areas of central London are a short bus, taxi, tube ride or even a walk from Euston that wouldn't be possible from OOC; Imagine the fare and journey time of a cab from OOC to the west end or city by comparison. I hope one day the pedestrian connection between Euston and St Pancras will be improved significantly as well to help create a London superhub complex.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I can't count the number of times I've answered your "what is the alternative" question. Indeed loads of people have answered your question, you just won't accept the answers.

Firstly saying smart timetabling without explaining what that looks like isn't answering the question.

Secondly the leaked report highlights that there's not a viable alternative which can be delivered soon.
 

Polarbear

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2008
Messages
1,705
Location
Birkenhead
And isn't that another significant problem with HS2? It can't go into OOC, soon to be a purpose built modern interchange between different forms of London based travel, so has to go into Euston, a cramped and out of place not-quite-this-not-quite-that compromise with worse transfer options?

Choosing Euston over OOC just because more Northerners have heard of the latter (which essentially is all the justification HS2 has for calling there) is not enough reason to build the thing.

Given my post was made a good 40 mins or so before you posted, I’m assuming it’s in response? You do know that HS2 WILL be calling at Old Oak Common interchange, as well as continuing to Euston? It’s nothing to do with ‘northerners knowing about the latter’, and everything to do with a) maximising the distribution of passengers across London & b) creating an easy interchange for traffic to/from GWR and Heathrow passenger flows.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
930
Since there seems to be a large number of people who dislike the plan to terminate HS2 at Euston. I wonder what the people here think of the idea of going to Waterloo instead.
Engineering firm Buro Happold has unveiled alternative plans for HS2’s London section which would see the “flawed” Euston terminus ditched in favour of new stops at Waterloo and Canary Wharf and a connection with High Speed 1 in Kent.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...-plans-flawed-hs2-euston-terminus-19-11-2019/

The project’s backers have said the new plan would save billions on the HS2 budget and would see a vast new underground station constructed at Waterloo and Southwark titled South Bank Central.
It seems to me that this proposal might just be too late to be taken seriously, even though I quite like the idea.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
^Bizarre! So a proposal costing £10B would save ‘billions’ on the existing £8.2B.

The thinking is that you get a link to HS1 for that £1.8bn which would be seen by many as a good thing. It's something that quite a few of those opposed to HS2 appear to "want", much like the link to Heathrow (probably so that the cost is even higher and they can say how crazy it is that we're spending that much money on it).
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Since there seems to be a large number of people who dislike the plan to terminate HS2 at Euston. I wonder what the people here think of the idea of going to Waterloo instead.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...-plans-flawed-hs2-euston-terminus-19-11-2019/


It seems to me that this proposal might just be too late to be taken seriously, even though I quite like the idea.

For those on the SWR network it would make a lot of sense, which given that Waterloo has 95 million passengers a year pass through it could make sense.

It would also create a link to Europe.

Of course the problems could be fairly significant:
- how do you stop people using it as a commuter link between Waterloo and Canary Wharf?
- there's ahead been a significant amount of money spent at Euston in the form of demolition and land purchases, even though this would mean that there could be a significant station upgrade for many this would appear to be silly.
- it would be interesting to see how HS2's cost estimate compares, as many would question are they being assessed on a like for like basis.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
For those on the SWR network it would make a lot of sense, which given that Waterloo has 95 million passengers a year pass through it could make sense.

It would also create a link to Europe.

Of course the problems could be fairly significant:
- how do you stop people using it as a commuter link between Waterloo and Canary Wharf?
- there's ahead been a significant amount of money spent at Euston in the form of demolition and land purchases, even though this would mean that there could be a significant station upgrade for many this would appear to be silly.
- it would be interesting to see how HS2's cost estimate compares, as many would question are they being assessed on a like for like basis.

I do wonder if there was scope to provide the station between Waterloo and Victoria with 1,200m travelator linking, at each end, to the two existing stations.

Firstly this would mean that you'd be linking to a much larger area of the South of England. However probably more importantly it would give you a larger number of lines to connect to for onwards travel, including Crossrail 2. The latter could be important, as it would mean that you wouldn't be encouraging those who could use Crossrail 2 to switch back to going into Waterloo.

The other thing to consider is that although it could be a circa 10-15 minutes to change to/from Waterloo or Victoria services to/from a HS2 services, which wouldn't be a lot of you're heading to Birmingham, it would be enough to stop commuters using it to get to Canary Wharf.

It would also position it in the area where there's a lot of government buildings. This could be useful in that as you move government departments out of they were the located near a HS2 station they could still feel fairly close to the rest of government. For instance Office to Office (Birmingham to London) could be only a little over an hour.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Since there seems to be a large number of people who dislike the plan to terminate HS2 at Euston. I wonder what the people here think of the idea of going to Waterloo instead.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...-plans-flawed-hs2-euston-terminus-19-11-2019/


It seems to me that this proposal might just be too late to be taken seriously, even though I quite like the idea.

For goodness sake. Another crackpot suggestion. The NCE does have a habit of filling blank space on its pages with stuff like this.

I’m willing to bet that that map is the most detailed available. A 4 platform (minimum) deep level (very) underground station next to the Thames, in an area with very high property prices - that’s not going to cost less than £5bn.

Added to which, it would take at least 15 years to build from now.

Nothing to see here, move along.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
*There is no guarantee of those passenger numbers.
*There is no guarantee that 100m passengers are extra, they could be existing passengers moving from classic to HS, which means that every single penny of £55bn+ has been wasted
How would that be a waste of money? We've alread established that the prime reason for building HS2 is for capacity, with the main targets of the benefits commuters around London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc.

*There is no guarantee that 100m passengers want to go from London to Birmingham at high speed. They might want to go somewhere in between, but HS2 does not allow them to stop at intermediate stations, as there are no intermediate stations
As before, they can use the increased number of services on the 'classic' WCML.
Or, they can continue beyond Birmingham on the same train to places like.....Liverpool.

*There is no guarantee that the budget will stay at £55bn. Anything beyond £100bn would be, by any measure, a white elephant
Perhaps you'd like to explain where you're getting these assertions from.

*There is no guarantee that ticket prices are going to be affordable for 100m passengers. If passengers are unable to afford tickets, then it is a white elephant
You'll need to define 'affordable'. Basic economic theory is that, when supply increases more than demand, prices reduce.

*Not connecting London to Liverpool (where connections are required) but connecting London to Birmingham (where there are already countless per hour) is the very definition of a white elephant.
There will literally be 2 HS2 trains per hour from London to Liverpool when HS2 is built. How is that not a rail connection?

We're not talking about Blackpool or Middlesbrough, though. We're talking about a city of 860,000 people. So yes, it does matter.

If it doesn't go to Liverpool, Liverpool doesn't have HS2. An afterthought on slow lines from a small market town 50 miles away (or, in phase one, a small [market] town 150 miles away) is not high speed rail.

It's just yet another example of HS2 tubthumpers trying desperately to claim "benefits" that simply do not exist.


Indeed.

Some major projects have a clear and obvious necessity. Crossrail is staggeringly expensive, but there is a clear need which isn't based on nebulous "benefits". Anyone who's ever used the Central Line in the peak knows what the clear need is.

There really isn't that for HS2.

"It'll clear space on the southern WCML". The outer-urban stations get 5tph already, how many more do they need?
Cram onto a Tuesday evening service to Northampton, then come back. To use your own quote back at you: 'Anyone who's ever used LNWR in the peak hours knows what the clear need is'.

"It'll speed journeys". To Birmingham, yes. But not many other places. I live in Newcastle, I've no desire to go via Birmingham to get to London. The ECML is plenty fast enough. Saying HS2 will benefit me is insulting my intelligence.
HS2 is about capacity. The speed is purely an additional benefit to some places.

"It'll help freight". Freight doesn't go on HS2. The intermodal freight is to Scotland, and the extra freight paths can't be there because- north of Lichfield- HS2 trains will be running in the existing Pendolino paths. And as they won't tilt, they won't be as fast as the existing trains, so you get fewer paths.
Freight goes on the WCML, which HS2 relieves.
Also, you're wrong about basic timetable theory. If the differences between and stopping pattern are less (as you have asserted: "they won't be as fast as the existing trains", the number of paths increases. That's basic timetable theory.

As for cost, if there's change from £100bn I'll eat my other hat (grey twill). That's an awful lot of money for a project whose business case is already based on very weak financial arguments. The same Tory politicians gushing over HS2 will, naturally, say we can't afford free broadband.
Tory politicians aren't that gushing over HS2. Andrea Leadsome, Esther McVey, David Lidington, etc.

The whole thing screams white elephant vanity project. The second they decided that OOC wasn't sexy enough to be a terminus, and spent all that money bulldozing half of Camden, it proved it to me.
Old Oak Common is not Central London. It's not that it wasn't 'sexy' (Euston certainly doesn't get me aroused in any way), it's that most people would want to use the Central London terminus. One would have to provide additional transport from OOC to Central London, which would cost a lot.

And isn't that another significant problem with HS2? It can't go into OOC, soon to be a purpose built modern interchange between different forms of London based travel, so has to go into Euston, a cramped and out of place not-quite-this-not-quite-that compromise with worse transfer options?
Euston is a Central London terminus.

Choosing Euston over OOC just because more Northerners have heard of the latter (which essentially is all the justification HS2 has for calling there) is not enough reason to build the thing.
That's utter rubbish.
 

R G NOW.

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2019
Messages
418
Location
gloucester
Just wondering what Jeremy Corbyn would do with HS2, I wonder whether he would scrap it and improve what we have. Even if it was to quadruple existing lines and add more platforms to the stations we already have.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
Just wondering what Jeremy Corbyn would do with HS2, I wonder whether he would scrap it and improve what we have. Even if it was to quadruple existing lines and add more platforms to the stations we already have.

From the Labour manifesto:

LabourManifesto said:
We will also unlock capacity
and extend high-speed rail networks
nationwide by completing the full
HS2 route to Scotland, taking full
account of the environmental impacts
of different route options.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
In reply to @FelixtheCat

*The leaked report shows that the budget for HS2 has no ceiling, and at one point, we are going to have to concede that one of the budget figures ((88? 100? 100+) meets the definition of white elephant. Maybe £55bn does not. Perhaps £100bn will. Public perception here is key.

*HS2 trains do not go to Liverpool. We have already established this. HS2 is built to Birmingham, anything beyond that in Phase 1 is WCML at reduced speed and is not HS2.

The one error I made was saying "latter" when I meant "former" in regards to why OOC has not been chosen over Euston.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
*HS2 trains do not go to Liverpool. We have already established this. HS2 is built to Birmingham, anything beyond that in Phase 1 is WCML at reduced speed and is not HS2.
On which facile argument, HS1 does not serve Dover or Ramsgate. There are an awful lot of people from the Channel Ports who appear in London every morning who'd argue otherwise.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
In reply to @FelixtheCat

*The leaked report shows that the budget for HS2 has no ceiling, and at one point, we are going to have to concede that one of the budget figures ((88? 100? 100+) meets the definition of white elephant. Maybe £55bn does not. Perhaps £100bn will. Public perception here is key. ...
You have an obsession with trying to call HS2 a 'white elephant'. A white elephant tag in modern western culture can be assigned to a large project which has cost (or does continue to cost) more than its worth. HS2, has a business case that using the best available measures does not qualify it as a white elephant. Despite a possibility of it rising to an escalated total cost of £88bn ISTR, the government has stated that it still has a sufficiently greater than unity cost to benefit ratio. Whether it will still be that in 2035 or thereabouts when it is expected to be fully operational, nobody here (and probably anywhere else) knows, although there are many amateur naysayers who will try and base arguments based on their hatred-driven dislike of the project.
If the cost has risen to a figure of £100bn*, that still doesn't necessarily make it a 'white elephant', so there is no such absolute figure that would qualify it as such because the benefit will also escalate in the same order.
Take as an example the NHS, If the 1948 Labour government had said that the NHS would cost £132bn for the year of 2019, the health service would probably not have happened. Even if they assumed that it would cost the equivalent of that in 1948 prices, (about £3.6bn) they would still have a very difficult argument to make. Maybe you think that the NHS is a white elephant and there are a few who would agree, - mainly those who can afford to pay for the privilege of private medicine and those who object to paying for anything that they themselves don't directly get maximum benefit from.
These escalated figures are alarming to those who just don't understand how inflation affects both earnings and spending. The media (especially the right-wing press who prey on the average person's lack of knowledge about the whole inflation situation) use this to promote pet nimby arguments. Some here seem to be stricken by that same ignorance of the real world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top