Crossrail will never go to Reading, Heathrow or Shenfield.
That's how bizarre and weird this sounds.
-
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)
- Thread starter ABB125
- Start date
- Status
That's how bizarre and weird this sounds.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Esker-pades
Established Member
To add to all the people pointing out this is rubbish: this is rubbish.
HS1 runs from London to the Channel Tunnel. So, how come I can get a direct Eurostar to Paris? Oh, yeah. Because HS1 trains run all the way. In the same way, HS2 trains will go to Liverpool, Glasgow etc.
But, this is all pointless.
Thus, even if HS2 did all the things you want it to, you'd still be against it. It's a genuinley pointless stance, but I feel I should highlight it for other users who are considering engaging.
@FelixtheCat , you are passionately in favour of HS2 and are allowed to participate in this discussion. I'm vehemently opposed and can also participate.
To disallow opponents from this thread would create a pro-HS2 echo chamber, and you wouldn't want that, would you?
To disallow opponents from this thread would create a pro-HS2 echo chamber, and you wouldn't want that, would you?
No it wouldn't.
The higher the budget, the less robust the benefits, the more that must be earned to repay the cost of building the thing.
BCRs don't rise as the overall costs do. Eventually the budget becomes too high for the scheme to be beneficial. Now with HS2 that could be at £88bn, could be £100bn. At one point the cost becomes unviable.
The leaked report admits that £55bn won't be met. How high will people go before it becomes too high to justify spending?
I quite agree with this, so long as all participants tell the truth. Or, if they mistakenly say something that isn’t true, acknowledge their error when it is pointed out to them.
But you don’t. Repeatedly.
Railwaysceptic
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 1,409
The various posts since yours demonstrate you hit the nail on the head.
If inflation drives up the number of pounds that the project costs, it will also drive up the benefit that the project brings, therefore the BCR (as in Benefit-Cost Ratio) would stay the same. The cost of not delivering HS2 will also rise in the same way when the increase in demand for the routes stays the same. The tyranny of plain numbers without time or economic conditions references is regularly used by the media to make cost increases look larger. The original cost of the line was based on 2009 rates, yet those figures keep getting erroneously quoted despite the fact that there's been 10 years of inflation as well as a 20-30% fall in the value of sterling since they were posted.
Whilst it's true that if the costs increase that does come a point where this is too high just seeing an increased cost doesn't mean that the benefits haven't also increased.
Firstly, as others have pointed out, inflation will have an impact on both. As such comparing the cost of the project at double the original cost but with ticket prices also double the cost (both due to inflation doubling the cost) then the overall result is the same.
Secondly there maybe other factors which have changed, for instance passenger numbers could have seen higher growth than expected and so there's likely to be more people using it.
Another factor which could change things is that of how much more people are concerned about the environment, which could lead to a bigger switch away from air and road based travel to rail. In addition to adding more people to HS2 services or could also put more pressure on the local services which could benefit from the capacity made available by the relocation of the long distance services onto HS2.
It's also a myth that a Business Case is a fixed thing - it isn't. A scheme's business case, particularly for a major scheme like HS2 is continually revisted as cost are refined through development, and the benefits are better captured and understood.
This makes the business case more and more robust as time progresses and the inherent uncertainty* that surrounds it reduces.
*Remembering that a Business Case is an educated guess at what may or may nor happen in 30-60 years time. Look at the number of reopening schemes that exceed forecast passenger numbers, for example. Or usage in growth of current WCML services (that HS2 relieves) outstripping forecasts year after year.
This makes the business case more and more robust as time progresses and the inherent uncertainty* that surrounds it reduces.
*Remembering that a Business Case is an educated guess at what may or may nor happen in 30-60 years time. Look at the number of reopening schemes that exceed forecast passenger numbers, for example. Or usage in growth of current WCML services (that HS2 relieves) outstripping forecasts year after year.
Esker-pades
Established Member
You misunderstand. That may well be my fault.
I'll explain:
If one says, as you have said in the past (the quoted comment in my previous comment), one's mind cannot be changed not matter what, it may reduce people's likelihood in participation because they may consider that it futile. I do in private conversations, and will end a discussion if the person in question says "you can't change my mind no matter what". My objection is the inability to change one's views given additional evidence, not that you have a different view to me.
(For the record, my opinions on HS2 have changed, from being generally against it, to not really caring. It was only this thread that threw me well into the 'we must built HS2' camp.)
I will note my agreement here, and also to make you specifically aware that what was stated wasn't my opinion.
Last edited:
No I wouldn't want a pro-HS2 echo chamber, as there are elements where HS2 could do better and they need to be called out on that.
However, if those opposed to HS2 aren't providing responses to progress the debate then their contributions add little.
For example arguing the black is white is only likely to get you killed on a zebra crossing (Hitchhikers Guide reference).
In fact all it does is make those opposed to HS2 seem like that they don't have anything to add to the debate. Which as others have said just makes those who are interested in the debate think that there's little/no reasoned argument against HS2.
When it's debating with the same individuals who are making the same demonstrably untrue points/claims again and again, and one is having to debunk the same things again and again ("HS2 trains do not go to Liverpool" being a cracking example), it *really* saps energy and stifles intelligent debate on the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses of HS2, which I am all up for debating (as a member of the "pro" camp).
HS2 trains will go to Liverpool. The line won't.
Those two things are current policy, for better or worse. Critics insisting no HS2 trains will go to Liverpool and advocates insisting the line will go to Liverpool are politicing. It's tedious.
Those two things are current policy, for better or worse. Critics insisting no HS2 trains will go to Liverpool and advocates insisting the line will go to Liverpool are politicing. It's tedious.
Apologies if it appeared that my previous comment was directed at you; it wasn’t.
Can I ask a few genuine questions? I'm seeking information, not proposing that HS2 is/isn't stupid (though I personally think it's a good thing). For the purposes of avoiding a rehash of most of the past three thousand posts, I'd like to discuss this with the assumption that HS2 phases 1, 2a and 2b will happen in roughly the currently proposed form, serving the same major centres as planned and is worth doing. Acknowledging and respecting that not everybody takes this view, I think it will help us to get some new and interesting discussion if we try not to revert to debating those points while discussiong the below queries.
Platform height and loading gauge. It's not the classic British standard, it's not exactly the European standard, and I'm not convinced they're doing it purely because the TSI rules say so. If we're not using double deckers because dwell times are so critical, and half(ish) the fleet needs to continue onto classic lines, and AFAIK captive trains won't be 3+2 so won't have significantly higher capacity for a given length... what makes it worth building the captive lines to a bigger gauge? It's not for freight to use the HS2 lines. It can't be for the sake of wider aisles and a bit more luggage space? I suppose they might help dwell times, though classic compatibles are supposed to have the same performance characteristics. Clearly a lot of clever people thought it was worth it, and I'd love to understand why (or if they're mistaken, is there anything that can realistically be done about it?)
There's talk of NPR using the same loading guage, but won't that complicate things when it uses classic lines and stations all over the place beyond the core new bit between Manchester and Leeds? Would it allow captive HS2 trains to serve Liverpool, York or Newcastle? Is there any real prospect of having an extensive high(ish) speed/capacity network of express lines with this larger gauge?
Finally, when might we see proposals for the next big extension of our high speed network? How far does HS2 have to prove itself before we start planning a Scottish extension, Bristol, or an extra line from the East Midlands to East London? (Don't want to get into the speculative side of what those lines might be or look like, this is more about when the political will to do so would show up).
Platform height and loading gauge. It's not the classic British standard, it's not exactly the European standard, and I'm not convinced they're doing it purely because the TSI rules say so. If we're not using double deckers because dwell times are so critical, and half(ish) the fleet needs to continue onto classic lines, and AFAIK captive trains won't be 3+2 so won't have significantly higher capacity for a given length... what makes it worth building the captive lines to a bigger gauge? It's not for freight to use the HS2 lines. It can't be for the sake of wider aisles and a bit more luggage space? I suppose they might help dwell times, though classic compatibles are supposed to have the same performance characteristics. Clearly a lot of clever people thought it was worth it, and I'd love to understand why (or if they're mistaken, is there anything that can realistically be done about it?)
There's talk of NPR using the same loading guage, but won't that complicate things when it uses classic lines and stations all over the place beyond the core new bit between Manchester and Leeds? Would it allow captive HS2 trains to serve Liverpool, York or Newcastle? Is there any real prospect of having an extensive high(ish) speed/capacity network of express lines with this larger gauge?
Finally, when might we see proposals for the next big extension of our high speed network? How far does HS2 have to prove itself before we start planning a Scottish extension, Bristol, or an extra line from the East Midlands to East London? (Don't want to get into the speculative side of what those lines might be or look like, this is more about when the political will to do so would show up).
It’s a bit more subtle than that.
It is clear from all the info on HS2, from day one, that HS2 trains will go to Liverpool. That is fact. If HS2 is built, even if only the first phase, there is zero chance of HS2 trains not serving Liverpool. Those that claim otherwise are not politicking: at best they are mistaken, at worst they are deliberately and knowingly spreading falsehoods, sometimes called lying.
It is also clear that under currently published plans put before Parliament, the HS2 infrastructure will not reach Liverpool. However, it is also well known that the Northern Powerhouse Rail proposals explicitly make proposals for a new line from HS2 into Liverpool. Whilst those that suggest that the line will go to Liverpool are rather jumping the gun, it could well happen. Depending on the strength of the statements, that is politicking, although it might just be expressions of hope!
Re the loading gauge question, which is a good one. Personally I don’t know. However I’ll have an educated guess.
Almost every brand new road overbridge built across the railway for the last 50 years has been built to full European gauge. This is on the basis that one day when enough have been done, someone might shake the magic money tree, and we might swap to a larger loading gauge. The Crossrail tunnels are capable of accepting European gauge trains (GB gauge, the GB does not denote ‘Great Britain!), albeit with some amendments to platforms and the OLE.
I guess it’s the same principle with HS2, but with added impetus because it will be possible to have segrgeated services, rather like the Shinkansen, on some parts of the network when it reaches Manchester and Leeds. If, for example, a continental gauge link was built from HS2 to HS1 in future (and that remains a possibility, albeit unlikely), it would be unfortunate if HS2 had not been constructed to a gauge to permit through trains from Europe.
The actual cost of going to european gauge is relatively small. Essentially it’s a little bit more concrete on the bridges, and fractionally wider tunnel bores, which in the costs of tunnelling is close to insignificant for the extra diameter needed.
Most of the posts on Liverpool services on a new line are fairly clear that it is on a future NPR scheme. They may not be overly clear that NPR isn't a scheme which has been commited to.
However I do agree that there's often an element of hope associated with this, but that's probably a more well placed hope than some schemes which we as a forum would like to see.
I believe the stated reason for going for European gauge is that European railway stock should be cheaper than UK gauge due to economies of scale.
The platform height proposed is not TSI, those are much lower than even the UK standard. However it is about the height of a level floored train carriage, which would make the trains much more accessible than the norm of needing ramps or steps. You could get level boarding by dropping the floor height between the bogies to match a lower platform, but that would then likely require steps or ramps inside the train between carriages.
I suspect there won’t be the political will to go further than NPR any time soon. They’ll want to see some results first to see if it’s a vote winner. The only exception might be a Scottish extension if it looks like it might stave off independence.
NPR isn't gonna happen. Even in the currently highly hypothetical plans, the government has overridden the TfN preference for Liverpool to Manchester/HS2 to be prioritised rather than Manchester to Leeds.
Despite its size, Liverpool isn't the government's administrative centre for the area and so is deemed superfluous to the UK's strategic needs.
Despite its size, Liverpool isn't the government's administrative centre for the area and so is deemed superfluous to the UK's strategic needs.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
It's impossible to do more than speculate here, but I would hazard a guess that you'd start to see the first widespread political demands for the Government to consider extending HS2 to Bristol and Scotland within about 5 years of HS2 phase 1 opening. That's based on looking at how quickly other new lines or major upgrades bed in and become accepted as the norm, once they are opened (Consider that HS1 is barely 10 years old for domestic trains and there are now regular demands for an extension to Hastings), and likewise the Virgin High Frequency timetable is about 10 years old, and since starting has already seen upgrades to the train lengths, and new services to Blackpool and Wrexham that weren't envisaged at opening. Even thinking about the enhanced Thameslink route - just 18 months since the fiasco of its failed opening: And this evening I was waiting for a train at Farringdon and watching the constant stream of trains with crowds of rush hour commuters climbing on them, and reflecting on how normal it's already become that people expect trains every few minutes along that corridor. Based on that, I would fully expect that well within 5 years of HS1's opening, the line will be widely seen as an established part of our transport network, and other parts of the country will be starting to feel a strong sense of missing out, leading to all sorts of political pressures.
Of course, depending on the political climate, it might well be another 20 years between serious political demands for extensions to places like Bristol and the Government actually starting to seriously look at coughing up the cash to do it. Scotland may be a bit sooner depending on how the political situation with independence looks in about 2030.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the Scottish Government also planning for High Speed Rail as well? Whilst I understand it is slightly dated at November 2018, it has been resurfaced in an article a few weeks ago.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opini...astle-in-45-minutes-alastair-dalton-1-5021403
https://www.transport.gov.scot/projects/high-speed-rail/high-speed-rail/#42615
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opini...astle-in-45-minutes-alastair-dalton-1-5021403
https://www.transport.gov.scot/projects/high-speed-rail/high-speed-rail/#42615
R G NOW.
Member
I wish to ask a question?, Will the trains used have the traditional in-cab A.W.S and T.P.W.S. systems to allow them to run with existing signalling. I assume HS2 will have the E.T.C.S. version 2 or 3, whereby no post signals would be installed. This would permit these trains to run to Liverpool. With a reduced line speed.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,420
It’s always been the case that trains will run off HS2 to Liverpool (and other destinations), so it goes without saying they’ll have the necessary signalling.
R G NOW.
Member
Thanks for clearing that one. Why are some of the posts stating that they weren't going to Liverpool. If they have the right onboard systems, I don't see, why not.
I cannot see why they can't go from Birmingham up through Crewe and on to Liverpool using that route.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
You would have to ask the people who post about trains not going to Liverpool why they continue to post stuff that is verifiably false and has been repeatedly pointed out to them to be verifiably false.
I think the answer is that the various anti-HS2 campaigns don't seem to have any objection to putting up complete misinformation when it suits them. And, sadly, some people are easily taken in
They will.
You would have to ask the people who post about trains not going to Liverpool why they continue to post stuff that is verifiably false and has been repeatedly pointed out to them to be verifiably false.
I think the answer is that the various anti-HS2 campaigns don't seem to have any objection to putting up complete misinformation when it suits them. And, sadly, some people are easily taken in
The real issue is that those opposed to HS2 are trying to square a circle.
Let's take for instance that we shouldn't be building HS2 as we need to travel less to positively impact on climate change.
The argument is that we should be encouraging people to travel less and so building HS2 will lead to more travel (chiefly through the 25% of new trips).
However there's a number of problems with this way of thinking and I'll highlight this through a series of questions:
This extra travel which is talked about, what baseline is it comparing? It's it comparing against future expected travel patterns (and so has taken on board population growth) or is it against current travel patterns (and so there's going to be an element of that extra travel is going to happen anyway, it's just without HS2 it would be undertaken by other means such as by air and road)?
Now given that we've got to reduce our overall travel this is why we have to compare against what is happening today and so why HS2 could appear to be bad. However, not all travel is created equal. As such is it better to accept an overall increase in road and flying travel even if the per person basis is going down, or would it be better to have an increase in rail travel (and mostly electrified rail travel) if it resulted a more flat line of growth in road and air travel?
The other side of the argument is related to this series of questions, given that we need to travel less then what measures are likely to result in people having lower car ownership rates? In that if someone doesn't have as easy access to a car then are they now or less likely to walk and cycle for their local trips?
This means that to reduce car usage, what transport schemes do we need to develop to ensure that there's few opportunities for people to say well I need a car for "X" and so I'll have to own one?
Are these not the sorts of trips which we do semi frequently, so the likes of visiting friends and family, for which public transport doesn't always work well?
For instance, if you have an elderly relativewho you need to get to quickly few people would consider public transport because it's slow, however if you could get to the nearest major city faster than you could drive it then a bit of a slower trip by bus could still mean that you could get there faster overall than driving.
Once that's possible then is there the need to own a car for that trip?
Once you can reduce the number of "need" trips in your car then doesn't it start to become more viable to use other travel options and just hire the most suitable vehicle for the journey for any other trips which are needed which can't be undertaken any other way?
Finally, what happens to the existing network with those paths which are currently used by those services which currently travel hundreds of miles between London and their next stop?
Do those paths become unavailable or do they become useful for other services including providing extra capacity for more local services? Likewise if there's a service running between London and Manchester does this need to be a service which runs the whole distance or could it create several shorter routes?
For instance could it allow a London commuter service, a Manchester commuter service and allow extra freight capacity or East West capacity for services which run along or cross the tracks between the two cities? If this is the case it would certainly create two new services but could even allow three or even more new services.
Now to justify their thinking those opposed to HS2 have to try and provide answers to other questions which explains why they're not answering these questions. For instance stating that HS2 won't benefit places not in the HS2 line. As such you'll see them "showing" that the likes of Liverpool and Coventry won't see improvements, that East West travel won't benefit, that it's focused on London and the like.
It's where our system falls down, in that if it was under BR the full package of changes could be shown from day one (possibly even a working timetable so people could see how it could benefit them), and as such it requires a bit more imagination as to what the future will look like. As with such a significant change to the way our long distance trains are running and serving our key cities, would you expect things to remain broadly the same as currently out would it be likely that a major recast of the timetables of the services which interact with the long distance services?
As an example, what is likely to happen to the local services at Manchester Piccadilly when there's at least 27 coaches worth of platform capacity released by the moving of long distance services from the existing platforms?
What's likely to happen to the non Virgin services between Birmingham and Manchester and how will this impact on capacity and services at Manchester?
I would suggest that these aren't likely to result in small changes to the existing services, however even on a very basic level existing trains are likely to be able to be longer than they currently are. For example by moving a 4 coach service to the platform released by the relocation of the virgin services it could be an 8 coach service, however the two 3 coach service which had previously shared a platform with it could now both also be longer at 5 coaches each.
As such can those who say "I'll never use HS2" actually be sure that they'll not actually benefit from HS2 or those who want better local rail services be able to provide examples of projects which would result in the same sort of capacity improvements to the number of services across the network?
Likewise those who would like to see Beeching reopenings struggle to answer the question of, how they will get their passengers into the major cities nearby without extra capacity to the existing network?
Once you consider the above questions, such as if you are reviewing the project for the government, what would be your findings (show your workings)?
Speed43125
Member
Given most lines in Europe and HS1 have been built to GC is there a reason we are using to GB? surely at least GB+ would be applicable?
HS2 is being built to GC gauge, it’s Crossrail that’s using GB in their tunnels. I think going for anything larger would be extravagant for Crossrail given the interaction it has with rest of the UK network.
- Status