He said, in post 3591 which you subsequently quoted, that the service from London will be 40 minutes quicker. You're just flat out lying now.
-
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
He said, in post 3591 which you subsequently quoted, that the service from London will be 40 minutes quicker. You're just flat out lying now.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Will it? Crossrail to Bond St then tube will be about the same as HS2 to Euston then tube. Crossrail to Moorgate then tube will be faster than HS2 to Euston then tube.
jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 894
By having two stations in London, the passenger load of HS2 is spread over more of the network. If you only have OOC, everyone has to use Crossrail.
You sort-of seem to be arguing against an imagined "Euston instead of OOC" scenario, rather than the actual "Euston and OOC".
Even so, Location X getting slightly more/less benefits than Location Y is not in any way a logical reason for concluding that the entire principlal of the scheme is a bad idea. Which seems to be the thrust of PE1's entire case.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Not really. On face valie it might look like it, but as Euston can't cope with the passengers it currently has, adding more to the mix isn't going to work.
Euston doesn't add much to the table, and certainly doesn't add £5bn to it.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I would say it does - indeed, to me it adds near 100% of the value. Without direct access to central London it's a crackpot idea.
Old Oak can be seen as taking some existing passengers who arrive on the WCML and use Euston tube station who, in future, will transfer to HS2 services (from Birmingham or wherever) and thus will find OOC handier instead. Thus taking people out of and freeing up capacity at Euston tube station for other growth.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Don't forget that Euston will be getting a new direct link to the near end of the Euston Square platforms - that will probably absorb some passengers who currently use the Northern/Victoria lines because of the street-level walk to the far end of Euston Square. Also, there were plans to increase frequencies on the Northern line once Camden Town has been rebuilt - although I'm not sure what state those plans are currently in.
I think you do have a point to the extent that HS2 will, even with many passengers joining at OOC, increase flows through Euston - and that is going to cause some problems (at least until CR2 is built). But I'd say that's still massively outweighed by the advantages of stopping HS2 trains at OOC AND Euston.
Yes Euston will be very much faster in those cases due to:
-The time needed for two interchanges, not one
-And Crossrail to Tube changes are, if anything, pretty long in distance terms due to the size of the Crossrail stations for 250m long trains
And *still* doesn't address my point about Crossrail capacity to take all these passengers!
The ones you ignore or resort to wacky conspiracies to undermine as they show that you are talking nonsense. For instance, the 40 minute Liverpool journey time reduction you allege in this post I'm quoting is 'could' and 'might' based on a bizarre conspiracy theory you have that I address below. Or all the stuff in my post about Central London journey times that you got called out by others:
It really does seem that if someone mentioned that the earth was round to justify HS2, you'd be saying that's speculation, and then saying outright that it's flat just to refuse to accept it.
Anyway, back to this nonsense conspiracy theory lie that you need to justify your absurd suggestions about Liverpool's HS2 services.
Curzon Street is too small to terminate much more than the 9tph existing planned. The avoiding line - even ignoring everything else (eg dodging a ~17 minute in and out with stepping back - which is, of course, less than most of 40 minutes...) costs far less than doubling the size of Curzon Street to deal with all the trains reversing there.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Crossrail has direct access to central London though, and has the capacity- unlike Euston.
The point of HS2 is, apparently, to move long-distance passengers off the southern WCML, allowing medium-distance passengers on to it instead. That means arrival numbers from the WCML will be roughly the same as now- which Euston tube already can't cope with.
My view is to move HS2 away from Euston would distribute capacity across more of the network. Dumping HS2 on an already overcrowded station isn't going to work, and there are no capacity increases proposed unless and until Crossrail 2 appears.
(That said, I'm sceptical about the growth and think Euston would be OK- but then if you agree with me on that, you're undermining the need for HS2 in the first place).
Crossrail 1 is going to cost about £15-20bn, so Crossrail 2 will be roughly the same I'd expect. So for the cost of the Euston vanity project you could have a third of a crossrail.
Last edited:
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It is could and might. It's based on lots of things aligning, many of which may or may not do. Phase 1 will only save about 10-15 minutes, and about the same again for phase 2.
I've not seen anything that shows 40 minutes is realistic or achievable, other than HS2 PR bumph. So working out- from an independent source, not HS2 Ltd or DfT- please.
I'm going to file it under "might", just as the captive HS2 trains were going to add loads of capacity right up until they were scrapped.
As for "conspiracy theories", the evidence from other major projects is that the promoters underestimate the cost and overestimate the benefits to get approval, and then shrug afterwards. The Channel Tunnel and CTRL being the most motable examples.
Last edited:
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
But it doesn't have the capacity. CrossRail will in total have a bit more than half the capacity per hour of HS2 (trains half the length, slightly more tph, although perhaps made up for to a small extent by that CR trains will have fewer seats and more standing room per carriage. So if HS2 terminates at OOC and no more than half of HS2 passengers want to head to central London AND CR trains are empty when they arrive at OOC, then in that hypothetical scenario, CR would just about be able to absorb those HS2 passengers who want CR.
But CR trains won't be empty at OOC: They'll already be half-full of passengers travelling between Heathrow/Ealing/etc. and Central London. Not only that, but you'll have a lot of people on GWR trains alighting at OOC and expecting to get a CR train to Central London. And added to that, you can plausibly expect that the proportion of HS2 passengers wanting to head to central London will be rather more than half of them.
Add all those together and there's just no way that Crossrail would be able to cope if HS2 terminated at OOC. (Other than, possibly, temporarily for the first couple of years when HS2 won't yet be operating a full service).
Last edited:
Err, sorry, what? The station that where Euston gains a further 2 minute advantage over OOC would be the one that's slower via Euston whereas the other is about the same?
If you had said them the other way around then maybe I could treat you as a rational actor, able to be persuaded. As it is, I'm just showing any casual anti-HS2 people listening in that you seem incapable of simple logic, reading comprehension and arithmetic. And thus, when you say (completely untrue, btw) stuff like "phase 1 will only save 10-15 minutes", it should be clear that you have no credibility to pronounce that - even if HS2 were themselves saying it - as you can't be trusted to read data correctly, deal with numbers, or make sense.
Let's look at the time differences:
So the tube is 6 minutes (8-2) shorter from Euston than OOC to Bond Street/Oxford Circus, but 8 minutes (16-8) shorter from Euston than OOC to Moorgate (or Liverpool Street Elizabeth Line station*). The one which the last leg is 8 minutes faster via Euston is where it's more likely to be faster via Euston than changing at OOC than the one where the last leg is just 6 minutes faster.
With 5 minutes extra on HS2 to get to Euston and 2 minutes more interchange time there (though maybe there won't be) than at OOC, and it very much is, as Ianno said, "swings and roundabouts". When I said "a little bit shorter", I mean like an unnoticeable minute shorter. Which is what we get (with Euston sometimes quicker, OOC sometimes quicker). And given this is for the central London locations with direct trains to OOC, it's clear that OOC isn't going to be inherently better for central London.
*We'll ignore that you suggest getting on the tube after taking the Elizabeth line from OOC to get to Moorgate, when Liverpool Street Elizabeth line station will share a ticket hall with Moorgate station...
OK then. Euston to Crewe is 150 miles or so on the current WCML, equating to 240km.
Given the HS2 maximum speed is 360kph, with one stop (Old Oak Common), it's pretty obvious Crewe can be comfortably reached in about an hour or so.
Then add half an hour or so for the journey via the existing WCML and Runcorn - exactly as today - and we're looking at in the region of 90-95 minutes end to end. Compared to 128 minutes today.
Really quite simple.
The specific conspiracy theory of yours I was addressing was that they would spend billions enlarging Curzon Street to save ~100 million or so not building the mainline between the north and south junctions for the Curzon Street spur.
As for underestimating the cost:
You expect, because you prefer to make up numbers rather than engage with facts. From the horse's mouth: "We estimate that Crossrail 2 would cost around £30bn in 2014 prices including the cost of new trains and Network Rail works."
And Crossrail 2 is much larger in scope (e.g. the Central Tunnels are much longer than Crossrail 1).
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
So of course would cost more then CR1, the fact remains though that while those who see why HS2 is a good thing can and will supply hard verified facts and figures to back their views I cannot say the same of those against who constantly are proven time and time again that they are wrong and who refuse to supply hard verified facts and figures.
It’s not difficult because to debate properly you need to be in ownership of all the facts and be able to prove the facts and figures by verifiably them, so far those against HS2 are failing massively in the debate.
I’m not just saying that because I do think HS2 should be completed in full but because that’s what it is.
I had to give a presentation on a debate last year and if I gave such answers as given here by those opposed to HS2 I would have failed easily, I do believe that I have made my point now as to if anyone actually take note is another thing altogether.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,727
I hope it'd be much less than that, given that Manchester is projected at only 68 or so minutes!
Depends how the phasing works. The initial plans have London to Crewe in 55 minutes
Last edited:
That's why the Waterloo And City Line exists...
What's all this talk of "passenger load"? Last week a certain Mr Farage, head of the Brexit Party, said that it wasn't worth spending north of £100 billion on HS2 as "hardly anybody will use it". Last Sunday during a leaders debate he clarified his views stating "only a few thousand people would use it each day".
Perhaps I've got my wires crossed somewhere but I thought the number of HS2 passenger journeys were going to be something in the order of a few hundred thousand per day!
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Just under an hour if you use the airport (59 minutes from Interchange IIRC)
I don't believe 35 minutes - that's an average in excess of 400kph on a 360kph railway!
55 minutes seems more the right ballpark.
That's my point - even using a fairly pessimistic journey time assumption to Crewe on HS2, it still comes up with a hefty reduction upon today's Euston-Liverpool journey time.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Great minds think alike
I was just Googling because I thought 35 minutes seemed unbelievable. Wikipedia is claiming that after phase 2 it'll be 55 minutes London-Crewe, representing a 35 minute reduction on current journey times. Without having time to look for somewhere more authoritative, that sounds plausible to me.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,727
The HS2 website says 55 minutes to Crewe from Euston, 48 from OOC.Great minds think alike
There's only ~2,000 passengers a day* currently on Virgin trains
* When you only count London to Glasgow passengers:
www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/virgin-trains-london-glasgow-anglo-scottish-passengers-air-rail-record-a9197041.html
EM2
Established Member
There is no transport project anywhere that benefits everywhere in the country. It's impossible.
EM2
Established Member
We are truly through the looking glass.
- Status