-
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
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Agree with your maths - though it felt as if most of them were on board the Anglo-Scottish train I travelled on earlier this week!
According to HS2 itself, "HS2 is expected to carry over 300,000 passengers a day – around 100 million a year, when fully operational."
My point - in response to the title of this thread, "Why are people opposed to HS2?" is that it is hardly surprising when high profile politicians, Mr Farage is currently talking on the Andrew Neil show right now, claim that "hardly anybody will use it".
What about Ipswich? Or Aberystwyth? Or Salisbury? Or Portadown? Or Stornoway?
EM2
Established Member
What route would it take? How would that benefit Norwich? Or Barrow? Or Hull?
What special insight into the "truth about HS2" do you have that others don't ?
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
We regularly walk from Euston to various London attractions - the British Museum, the Zoo, Oxford Street.
Don't fancy walking from Old Oak Common !
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
But you say that HS2 should have been this:
This apparently benefits the whole nation? Yet you can't explain how.
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
It's quite simple EM2 a network of HS lines running up the length of the country that extends to all the major cities not just a few in the Midlands. HS rail has a greater effect on longer distances as you know. You could even have an upgraded partition of the ECML with an offshoot for East Anglia. Maybe win back much of the central belt traffic lost to domestic flights which would be a real goal.
So what part of HS2 stops somebody else coming along and building a high speed line from London to Bristol, or Norwich to Birmingham, or wherever either now or in the future, and making it a genuine network?
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
Absolutely nothing but it's not being considered at this time. There's no overall plan is there to expand the network, just a little bit here and there which will probably take over a 100 years.
EM2
Established Member
That's not the same as HS2 going to Stirling with a spur to Devon, which is what your post suggested.
So you build HS2, then you can build HS3 (which could go to Stirling), then HS4 (which could go to Penzance), then HS5 (which could go to Norwich).
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,933
The same could be said about the motorway network, Preston bypass 1958 and the A1 upgrade is still happening as well as motorways that were never built. Why would you expect a complete network in one go?
How would you define a major city? Does Plymouth count? In which case what about Belfast which has a larger population?
If we are incluthen1 Preston, should there be a route to Reading and if so which other cities should link to it?
Are we going to look at existing passenger usage?
Even if we manage to decide all that which cities should get their new railway line first? Surely the largest two cities should be those which are linked first, should they not?
How long will it take from the first services being started to when the last pieces being opened? If it's going to decades then how do we know that future HS lines won't get built in the same timeframe providing much if not all of the same benefits?
Finally, given that price is something which HS2 gets hit over the head with, then any mega scheme is likely to scare people off, is it not?
Whilst I agree that there's probably a case for creating more of a strategy for what future rail schemes we're likely to need/should consider looking at, in not sure that it being a single mega project is the best way to go about this.
How would you define a major city? Does Plymouth count? In which case what about Belfast which has a larger population?
If we are incluthen1 Preston, should there be a route to Reading and if so which other cities should link to it?
Are we going to look at existing passenger usage?
Even if we manage to decide all that which cities should get their new railway line first? Surely the largest two cities should be those which are linked first, should they not?
How long will it take from the first services being started to when the last pieces being opened? If it's going to decades then how do we know that future HS lines won't get built in the same timeframe providing much if not all of the same benefits?
Finally, given that price is something which HS2 gets hit over the head with, then any mega scheme is likely to scare people off, is it not?
Whilst I agree that there's probably a case for creating more of a strategy for what future rail schemes we're likely to need/should consider looking at, in not sure that it being a single mega project is the best way to go about this.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I genuinely can't make head nor tail of what you have just said there. Can you provide a translation?
HS2 estimate Euston-OOC will take 7 minutes. So go away, add 7 to whatever point you were trying to make, and get back to me.
You won't get from Euston to Moorgate in 8 minutes, I'll tell you that now, regardless of what Citymapper might say.
Nope, you've lost me again.
If you'd like to quote this "conspiracy theory" I'm all ears. Until then, pipe down and learn some manners.
You were talking about London Bridge, which would be a tube from Moorgate or a Thameslink from Farringdon. You raised London Bridge, not me, so cut out the attitude.
The estimated journey time to Crewe is about 55-60 minutes, down from 90 now. One would assume the classic bit will stay the same, so you're looking at about a 30 minute saving. Not 40, unlike others have asserted. That 10 mins makes a huge difference to any BCR.
CR2 is going to cost more than I thought. You're right. Still, £5bn is a good deposit against the cost in anyone's book.
Yes you are, don't be silly.
Anyone who doesn't join in the HS2 circle jerk is an idiot. Including, it seems, Lord Berkeley, who was on the HS2 review panel and is raising the same issues as me.
http://stophs2.org/news/18779-co-chair-distances-oakervee-review-hs2
Interesting that the BCR of 1.1 includes 18tph, which even HS2 admit is impossible. They then admit the reduced tph will reduce the benefits by 24%, so bringing the BCR way under 1.
Interestingly, Lord Berkeley also thinks the promoters of this project are prevaricating about costs until it's "too late" to stop HS2. I wonder why they might be doing that...
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
We regularly walk from Euston to various London attractions - the British Museum, the Zoo, Oxford Street.
Don't fancy walking from Old Oak Common !
Don't worry, you be able to use Crossrail as Old Oak Common is so much better for onward connections then a London Terminal actually in Zone 1...
Oh really, pot calling the kettle black in fact in all your previous posts on HS2 and you're not alone I fail to see any reliable and verified facts or figures that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt so when I challenge you and others oppose to HS2 to step up you then proceed to use childish insults.
Terms like HS2 circle jerk are what one would expect from the playground and not from a grown adult who is expected to join in debates in a mature way.
Yes I want to see HS2 built and yes I understand the business case for it in the first place, I also am very much aware that at the moment I will not benefit directly from it as it stands at the moment as it delivers no direct benefits for me however it will benefit other parts of the country so what part of understanding that while it will not directly benefit me but will other parts of the country mean that I join in a HS2 circle jerk?
The only person being silly here is you and of course Lord Berkeley would say what he is saying as he's been a HS2 critic since it was first suggested with him as a deputy chairman on the report actually means that there is a balanced exchange of views on the subject.
That really, really made me laugh.
As you know the truth, you must therefore be on the HS2 executive team or perhaps in the DfTs High Speed and Major Rail Projects team. Which is it?
Fact check:
the standard journey time for Euston to Crewe (with a Crewe stop) on Virgin Liverpool services today is 94 minutes down, (xx07 departure, +141 arr), and between 97-101 minutes up.
the proposed journey time for Euston to Crewe on HS2 services is 55 minutes.
The difference, and therefore the journey time saving, is between 39 and 46 minutes. I’d say that’s close enough to 40 minutes to be termed ‘around 40 minutes’. Do you agree?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Ah of course, he's a HS2 critic so he must be wrong
The costs have been underestimated by HS2- a projected £35bn cost is looking more like £85-90bn at 2015 prices- and the benefits have been overstated. Each revision lowers the benefits and increases the costs.
But even using HS2's own figures the benefits are £92bn at 2015 prices. Which is great when you're spending £35bn, but not so great when you actually spend £92bn.
If costs go up any more- and let's face it, they will, even the NAO have said so- then it's going to have a BCR of less than 1. And as we know, a BCR of less than 1 means we'd have been better off scrapping it.
It seems HS2 is more about faith than facts.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The fastest Crewe-London is 90 minutes, though, as the Liverpools have extra stops. So we'll use 90 minutes. HS2 do. So it's 35 minutes, not 40.
The 55 minutes estimate is at a 360km/h running speed, according to HS2, but mutterings are this will be reduced; even HS2 now think it's likely to be 300-320km/h. This will add 6-11 minutes to the journey time.
So best case it's 35 not 40, worst case it's 25 not 40.
I'm not being churlish- it's an improvement, I've not said it isn't- but that 15 minutes makes a huge difference to what is an already fragile BCR.
How does reducing the frequency of trains to/from London reduce the total benefits by 24%, for starters a reduction from 18tph to 14tph is a reduction of 22.2%.
Secondly that not all HS2 services, is only those which start/end at London, it doesn't include the services which start/end at Birmingham which don't have their other end in London.
Finally it depends on what services those 14tph run. For instance it's possible that you could have 1tph to Manchester and somewhere else by splitting on route, in doing so Manchester still has 3tph and although it sees less seats it's 2,750 rather than 3,300. Even that 16.7% reduction in capacity is unlikely to actually result in many fewer passengers, as that's still a fair uplift (about +1/2) from the current circa 1,770 seats per hour.
As such, until we know what the service pattern is the 24% reduction in benefits is dubious at best.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
You would have to ask the (pro-HS2) review authors who stated this. They actually said a cut from 18tph to 16tph would cause that reduction in benefit, but I'm happy to extrapolate that to 14tph.
No high speed railway in the world manages more than 14tph (according to no2HS2- I've not verified that).
I'm happy to take it at face value, as seemingly Lord Berkeley also was.
It makes sense- lower frequencies are less attractive, on top of the reduced capacity- so I've no reason to question it.
HS2 are saying that there will be 300,000 passengers a day, depending on how may days you multiple that by you end up with a figure of between 90 and 110 million passengers a year.
Crewe, including passengers changing, is used by 4.7 million passengers. Even if all of those would use HS2 services (how likely is that?) then even if you lost all those passengers (how likely is that?) it would change the benefit by about 5%.
Given that London to the NW has already seen growth from 100 passengers from the 2009 baseline figure to 170 in the actual 2018 passenger numbers when comparing against the baseline and is only expected to reach 195 for the full opening of HS2 in circa 2035, how likely is it that a faster service (which cuts 25 minutes off a 90 minutes journey time) would harm the future growth so it caused significant harm to the business case?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I'm just imagining the conversation that could have taken place in the 1820's ...
Stephenson: I've got this great idea. I want to build a railway from Liverpool to Manchester. Just like the Stockton and Darlington one. But this time I want to build it linking two cities and for passengers. We can run some of those new steam engines on it to transport people faster than ever!
Financial backers: No, don't bother. It's only going to benefit two cities. It won't benefit London, or Leeds or Sheffield or Birmingham or Glasgow. Unless you can come up with a plan that benefits all those cities at the same time, it just won't be worth building anything!
Last edited:
Which services are seeing a reduction in frequency? Has there been a schedule of services published?
Also is it a reduced capacity (from the existing) or is it just that the capacity uplift isn't going to be as much as it would have been?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The original business case was for 18tph, which HS2 now say probably won't run. It is now likely to be 14tph. Read the link I posted- especially Lord Berkeley's letter. Or don't.
Funny how you were criticising me for saying the benefits were "might" and "could", and now you're saying we can't say for certain until everything is finalised. Make your mind up!
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
HS2 are the ones saying it'll benefit the whole country, and that that's their business case.
So if you're saying it won't benefit the whole country, and that that doesn't matter, then that rather contradicts HS2's justification for proceeding!
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
There is a value attached to speed and frequency. That value is a benefit. If you reduce the speed and reduce the frequency, that value decreases and the value of the benefit decreases. That, in turn, reduces the BCR.
And when your BCR is 1.1, as HS2's now is estimated to be with the massive cost overruns (before construction has even properly started!), small incremental reductions in the benefit can fatally sink the business case. With the numbers we're talking about, even a 1% reduction in the value of the benefit is about a billion quid.
If speed and frequency do not have a value, we may as well save a fortune and build a classic 125mph line.
Glenn1969
Established Member
How about HS2 being built and extended to at least Newcastle so it does benefit the whole country
I know quite a few people say it's only really being done to relieve the WCML. I live in the North and don't particularly care about what happens in Northampton but rather more about the overcrowded XC service through Leeds for example that DaFT insist should stay at one per hour despite the fact that it links Birmingham with 5 major Northern cities and is the only regular through train from Wakefield and Leeds to Scotland. This axis is in desperate need of the kind of relief HS2 and NPR would bring
I know quite a few people say it's only really being done to relieve the WCML. I live in the North and don't particularly care about what happens in Northampton but rather more about the overcrowded XC service through Leeds for example that DaFT insist should stay at one per hour despite the fact that it links Birmingham with 5 major Northern cities and is the only regular through train from Wakefield and Leeds to Scotland. This axis is in desperate need of the kind of relief HS2 and NPR would bring
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, on the basis that you probably haven’t done much railway economic analysis or timetabling / train service specification.
We are specifically discussing Liverpool services, to justify the point about the journey time saving for London to Liverpool services, when HS2 opens to Crewe, being around 40 minutes.
Today there are 17 southbound and 18 northbound Virgin services between Euston and Liverpool, of which 14 and 16 respectively call at Crewe. Of these latter group, the best journey time is 1h34 minutes, and the worst 1h48 minutes, excluding the first northbound (2h00, and last southbound 2h19) which have extra calls or some slow line running. Excluding these two outliers, the average is about 1h38.
London to Liverpool passengers on HS2 will travel on services that call at OOC and Crewe, with the time between London and Crewe being 55 minutes. (But see below*).
Assuming the dwell time at Crewe is identical, and that the running time from Crewe to Liverpool is identical, then the journey time saving for the average passenger between London and Liverpool will be the difference between the current average journey time (1h38) and the future average journey time (55), ie 43 minutes.
The fact that some London - Crewe journeys are done in 90 minutes, (by some northbound Manchester trains only, with no intermediate calls) is irrelevant to the London - Liverpool journey time, as all the latter that call at Crewe do have intermediat3 calls, and are therefore slower.
*The 55 minutes may well assume 400km/h operation. I’ll freely admit that I don’t know, but for the sake of the discussion will assume it does. However, it’s worth noting that the 400km/h section doesn’t start until well into Buckinghamshire, and there are some sub-400 speed restrictions further north. If the ruling linespeed is dropped to 350km/h (typical on the Chinese HSLs) then the journey to Crewe would be about 58-59 minutes. That would make the journey time saving for the average London - Liverpool passenger 39-40 minutes.
Last edited:
- Status