• 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.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
To allow a longer (by distance) route to say York to still be quick, you mean? Yes, true, but 300km/h would be fine.
There is very little reason to build for less than 320km/h
Which is why that is the defacto standard max speed worldwide
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There is very little reason to build for less than 320km/h
Which is why that is the defacto standard max speed worldwide

300, 320, near enough. It's the very high speed (400km/h) that increases complexity and cost for little benefit.

Notably, though, DB AG's new ICE4 units are only 250km/h...
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
If you had through running from the WCML onto it that would be fine. Without that it would be pointless.

Do you mean at the London end, the northern end, or both?

I can see the potential for ending up in a situation with parallels to the construction of the lower parts of the M1. The core section was constructed first, with extensions towards London being added subsequently. At each temporary terminal point the flows were re-directed onto the existing network.

When they eventually reached the A406 it was decided the original plans to go further towards the centre of London no longer made sense. With hindsight we can look at those plans and wonder what on earth the transport planners were thinking. Fortunately the plans were scrapped and a very different plan 'B' finally emerged.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
There's no point building the northern section without the core.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
300, 320, near enough. It's the very high speed (400km/h) that increases complexity and cost for little benefit.

Notably, though, DB AG's new ICE4 units are only 250km/h...

HS2 is being built to operate at 320kph, however there will be passive provision to allow future upgrades to facilitate it running at 400kph.

Passive provision means ensuring that as much is done so that the future speeds don't find too much which was built stopping it from doing so. Whilst there could be some cost implications, it's likely to be fairly small.
 

devonexpress

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2016
Messages
279
It's a massive waste of money, it's destroying what little green land we're going to have left in 40 years time once all these new housing developments, industrial estates etc are built. The actual improvement was something like 20 minutes compared to a usual train. Overall i'd much rather the money was spent on upgrading existing railways, adding more tracks, better rolling stock), or from where I live, reopening the Newton Abbot to Exeter via Heathfield line as a backup to the Dawlish route.

Considering the ECML will be going up to 140mph in the future, why can't this be done on the GWML?
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
That was done purely to escape complying with High Speed TSIs.
It also means they are lighter and more energy-efficient than the ICE series 1 and 2 trains they are replacing. Sectional timings on typical diagrams across the network are no greater despite the slightly lower maximum speed, as the new trains accelerate so quickly and the higher speeds could not be exploited anyway on many parts of the routes. ICE 3s will continue to be used on a small number of routes with longer non-stop segments, where their higher speed makes a worthwhile difference.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I disagree with that statement if it is taken as the absolute it appears to be.

In some cases domestic aviation is a good thing. We are at risk of repeating one of the mistakes of the Beeching era by tackling the negative issues of a transport mode in a way which damages positive aspects of it. (by that I mean not fully recognising the contribution some branch lines made to the viability of the rail network as a whole)

In domestic aviation terms there are routes which make little economic sense but are cross-subsidised by other more profitable routes. Also routes that feed passengers into airports for onward connections.

If you adopt a policy of extracting revenue from profitable airline routes (transferring passengers to rail instead) you run the risk of being left with a rump of unsustainable airline routes that can only continue if given substantial public subsidy.

People who rely on those less sustainable airline routes may not welcome HS2 and the long-term impact it might have on them.

Why do want to carry on using air travel given that it's huge impact on the environment?

If we are going to try and encourage people to not fly anymore, rather than just cutting it off altogether, then clearly improving journey times for train travel is going to be a helpful step.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
It's a massive waste of money, it's destroying what little green land we're going to have left in 40 years time once all these new housing developments, industrial estates etc are built. The actual improvement was something like 20 minutes compared to a usual train. Overall i'd much rather the money was spent on upgrading existing railways, adding more tracks, better rolling stock), or from where I live, reopening the Newton Abbot to Exeter via Heathfield line as a backup to the Dawlish route.

Considering the ECML will be going up to 140mph in the future, why can't this be done on the GWML?
If a Dawlish Avoider is ever constructed, I would expect it to be a new high-speed alignment through the Haldon Hills, not the round-about, twisty, flood-prone single track Teign Valley, that is built over for part of its length today, is longer than the coast line, was tediously slow and has a partially collapsed tunnel en route. A good new alignment might save some 4 or 5 miles to Newton Abbot, which with higher speed might cut journey time by as much as half from Exeter. 80x trains are all capable of 140mph, but practical operations at that speed are thought not to save significant journey time on the limited sections where such speeds might be reached on typical diagrams on the existing network. Also if other trains inter-running on the same lines aren't similarly sped up too, then total train capacity could be reduced.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
It's a massive waste of money, it's destroying what little green land we're going to have left in 40 years time once all these new housing developments, industrial estates etc are built. The actual improvement was something like 20 minutes compared to a usual train. Overall i'd much rather the money was spent on upgrading existing railways, adding more tracks, better rolling stock), or from where I live, reopening the Newton Abbot to Exeter via Heathfield line as a backup to the Dawlish route.

Considering the ECML will be going up to 140mph in the future, why can't this be done on the GWML?

Just on a factual point the idea that HS2 will destroy what little green land we're going to have left is nonsense.

Figures from 2012 (it'll have changed since then I accept but not massively) showed that "urban landscapes" covered 10.6% of England, 4.1% of Wales and 1.9% of Scotland. But "urban" in this context included parks, gardens, allotments, sports pitches, rivers, canals and lakes. The proportion of England actually built on was ... 2.27%.

Building a railway from London to Lancashire & Yorkshire isn't going to gobble up a significant chunk of the 97.73% that's left.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
If a Dawlish Avoider is ever constructed, I would expect it to be a new high-speed alignment through the Haldon Hills, not the round-about, twisty, flood-prone single track Teign Valley, that is built over for part of its length today, is longer than the coast line, was tediously slow and has a partially collapsed tunnel en route. A good new alignment might save some 4 or 5 miles to Newton Abbot, which with higher speed might cut journey time by as much as half from Exeter. 80x trains are all capable of 140mph, but practical operations at that speed are thought not to save significant journey time on the limited sections where such speeds might be reached on typical diagrams on the existing network. Also if other trains inter-running on the same lines aren't similarly sped up too, then total train capacity could be reduced.

MarkyT highlights one of the problems with "sorting the Dawlish problem".

Do you reopen the LSW route; do you go via Heathfield; do you go for a new alignment entirely.

And what do you do about maintaining a service to Dawlish and Teignmouth?
 

Yindee8191

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2019
Messages
159
It's a massive waste of money, it's destroying what little green land we're going to have left in 40 years time once all these new housing developments, industrial estates etc are built. The actual improvement was something like 20 minutes compared to a usual train. Overall i'd much rather the money was spent on upgrading existing railways, adding more tracks, better rolling stock), or from where I live, reopening the Newton Abbot to Exeter via Heathfield line as a backup to the Dawlish route.

Considering the ECML will be going up to 140mph in the future, why can't this be done on the GWML?

It ‘destroys’ a strip of land perhaps 50m wide at the most , for about 450 miles. A significant amount of that is in tunnels. The time saving may only be small on some routes (you can’t say all of the time savings are 20 minutes - some are clearly more significant), but the amount of extra capacity created by putting in 18 600m trains every hour is immense. The WCML is totally full currently, and HS2 is the only viable way of creating the much-needed capacity.
About adding new tracks to existing lines, that’s hugely more environmentally damaging than HS2 as the HS2 route can be (and is) tailored to avoid most ancient woodlands, scientific sites and houses, while building by the WCML will mean razing anything within say 30m of the existing line on one side. There are naturally more houses along the side of a major railway, so building new tracks for the WCML is going to mean demolishing hundreds if not thousands of houses. It would also create far less capacity because fast trains and slow trains already have their own lines. Adding extra tracks to railways has finishing returns in terms of capacity - the increase from 1 to 2 tracks is massive, the increase from 2 to 4 is significant, but 4 to 6 is much smaller and 6 to 8 makes little difference at all. By having a new line with long high-speed trains, you can create far more capacity, and at higher speed as you don’t have to follow a curvy Victorian alignment.
Also, infrastructure shouldn’t be a zero-sum equation. We can upgrade existing trains as well as building new lines. I don’t disagree that we should reopen a Dawlish avoiding line, or no end of reopening projects across the country, but we absolutely need HS2 as well.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
It's a massive waste of money, it's destroying what little green land we're going to have left in 40 years time once all these new housing developments, industrial estates etc are built. The actual improvement was something like 20 minutes compared to a usual train. Overall i'd much rather the money was spent on upgrading existing railways, adding more tracks, better rolling stock), or from where I live, reopening the Newton Abbot to Exeter via Heathfield line as a backup to the Dawlish route.

Considering the ECML will be going up to 140mph in the future, why can't this be done on the GWML?

How many more times does it need stating that HS2 is nothing to do with 20 mins faster to B`ham ???
It is about a huge increase in capacity. if you do not build this line you will need to concrete over MUCH more green land for motorway. The land take is very modest compared to alternatives. What do you want ?
The speed part is simply that modern railways go that fast.
The Victorians built to their top speed and so should we.

There`s also no guarantee the ECML will ever be increased to 140 mph
The ECML cannot take many more trains anyway so you will spend billions and achieve little
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
MarkyT highlights one of the problems with "sorting the Dawlish problem".

Do you reopen the LSW route; do you go via Heathfield; do you go for a new alignment entirely.

And what do you do about maintaining a service to Dawlish and Teignmouth?

Not wishing to drift off topic too much, but I think it's essential that the coast line is also maintained as long as possible which is why the current resilience work or something like is also very necessary even if a DAL is built. There's a growing speed/stopping pattern segregation issue on this line too with local and long-distance service aspirations. If retention of the line throughout eventually proves impossible or prohibitively difficult or expensive, two branches might be retained, one from Exeter to Dawlish and one from Newton Abbot to Teignmouth. Going new line to Teignmouth via Newton Abbot might even be quicker than a current stopping service.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
It is about a huge increase in capacity. if you do not build this line you will need to concrete over MUCH more green land for motorway.

No we wouldn't. A new motorway would be opposed as much as HS2 is in the population. People do not want to see any form of new long distance infrastructure.
 

Yindee8191

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2019
Messages
159
No we wouldn't. A new motorway would be opposed as much as HS2 is in the population. People do not want to see any form of new long distance infrastructure.

They weren’t talking about motorways being popular - merely that they would be needed to allow the same amount of people to travel as HS2 does.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
No we wouldn't. A new motorway would be opposed as much as HS2 is in the population. People do not want to see any form of new long distance infrastructure.

It maybe but all transport arteries are clogged up so we either build a new rail one (preferable) oir a motorway. people cannot just stop ALL development. A new motorway is highly unlikely to built now , especially given the recent increase in concern regarding climate change so it must be a rail line. There is just so much ill considered and poorly informed criticism on HS2
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
It's a massive waste of money, it's destroying what little green land we're going to have left in 40 years time once all these new housing developments, industrial estates etc are built. The actual improvement was something like 20 minutes compared to a usual train. Overall i'd much rather the money was spent on upgrading existing railways, adding more tracks, better rolling stock), or from where I live, reopening the Newton Abbot to Exeter via Heathfield line as a backup to the Dawlish route.

So you don't want to build HS2 because of the tiny amount of green land that it will cover, but you want to build other railways? Do you imagine that these other railways will somehow magically not cover any green land? Also, if we refuse to build HS2, then the almost inevitable eventual alternative is another motorway - because without another railway, the existing lines won't be able to cope with likely future demand. Which one do you think will remove the most countryside? A two-track railway or a 6-lane motorway?

Considering the ECML will be going up to 140mph in the future, why can't this be done on the GWML?

Because you'd have to re-do the signalling, which would imply lots of disruption? And because going to 140mph would not increase capacity, so you still have the problem of not enough capacity.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
It's a massive waste of money, it's destroying what little green land we're going to have left in 40 years time once all these new housing developments, industrial estates etc are built. The actual improvement was something like 20 minutes compared to a usual train. Overall i'd much rather the money was spent on upgrading existing railways, adding more tracks, better rolling stock), or from where I live, reopening the Newton Abbot to Exeter via Heathfield line as a backup to the Dawlish route.

Considering the ECML will be going up to 140mph in the future, why can't this be done on the GWML?

In the last decade we've spent about £30bn on the existing network (including Reading which allows more services to run between London and the West Country).

Unless we build a whole new line (which is what HS2 doing) adding short lengths of extra track it is unlikely to make much difference.

Better rolling stock is needed. However again there's been, or will be shortly, a significant amount of new trains being added to the network. It should also be noted that there's also a limit on how much extra rolling stock which could be provided.

Whilst I agree that something more needs to be done for Dawlish, however building HS2 doesn't look like it's having an impact on the funding for improvements to the existing rail network, in that until last year spending on it was up every year. Even last year the drop was fairly small from £4.1 billion to £3.8 billion, when compared to the amount being spent on HS2 (£2.1 billion in the first those two years and likely to be significantly more in the latter). As such unless someone can show evidence of HS2 reducing spend which would have otherwise happened, which is likely to be hard to do, there doesn't appear to be much evidence of the enhancement spending being impacted by HS2.

View media item 3339
(The above isn't from the latest network rail accounts, but does show what's been happening with enhancement spending)
 

devonexpress

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2016
Messages
279
So you don't want to build HS2 because of the tiny amount of green land that it will cover, but you want to build other railways? Do you imagine that these other railways will somehow magically not cover any green land? Also, if we refuse to build HS2, then the almost inevitable eventual alternative is another motorway - because without another railway, the existing lines won't be able to cope with likely future demand. Which one do you think will remove the most countryside? A two-track railway or a 6-lane motorway?



Because you'd have to re-do the signalling, which would imply lots of disruption? And because going to 140mph would not increase capacity, so you still have the problem of not enough capacity.

The current railway system is already there, by expanding it your using less ground(I.e, ground which more often the railway already owns but has no sue for) and disrupting less peoples lives, for example Bristol TM to Parkway quadruple track was done without doing much damage, as is the retunelling of Kings Cross. HS2 has demolished peoples homes, they've cut down trees without prior permission and destroyed a lot of habitat.

All i'm saying is for the benefits it will bring which are so small, is it really worth it, we need our current railway to be brought up to standard not making new lines to take over demand. Look at HS1 it's mainly for people who can afford the fairs, otherwise your stuck on a normal South Eastern train.


In regards to GWML, Bristol, Reading and London have received massive amounts of money, further West we haven't, apart from the rebuilding of the sea wall in 2014, and the current proposals around Dawlish/Teignmouth that nobody locally want's. The Heathfield route is the best option as the ground to Bovey Tracey is already there and it would leave and rejoin the mainline in between two of the main stations on the route. The Okehampton route won't happen as it has too many challenges and is far to expensive.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
In some cases domestic aviation is a good thing.

Really? Given the huge environmental harm it causes, I'm struggling to think of many cases where domestic aviation could be seen as a good thing. About the only case I can think of is for places like the Orkney Islands and Shetland where there really is no reasonable alternative. And possibly Great Britain to Belfast flights.

We are at risk of repeating one of the mistakes of the Beeching era by tackling the negative issues of a transport mode in a way which damages positive aspects of it. (by that I mean not fully recognising the contribution some branch lines made to the viability of the rail network as a whole)

I'm not sure the comparison quite works. The real problem with Beeching wasn't so much the closure of lines that at the time were uneconomic, but the removal and building over of the trackbeds, thereby preventing later re-opening if it subsequently became apparent that the lines were required again. With domestic aviation that problem doesn't really arise, because the only infrastructure you need is the airports - and for the most part those would remain even if all domestic aviation ceased tomorrow - because they are also used by international aviation. For smaller airports that depend solely on domestic aviation: If (hypothetically) we somehow got rid of domestic aviation but wanted to keep the option to reinstate it in the future (for example, if battery planes make eco-friendly aviation possible), then you just make sure you keep the land the airports sit on reserved.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
The current railway system is already there, by expanding it your using less ground(I.e, ground which more often the railway already owns but has no sue for) and disrupting less peoples lives, for example Bristol TM to Parkway quadruple track was done without doing much damage, as is the retunelling of Kings Cross. HS2 has demolished peoples homes, they've cut down trees without prior permission and destroyed a lot of habitat.

All i'm saying is for the benefits it will bring which are so small, is it really worth it, we need our current railway to be brought up to standard not making new lines to take over demand. Look at HS1 it's mainly for people who can afford the fairs, otherwise your stuck on a normal South Eastern train.


In regards to GWML, Bristol, Reading and London have received massive amounts of money, further West we haven't, apart from the rebuilding of the sea wall in 2014, and the current proposals around Dawlish/Teignmouth that nobody locally want's. The Heathfield route is the best option as the ground to Bovey Tracey is already there and it would leave and rejoin the mainline in between two of the main stations on the route. The Okehampton route won't happen as it has too many challenges and is far to expensive.


The benefits HS2 will bring are actually large, far, far , far larger than a similar sum spent on the existing system.
Just consider this - You would be working on a LIVE railway, many lines open 18 - 20 hours a day. That can easily mean only 3 or 4 hours work a day. At the beginning of a session you have to set up equipment, at the end clear up before the first train. This will go on for decades . The Kings X example you sight is using an redundant tunnel , not the same.
Please remember the WCML cost 10 billion and achieved little with the maximum speed of 140 mph was abandoned. It is just a fallacy to suggest reworking an existing line is an option. It is much easier (and cheaper) to work on a site with no trains wizzing around
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
IMHO HS2 should have been built 20 years ago. Then we could have been dealing with HS3 now and talking about HS4 ( a way to serve Scotland) and maybe even HS5 (to relieve the GWML and improve capacity to the West and Wales)

Instead we are still dithering about HS2. All the things I mentioned above are needed. Many of them are overdue. Could we please drag ourselves out of the dark ages and starting building the capacity we badly need now not in 2040
 

Yindee8191

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2019
Messages
159
The current railway system is already there, by expanding it your using less ground(I.e, ground which more often the railway already owns but has no sue for) and disrupting less peoples lives, for example Bristol TM to Parkway quadruple track was done without doing much damage, as is the retunelling of Kings Cross. HS2 has demolished peoples homes, they've cut down trees without prior permission and destroyed a lot of habitat.

All i'm saying is for the benefits it will bring which are so small, is it really worth it, we need our current railway to be brought up to standard not making new lines to take over demand. Look at HS1 it's mainly for people who can afford the fairs, otherwise your stuck on a normal South Eastern train.


In regards to GWML, Bristol, Reading and London have received massive amounts of money, further West we haven't, apart from the rebuilding of the sea wall in 2014, and the current proposals around Dawlish/Teignmouth that nobody locally want's. The Heathfield route is the best option as the ground to Bovey Tracey is already there and it would leave and rejoin the mainline in between two of the main stations on the route. The Okehampton route won't happen as it has too many challenges and is far to expensive.

TM to Parkway was land that was already a railway alignment and had nothing built on it. Afaik, it was even owned by NR before the reinstatement. Building an extra pair of tracks by the WCML is far less useful and is not at all an existing alignment - it is not owned by the railway and would need to be bought at fabulous expense. Building HS2 is the way to upgrade existing lines. It creates capacity, meaning we can take a huge amount of high-speed trains off the existing railway, so that more local, regional, and suburban trains can run on them.
Also, HS2 will decrease fares. Without it (as Oakervee has apparently concluded), huge fare rises will be needed to keep demand low enough that supply can keep up with it. With it, there will be so many seats going from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc that it will make no sense for the companies to keep fares high - they will decrease them to fill seats. That’s basic economics.

I know very little about the situation with the Dawlish avoiding line, but other people have said that the Heathfield route is a single track railway that is far longer than the current line - surely not very useful even as a diversionary route.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
No we wouldn't. A new motorway would be opposed as much as HS2 is in the population. People do not want to see any form of new long distance infrastructure.

What do you know about the Lower Thames Crossing, chiefly the amount of ancient woodland which it impacts on?

If you don't know feel free to look it up, then look up the amount impacted by HS2.

For those who don't want to, the amount is broadly the same (58ha for HS2 Vs 54ha) even though the road is much shorter (350 miles for HS2 Vs 15 miles).

How much effort has the likes of the Woodlands Trust and other conservation/wildlife organisations put into opposing the road?

A Google search suggests no where near as much as their opposition to HS2, even though the impact of the two is fairly similar.

However when you look at the positive impact of HS2, such as the planting of 7 million trees during phase 1, this compares favourably compared to many road schemes. In fact to be comparable, based on ancient woodland impact the Lower Thames Crossing would need to plant about 6.4 million trees.

It is suggested that 14 million vehicles could be removed from the Dartford Crossing, which is likely to mean that there's a lot more than this being added to the road network over time. As whenever there's a drop in vehicles more vehicles come to take their place. It may not happen quickly, but without a significant change it's likely to happen.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Speed decreases capacity on a single railway, but speed on a new railway increases capacity on all the other railways by allowing one railway to run fast trains to Birmingham, Manchester, Warrington, the East Midlands, York, Edinburgh, Newcastle etc. It's not possible to achieve competitive journey times to all of those places with just one Y-shaped twin-track railway running at conventional speeds. The capacity comes from getting rid of fast trains that take up paths on the conventional railways. If all you do is build an extra pair of tracks for the southern WCML, all you do is speed up the Euston-Rugby part of your existing WCML journeys. If creating capacity for Milton Keynes commuters is the only reason for building the railway, fine. But politicians should be honest about this and design the scheme with this specific goal in mind.

If the goal is to enhance capacity across a larger part of the rail network while building the minimum length of new railway, you need it to be fast.


We're mixing up apples and oranges again. Yes, any new railway will increase overall capacity. But the point being made is about the amount of capacity which can be provided on the new line itself. In these terms, a lower speed line would provide more capacity than a higher speed one
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
There is very little reason to build for less than 320km/h
Which is why that is the defacto standard max speed worldwide


Apart from achieving more capacity at lower cost in a smallish and densely populated railway, none at all
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top