Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

Meerkat · 24 Jan 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Yes. I'd expect Pendolinos to operate services such as Euston-Watford Jn-MKC-Rugby-Coventry-International-New St

They would continue to Wolverhampton Stafford Crewe at least wouldn’t they, maybe even Wigan and Preston?
Lots of regional commuter capacity and Intercity trains that connect to Crewe and Birmingham for HS2 interchange (which will be easier Interchange - New Street (sooner onto HS2) or International (more services)?)

RailUK Forums

quantinghome · 24 Jan 2020

TrafficEng said:
But the point Robertj21a is making (I think) is that although HS2 creates the opportunity to "improv[e] commuter networks" by freeing up track capacity, it doesn't deliver those improvements.

The improved commuter networks will only happen if there is a lot of additional investment in trains, drivers, maintenance workers, depots, station improvements etc etc. There is no promise or commitment this will happen.

These are relatively simply steps to take though once capacity is freed up. Remember that HS2 builds new track AND stations AND depots, and frees all these up on the existing network.

Most local transport bodies in our major cities are developing plans to use the capacity HS2 frees up, so there is a promise there, or as much of a promise that can be made a decade or so in advance. HS2 is now the cornerstone of future transport planning in every major city it serves. Pulling the plug would collapse all these plans.

TrafficEng · 24 Jan 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Yes. I'd expect Pendolinos to operate services such as Euston-Watford Jn-MKC-Rugby-Coventry-International-New St, or all stations via the Trent Valley, with the fast "LNR" services being removed and that rolling stock used for more local services...

The problem with that is it doesn't sound much like a commuter service. People living between Euston and Watford will be asking what benefits they get if many (all?) of the paths currently used for WCML long-distance services get re-purposed as 'new WCML' slightly less long-distance services.

Or to look at another route, Stevenage currently has a combination of LNER and GN services which include some that go fast direct to Kings Cross. If the LNER services get re-routed onto HS2 freeing up ECML capacity, what do the people of Stevenage get? If they are given an equivalent replacement non-stop service then all the people living south of Stevenage get no additional benefit, other than perhaps travelling in less sardine-like conditions (if passengers from Stevenage are now able to get on fast trains instead). There would be no improvement in service frequency.

On the other hand, if the replacement services stop elsewhere south of Stevenage then the folks of Stevenage get increased journey times, which is hardly a benefit.

I suspect part of the problem is people are not easily convinced by promises that everybody will be a winner. Logic and experience tends to suggest it is unlikely to happen.

DynamicSpirit · 24 Jan 2020

Ianno87 said:
Take an example: The Coventry Corridor. "Commuter services" are currently a mish-mash of stopping patterns and frequencies in order to prioritise the 20 minute interval Pendolino service.

Remove the Pendolino service and you have an opportunity for proper 15/30 minute interval 'metro' services at local stations on the corridor.

That, to me, is the definition of "improving commuter networks".

That's all very true, but I wonder if that's the best example. The Coventry corridor has some pretty long distances between stations in urban areas, so I think you could easily argue that, if it was to be turned into a proper metro commuting corridor, you would want to build several new stations along it - and possibly have a local frequency of every 10 minutes, not every 15 minutes - at least between New Street and International. And Coventry is big enough that you could easily justify a fast Coventry-International-Birmingham train every 20 minutes, presumably with most trains having come from at least Milton Keynes/Northamption/Rugby. Whether you build HS2 or not, it's hard to see how you could achieve all that without significant 4-tracking between Birmingham and Coventry. Perhaps the real difference HS2 makes there is to free up capacity at New Street, by diverting some long-distance services to Curzon Street? But that does seem, as others have noted, to be more of an example of HS2 enabling the possibility of better commuting services - but only if we spend more money on the required infrastructure on existing routes as well. (To clarify: I still strongly support building HS2)

Altfish · 24 Jan 2020

DynamicSpirit said:
That's all very true, but I wonder if that's the best example. The Coventry corridor has some pretty long distances between stations in urban areas, so I think you could easily argue that, if it was to be turned into a proper metro commuting corridor, you would want to build several new stations along it - and possibly have a local frequency of every 10 minutes, not every 15 minutes - at least between New Street and International. And Coventry is big enough that you could easily justify a fast Coventry-International-Birmingham train every 20 minutes, presumably with most trains having come from at least Milton Keynes/Northamption/Rugby. Whether you build HS2 or not, it's hard to see how you could achieve all that without significant 4-tracking between Birmingham and Coventry. Perhaps the real difference HS2 makes there is to free up capacity at New Street, by diverting some long-distance services to Curzon Street? But that does seem, as others have noted, to be more of an example of HS2 enabling the possibility of better commuting services - but only if we spend more money on the required infrastructure on existing routes as well. (To clarify: I still strongly support building HS2)

My local line has been promised a half hourly service; but the lack of capacity between Stockport and Manchester means we can't have it. HS2 solves that.

DynamicSpirit · 24 Jan 2020

TrafficEng said:
The problem with that is it doesn't sound much like a commuter service. People living between Euston and Watford will be asking what benefits they get if many (all?) of the paths currently used for WCML long-distance services get re-purposed as 'new WCML' slightly less long-distance services.

It seems plausible that, as the Avanti trains are slowed down, the same would happen to LNR services (because Avanti would take over the roles that the faster LNR services currently take). That would imply potentially more trains stopping at Harrow and Wealdstone and Bushey. Further, with more trains stopping at Watford, the minor stations between Watford and London would see improved connections to North of Watford by changing at Watford Junction.

TrafficEng said:
Or to look at another route, Stevenage currently has a combination of LNER and GN services which include some that go fast direct to Kings Cross. If the LNER services get re-routed onto HS2 freeing up ECML capacity, what do the people of Stevenage get? If they are given an equivalent replacement non-stop service then all the people living south of Stevenage get no additional benefit, other than perhaps travelling in less sardine-like conditions (if passengers from Stevenage are now able to get on fast trains instead). There would be no improvement in service frequency.

I would expect Stevenage (and by the way also Peterborough) to be significant beneficiaries in terms of frequency. There are currently 5 Virgin-East-Coast trains an hour from Kings Cross, of which typically only two stop at Stevenage and 3 at Peterborough. A very plausible timetable post-HS2 phase 2 would see all 5 trains stopping at both stations. Since Stevenage-London passengers would now be better catered for by those trains, that may imply some existing Thameslink/Great Northern services being slightly slowed down between London and Stevenage, so stations like Welwyn Garden City see more frequent services.

I appreciate it's hard to sell that to people when it is based on educated-speculation about timetables that will not be actually determined for many years yet, but I'd be very surprised if overall service levels didn't improve at stations like Stevenage.

Nicholas Lewis · 24 Jan 2020

Altfish said:
My local line has been promised a half hourly service; but the lack of capacity between Stockport and Manchester means we can't have it. HS2 solves that.

You'll just have to wait at least a decade though and is that really acceptable if there are quicker ways of sorting this by enhancements to the existing network.

DynamicSpirit · 24 Jan 2020

Nicholas Lewis said:
You'll just have to wait at least a decade though and is that really acceptable if there are quicker ways of sorting this by enhancements to the existing network.

But are there any quicker ways of sorting out the Manchester-Stockport corridor? I think it urgently needs to be done, independently of HS2. But as far as I'm aware there are currently no plans, and it seems hard to imagine that much could be done without some very major rebuilding at Piccadilly. And I can't see such a project going from scratch to completion inside 10 years.

Neen Sollars · 24 Jan 2020

The Planner said:
So you build north first, and as we always ask, where are the extra trains going when they get to Birmingham and how do they fit on the southern bit of the WCML?

a, Nowhere, they start and end at Curzon Street. Passengers in the Midlands have high speed services to the great Northern Cities, and the great Northern Cities have high speed services to the great Midlands Engine towns and cities.
b, Alight at Bham Intl for air transport to destinations worldwide, or for onward train travel to London on WCML. Connect from Bham Intl Airport or railway station to high speed rail to Northern Cities and Scotland, or fast trains to London.

quantinghome · 24 Jan 2020

TrafficEng said:
The problem with that is it doesn't sound much like a commuter service. People living between Euston and Watford will be asking what benefits they get if many (all?) of the paths currently used for WCML long-distance services get re-purposed as 'new WCML' slightly less long-distance services.

Or to look at another route, Stevenage currently has a combination of LNER and GN services which include some that go fast direct to Kings Cross. If the LNER services get re-routed onto HS2 freeing up ECML capacity, what do the people of Stevenage get? If they are given an equivalent replacement non-stop service then all the people living south of Stevenage get no additional benefit, other than perhaps travelling in less sardine-like conditions (if passengers from Stevenage are now able to get on fast trains instead). There would be no improvement in service frequency.

On the other hand, if the replacement services stop elsewhere south of Stevenage then the folks of Stevenage get increased journey times, which is hardly a benefit.

Stevenage currently sees up to two tph stopping by LNER, sometimes within 5 minutes of each other.

Post-HS2, I would imagine that the long(er) distance services on the ECML would become a standard stopping pattern 15-minute frequency (or better) service i.e. London-Stevenage-Peterborough-Grantham-Network-Retford-Doncaster, then the service splits to Wakefield, York and Hull. To this you could add a semi-fast service London-Finsbury Park-Stevenage-Huntingdon-Peterborough. Just one example, doubtless could be improved upon.

si404 · 24 Jan 2020

Ianno87 said:
Remove the Pendolino service and you have an opportunity for proper 15/30 minute interval 'metro' services at local stations on the corridor.

Absolutely. The Coventry corridor locals looks like they will be able to have a massively transformative step change in service capacity and quality post-HS2 for a relatively small amount of effort.

TrafficEng said:
But the point Robertj21a is making (I think) is that although HS2 creates the opportunity to "improv[e] commuter networks" by freeing up track capacity, it doesn't deliver those improvements.

It doesn't deliver those improvements because that's outside the scope (there's enough stuff tacked onto the price tag as it is). It does 90% of the work to deliver the improvements on certain corridors, but the final 10% on getting enough trains (more service = more trains) and perhaps some minor infrastructure work (electrification, turnbacks, new stations) will need to be done by a different entity as a different project.

We could spend billions 4-tracking Birmingham to Coventry, further upgrading New Street to handle the upgraded local service, etc. And the same on the other corridors. But we'd end up spending as much as on HS2 to improve the local services, but without really improving the Long Distance services - the business case will struggle. Without HS2 there's no viable opportunity to improve local services. An opportunity to deliver is better than no chance at all.

Roast Veg · 24 Jan 2020

Good grief, change at Birmingham? You wouldn't get anything of a time saver for that.

Ianno87 · 24 Jan 2020

Roast Veg said:
Good grief, change at Birmingham? You wouldn't get anything of a time saver for that.

Worse. If everybody from Euston to the north figures out that Euston-New Street-Curzon Street-North is competitive journey time-wise, suddenly that's very overloaded Pendolinos and New Street station....

AM9 · 24 Jan 2020

Altfish said:
My local line has been promised a half hourly service; but the lack of capacity between Stockport and Manchester means we can't have it. HS2 solves that.

I think that is the key, - TOCs can promise increased services, sometimes truly intending to deliver them, but NR will respond (and prove) that with the current inefficient use of route capacity, there is in effect no reliable method of delivering a timetable that meets those aspirations without disproportional investment which isn't available.
Now when the mix loses the fastest services, the argument against increasing services at least disappears, so even without significant investment there should be some improvement. Then there is the NR investment that is separate to HS2 that is being spent every year which could be directed towards the type of improvements that would then make a difference, e.g. modest passing provisions (loops, - maybe including additional platforms), where a more conventional slow/intermediate/express structured timetable could be operated. The Birmingham-Rugby corridor is very much an example where short of very expensive four-tracking, any affordable upgrades wouldn't deliver much of an improvement unless the inter-city trains were removed. There are 10 stations between New St and Rugby and (ISTR) only two places where passing can take place: International and Coventry, so any out of time running can cause the timetable structure to break down, with consequenses in both directions of the WCML and through Birmingham.

Esker-pades · 24 Jan 2020

Neen Sollars said:
a, Nowhere, they start and end at Curzon Street. Passengers in the Midlands have high speed services to the great Northern Cities, and the great Northern Cities have high speed services to the great Midlands Engine towns and cities.
b, Alight at Bham Intl for air transport to destinations worldwide, or for onward train travel to London on WCML. Connect from Bham Intl Airport or railway station to high speed rail to Northern Cities and Scotland, or fast trains to London.

So how do you solve the capacity problem between London and Birmingham?

Nicholas Lewis · 24 Jan 2020

DynamicSpirit said:
But are there any quicker ways of sorting out the Manchester-Stockport corridor? I think it urgently needs to be done, independently of HS2. But as far as I'm aware there are currently no plans, and it seems hard to imagine that much could be done without some very major rebuilding at Piccadilly. And I can't see such a project going from scratch to completion inside 10 years.

Possibly not although a lot of that depends on political will. However, one thing in NRs favour is the land footprint already in there possession at Piccadilly station which should allow at least two new platform faces North of the train shed and space to remodel the throat of the station. This needs to go hand in hand with optimising the services over the infrastructure rather than multiple franchises trying to cherry pick the market. In the long run new infrastructure will be required and maybe its HS2 but Manchester cant wait til 2036 for a solution it needs one now and my belief (or vein hope) is that they will unleash that at the budget and probably put a pause on HS2 Phase 2b.

AM9 · 24 Jan 2020

Nicholas Lewis said:
Possibly not although a lot of that depends on political will. However, one thing in NRs favour is the land footprint already in there possession at Piccadilly station which should allow at least two new platform faces North of the train shed and space to remodel the throat of the station. This needs to go hand in hand with optimising the services over the infrastructure rather than multiple franchises trying to cherry pick the market. In the long run new infrastructure will be required and maybe its HS2 but Manchester cant wait til 2036 for a solution it needs one now and my belief (or vein hope) is that they will unleash that at the budget and probably put a pause on HS2 Phase 2b.

Doing piecemeal improvements won't help at all really. Two extra platforms at Piccadilly will make Slade Lane the next queueing location, and additional delays there will also affect the already maxed-out Castelfield corridor. It's a daft as the '60s and '70s craze for giving each village it's own bypass, it just moves the bottleneck along a few miles.

matacaster · 24 Jan 2020

FelixtheCat said:
So how do you solve the capacity problem between London and Birmingham?

I thought the vision portrayed was one where business relocated to Birmingham and the North? Isnt there plenty of available capacity (percentages anyone ) now even at peak times for those starting at London and returning in the evening?
Or
Is the intention of HS2 to get ever more workers To London?

jfowkes · 24 Jan 2020

matacaster said:
I thought the vision portrayed was one where business relocated to Birmingham and the North? Isnt there plenty of available capacity (percentages anyone ) now even at peak times for those starting at London and returning in the evening?
Or
Is the intention of HS2 to get ever more workers To London?

There can be more than one intention.

HS2 will allow businesses to move northwards by increasing access between cities in the North, and also to London.
HS2 will allow more people who work in London to commute there by rail on the WCML, by freeing up capacity there.

That trains are much less full leaving London in the morning (and vice-versa) is a bit irrelevant, that's just how commuting works.

Robertj21a · 24 Jan 2020

quantinghome said:
These are relatively simply steps to take though once capacity is freed up. Remember that HS2 builds new track AND stations AND depots, and frees all these up on the existing network.

Most local transport bodies in our major cities are developing plans to use the capacity HS2 frees up, so there is a promise there, or as much of a promise that can be made a decade or so in advance. HS2 is now the cornerstone of future transport planning in every major city it serves. Pulling the plug would collapse all these plans.

No, surely the whole point being made was that 'pulling the plug' was to enable *other*, as in *totally different* things to be done. It's not, to me, a question of how essential HS2 is as any sort of cornerstone, it's that we could do a heck of a lot of stuff, and help many more people, by abandoning HS2 completely and spending the money in the Midlands/North instead. That was the whole gist of the Business comment in The Times.

Ianno87 · 24 Jan 2020

jfowkes said:
There can be more than one intention.

HS2 will allow businesses to move northwards by increasing access between cities in the North, and also to London.
HS2 will allow more people who work in London to commute there by rail on the WCML, by freeing up capacity there.

That trains are much less full leaving London in the morning (and vice-versa) is a bit irrelevant, that's just how commuting works.

For multiple £billions, I'd darn well expect it to do more than one thing!

Esker-pades · 24 Jan 2020

matacaster said:
I thought the vision portrayed was one where business relocated to Birmingham and the North? Isnt there plenty of available capacity (percentages anyone ) now even at peak times for those starting at London and returning in the evening?
Or
Is the intention of HS2 to get ever more workers To London?

You've fallen into the trap of looking at the services provided on HS2, rather than the additional services provided on the current network that can be provided because of HS2.

There is little capacity in any city at peak time. If your comment were to have internal coherence, you'd have to be suggesting that businesses would be re-locating to a field near Adlington or Tring, not another city.

If one removes the InterCity services from the 'classic' network and sticks them on their own rail line, the capacity released is significant (up to 3x what currently exists).

We should also be encouraging more people to use rail rather than domestic flights. Faster, bigger trains is the best way to encourage this modal shift.

Robertj21a · 24 Jan 2020

jfowkes said:
There can be more than one intention.

HS2 will allow businesses to move northwards by increasing access between cities in the North, and also to London.
HS2 will allow more people who work in London to commute there by rail on the WCML, by freeing up capacity there.

That trains are much less full leaving London in the morning (and vice-versa) is a bit irrelevant, that's just how commuting works.

It's not irrelevant though, is it ?

One key point that HS2 supporters always use is that the volume of trains/pax heading *in* to London each morning (and out in the evening) is already at/over capacity and something needs to be done to enable more pax to travel.

If businesses were encouraged to relocate further north, many of those pax heading for London would be heading the other way. At present those 'against the flow' trains are usually fairly empty.

Problem solved. Simples.....

matacaster · 24 Jan 2020

The original (EU) / Adonis-beloved plan was for a through route HS1 - London--HS2 to Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, with freight branches to Felixstowe and Southampton from memory. In addition ultimately it was intended to reach Ireland (by ferry in the short term). This meant that the core part of HS2 made some sense as it would have European size freight (enabling France and Germany to get cars across more efficiently) and a high speed passenger route to the centre of the EU. There would be no need then for regional Air routes. Passengers from Scotland and Ireland would have sleepers or perhaps couchettes.

Witn no connection to HS1, no European size freight route, no sleepers to Europe, forced change and walk / in london to get to eurostar and 10 years to build from London to Birmingham, hs2 starts to look a bit of a white elephant. Even more so since whilst there are likely to be more passengers in rail by 2036 or more likely 2040, there is no guarantee as to where the increased population will be. London, Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Glasgow - who knows over that timescale?

matacaster · 24 Jan 2020

jfowkes said:
There can be more than one intention.

HS2 will allow businesses to move northwards by increasing access between cities in the North, and also to London.
HS2 will allow more people who work in London to commute there by rail on the WCML, by freeing up capacity there.

That trains are much less full leaving London in the morning (and vice-versa) is a bit irrelevant, that's just how commuting works.

I beg to differ, if you make it easier to commute to London and its already biased in that way, it is likely even more people will do the same.

BT and HSBC have apparently built big shiny new offices in Birmingham on the strength of HS2 they say - it's 10 years at least until they will see any benefits, so I doubt hs2 was the real game changer there at a 50 minute saving and no connections at Curzon st.

Esker-pades · 24 Jan 2020

Robertj21a said:
It's not irrelevant though, is it ?

One key point that HS2 supporters always use is that the volume of trains/pax heading *in* to London each morning (and out in the evening) is already at/over capacity and something needs to be done to enable more pax to travel.

If businesses were encouraged to relocate further north, many of those pax heading for London would be heading the other way. At present those 'against the flow' trains are usually fairly empty.

Problem solved. Simples.....

You're never going to be in a situation where there is suddenly no peak flow to London.

As I stated before, there is no city in the UK where there is significant spare capacity at the peaks. Thus, one needs to provide additional capacity in other cities where the businesses move to. HS2 does this, as well as address the London problems.

matacaster said:
The original (EU) / Adonis-beloved plan was for a through route HS1 - London--HS2 to Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, with freight branches to Felixstowe and Southampton from memory. In addition ultimately it was intended to reach Ireland (by ferry in the short term). This meant that the core part of HS2 made some sense as it would have European size freight (enabling France and Germany to get cars across more efficiently) and a high speed passenger route to the centre of the EU. There would be no need then for regional Air routes. Passengers from Scotland and Ireland would have sleepers or perhaps couchettes.

If this is correct, you'd be significantly reducing the capacity benefits of HS2. Freight + High Speed Passenger is not a good traffic mix from a capacity point of view. That may be why the plan changed so that HS2 doesn't involved freight.

[With] no connection to HS1, no European size freight route, no sleepers to Europe, forced change and walk / in london to get to eurostar and 10 years to build from London to Birmingham, hs2 starts to look a bit of a white elephant. Even more so since whilst there are likely to be more passengers in rail by 2036 or more likely 2040, there is no guarantee as to where the increased population will be. London, Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Glasgow - who knows over that timescale?

With more InterCity services, and by releasing up to 3x the capacity on existing railway lines at the most congested points, HS2 stops looking a bit of a white elephant.

Your final point doesn't make sense. "There are likely to be more passengers, so we shouldn't build a new railway." Come again?

matacaster · 24 Jan 2020

FelixtheCat said:
You've fallen into the trap of looking at the services provided on HS2, rather than the additional services provided on the current network that can be provided because of HS2.

There is little capacity in any city at peak time. If your comment were to have internal coherence, you'd have to be suggesting that businesses would be re-locating to a field near Adlington or Tring, not another city.

If one removes the InterCity services from the 'classic' network and sticks them on their own rail line, the capacity released is significant (up to 3x what currently exists).

We should also be encouraging more people to use rail rather than domestic flights. Faster, bigger trains is the best way to encourage this modal shift.

But there is plenty of capacity from London to Birmingham in the mornings, so these businesses could move now, as are HSBC, they are moving now and won't benefit from hs2 for 10 years, so it's just bigging up hs2.

matacaster · 24 Jan 2020

FelixtheCat said:
You're never going to be in a situation where there is suddenly no peak flow to London.

As I stated before, there is no city in the UK where there is significant spare capacity at the peaks. Thus, one needs to provide additional capacity in other cities where the businesses move to. HS2 does this, as well as address the London problems.

If this is correct, you'd be significantly reducing the capacity benefits of HS2. Freight + High Speed Passenger is not a good traffic mix from a capacity point of view. That may be why the plan changed so that HS2 doesn't involved freight.

With more InterCity services, and by releasing up to 3x the capacity on existing railway lines at the most congested points, HS2 stops looking a bit of a white elephant.

Your final point doesn't make sense. "There are likely to be more passengers, so we shouldn't build a new railway." Come again?

Yes, it does make sense. I didn't say we shouldn't build more capacity anywhere, I am saying that government policy and economic can be used to distribute government departments and encourage businesses out of London to the North where capacity is gained more cheaply. As for all towns / cities being at capacity at peak times, in the North this if often because the capacity is a two coach pacer rather than one big enough and fit for purpose.

HSTEd · 24 Jan 2020

I'm getting sick of the nonsense about trying to ressucitate towns as independent economic actors.

What towns that have a place in a modern economy are simply as outlying dormitories for cities. Cities are far more powerful economic engines than towns per unit of population, and denying this fact is the height of madness.
London's problems are caused by the state deliberately strangling it with the Green Belt, not inherent problems in the idea of a city.
We should stop trying to fight simple economic reality and figure out how to live with the new world in which we live.

Stop blowing money trying to ressucitate small towns and instead couple them to nearby cities.
STop trying to restrain london and use projects like HS2 to allow it to spread its influence over the southern half of England.

We will all be richer and we will all have better standards of living and better public services.

Esker-pades · 24 Jan 2020

matacaster said:
But there is plenty of capacity from London to Birmingham in the mornings, so these businesses could move now, as are HSBC, they are moving now and won't benefit from hs2 for 10 years, so it's just bigging up hs2.

Commuters don't just come into London from Birmingham.
Commuters don't just come into Birmingham from London.

Peak rail services across all UK cities are pretty full.
Modal shift point I made earlier.

matacaster said:
Yes, it does make sense. I didn't say we shouldn't build more capacity anywhere, I am saying that government policy and economic can be used to distribute government departments and encourage businesses out of London to the North where capacity is gained more cheaply. As for all towns / cities being at capacity at peak times, in the North this [is] often because the capacity is a two coach pacer rather than one big enough and[ ]fit for purpose.

Some businesses moving from London to other places is really not the passenger-reducing silver bullet you seem to think it is.

There's also the problem that building new lines in any city is very, very expensive. You either demolish loads of houses, or build it in tunnels. As for lengthening rolling stock: you'd have to re-build a lot of stations, and expand them. This should happen, but it's not addressing the same stuff as HS2 does.

Finally, you're assuming that there is literally no population growth on the Southern WCML, or the Coventry-Birmingham corridor.

London is the capital city of the UK. People are still going to want to come to London. Two-way flows are good, investment in 'the North' is good, but it doesn't negate investing in London and the South East too. Interconnectedness is going to become more important as modernisation continues.

Plus, the modal shift statement I've made about 3 times now.

Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member