• 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.

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
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.

There's (probably, haven't looked) plenty of capacity on Avanti services from London to Birmingham in the peaks, and on LNWR services from say London to Watford Junction. Is there capacity from somewhere like Tile Hill into Birmingham? As in, are those empty trains leaving Euston full by the time they get to Birmingham?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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.

I think you may have misunderstood.

The principle is roughly:
- A thinned IC service gains more stops (such as all "Avanti" services call at Watford Jn, MKC and Rugby, and all trains on the Trent Valley call at all stations along there)
- The "LNR" services that used to run fast (i.e. LBZ-MKC only, or MKC only, or WFJ-MKC only) are removed, including the Class 350 operated Trent Valley stopper. Leightonians may not be happy, but they are only served on the fasts by convenience; being a smallish place there is no particular reason they should be any more than those services should serve, say, Berko.
- Using the paths and Class 350s/Aventras freed up, the all-stations and most-stations services to Northampton and beyond are increased.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Finally, you're assuming that there is literally no population growth on the Southern WCML, or the Coventry-Birmingham corridor.

MK Council and partners are just announcing a "next 30-50 years" plan to double MK in size, i.e. make it a town of 500,000. That's a whack of demand both northbound and to Euston.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
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?

I never said anything about no peak flow to London !. My point has always been the same as the comment in The Times which was, broadly speaking, that businesses moving out of the London area, and moving to the Midlands/North would ease the situation [difficult to argue otherwise] - and that HS2 could well be abandoned completely. The £100bn would enable a vast range of wide-ranging improvements to be undertaken that would benefit commuters across many parts of the country.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
I never said anything about no peak flow to London !. My point has always been the same as the comment in The Times which was, broadly speaking, that businesses moving out of the London area, and moving to the Midlands/North would ease the situation [difficult to argue otherwise] - and that HS2 could well be abandoned completely. The £100bn would enable a vast range of wide-ranging improvements to be undertaken that would benefit commuters across many parts of the country.
"ease the situation".... if everything else stays constant. Which it won't.

By taking the InterCity services off the conventional network, HS2 does "enable a vast range of wide-ranging improvements to be undertaken that would benefit commuters across many parts of the country."
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Just move it all to a field near Huddersfield. Done. HS2 not required.

Have a nose at where all the New Towns are, and which ones have been successful and which have ended up as giant sink estates.

Have a look at where those successful New Towns are located, and in particular which large city they might be in commuting distance of.

Having done that, put that idea in the bin where it belongs.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Have a nose at where all the New Towns are, and which ones have been successful and which have ended up as giant sink estates.

Have a look at where those successful New Towns are located, and in particular which large city they might be in commuting distance of.

Having done that, put that idea in the bin where it belongs.
My post you quoted was a flippant and sarcastic parody of anti-HS2 rhetoric. As the past 151 pages confirm, I'm very much pro-HS2.
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
MK Council and partners are just announcing a "next 30-50 years" plan to double MK in size, i.e. make it a town of 500,000. That's a whack of demand both northbound and to Euston.

Surely, if its going to be that big, then unless it sees itself purely for Birmingham and London commuters, then it would make sense to move businesses there to avoid unnecessary travel?
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
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.

Why '......spread its influence over the southern half of England' when it's generally acknowledged that there is a split between north/south already. Those northern towns and cities voting Tory for the first time in ages/ever are putting their trust in us trying to be one country pulling together, not one country trying to ensure that all the jobs and money stay in the south. There really is little need for HS2 once people realise that many jobs can be moved in the opposite direction.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Surely, if its going to be that big, then unless it sees itself purely for Birmingham and London commuters, then it would make sense to move businesses there to avoid unnecessary travel?

MK actually has (or did have) more inward commuters than outward ones, though more are by car than rail. But these days it's not a case of getting "a job", it's getting one suited to your skills. So any settlement will always have inbound and outbound commuters, and logically if you double the size of it there is going to be an increase in that.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
No, surely the whole point being made was that 'pulling the plug' was to enable *other*, as in *totally different* things to be done.

As Lennon said, we'd all love to see the plans. What are these *totally different* things? If you're suggesting major expansion of existing city centre stations and building new lines into cities, how does this differ from HS2?

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.

Ah The Times, that well known expert organisation in transport planning...

Most of the HS2 budget is already being spent in the Midlands and North, so suggesting that abandoning HS2 will allow additional spend in the Midlands and North is misleading. These new plans better be worth abandoning the past 10 years of transport planning and going back to the drawing board for.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Why '......spread its influence over the southern half of England' when it's generally acknowledged that there is a split between north/south already.
That depends on your definition of North and South.
With HS2 the South of England reaches Manchester and potentially north of there.


Those northern towns and cities voting Tory for the first time in ages/ever are putting their trust in us trying to be one country pulling together, not one country trying to ensure that all the jobs and money stay in the south.
If we are pulling together why does it matter where in Britain the jobs and money are?
I'm afraid a lot of this is just Old people in the north resenting that the majority of young people don't want to live in random small towns scattered across the North of England, and want to live in large cities which are inherently richer and, absent insane politically motivated distortions, provide much higher standards of living.

They are upset because their towns are facing economic reality and rather than try and come to terms with it they just stamp their feet and demand that the tide turn back.
There really is little need for HS2 once people realise that many jobs can be moved in the opposite direction.
And when the people doing those jobs refuse to move?
Will you have them shot as an example?
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
Have a nose at where all the New Towns are, and which ones have been successful and which have ended up as giant sink estates.

Have a look at where those successful New Towns are located, and in particular which large city they might be in commuting distance of.

Having done that, put that idea in the bin where it belongs.

I agree that all the successful new towns have resulted from their commuting time from London being do-able. That's why I would rather see a new commuter (fully underground) railway being built from London to say Milton Keynes with intermediate stops. Whilst tunnelling is fairly expensive, there would be virtually no property to purchase, no public enquiries with objections. That would free up capacity on southern WCML. It would also mean that it could potentially provide connections to a number of tube stations or perhaps a new one under Marylebone.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Sorry. You often can't tell when you can't see the body language! :D
No problem! I often forget that tone doesn't come across when I post here.

I agree that all the successful new towns have resulted from their commuting time from London being do-able. That's why I would rather see a new commuter (fully underground) railway being built from London to say Milton Keynes with intermediate stops. Whilst tunnelling is fairly expensive, there would be virtually no property to purchase, no public enquiries with objections. That would free up capacity on southern WCML. It would also mean that it could potentially provide connections to a number of tube stations or perhaps a new one under Marylebone.
...and thus completely ignoring all the benefits that HS2 creates north of the Watford Gap.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
As Lennon said, we'd all love to see the plans. What are these *totally different* things? If you're suggesting major expansion of existing city centre stations and building new lines into cities, how does this differ from HS2?



Ah The Times, that well known expert organisation in transport planning...

Most of the HS2 budget is already being spent in the Midlands and North, so suggesting that abandoning HS2 will allow additional spend in the Midlands and North is misleading. These new plans better be worth abandoning the past 10 years of transport planning and going back to the drawing board for.

Well, I wasn't suggesting new lines into cities, or major expansion of existing city centre stations - I think you must be somewhat besotted with such issues !. It's not for me to say what might be needed in the north but my travels up there suggest that a sizeable amount of money is needed to enable more frequent services, faster services, more carriages on many trains, more facilities at many/most stations etc etc - you know, the everyday sort of stuff that other people seem to just take for granted.....
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Well, I wasn't suggesting new lines into cities, or major expansion of existing city centre stations - I think you must be somewhat besotted with such issues !. It's not for me to say what might be needed in the north but my travels up there suggest that a sizeable amount of money is needed to enable more frequent services, faster services, more carriages on many trains, more facilities at many/most stations etc etc - you know, the everyday sort of stuff that other people seem to just take for granted.....
And some of that sizeable amount of money is required to enlarge city centre stations. The Manchester Piccadilly timetable only works by stacking trains. If you make trains longer, they can't be stacked. Thus, one has to make the station bigger. This is true for other stations across the north too.

Manchester Oxford Road can't take more than 6 coaches, so you'll have to re-build all of that too. Again, short city-centre platforms are not rare in the north, and it's something that has to be done.

If it was all that simple, it probably would have been done.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
I agree that all the successful new towns have resulted from their commuting time from London being do-able. That's why I would rather see a new commuter (fully underground) railway being built from London to say Milton Keynes with intermediate stops. Whilst tunnelling is fairly expensive, there would be virtually no property to purchase, no public enquiries with objections. That would free up capacity on southern WCML. It would also mean that it could potentially provide connections to a number of tube stations or perhaps a new one under Marylebone.

You can't have a railway with zero above-ground footprint. You'll might reduce the impact on the route itself, but all your new stations have to have an above-ground presence somewhere, with all associated planning and construction that entails.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
You can't have a railway with zero above-ground footprint. You'll might reduce the impact on the route itself, but all your new stations have to have an above-ground presence somewhere, with all associated planning and construction that entails.
People close enough to be impacted by the station have their concerns allayed by the fact they are adjacent to a station.
People will be a hell of a lot less concerned if they gain directly from fast services.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
That depends on your definition of North and South.
With HS2 the South of England reaches Manchester and potentially north of there.



If we are pulling together why does it matter where in Britain the jobs and money are?
I'm afraid a lot of this is just Old people in the north resenting that the majority of young people don't want to live in random small towns scattered across the North of England, and want to live in large cities which are inherently richer and, absent insane politically motivated distortions, provide much higher standards of living.

They are upset because their towns are facing economic reality and rather than try and come to terms with it they just stamp their feet and demand that the tide turn back.

And when the people doing those jobs refuse to move?
Will you have them shot as an example?

Ah, I sense an HS2 fanatic ....:E

Most people's definition of North is anywhere above the Midlands.

Most people's definition of South is anywhere below the Midlands.

I doubt if many people care whether or not HS2 includes Manchester as being in the South because it's clearly bonkers and utterly stupid. It may, however, explain a lot about the whole HS2 project if the folks involved honestly believe that it makes sense to anyone but themselves.

You appear to do yourself a disservice by then ranting away about old people, feet, tide and having people shot. Get a grip man - only then you might be worth reading.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
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.

And how does these extra passengers get seats on trains that are already full leaving New Street ?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Most people's definition of North is anywhere above the Midlands.

Most people's definition of South is anywhere below the Midlands.
Why is this so?
Why should it be so forever?

I doubt if many people care whether or not HS2 includes Manchester as being in the South because it's clearly bonkers and utterly stupid. It may, however, explain a lot about the whole HS2 project if the folks involved honestly believe that it makes sense to anyone but themselves.

Imagine for a moment we have teleporters, they are cheap to operate to the degree that they have largely replaced most other non-walking transport systems.
Where does London end at that point?

London as a geographical entity becomes meaningless because everywhere is London and London is everywhere.

Whilst HS2 will not achieve anything like that, it will permit the economic area that is referred to as "London" To expand drastically.
Birmingham is Tring, Manchester is Milton Keynes and Leeds is Norwich.
(Indeed Birmingham-Euston would have similar travel time to Bank-Epping)

This is a similar effect to that seen in the "TGV Belt" around Paris.
London was once a tiny area around the square mile to the point that Westminster was an entirely separate polity.

Now it isn't.

You appear to do yourself a disservice by then ranting away about old people, feet, tide and having people shot. Get a grip man - only then you might be worth reading.
Well I'm not sure how you propose to force hundreds of thousands of people to move to the north short of threatening violence?
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
Why is this so?
Why should it be so forever?



Imagine for a moment we have teleporters, they are cheap to operate to the degree that they have largely replaced most other non-walking transport systems.
Where does London end at that point?

London as a geographical entity becomes meaningless because everywhere is London and London is everywhere.

Whilst HS2 will not achieve anything like that, it will permit the economic area that is referred to as "London" To expand drastically.
Birmingham is Tring, Manchester is Milton Keynes and Leeds is Norwich.
(Indeed Birmingham-Euston would have similar travel time to Bank-Epping)

This is a similar effect to that seen in the "TGV Belt" around Paris.
London was once a tiny area around the square mile to the point that Westminster was an entirely separate polity.

Now it isn't.


Well I'm not sure how you propose to force hundreds of thousands of people to move to the north short of threatening violence?

The last point is actually quite simple to achieve. The Government just announces that one or two ministries will lock, stock and barrel be moved to say Leeds or Newcastle. It would take time, but it is perfectly do-able and attractive if you are in Government and want to lose a fair number of civil servants from the payroll! Please note that West Germany moved its capital from Bonn to Berlin, Brazil moved its capital to Brazilia and there are more. It simply needs a plan, determination and some cash.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
The last point is actually quite simple to achieve. The Government just announces that one or two ministries will lock, stock and barrel be moved to say Leeds or Newcastle. It would take time, but it is perfectly do-able and attractive if you are in Government and want to lose a fair number of civil servants from the payroll!
But moving those ministries will make virtually no difference to anything?
Just how many civil servants do you think are in London?

It's something like 85,000 across all central government ministries.

London will still carry all before it after that has happened.
Unless you force hundreds of thousands of private sector staff to move nothing will change.

Please note that West Germany moved its capital from Bonn to Berlin, Brazil moved its capital to Brazilia and there are more. It simply needs a plan, determination and some cash.
And it didn't change the simple economic realities of those.
The richest portions of Germany are still the richest portions, and the economy of Brazil is still dominated by the Rio complex.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Well, I wasn't suggesting new lines into cities, or major expansion of existing city centre stations - I think you must be somewhat besotted with such issues !.

It's not for me to say what might be needed in the north but my travels up there suggest that a sizeable amount of money is needed to enable more frequent services, faster services, more carriages on many trains, more facilities at many/most stations etc etc - you know, the everyday sort of stuff that other people seem to just take for granted.....

And you think you can achieved the latter without the former? Ok...

I must confess I'm rather bemused by your posts. You seem incredibly confident that there are much better ways of improving rail services than building HS2, but you seem to shy away from saying what they actually are when asked.
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
Is the problem with HS2 because it is against a backdrop of a decade of austerity? If the government had been actively investing in schools, hospitals, police and other transport projects outside of London and not cancelling electrification schemes then HS2 could have been just another infrastructure project. However when it is going ahead and other services are starved of funding there is a lot of whatabouttery, saying the NHS should receive the funding before. Saying instead of wasting £Xbillion on Y, it should go on Z instead. It is a dangerously effective strategy and succeeds in ensuring nothing gets that money after all, and has been a toxic part of the political discourse for the last four years (not mentioning any political events).

Even the Guardian seem to be sceptical of the claim, although I take their railway views with a pinch of salt (also makes me worry about how accurate they are on other topics I am less enthusiastic about, but that's another debate).
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
Interesting point. If we could see a properly-functioning health service, well-maintained roads, railway investment such as the electrification of the Midland main line and the Trans-Pennine line and the proper sorting out of the Castlefield Corridor, Sheffield station, and other problem areas all being pressed ahead, how many of those of us who object strongly to HSL2 (at least in its present form) would actually be content to see it going ahead. But when it looks as if it's going to be the single massive investment and when so many people seem to have serious objections, that against the general background really does invite complaint.
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
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.
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.

So broadly speaking, Stevenage residents might get an extra three trains an hour, but possibly lose some of the existing faster services because a few(?) of the stations further south might get some extra stops. This doesn't feel like a step-change in service provision that might be expected from a £100bn+ project.

I picked Stevenage for a specific reason. Capacity constraints on the main line south of there means freight usually goes via the Hertford Loop, which in turn potentially restrains the ability to improve passenger services along that route.

If the paths for the ex-LNER fasts have been repurposed for stopping passenger trains, where are all the additional freight trains going to squeeze in? The same question applies to the WCML and MML. Or should we not take the promises of additional freight capacity too seriously?

Those questions are largely rhetorical. The point I want to make is that whilst the design details of HS2 can be examined in depth, everyone is just guessing about what might happen on the classic network - despite the additional capacity creation being a fundamental justification for HS2.

Have another look at the video camflyer posted. At 4:38 the following comment is made.
Pretty much every problem there is in the rail industry and there are plenty can run back to the fact there isn't a strategy. There is no big plan. So that means you don't have a nice rolling programme of upgrades, you don't have the right skills to deliver stuff. And so there is only one glimpse of that I've seen in all my time in the railways and that's HS2...

HS2 is not a big plan. It is a very big scheme. Without an overarching strategy for rail then HS2 sits in isolation as something that sounds like a good idea, but nobody is quite sure (or can agree) why. It can achieve a lot, but what is it we want to achieve?

And it isn't good enough to say that the scheme won't be ready for another 10 years so there is plenty of time to plan the other network changes. 10 years is nothing when it comes to strategic transport planning.

To convince people that HS2 is a good idea you need to be able to give them concrete answers to questions like "how does it benefit me?". Vague promises of a sunny future just doesn't do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top