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

ABB125 said:

I think some of the issue that people have with HS2 isn't necessarily the fact that it may cost £2X billion, but that it was previously only going to cost £X billion. They would (quite rightly) want to know the cause of this increase.
On a side note, how much of the potential £106 billion cost of HS2 is optimism bias? Shouldn't the optimism bias have (mostly) covered the recent cost estimate increases? Or [conspiracy alert!] is optimism bias' only purpose to tell contractors how much they can charge above the "true" cost of a project?

Click to expand...

One of the problems is HS2 are kicking the can down the round with high risk issues, particularly ground conditions. They handed this risk to the contractors who have perhaps understandably added a hefty risk premium to their estimates. It would have been far better to do the investigations earlier, then contractors could bid with more confidence. That, plus the (in my view unnecessary) 400kph top speed specification makes everything more expensive (stiffer materials needed under the track bed, greater separation between tracks, complex interfaces between deep cuttings and tunnels, larger tunnels, etc.). Plus additional billions on visual mitigation - e.g. sinking the vertical profile to make it less obtrusive.

jfowkes said:

I am pro-HS2, but the answer "the money is only for HS2" doesn't really address the underlying crux of the thing.

Click to expand...

Unlike if you go to the bank and get a business loan to build a business, the money for HS2 doesn't exist until it's spent - it's not sat anywhere waiting.

The money is a loan from the taxpayers using the asset being created as collateral and the incomes associated with its use as repayment. Other projects can have similar money, but it's not the same money.

quantinghome said:

One of the problems is HS2 are kicking the can down the round with high risk issues, particularly ground conditions. They handed this risk to the contractors who have perhaps understandably added a hefty risk premium to their estimates. It would have been far better to do the investigations earlier, then contractors could bid with more confidence. That, plus the (in my view unnecessary) 400kph top speed specification makes everything more expensive (stiffer materials needed under the track bed, greater separation between tracks, complex interfaces between deep cuttings and tunnels, larger tunnels, etc.). Plus additional billions on visual mitigation - e.g. sinking the vertical profile to make it less obtrusive.

Click to expand...

With regards the tunnel entrances and deep cuttings and such, forced adoption of European TSI standards really didn't help here.
For example Japanese trains can use much "cruder" infrastructure in this regard thanks to their high tech elongated noses.

DynamicSpirit said:

I hadn't been aware that it is getting a super-low-interest loan. Is it?

Click to expand...

Interest rates on public borrowing are very low, the lowest ever in modern times iirc. If there was a time to borrow to invest in projects that should have long term economic benefits that time would seem to be now, transport, education etc.

However increasing the national debt is not without risk. No one knows when the next financial crisis will hit and what types of economic challenges we may face. I don't think that economic horizon scanning can preclude borrowing sensibly for large projects with a business case though.

HSTEd said:

For example Japanese trains can use much "cruder" infrastructure in this regard thanks to their high tech elongated noses.

Click to expand...

Arguably the other way around - they had to develop aerodynamically complex and space-wasting elongated noses because of a requirement to run at very high speeds over crude infrastructure.

Just noticed on the National rail map https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/Rail map v31 December 2019.pdf that the HS2 line is marked - albeit in a lighter colour. Wonder why it's put on as it's nowhere near opening - and could just confuse passengers not in the know (eg. travellers)?
If HS2 is on...then how's about any other projected lines - some of which may be up and running well before HS2? Hopefully one such line would be the Poulton/Fleetwood branch!!

HS2 has been on those maps for more than a year.

Roast Veg said:

HS2 has been on those maps for more than a year.

Click to expand...

In my opinion it shouldn't be, hey it could still be cancelled. If they showed it as a dotted line and it's clearly different than the others, then I could accept that.

RLBH said:

Arguably the other way around - they had to develop aerodynamically complex and space-wasting elongated noses because of a requirement to run at very high speeds over crude infrastructure.

Click to expand...

When your trains can be 400m long I am not entirely convinced that the loss of length to the noses would really be significant.

Roast Veg said:

HS2 has been on those maps for more than a year.

Click to expand...

Only shows phase 1 and 2 a. the eastern leg is absent, probably as it hasn`t passed through the commons yet ?

I feel that the railways have improved since introducing Network Rail to oversee and improve things. New signalling and tracks, and has probably led to HS2 being thought of in the first place, but we have to wait for the D.F.T. to make a decision soon.

Bletchleyite said:

Though many of those smaller stations don't have a useful service for whatever purpose. A few trains a day often won't work for commuting to a city, for example. Or if you've only got a daytime service as Kirkby-Wigan used to have (a bit better now I think) no use if you have to work late. Or (and this is probably the worst one) no Sunday service means it's not useful for a weekend away.

Click to expand...

That's not true of everywhere with a population of sub 10,000. For instance it's not the case for a few places along the WofE line.

There's also going to be villages which are less than 10 miles of a station which is in a town.

However the point is that even some larger places without stations are still well within 20 miles of a station.

If you take Ringwood as an example whilst it's within 20 miles of Salisbury station, it's also within 10 miles of Christchurch station.

Likewise Helston (Cornwall) is about 11 miles from Redruth station.

Both of which have populations of over 10,000 and no National Rail station.

As such the example of people who aren't within 20 miles of a station is going to be a fairly small number of people.

nimbus21 said:

With climate change now being of such alarming concern the government policy should be to take away the need to travel, especially daily commutes to work.

Click to expand...

So how does that work if you work for the NHS, or as teacher or lecturer, or are a social worker, or work in a shop or supermarket, or in a call centre, or on a construction site, or one of many (vast majority) of other jobs and professions which simply can’t do it at all from home or by video conferencing.

While many of those type of the commutes are unlikely to directly benefit from HS2 the folk doing them will benefit from the additional local and regional trains. Or maybe you are saying that the government should only allow you to take a job only if you can walk or cycle to it? Sounds scarily authoritarian to me.

Noddy said:

While many of those type of the commutes are unlikely to directly benefit from HS2 the folk doing them will benefit from the additional local and regional trains. Or maybe you are saying that the government should only allow you to take a job only if you can walk or cycle to it? Sounds scarily authoritarian to me.

Click to expand...

Almost nobody actually likes daily commuting. Some people do, but almost nobody does. This being the case, people commute because:
- They can't afford to live near their work, or would have a poor standard of living because they could afford a studio flat in some armpit of Zone 4 or alternatively a 3 bedroom house in a reasonable area of Bletchley (guilty! )
- Both people in a couple work, and their jobs are both 20 miles away from home in opposite directions. Moving to one job means the other person commuting twice as far so is no better and possibly worse in mental health terms. There may not be work suitable for the skillset of both people in one place.
- They have to live near elderly/ill relatives to care for them.
- Their job has moved, but they're in negative equity and so can't afford to move.
- Their job has moved, but they're on the breadline and so can't afford a deposit for another rental flat, you rarely get it back immediately. (I believe policy is looking to solve this one by forcing landlords to allow direct deposit transfers from one property to another).
- Their job has moved, but they're on the waiting list for a Council property swap and one hasn't come up yet.
- Their job has moved, they can get another Council property but it's in poor condition and they can't afford to refurbish it (the Council can't afford it either - for example a friend moved into a housing association flat back in August and he had to do the flooring, it was supplied unfloored - I put laminate down for him but materials still cost a few hundred, and that was for a studio).
Etc.

Changes in Government policy can help with a fair chunk of this and if people see a viable alternative they may well take it - if you go and pick a random evening peak LNR train out of Euston and ask "who would stop commuting tomorrow if you could see a viable alternative" I reckon most of the hands would be up.

At least if you took 8 of the 9 IC TPH off the south WCML (the 9th is the North Wales one which would have to stay) you're going to make it all a bit more reliable to improve their lot a bit.

Noddy said:

So how does that work if you work for the NHS, or as teacher or lecturer, or are a social worker, or work in a shop or supermarket, or in a call centre, or on a construction site, or one of many (vast majority) of other jobs and professions which simply can’t do it at all from home or by video conferencing.

While many of those type of the commutes are unlikely to directly benefit from HS2 the folk doing them will benefit from the additional local and regional trains. Or maybe you are saying that the government should only allow you to take a job only if you can walk or cycle to it? Sounds scarily authoritarian to me.

Click to expand...

At some point oil will dry up; and if we can't use other fuels then that senario could occur. Now admittedly since the 1970's we've been told oil is a finite substance yet there's no sign of it running out yet; but with CO2 something has to be done to restrict emissions.
NHS; in the future we may well move back to smaller more local hospitals and walk-in centres, like we used to have in the 60's (Bolton had three hospitals, now has one).
Teaching/lecturer; in remote parts of the world teaching is done via TV/internet. And that was how the Open University worked. If they can manage...
Social Worker; unless in a remote place, a worker wouldn't have to move outside their district, and if managed could get around by electric bike or small electric car. District nurses and care staff have told me it's actually quicker to get around by scooter than driving to avoid the congestion....but many still won't leave the "comfort" of their own car!!
Shop/supermarket; aren't many failing as we begin to shop on-line? One man and a van doing 200 deliveries beats 200 going to the shops.
Call centre....can't they all work from home?? Surely that's a given?

If HS2 is running to Crewe why does the N Wales service necessarily have to stay on the classic line?

Glenn1969 said:

If HS2 is running to Crewe why does the N Wales service necessarily have to stay on the classic line?

Click to expand...

I believe diesel will not be allowed in the long tunnel. If you electrified the NWC (or used some sort of EMU where you could stick a loco on the front at Crewe) you indeed could.

I'd expect to see North Wales compensated for this by way of frequency increase, perhaps an hourly service all the way to Holyhead, or the service being formed of 2 x 5-car 80x and half going to Llandudno and half to Holyhead every hour. But many might choose to change at Crewe for HS2 anyway.

Noddy said:

Or maybe you are saying that the government should only allow you to take a job only if you can walk or cycle to it?

Click to expand...

One possible answer could be to close vehicular commuting (and indeed car ownership) to new entrants - ie allow people already commuting to a workplace to continue to do so but not new employees.

However, we have to remember that domestic heating is not good for the environment either - local workcentres could be established in neighbourhoods to avoid the inefficiency of everyone heating their own house.

JonathanH said:

However, we have to remember that domestic heating is not good for the environment either - local workcentres could be established in neighbourhoods to avoid the inefficiency of everyone heating their own house.

Click to expand...

Upgrading more houses to Passivhaus standards with any heating via heat pumps via grants would maybe be a better solution to that (office buildings are mostly worse, being typically walls of glass with aircon[1], which is an almighty waste of energy in the temperate UK). Though there are social benefits of co-working.

[1] I know a heat pump is aircon in reverse, but you're airconning office buildings all year round, whereas most people will have their home heating completely off for about 4-6 months of the year, some for even longer.

JonathanH said:

One possible answer could be to close vehicular commuting (and indeed car ownership) to new entrants - ie allow people already commuting to a workplace to continue to do so but not new employees.

Click to expand...

Better to solve the issue of locations of jobs, house prices etc than that. Almost nobody likes commuting. Most people would stop tomorrow if it was viable to do so.

Less commuting might also be a benefit of becoming more of a renting culture, so legislative changes surrounding security of tenure and increase of the state pension might help there. (The latter may seem a bit odd, but typically in the UK you've paid your mortgage off by the time you retire so your housing costs nowt but energy, water, insurance and repairs - whereas your rent is still going up by at least inflation, which will need covering somehow).

Bletchleyite said:

Less commuting might also be a benefit of becoming more of a renting culture, so legislative changes surrounding security of tenure and increase of the state pension might help there. (The latter may seem a bit odd, but typically in the UK you've paid your mortgage off by the time you retire so your housing costs nowt but energy, water, insurance and repairs - whereas your rent is still going up by at least inflation, which will need covering somehow).

Click to expand...

It would be a pretty courageous government that confiscated all of the UK housing stock to increase the state pension and then made people rent instead.

Bletchleyite said:

Better to solve the issue of locations of jobs, house prices etc than that. Almost nobody likes commuting. Most people would stop tomorrow if it was viable to do so.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. I'm sure most people would say that they would stop if it was viable to do so - but in reality people commute because they have made a choice (maybe in part without consciously thinking too much about it) that the time/unpleasantness of the commute is worth it in order to have a job that is more beneficial in some way than the best job they could get closer to their homes. Maybe the job is more interesting. Maybe it pays more. Maybe they feel a bond with their work colleagues. Maybe there is some inertia about looking for other work. But in most cases there will be some reason why - in the minds of the commuter - that job makes the commute worth doing. If there wasn't a reason, then people wouldn't do it. Off the top of my head, I can't see anything the Government could reasonably do that would change that calculation substantially (other than putting up all fares and petrol duties, which would incentivise people to work nearer home - but would obviously be both politically unacceptable and hugely disruptive to people's lives).

Glenn1969 said:

If HS2 is running to Crewe why does the N Wales service necessarily have to stay on the classic line?

Click to expand...

Other than the diesel issue/lack of high speed bi-modes mentioned by others, there's the additional reason of both a lack of space on HS2 post-phase 2b (it could be the back of a Liverpool unit, splitting at Crewe, but Lancaster has been pencilled in for that) and enough free space to run 2tph to Chester, albeit probably with an additional intermediate stop.

Glenn1969 said:

If HS2 is running to Crewe why does the N Wales service necessarily have to stay on the classic line?

Click to expand...

The fastest bi-mode unit in the world can only manage 250km/h, so it can't run through the Core.

HSTEd said:

The fastest bi-mode unit in the world can only manage 250km/h, so it can't run through the Core.

Click to expand...

It's shocking that lines like this, the MML, CLC, etc., etc. don't have wires up when we are proposing new schemes like this.

HSTEd said:

When your trains can be 400m long I am not entirely convinced that the loss of length to the noses would really be significant.

Click to expand...

When trains are 200m long and you're planning to run them in pairs, having four aerospike noses seems like a bit of an extravagance. And if you make single 400m trains, they don't fit into platforms anywhere other than your dedicated line.

Grumpy Git said:

It's shocking that lines like this, the MML, CLC, etc., etc. don't have wires up when we are proposing new schemes like this.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's an issue in itself...

RLBH said:

When trains are 200m long and you're planning to run them in pairs, having four aerospike noses seems like a bit of an extravagance. And if you make single 400m trains, they don't fit into platforms anywhere other than your dedicated line.

Click to expand...

However, as discussed earlier, HS2 won't be using those ultra-aerodynamic noses.

Bletchleyite said:

Almost nobody actually likes daily commuting. Some people do, but almost nobody does. This being the case, people commute because:
- They can't afford to live near their work, or would have a poor standard of living because they could afford a studio flat in some armpit of Zone 4 or alternatively a 3 bedroom house in a reasonable area of Bletchley (guilty! )
- Both people in a couple work, and their jobs are both 20 miles away from home in opposite directions. Moving to one job means the other person commuting twice as far so is no better and possibly worse in mental health terms. There may not be work suitable for the skillset of both people in one place.
- They have to live near elderly/ill relatives to care for them.
- Their job has moved, but they're in negative equity and so can't afford to move.
- Their job has moved, but they're on the breadline and so can't afford a deposit for another rental flat, you rarely get it back immediately. (I believe policy is looking to solve this one by forcing landlords to allow direct deposit transfers from one property to another).
- Their job has moved, but they're on the waiting list for a Council property swap and one hasn't come up yet.
- Their job has moved, they can get another Council property but it's in poor condition and they can't afford to refurbish it (the Council can't afford it either - for example a friend moved into a housing association flat back in August and he had to do the flooring, it was supplied unfloored - I put laminate down for him but materials still cost a few hundred, and that was for a studio).
Etc.

Changes in Government policy can help with a fair chunk of this and if people see a viable alternative they may well take it - if you go and pick a random evening peak LNR train out of Euston and ask "who would stop commuting tomorrow if you could see a viable alternative" I reckon most of the hands would be up.

Click to expand...

You say no one likes commuting and list a load of perfectly valid reasons why people might commute but miss out the absolutely key one-they gain personal and professional enjoyment and satisfaction from the job they are doing and there is no option any closer. This may relate to any number of specialist jobs. It may also simply relate to the team and environment someone is working in.

Other than a general suggestion that government policy can help with addressing why people commute you don’t actually suggest what these policies might be? Government policy simply can’t create specialist jobs or jobs that people enjoy and find fulfilling, in every village, town and city.

Howardh said:

At some point oil will dry up; and if we can't use other fuels then that senario could occur. Now admittedly since the 1970's we've been told oil is a finite substance yet there's no sign of it running out yet; but with CO2 something has to be done to restrict emissions.
NHS; in the future we may well move back to smaller more local hospitals and walk-in centres, like we used to have in the 60's (Bolton had three hospitals, now has one).
Teaching/lecturer; in remote parts of the world teaching is done via TV/internet. And that was how the Open University worked. If they can manage...
Social Worker; unless in a remote place, a worker wouldn't have to move outside their district, and if managed could get around by electric bike or small electric car. District nurses and care staff have told me it's actually quicker to get around by scooter than driving to avoid the congestion....but many still won't leave the "comfort" of their own car!!
Shop/supermarket; aren't many failing as we begin to shop on-line? One man and a van doing 200 deliveries beats 200 going to the shops.
Call centre....can't they all work from home?? Surely that's a given?

Click to expand...

While you got some valid suggestions it still doesn’t solve the vast majority of travel.

Smaller hospitals are fine for basic stuff (minor injuries, physio, etc) but we know they don’t provide the best specialist treatment.

Remote teaching may be fine for some lectures and report writing, but anything that is lab or field based, or requires equipment or specialist documents is a problem here. Not to mention that only really applies further education not schools. Unless you’re suggesting all school children are taught at home via the internet! Stopping parents driving their kids to school is an absolute must but the way we do that is improving public transport...

Social workers-are typically employed at county (not district) so can have a large area to cover. They will still need to travel as you acknowledge. As will nurse et al. Even if they don’t use it I mproving public transport will make their (and therefore our) lives easier, because there will be less congestion.

Closing all the shops and supermarkets in the country and making everyone shop online would certainly solve this problem. It would remove commuting, massively reduce congestion, and all the former shops and supermarkets could be developed as housing so helping with issues there too. So yes this would be an option but I’d don’t think it would be a vote winner as it would lead to also lead massive unemployment, and aren’t we supposed to be regenerating our towns, not destroying them?

Call centre-because they have access to a lot of private and confidential information about a customer and it’s better this data is handled in a relatively secure location.

JonathanH said:

One possible answer could be to close vehicular commuting (and indeed car ownership) to new entrants - ie allow people already commuting to a workplace to continue to do so but not new employees.

However, we have to remember that domestic heating is not good for the environment either - local workcentres could be established in neighbourhoods to avoid the inefficiency of everyone heating their own house.

Click to expand...

Not allowing people to commute and local workcentres-still all sounds very authoritarian to me.

Noddy said:

So how does that work if you work for the NHS, or as teacher or lecturer, or are a social worker, or work in a shop or supermarket, or in a call centre, or on a construction site, or one of many (vast majority) of other jobs and professions which simply can’t do it at all from home or by video conferencing.

Click to expand...

All of those are solved by turning away from centralisation and back to localism. Instead of a huge hospital serving an entire county, get back to a hospital in each town, get back to smaller/local GP surgeries and more local community nurses/midwifes, etc. Schools are already pretty localised, so teachers could just opt to work in a school local to them instead of an hour away. Social work is already pretty local I'd have thought, so get back to social workers "working" a territory local to where they live. We're already seeing the major supermarkets returning to smaller local stores and of course, internet shopping means you don't need to go to a physical shop anymore. Lots of professions can be done online - there are now huge numbers of internet based estate agents, solicitors, accountants, etc without the old fashioned High Street office. Call centres is an easy one as lots of telephone workers (sales, holiday booking etc) are people working from home with a broadband link for incoming phone calls and to the systems - that's no different to hundreds of people in an office block.

RLBH said:

When trains are 200m long and you're planning to run them in pairs, having four aerospike noses seems like a bit of an extravagance. And if you make single 400m trains, they don't fit into platforms anywhere other than your dedicated line.

Click to expand...

Even leaving aside that the Captive set will make up ~9/14tph on the full scheme, Sheffield will fit a 400m formation and there are a scattering of long platforms elsewhere.

But even then the noses aren't that long.
Something like 7-8m from the look of it.