• 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.

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
903
There is much discussion about the LN1/PSE. However, Paris-Lyon, even on the fastest crack express took 4 hours, but this was in the 1970s. Now, if a train took 4 hours, people would drive, considering the motorways take 4-5 hours if in normal traffic. The 1hr 40 minutes needed for Birmingham to London already is quite good when you look at the driving time required. London to Manchester is even more so. HS2 therefore far less likely to be popular, not forgetting that more people own cars these days. Likewise, the best journey time on the Mistral to Marseille was 6hrs 35 minutes, contrary to 3hrs 7 minutes for the best train today.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,014
This is under an accounting system which works out SNCF as a whole to be profitable. In reality the French railways need more subsidy than ours. The profitability of any TGV line other than Paris -Lyon is highly dubious.

No, it’s under the system where the whole of SNCF made a net loss of about €200m. It is true that there are some interesting financial elements to the SNCF accounts, particularly around debt. Nevertheless even when you take this into account, the TGV is propping up the whole of the rest of the company. Long Distance, High Speed railways are good money spinners (see LNER and Avanti).
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,008
Location
UK
You need to turn not B-roads, but pot-hole-filled sub-standard A-roads into driveable routes so that drivers may divert from the motorways if necessary.


You can fill the pot holes in, but that doesn’t make them any quicker, and as useage goes up the queues increase turning everyday into a nightmare for the local users....
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,014
There is much discussion about the LN1/PSE. However, Paris-Lyon, even on the fastest crack express took 4 hours, but this was in the 1970s. Now, if a train took 4 hours, people would drive, considering the motorways take 4-5 hours if in normal traffic. The 1hr 40 minutes needed for Birmingham to London already is quite good when you look at the driving time required. London to Manchester is even more so. HS2 therefore far less likely to be popular, not forgetting that more people own cars these days. Likewise, the best journey time on the Mistral to Marseille was 6hrs 35 minutes, contrary to 3hrs 7 minutes for the best train today.

I’m sorry but that misses the point about transport planning, not by a country mile, but by a country parsec, if such a thing exists.

The number of people who drive a car from near Euston to near New St or Picadilly each day will be very small; I’d guess fewer than 100. However the number of people who drive from the London ‘travel to work area’ to the Birmingham or Manchester City regions each day will be in the thousands. Everyone of these people will be using the car because it is better for their own personal balance of cost, journey time and convenience / comfort compared to other modes. For some of them, knocking an hour off the London - Manchester rail journey time won’t make the slightest bit of difference. However, for some of them it will, and they will switch to rail. This has all been modelled, in detail.

Even so, HS2 is not about emptyng the M1 or M6 - it will have a small effect there of course but not significant. It’s about dealing with the growth in passenger traffic on the corridor, most of which has been on the rail system (air travel between London and Manchester has fallen significantly) which has continued relentlessly for over a quarter of a century now with little sign of stopping.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
There is much discussion about the LN1/PSE. However, Paris-Lyon, even on the fastest crack express took 4 hours, but this was in the 1970s. Now, if a train took 4 hours, people would drive, considering the motorways take 4-5 hours if in normal traffic. The 1hr 40 minutes needed for Birmingham to London already is quite good when you look at the driving time required. London to Manchester is even more so. HS2 therefore far less likely to be popular, not forgetting that more people own cars these days. Likewise, the best journey time on the Mistral to Marseille was 6hrs 35 minutes, contrary to 3hrs 7 minutes for the best train today.

Once again, HS2 is not about stimulating long distance demand as such - it's already pretty strong for the reasons you suggest. It's about providing capacity and frequency on local and commuter flows (like at Milton Keynes) by building a new line to take long distance trains that currently dominate the WCML timetable. And if you build a new line, it might as well be a fast one.


The exception of course are HS2 services from Birmingham to Manchester, Leeds and York/Newcastle where XC journey times are not a huge advantage over the road journey time, but HS2 will be by a country mile.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,284
Location
Isle of Man
Meanwhile, here's the human cost of HS2.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51458604

"It's completely wrecked our lives."

The HS2 high-speed rail route received government approval on Tuesday, but while it has its supporters, not everyone will benefit from it.

Ron and Anne Ryall have been ordered to leave their home next month as the route is due to run right through it.

Ron told the BBC: "I'm finding it difficult that someone can just walk into your life and destroy it. My family has lived in this lane for 100 years. I was born here."

Anne told BBC Breakfast: "It's awful, absolutely awful. We feel like a fruit being squeezed out of its skin, closing in and closing in and it's just a horrible feeling."

The Ryalls say the money they have been offered to leave is not enough and they will refuse to move from their house in Colne Valley in Buckinghamshire.

It continues to be utterly disgraceful how HS2 treat the local communities which will be destroyed so very rich businessmen can get to London 20 minutes quicker. Their story is heart breaking but not new: HS2 has shafted everyone involved in the compulsory purchase system. No doubt they'll get screwed over even more to "control costs".

They could divert HS2 around the rich bits of Cheshire, but Burton Green? Sorry, we'll flatten your village for our convenience.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-51458737

The impact on the community has been "stressful," she said, adding that 37 houses in the village had been sold to HS2, fracturing the community as those who may not otherwise have moved have had to up sticks.

No doubt they should take comfort that their village will be destroyed so that someone from Milton Keynes doesn't sometimes have to stand up on a train to work.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,499
Location
Mold, Clwyd
This is under an accounting system which works out SNCF as a whole to be profitable. In reality the French railways need more subsidy than ours. The profitability of any TGV line other than Paris -Lyon is highly dubious.

SNCF's debt is about the same as NR's (€50 billion or so) but is branded by Macron as "unsustainable", hence the major reorganisation (and strikes).
People in greenhouses etc...

The latest high speed lines in France were built on a PFI basis, with the contractors putting up a big chunk of the capital.
SNCF pay a usage charge. Shades of IEP.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
To all those NIMBY's out there I say it's time to take down your "No to HS2" signs and choose another campaign...

I would have far more sympathy if their energies were about mittigation of the effects of construction. There are some concerns that I"ve heard over the years - increased traffic, issues with disposal of spoil, loss of footpath or cycle routes, etc.

Sadly those complaints are drowned out by those rich landowners in the Chilterns who claim they want high speed rail, just not on this route - e.g. High Speed UK. I.e. they want it in someone else's back yard.

It continues to be utterly disgraceful how HS2 treat the local communities which will be destroyed so very rich businessmen can get to London 20 minutes quicker. Their story is heart breaking but not new

The story is not new - when the M40 and the M25 was built many people were subject to compulsory purchase, all to let those living in the chilterns pollute a little more.

The wilful ignorance of many complainers on the point and benefits of HS2 is tiring.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,254
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
SNCF's debt is about the same as NR's (€50 billion or so) but is branded by Macron as "unsustainable", hence the major reorganisation (and strikes).
People in greenhouses etc...

The latest high speed lines in France were built on a PFI basis, with the contractors putting up a big chunk of the capital.
SNCF pay a usage charge. Shades of IEP.

Isn't that also how the French motorways came about?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,254
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I've just done some Googling and it appears that HS2 passes through Burton Green pretty much on the bed of an existing closed line.

If you buy a house next to such a line, you can't really complain if it is at some point reopened, can you?
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
It continues to be utterly disgraceful how HS2 treat the local communities which will be destroyed so very rich businessmen can get to London 20 minutes quicker.
You really do like to talk some rubbish don't you - are you doing deliberately?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,014
Meanwhile, here's the human cost of HS2.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51458604



It continues to be utterly disgraceful how HS2 treat the local communities which will be destroyed so very rich businessmen can get to London 20 minutes quicker. Their story is heart breaking but not new: HS2 has shafted everyone involved in the compulsory purchase system. No doubt they'll get screwed over even more to "control costs".

They could divert HS2 around the rich bits of Cheshire, but Burton Green? Sorry, we'll flatten your village for our convenience.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-51458737



No doubt they should take comfort that their village will be destroyed so that someone from Milton Keynes doesn't sometimes have to stand up on a train to work.

I've just done some Googling and it appears that HS2 passes through Burton Green pretty much on the bed of an existing closed line.

It’s not just on the old line, it’s in tunnel under the village concerned. Whilst there will no doubt be some local disruption during construction, to say that the village is being destroyed or cut in half is absolute rubbish.

Meanwhile how many properties have been / will be compulsorily purchased for, say, East West Rail, or NPR, or Croydon, etc. Orr, looking back, the M40?
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,284
Location
Isle of Man
If you buy a house next to such a line, you can't really complain if it is at some point reopened, can you?

If it was on an existing trackbed, HS2 wouldn't need to bulldoze 37 houses out of about 300, and a village hall. Which is the real point.

You really do like to talk some rubbish don't you - are you doing deliberately?

I direct you to this article in the FT about just how badly HS2 have shafted peopke they've made subject to a CPO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/2d708a94-e68a-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59

As for rich businessmen getting to London faster, that's HS2's own stated benefit!
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Being cynical, the recent electrification of the Great Western does absolutely nothing for me so why electrify it?

The same could apply for HS2, it doesn’t directly do anything for me so why back it?

That’s the kind of attitude from those who don’t actually see the benefits of those infrastructure projects.
 

gazzaa2

Member
Joined
2 May 2018
Messages
829
And quite how is HS2 going to benefit Stafford, Tamworth, Nuneaton, Rugby etc. Currently I can get to Euston in 1 hour 15 minutes with London North Western. Presumably this journey time will lengthen when Hs2 is complete.
Also, just how are all the people wanting to use HS2 from Tamworth and Nuneaton going to get to Birmingham exactly. Services are currently struggling to cope with existing passenger numbers and there is a huge amount of housing development taking place and planned by Lichfield DC on the Tamworth border so the situation won’t improve soon

This is what I don't get. Trains into Birmingham are going to be even more overcrowded from many places to change at Birmingham for HS2 and from all places until the rest of the phases are complete. The London-Birmingham line (and eventually beyond that) is great for Londoners and people living in the south east (get into Birmingham quicker and more capacity). But unless you're already in Birmingham city centre or close to it the benefits aren't major. London commuters increasing property prices in the area is good if you own a home, not so good if you don't.

You might not be able to even get on a train to get to Birmingham. Trains into Birmingham are already full. By the time they've arrived at New Street and got to the HS2 platform they may as well have just took their existing service into London which isn't much longer than an hour anyway throughout the Midlands.

The north and midlands are very well connected into London. Capacity is of course a problem but it's due to the London-centric country that's been created. HS2 only exacerbates that. Travelling around the north is a problem (or any east-west travel in the country that doesn't stop or start in London).
 
Last edited:

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
This is what I don't get. Trains into Birmingham are going to be even more overcrowded from many places to change at Birmingham for HS2 and from all places until the rest of the phases are complete. The London-Birmingham line (and eventually beyond that) is great for Londoners and people living in the south east (get into Birmingham quicker and more capacity). But unless you're already in Birmingham city centre or close to it the benefits aren't major.

You might not be able to even get on a train to get to Birmingham. Trains into Birmingham are already full. By the time they've arrived at New Street and got to the HS2 platform they may as well have just took their existing service into London which isn't much longer than an hour anyway throughout the Midlands.

The north and midlands are very well connected into London. Capacity is of course a problem but it's due to the London-centric country that's been created. HS2 only exacerbates that. Travelling around the north is a problem (or any east-west travel in the country that doesn't stop or start in London).

HS2 doesn’t serve New Street but a new terminus at Curzon Street which is next door more or less from Moor Street snd a short walk from New Street itself.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,348
This is what I don't get. Trains into Birmingham are going to be even more overcrowded from many places to change at Birmingham for HS2 and from all places until the rest of the phases are complete. The London-Birmingham line (and eventually beyond that) is great for Londoners and people living in the south east (get into Birmingham quicker and more capacity). But unless you're already in Birmingham city centre or close to it the benefits aren't major.

You might not be able to even get on a train to get to Birmingham. Trains into Birmingham are already full. By the time they've arrived at New Street and got to the HS2 platform they may as well have just took their existing service into London which isn't much longer than an hour anyway throughout the Midlands.

The north and midlands are very well connected into London. Capacity is of course a problem but it's due to the London-centric country that's been created. HS2 only exacerbates that. Travelling around the north is a problem (or any east-west travel in the country that doesn't stop or start in London).
You are aware that the majority of Phase 1 services won't actually go to Birmingham Curzon Street? Most will actually bypass East of Birmingham and join the WCML near Rugeley and go to/from Crewe Manchester Liverpool Preston and Scotland etc.?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,254
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
This is what I don't get. Trains into Birmingham are going to be even more overcrowded from many places to change at Birmingham for HS2 and from all places until the rest of the phases are complete

No, they won't; they'll run through onto classic lines on a service pattern not dissimilar to the IC service pattern now, just quicker.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,284
Location
Isle of Man
That’s the kind of attitude from those who don’t actually see the benefits of those infrastructure projects.

I don't see £106bn of benefits of HS2. But I do see the benefits of other infrastructure work, and I do support those. Gosh, that's confusing!

Meanwhile how many properties have been / will be compulsorily purchased for, say, East West Rail, or NPR, or Croydon, etc. Orr, looking back, the M40?

Some, no doubt. And many road schemes were just as controversial (Swampy says hi).

But a glance to the west of Euston shows the enormous scale of the HS2 CPO scheme. And, according to the FT, plenty of those owners still haven't been paid what they should have been paid- despite HS2 already blowing £7bn (the entire cost of HS1!).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,254
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
And quite how is HS2 going to benefit Stafford, Tamworth, Nuneaton, Rugby etc. Currently I can get to Euston in 1 hour 15 minutes with London North Western. Presumably this journey time will lengthen when Hs2 is complete.

What makes you think that? I would expect you to have an improved service, probably an increase to 2tph once the fast trains are not going along the Trent Valley.

Also, just how are all the people wanting to use HS2 from Tamworth and Nuneaton going to get to Birmingham exactly

They aren't (unless their destination, as now, is actually Birmingham).

You totally miss the point that HS2 is mostly about relieving the existing lines by removing the long-distance non-stop services from them, not about funnelling absolutely everything into it and grassing over the south WCML.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,254
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You need to turn not B-roads, but pot-hole-filled sub-standard A-roads into driveable routes so that drivers may divert from the motorways if necessary.

Ignoring traffic congestion which has nothing to do with the road itself, which is better to drive on, the M1 or the A1 (M)? They are reasonably comparable because the former is new-build while the latter is a converted existing route with all the bitty complexity that entails.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,348
No, they won't; they'll run through onto classic lines on a service pattern not dissimilar to the IC service pattern now, just quicker.
Exactly - Just 3tph London - Birmingham Curzon Street, the other 10tph with Phase 1 or 15tph with Phase 2 from London won't go there.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I don't see £106bn of benefits of HS2. But I do see the benefits of other infrastructure work, and I do support those. Gosh, that's confusing!

So while you claim to see the benefits of other infrastructure projects, you can’t see the obvious benefits that HS2 will bring the country? Alrighty then....
 

Lucan

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2018
Messages
1,211
Location
Wales
And many road schemes were just as controversial
No they weren't. Thousands of miles of roads and motorways have been built since the 1960s, and most of them recently have been non-motorways of near motorway standard. While the motorways made headlines, usually favourable, those other roads have rarely made news beyond the local newspaper. Perhaps if HS2 had been marketed as a tram system it could have kept a lower profile o_O

Most people never use trains. I know people who have never been on one in their life, So they hate seeing money spent on railways, but welcome road building (unless their house is directly in line) because they think they might use the road one day. Putting a motorist hat on, I could object to motorways having more than one lane because at any one time I only use one lane; the other lanes are just a waste of space! And what is the point for me of the M65, I never use it, never will - so rip it up! In a similar vein, why not close all hospitals and sell the land - except the one near me?
 

Alex McKenna

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2011
Messages
29
Not the old "rich businessmen" thing again :(
HS2 is about increasing local trains on the classic lines, by removing long distance express trains to HS2, which is basically a bypass line.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
Thousands of miles of roads and motorways have been built since the 1960s, and most of them recently have been non-motorways of near motorway standard.
There isn't actually such a thing as 'motorway standard' - a motorway is defined by a legal instrument called a Special Road Order, and which is only permitted to be used by Class I and Class II traffic as defined by the Special Roads Act. Those conditions can in principle be applied to anything. For examplethe A6144(M) was a perfectly ordinary single-carriageway road which was built under a Special Road Order that made it a motorway. It's now lost its' motorway status, making it an all-purpose road.

On a similar note, there's a road to an Army range in Wales which is legally considered an all-purpose dual carriageway with a 70mph limit, but which in fact it would be reckless to drive at much more than 7mph.

It is true, though, that many road projects seek to achieve standards of design that have normally been associated with interurban motorways, but without the Special Roads Order. Or, in a few cases, with the Special Roads Order, but without the blue signs. Opposition to such schemes does seem to be rather less than it was at the height of the A34 and M3 protests.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,415
No, it’s under the system where the whole of SNCF made a net loss of about €200m. It is true that there are some interesting financial elements to the SNCF accounts, particularly around debt. Nevertheless even when you take this into account, the TGV is propping up the whole of the rest of the company. Long Distance, High Speed railways are good money spinners (see LNER and Avanti).

Whereas the French railways require somewhere in the region of €14bn p/a in subsidies - the only thing propping it up is the government. How that is allocated who knows, but it isn't credible that the TGV doesn't account for any of it. The experience in this country is that long distance high speed railways are not money spinners - whilst the ECML has sometimes made a return to the government (though usually by bankrupting the franchisee) in the 2018/19 financial year the intercity East Coast franchise had a net subsidy of around £5m, and the West Coast a staggering £100m.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top