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

Peter Kelford · 19 Feb 2020

ohgoditsjames said:
For those that are so vehemently opposed to HS2, what do you propose we do instead?

Improve the regional service around the West Midland and North Western metropolitan areas. Also, a £60m/km (1/3rd of current prices) HS line from London to Manchester and the onwards to Leeds and Newcastle, but not essential, subject to price.

Yindee8191 said:
At this point, I think everyone who is behind HS2 ought to be supporting what we are getting as much as we can, instead of extra bits that the antis will add to the cost and destruction figures. HS2 is better than no HS2, and getting any HSR built is usually a good way of ensuring more HSR gets built, as governments wake up to the benefits. Still, I suppose this one thread on a (no offence) relatively obscure forum won’t change the government’s mind!

A bad HS2 is worse than no HS2.

LNW-GW Joint said:
In Germany, a deep level west-east tunnel under the Stuttgart Hbf terminus is under construction for a new NBS loop through the city.

In France, a similar project is being built at Marseille.

RailUK Forums

miami · 19 Feb 2020

Peter Kelford said:
Improve the regional service around the West Midland and North Western metropolitan areas.

How, exactly?

DynamicSpirit · 19 Feb 2020

quantinghome said:
These examples make for interesting comparison with the idea of running high speed lines through Birmingham or Manchester. Antwerp Centraal was a huge project, also one that needed only a relatively small amount of tunneling and relies on existing lines on the approaches. Stuttgart has been beset by arguments for years.

These cases also show the drawbacks of having the main line running through the centre of cities: they slow down overall journey times. The contrast with the Paris-Marseilles and Paris-Bordeaux TGV routes is instructive.

I don't see how the examples you give lead to that conclusion. Can you clarify?

yorkie · 19 Feb 2020

miami said:
How, exactly?

Please post any answers in the Speculative Ideas section. Feel free to create a new thread if any of the existing ones (e.g. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...pend-on-£106bn-on-rail-infrastructure.198754/ ) are not suitable.

miami · 19 Feb 2020

Local parish council (Shrops/Staffs/Cheshire border) are concerned with road traffic from HS2 (phase 2a) during construction. The railway doesn't even pass through Woore from what I can tell.

Where can I find the detailed modelling of construction traffic?

I would have every sympathy if they were saying

"Could you look into building a new works unit junction on the nearby M6 with a 500m lane from the construction site to the motorway and send lorries that way"
Or
"Could you look into building a rail depot connected to the WCML to take the spoil away in the evening when there is space on the network"

Instead they are saying "destruction of our Parish in Shropshire" and "devastation of whole sections of Staffordshire".

From what I can tell HS2 is talking about making an existing junction in Woore safer, increasing width of the pavement, and providing a zebra crossing for pedestrians.

I'm impressed by the expert railway engineers on Woore parish council, I'm unsure why they were overlooked in the design.
"One current alternative option to HS2 phase 2a proposes upgrading the existing intercity railway line infrastructure between Birmingham Interchange to Manchester Piccadilly, followed by next phase development of the East/West rail link so desperately needed in the North of England i.e. a ’T’ shaped arrangement at Manchester Piccadilly from central Birmingham – then east towards Leeds and west towards Liverpool."

Their letter to their MP is the first time I've seen a suggestion that phase 1 and 2B should be built, but not 2A. 2A happens to pass near to Woore.

"We would argue that it would be better to cancel the Phase 2A section and create a connection from the East Midlands Hub to Manchester then onwards to Leeds and Liverpool providing a quicker and more cost effective plan."

Yindee8191 · 19 Feb 2020

Peter Kelford said:
A bad HS2 is worse than no HS2.

Considering you are opposed to the scheme, I’m not sure that reflects, well, reality. In your avowed opinion, a good HS2 is worse than no HS2. My message was targeted at supporters of the project, for whom it HS2 being built at all is better than a perfect version never getting the go-ahead.

6Gman · 19 Feb 2020

Peter Kelford said:
Improve the regional service around the West Midland and North Western metropolitan areas. Also, a £60m/km (1/3rd of current prices) HS line from London to Manchester and the onwards to Leeds and Newcastle, but not essential, subject to price.

The problem with saying "yes we will have this project, but only if it comes in at £x per mile" is what do you do if it doesn't?

6Gman · 19 Feb 2020

miami said:
Local parish council (Shrops/Staffs/Cheshire border) are concerned with road traffic from HS2 (phase 2a) during construction. The railway doesn't even pass through Woore from what I can tell.

Where can I find the detailed modelling of construction traffic?

All affected Parish Councils will have been supplied with the relevant documentation on the impacts of construction work on the road network, either as hard copy (one of many huge documents produced - no wonder it's costing so much!) or on a memory stick.

6Gman · 19 Feb 2020

miami said:
I would have every sympathy if they were saying

"Could you look into building a new works unit junction on the nearby M6 with a 500m lane from the construction site to the motorway and send lorries that way"
Or
"Could you look into building a rail depot connected to the WCML to take the spoil away in the evening when there is space on the network"

Instead they are saying "destruction of our Parish in Shropshire" and "devastation of whole sections of Staffordshire".

I understand that at the northern end the intention is to move spoil along the route itself to Basford Hall for onward movement, to avoid it using the local road network.

6Gman · 19 Feb 2020

miami said:
I'm impressed by the expert railway engineers on Woore parish council, I'm unsure why they were overlooked in the design.
"One current alternative option to HS2 phase 2a proposes upgrading the existing intercity railway line infrastructure between Birmingham Interchange to Manchester Piccadilly, followed by next phase development of the East/West rail link so desperately needed in the North of England i.e. a ’T’ shaped arrangement at Manchester Piccadilly from central Birmingham – then east towards Leeds and west towards Liverpool."

Their letter to their MP is the first time I've seen a suggestion that phase 1 and 2B should be built, but not 2A. 2A happens to pass near to Woore.

"We would argue that it would be better to cancel the Phase 2A section and create a connection from the East Midlands Hub to Manchester then onwards to Leeds and Liverpool providing a quicker and more cost effective plan."

So, the good people of the East Midlands are to get on a train at Toton which will then take them to Manchester, then over the "existing ... infrastructure" to Birmingham Interchange before HS2 whisks them to Euston.

Anybody else spot a flaw in that?

matacaster · 19 Feb 2020

Senex said:
A high-speed line, which I'm strongly in favour of, but through Birmingham and Manchester (and perhaps Stoke too) on the way to Preston (and perhaps eventually Scotland), and also a new fast line from Liverpool through Manchester and Leeds to the ECML, sharing a station in Manchester and going direct to Leeds, not deviating through Bradford, together with a long corner-cutting line to get from the first line to the second towards Liverpool.

Agree, deviating through Bradford centre costly, difficult and not a good idea.

6Gman · 19 Feb 2020

Senex said:
A high-speed line, which I'm strongly in favour of, but through Birmingham and Manchester (and perhaps Stoke too) on the way to Preston (and perhaps eventually Scotland), and also a new fast line from Liverpool through Manchester and Leeds to the ECML, sharing a station in Manchester and going direct to Leeds, not deviating through Bradford, together with a long corner-cutting line to get from the first line to the second towards Liverpool.

Would that be instead of Crewe?

The Ham · 19 Feb 2020

6Gman said:
The problem with saying "yes we will have this project, but only if it comes in at £x per mile" is what do you do if it doesn't?

Also with no consideration as to what benefits the extra cost might provide our if passenger numbers have gone up so there would be extra income to cover the extra costs.

158756 · 19 Feb 2020

6Gman said:
I understand that at the northern end the intention is to move spoil along the route itself to Basford Hall for onward movement, to avoid it using the local road network.

Presumably the spoil will be produced long before there is any usable railway, so are they going to build a temporary road? And if the spoil is going by road anyway this just moves the problem, so the residents around Basford Hall will be complaining next.

miami · 19 Feb 2020

6Gman said:
I understand that at the northern end the intention is to move spoil along the route itself to Basford Hall for onward movement, to avoid it using the local road network.

Woore will be taking a lot of lorries through the village, and they have a lot of paperwork on their site. Before their final outburst about magically upgrading the line from International to Wolves and on to Stafford they were attempting to find solutions -- they looked into a temporary bypass of the village for example.

As recently as September they were still pressing to use Keele services to access the motorway, for a very small cost in the grand scheme of things. I'd like to see a response to the MP's letter. Looking at the archive of the last few years it seems the Parish Council have done a great deal to try to work with HS2.

The summary of the problem

And one potential mittigation

It's a shame that "Stop HS2" suck all the air out of mittigation of the local effect of the actual build.

6Gman · 19 Feb 2020

158756 said:
Presumably the spoil will be produced long before there is any usable railway, so are they going to build a temporary road? And if the spoil is going by road anyway this just moves the problem, so the residents around Basford Hall will be complaining next.

The formation is intended to be used as a haulage road (whether this will happen in practice remains to be seen). The advantage of Basford Hall is that there is direct access to the A500 without affecting residential areas directly.

158756 · 19 Feb 2020

6Gman said:
The formation is intended to be used as a haulage road (whether this will happen in practice remains to be seen). The advantage of Basford Hall is that there is direct access to the A500 without affecting residential areas directly.

Why is the haulage road in doubt, cost? It says a lot about the state of the rail freight industry that the railway is going to produce huge volumes of spoil around one of the largest surviving yards on the network and none of it is going to be moved by train.

6Gman · 19 Feb 2020

158756 said:
Why is the haulage road in doubt, cost? It says a lot about the state of the rail freight industry that the railway is going to produce huge volumes of spoil around one of the largest surviving yards on the network and none of it is going to be moved by train.

The haulage road being in doubt is simply because I'm suspicious of assurances given before schemes start. "We will do this and that" easily turns into "well, we'd have liked to do it but in the end it proved impractical". So it's just my cynicism.

How much spoil will be produced, and where and how it will be taken, I have no idea. It has been suggested that the net amount will be limited, with stuff dug out in one place being used elsewhere within the scheme but again that's easy to say pre-work.

miami · 19 Feb 2020

6Gman said:
The formation is intended to be used as a haulage road (whether this will happen in practice remains to be seen). The advantage of Basford Hall is that there is direct access to the A500 without affecting residential areas directly.

Why are HS2 improving the junction in Woorle to pass lots of lorries through?

Once the lorries emerge onto the A500, will they route east to the M6, or northwest to Chester up the A51?

The Ham · 19 Feb 2020

miami said:
Woore will be taking a lot of lorries through the village, and they have a lot of paperwork on their site. Before their final outburst about magically upgrading the line from International to Wolves and on to Stafford they were attempting to find solutions -- they looked into a temporary bypass of the village for example.

As recently as September they were still pressing to use Keele services to access the motorway, for a very small cost in the grand scheme of things. I'd like to see a response to the MP's letter. Looking at the archive of the last few years it seems the Parish Council have done a great deal to try to work with HS2.

The summary of the problem

View attachment 74221

And one potential mittigation

View attachment 74222

It's a shame that "Stop HS2" suck all the air out of mittigation of the local effect of the actual build.

300 lorries over what timeframe?

Even over a 10 hour day that's a lorry every 2 minutes. Now for many that figure would sound a lot, but if you walk a mile and take 20 minutes to do so you'd likely see 10 lorries, but would also see 100 to 350 cars.

6Gman · 19 Feb 2020

miami said:
Why are HS2 improving the junction in Woorle to pass lots of lorries through?

Once the lorries emerge onto the A500, will they route east to the M6, or northwest to Chester up the A51?

On the first question, some vehicles will have to exit beyond/ before the haulage road can be completed. They are routed to the A51 (which is controversial but there are bridges which make access to the A531 difficult).

On the second question I have no idea because I don't know where the lorries will be going.

As far as Woore is concerned I can fully understand their concerns but if you are located where two Primary Route A-roads cross you are likely to have traffic issues.

D365 · 20 Feb 2020

The Ham said:
300 lorries over what timeframe?

“300 lorries” is just an easy sound bite.

The Ham · 20 Feb 2020

D365 said:
“300 lorries” is just an easy sound bite.

Ah, that does tend to be the case with such opposition to traffic. However as I pointed out above in terms of traffic is still fairly small compared to the rest of the traffic.

For many roads it wouldn't seem that many lorries anyway.

Also by limiting it to ten hours of the day the lorry movements could avoid school run times. (Now whilst it would be impossible to guarantee not to run any lorries during that time you could significantly reduce the number so it was almost none).

Ianno87 · 20 Feb 2020

The Ham said:
Also by limiting it to ten hours of the day the lorry movements could avoid school run times. (Now whilst it would be impossible to guarantee not to run any lorries during that time you could significantly reduce the number so it was almost none).

Of course, all the cars clogging up the roads taking kids the half mile to school are absolutely fine....

Peter Kelford · 20 Feb 2020

Yindee8191 said:
Considering you are opposed to the scheme, I’m not sure that reflects, well, reality. In your avowed opinion, a good HS2 is worse than no HS2. My message was targeted at supporters of the project, for whom it HS2 being built at all is better than a perfect version never getting the go-ahead.

A good HS2 is:

Reasonably Priced (£60m/km)
Benefits Northern and WM communities as a priority (Phase 2 remaining presently uncertain)
Increases network flexibility and resilience (All trains classic compatible, making more diversion routes available, rather than just focusing development on one line that could completely stop trains when an incident occurs)
Practical (We don't need gimmicks like 250mph running)

An of course in other countries this would be long built. To have three major cities (plus 2 more nearby) so close together on such a straight line is ideal for HSR.

For the bit about resilience and flexibility, take a look at this map: https://www.sncf-reseau.com/sites/default/files/2019-10/Paris Lille (2).jpg

Ianno87 · 20 Feb 2020

Peter Kelford said:
A good HS2 is:

For the bit about resilience and flexibility, take a look at this map: https://www.sncf-reseau.com/sites/default/files/2019-10/Paris Lille (2).jpg

i.e. Looks like the relationship the WCML and HS2 will have.... HS2 closed? Passengers board classic trains at Euston instead. Simple.

AM9 · 20 Feb 2020

Peter Kelford said:
A good HS2 is:

Reasonably Priced (£60m/km)

Depends entirely on the costs of land required and the type of terrain encountered.

Peter Kelford said:
Benefits Northern and WM communities as a priority (Phase 2 remaining presently uncertain)

The more that those on the periphery try to derail the project from it's long standing planned implementation, the later that benefits will be delivered.

Peter Kelford said:
Increases network flexibility and resilience (All trains classic compatible, making more diversion routes available, rather than just focusing development on one line that could completely stop trains when an incident occurs)

Until the main route is established, all trains will be classic compartible.

Peter Kelford said:
Practical (We don't need gimmicks like 250mph running)

So if in the 1830s the London to Birmingham Railway and Manchester and Birmingham Railway sponsors had listened to such pointless comments, the WCML would have an alignment perfectly adequate for fastest trains of the day that it was opened, (i.e. 60-80km/h maximum) and which would have resulted in a legacy of the main lines used now being no better than a modern tramline, - that would hardly be "practical"! Luckily, such comments were summarily ignored and by extensive realignment and judicious use of very expensive tilting technology, the original 1830s alignments are now capable of speeds up to 200km/h. If the oft-touted description of a white elephant project was to be followed, listening to the call that there's now no need to go faster than 125mph would be a sure way to get it.[/QUOTE]

Peter Kelford said:
An of course in other countries this would be long built. To have three major cities (plus 2 more nearby) so close together on such a straight line is ideal for HSR.

What has that got to do with building the line now.

Peter Kelford said:
For the bit about resilience and flexibility, take a look at this map: https://www.sncf-reseau.com/sites/default/files/2019-10/Paris Lille (2).jpg

As Ianno87 eloquently points out, HS2 fits that requirement perfectly.

Peter Kelford · 20 Feb 2020

Ianno87 said:
Passengers board classic trains at Euston instead. Simple.

But the rolling stock on HS services can be used in France so there's no need to press old stock into service. Finding rolling stock and drivers for a completely separate fleet might be hard.

miami · 20 Feb 2020

The Ham said:
300 lorries over what timeframe?

They claim 6 days a week 10 hours a day, in each direction. I believe that's a peak, but I don't have access to the original figures they're basing it on. They are basing it on "AP2 Scheme Feb 2019", rather than "Longer Deeper Tunnel Report".

That's 'upto' 300 lorries of course. There are 16 months between 2020 and 2025 where there are over 100. Assuming this is in both directions that does get back to the "one every 2-3 minutes" argument.

Their argument that using the disused railway to the M6 would save a million miles of lorry driving over the project seems more impressive to me.

6Gman said:
On the second question I have no idea because I don't know where the lorries will be going.

Does anyone know where they are going? I assume HS2 have an idea. The stuff in the north is peanuts compared to the spoil from the London and Chiltern tunnels. Where is that going? Where did crossrail go?

It's sad that the rail industry can't shift it's own soil, relying instead on tens of thousands of lorry movements every week. Not sad enough that HS2 should be stopped or delayed, but it is an indightment on the poor state of the railway. While just in time small goods may not be best shifted by rail, bulk waste with no real timetable should be an ideal product.

quantinghome · 20 Feb 2020

DynamicSpirit said:
I don't see how the examples you give lead to that conclusion. Can you clarify?

OK, so compare Paris-Bordeaux with Brussels-Amsterdam. Both are 'high speed' services.

The first one is 500km long with a journey time just over two hours. It bypasses all the cities en route, serving them by connections from the high speed line to the 'classic' line.

The second line is just over 200km long with a journey time just under two hours. It goes directly through the major cities en route, including Antwerp. To achieve this it uses existing, slower, lines. Yes, Antwerp was rebuilt to allow through running at the main station, but the speeds remain low until trains hit HSL4 to the north. If Brussels - Amsterdam had been built off-line with connections to serve Antwerp and Rotterdam we'd be looking at a journey time of one hour end to end. London - Amsterdam would be a three-hour journey which would completely muller Heathrow-Schiphol flights.

As far as I can see the only station that provides a true high speed connection through a city centre is Lille, and we know that was only possible due to a particular set of circumstances. Running the main axis of a high speed network through Manchester and Birmingham would be very difficult, either increasing journey times or requiring very substantial increases in budget to achieve high speed alignments (most likely tunneling).

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

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member