• 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!

Do we need HS2?

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,840
I answer every time. Two things. By 2033, we will have a very different transport priority list, so HS2 is not guaranteed to be needed by then.

With growth still knocking around the 3 to 4% mark, with no real signs of slowing down we won't need any new tracks from London to the North to cater for the next 50 years? As much as everyone is bleating "London gets it all", that position is not going to change. Also considering NR is now getting to the point of bidding for funds for CP6 which runs to 2024 along with route studies that look to 2043 that suggests we don't know what the priorities are?

Targeted improvements at specific WCML pinchpoints and smart timetabling have been my responses to HS2 advocates every time, and I stick by that still.

So all the people at NR, Virgin, London Midland, TPE, Northern, Serco and all the FOCs etc cannot come up with a "smart timetabling" solution that somehow solves all the issues? The VHF December 2008 timetable is about the best you will get on the WCML. I am intrigued also to have your list of pinchpoints too that when fixed will unlock all this capacity.

But I say again. We don't need it now. We'll certainly not need it in 30 years time.

Sources or facts to back that up, again based on the growth that has no signs of slowing down?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
I answer every time. Two things. By 2033, we will have a very different transport priority list, so HS2 is not guaranteed to be needed by then.

Targeted improvements at specific WCML pinchpoints and smart timetabling have been my responses to HS2 advocates every time, and I stick by that still.

But I say again. We don't need it now. We'll certainly not need it in 30 years time.
Given the population of the UK will probably continue to rise (despite Brexit and harsher immigration restrictions), we are going to need more long-distance transport infrastructure. Do you believe that we will see a reduced need to travel in the coming decades?

To improve capacity on the existing WCML, which pinchpoints would you say we need to tackle, such that we can avoid building a new railway? And what do you mean by smart timetabling?
 
Joined
9 Feb 2009
Messages
807
I don't believe he said that. My reading of his post is that the current service patterns may be difficult to justify post-HS2 not that people will get worse service. If a town were to lose the 3.5hr direct train to London, but get a 2hr service with one change is that worse service?

Care to give us some examples? Otherwise you are just arguing based on a phoney concept (otherwise known as a strawman argument)
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
I answer every time. Two things. By 2033, we will have a very different transport priority list, so HS2 is not guaranteed to be needed by then.

Targeted improvements at specific WCML pinchpoints and smart timetabling have been my responses to HS2 advocates every time, and I stick by that still.

But I say again. We don't need it now. We'll certainly not need it in 30 years time.

Unless we see a reduction in the growth of rail travel in the next few years, then the original model for HS2 having enough passengers to be viable in 2033 could be passed.

As the model assumed growth of 2.5% per year (1% per year London to Birmingham), yet passenger numbers have been exceeding that ever since HS2 was announced in 2009.

By my maths 24 years (2009 to 2033) at 2.5% is an extra 80%, if we assume 3.5% growth we get there in 18 years (2009 to 2027), whilst growth of 5% gets us that fast in just 12 years (2009 to 2021).

Given that we've been having annual growth of between 3.5% and 5% since 2009 if this continues we could hit the 2033 passenger flows by the time phase 2a opens.

It is worth noting that since the failed WCML bidding process there's been little in the way of improvements to long distance rail services (new paint jobs on the ECML) and we are seeing that sort of growth, having a step change in the comfort, speed and/or capacity of long distance services could see a passenger boom.

Just as an aside, HS2 could be operating in just 11 years time, with it fully open in about 16 years time.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
There are some very dubious arguments being made in this thread with nothing to back them up.
HSTEd, saying you don't care that many places will have a worse service is awful, everyone is paying for this line, susposedly to benefit the economy, but it looks more and more likely to benefit some towns at the expense of others.
If you think it's okay to ruin rail services in some towns just so some business snobs get faster trains I'm appalled.
Surely the service patterns are a separate argument? In any case, while there may be some losers there are surely more winners? By moving the non-stop Yorkshire to London trains onto HS2, you may actually be able to serve most of the intermediate stations better!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Care to give us some examples? Otherwise you are just arguing based on a phoney concept (otherwise known as a strawman argument)
You're asking the wrong person, it wasn't my point originally.

However, just one example since it's local to me: Dundee to London is currently 5h 45m on a direct train. Post HS2, with a change at Edinburgh it could be 4h 40m. The journey time improvements will increase as you get closer to the core HS2 network.
 
Last edited:

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,256
Location
Grimsby
Yorkie, when the London traffic from Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds, and car drivers in the whole region goes to HS2 instead, why would the line deserve a service better than say Liverpool to Norwich? Beeston, Leicester, and Yorkshire EMT special service places like Scarborough and Wakefield certainly won't have a 9-car HST to London, nevermind the same frequency.
Moreover if they aren't on HS2 it'll be awkward for them to connect to the fast services they used to have (but have been moved and replaced as HS2).

The services HS2 will result in are very important, no one has even planned out how it will effect the network fully yet. I can't support a project which hasn't worked out it's impact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
There are some very dubious arguments being made in this thread with nothing to back them up.

That's true on both sides. HS2 "may" do this. It "may" enable that. It "may" allow the other.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
I have mixed feelings about HS2, in some ways, building new railways seems a good idea. But - I don't believe the political garbage about it "benefitting the north" - what it will do is make it easier / quicker for people to get to/from London. Moreover, I fear that in an attempt to recover construction costs, the HS2 "walk-on" fares will be unaffordable to much of the population. True, there will be advance bargains, if you can restrict yourself to specific services, but for anyone else, you will probably need to be an employee with your fare paid by your employer.

Yes, we need more capacity, but primarily for additional freight services, and there are probably cheaper alternative to HS2 to achieve that aim. They could use some old railway alignments, with new deviations around problem areas (e.g. Leicester / Nottingham areas of former GC line). No need for these to be super-expensive high speed lines.

Passenger capacity, for example, on WCML (or ECML, MML) could be increased by increasing platform lengths (expensive - but a lot cheaper than a new HS2). Make all long distance WCML passenger trains 12 x 26 metres, with only 2 coaches for first class, and you would vastly increase the amount of standard class seating - instantly easing most overcrowding problems.

Increase all the (current LM) semi-fast & slow services to 12 coach formations (at least as far north as Northampton) and 8 coaches to Rugby & beyond - again a big increase in seating capacity.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I don't believe the political garbage about it "benefitting the north" - what it will do is make it easier / quicker for people to get to/from London.
And these people who are going to and from London would be coming from...?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
...their second homes?
Doubt it, not in the tens of thousands every day. More likely their first homes.

What everyone decries is the idea of Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds as London commuter belt.

You know what? If that means that the Government gets more tax revenue, and there's more to get spent in Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds then that's alright by me.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Doubt it, not in the tens of thousands every day. More likely their first homes.

What everyone decries is the idea of Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds as London commuter belt.

You know what? If that means that the Government gets more tax revenue, and there's more to get spent in Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds then that's alright by me.

"If" is the important part of that final paragraph.

I am a sceptic by heart. It's my default position.

HS2 will be built in stages, however so defined those stages are. The first stage will be deemed complete when Euston gets another new railway of its own. That stage does not, even after today's announcement, reach northern England. It cannot be confirmed by anybody, not one person, that HS2 will benefit the north today, or in 10 years time, or in 33 years time. Nobody knows.

I would much rather we did something NOW to benefit the north QUICKLY. HS2 is too slow, and too London-centric. Putting the money from a scrapped HS2 into the North would see the benefits happen within, I'd say, 10 years. Not 33. Not 30+

A sidenote. I have talked on this subject before and been slapped across the wrists by the admins. I am acutely aware that I have to be very careful what I say, and how I say it. This is the Internet, and a forum on the Internet, and we all know that very few minds are ever changed from "anti" to "pro" during a discussion on the Internet. I cannot accept the case for HS2, I just can't. And knowing that, I have to be careful about just replying "nope no no", because that will ultimately get me a ticking off from the admins. I'm on my best behaviour, or at least, I hope that I am.
 

J-2739

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2016
Messages
2,043
Location
Barnsley/Cambridge
Yes, we need more capacity, but primarily for additional freight services, and there are probably cheaper alternative to HS2 to achieve that aim. They could use some old railway alignments, with new deviations around problem areas (e.g. Leicester / Nottingham areas of former GC line). No need for these to be super-expensive high speed lines.

Doesn't HS2 use some of the old GC alignments?

Passenger capacity, for example, on WCML (or ECML, MML) could be increased by increasing platform lengths (expensive - but a lot cheaper than a new HS2). Make all long distance WCML passenger trains 12 x 26 metres, with only 2 coaches for first class, and you would vastly increase the amount of standard class seating - instantly easing most overcrowding problems.

But wouldn't the value be in favour of HS2 because it's essentially creating new capacity?
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
I answer every time. Two things. By 2033, we will have a very different transport priority list, so HS2 is not guaranteed to be needed by then.

Targeted improvements at specific WCML pinchpoints and smart timetabling have been my responses to HS2 advocates every time, and I stick by that still.

But I say again. We don't need it now. We'll certainly not need it in 30 years time.

Improving what at which pinchpoints?

I've asked you before what "smart timetabling" (elsewhere you've called it "intelligent timetabling" I think) means. Still waiting for an explanation. Do you think the folk who draw up the current plan are engaged in "thick, stupid timetabling"?

Really?
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
"If" is the important part of that final paragraph.

I am a sceptic by heart. It's my default position.

HS2 will be built in stages, however so defined those stages are. The first stage will be deemed complete when Euston gets another new railway of its own. That stage does not, even after today's announcement, reach northern England. It cannot be confirmed by anybody, not one person, that HS2 will benefit the north today, or in 10 years time, or in 33 years time. Nobody knows.

I would much rather we did something NOW to benefit the north QUICKLY. HS2 is too slow, and too London-centric. Putting the money from a scrapped HS2 into the North would see the benefits happen within, I'd say, 10 years. Not 33. Not 30+

A sidenote. I have talked on this subject before and been slapped across the wrists by the admins. I am acutely aware that I have to be very careful what I say, and how I say it. This is the Internet, and a forum on the Internet, and we all know that very few minds are ever changed from "anti" to "pro" during a discussion on the Internet. I cannot accept the case for HS2, I just can't. And knowing that, I have to be careful about just replying "nope no no", because that will ultimately get me a ticking off from the admins. I'm on my best behaviour, or at least, I hope that I am.

I don't see why you should be censored for opposing HS2 unless you have broken forum rules. My money is on the latter, and you would have been informed by mods about that,as to why.

On the actual subject, my chief concerns about HS1 and 2 (in all its phases) is the number of spurs to termini. St Pancras, Euston, Brum, Manchester, Leeds are all dead ends.

Trying hard to avoid the wrath of Brexiteers (well not really :) ) I feel it is a strategic error not to have these stations as through stations and in the case of London, not to have a through route between Stratford and OOC, whether or not there was a 'central' station in between. (What's 'central' to Canary Wharf or the City or the West End? Not Euston).

At least the proposal for Sheffield will see it able to offer more usable high speed through journeys than the others. I know that modern trains have a driving position at each end, but time is inevitably lost swapping over and pax end up facing the other way than they chose to..
 

Voglitz

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Messages
249
Given the population of the UK will probably continue to rise (despite Brexit and harsher immigration restrictions), we are going to need more long-distance transport infrastructure.

If the population of the UK were to continue to rise, that wouldn't necessarily mean a need for more long-distance transport infrastructure.

The population in and around London is forecast to increase, but the situation in the north is less clear.

To improve capacity on the existing WCML, which pinchpoints would you say we need to tackle, such that we can avoid building a new railway?

The official growth forecasts to 2030 seem to suggest that most pinchpoints don't actually need to be 'tackled'. Demand for rail travel between Manchester and London is surprisingly small.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Improving what at which pinchpoints?

I've asked you before what "smart timetabling" (elsewhere you've called it "intelligent timetabling" I think) means. Still waiting for an explanation. Do you think the folk who draw up the current plan are engaged in "thick, stupid timetabling"?

Really?

No I don't, and it's interesting that you take one phrase and go to the furthest extreme just to beat me around the head. There has to be a way to use or improve existing infrastructure, including timetabling, platform length and such, which alleviates any potential pinchpoints across the WCML.

Of course I don't think that anybody currently engaging in their jobs are thick or stupid. That's your decision to go to an extreme opposite for the sake of it. Not my words.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
It cannot be confirmed by anybody, not one person, that HS2 will benefit the north today, or in 10 years time, or in 33 years time. Nobody knows.

I would much rather we did something NOW to benefit the north QUICKLY. HS2 is too slow, and too London-centric. Putting the money from a scrapped HS2 into the North would see the benefits happen within, I'd say, 10 years. Not 33. Not 30+

Where do you get this 30+ years from?

HS2 is planned to reach Crewe (north of England) in 11 years, not 30+ !

Manchester in 17, not 30+ .

Oh, and speaking of doing something NOW to benefit the north QUICKLY - have you not noticed all those wires going up? Or the electric units running through Preston? Or the orders which have been placed for new trains?
 

Andrew1395

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2014
Messages
587
Location
Bushey
If HS2 is going to take 15-20 years, it is difficult to predict demand and capacity constraints that will be in place after 2030. We don't know how well the British economy will perform, will rail freight survive at its current levels, where new housing will be planned and built, how technology will impact commuting. We can have some educated guesses. For example over the last 50 years the desire/propensity to make journeys (all modes) has increased at a faster rate than GDP. The WCML overcrowded argument is no doubt based on accurate observations, but it does not yet constrain operators desires to run more trains on the route. Many of which seem lightly loaded. It is peak capacity that is the real pinch point. So there will need to be ore HS2 plans. For example removing the DC services from Euston, perhaps expanding Chiltern services to Birmingham and reducing WCML services to Birmingham, MML electrification should improve capacity, with say bigger trains serving bits of West Yorkshire in preference to ECML services. At the end of the day it is all tinkering. The big fear of course is that HS2 fails to deliver the passenger usage predicted. Eurostar and HS1 and miles behind the predicted usage. Make HS2 the cheapest route to London (let's not kid ourselves it is there to serve the London CBD) and that might truly free up some capacity on the classic routes.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
I don't see why you should be censored for opposing HS2 unless you have broken forum rules. My money is on the latter, and you would have been informed by mods about that,as to why.

On the actual subject, my chief concerns about HS1 and 2 (in all its phases) is the number of spurs to termini. St Pancras, Euston, Brum, Manchester, Leeds are all dead ends.

Trying hard to avoid the wrath of Brexiteers (well not really :) ) I feel it is a strategic error not to have these stations as through stations and in the case of London, not to have a through route between Stratford and OOC, whether or not there was a 'central' station in between. (What's 'central' to Canary Wharf or the City or the West End? Not Euston).

At least the proposal for Sheffield will see it able to offer more usable high speed through journeys than the others. I know that modern trains have a driving position at each end, but time is inevitably lost swapping over and pax end up facing the other way than they chose to..

Yes, sorry, that was my clumsy phrasing (I know, me not phrasing things clearly, who'd've thought!).

I was sanctioned for turns of phrases and general behaviour mostly because of the way I expressed myself during HS2 threads. I am just trying to keep myself far calmer this time around :)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
HS2 is pointless unless it demolishes the long distance market on all three major main lines.
So you can guarantee it will be priced appropriately - it would be political suicide to suppress demand by increasing prices.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
No I don't, and it's interesting that you take one phrase and go to the furthest extreme just to beat me around the head. There has to be a way to use or improve existing infrastructure, including timetabling, platform length and such, which alleviates any potential pinchpoints across the WCML.

Of course I don't think that anybody currently engaging in their jobs are thick or stupid. That's your decision to go to an extreme opposite for the sake of it. Not my words.

Well if you write that the answer is "smart" timetabling what is the current timetabling?

"There has to be a way" you write - well share it with us!

Or do you take the view that if you say "something should be done" often enough then something will magically appear?

Yes, there are some minor 'tweaks' that might tide us over for - say, five or ten years - but what then? And we'll need those tweaks to get us to 2027 and the opening of HS2 Phase 1 and 2a.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
If HS2 is going to take 15-20 years, it is difficult to predict demand and capacity constraints that will be in place after 2030. We don't know how well the British economy will perform, will rail freight survive at its current levels, where new housing will be planned and built, how technology will impact commuting. We can have some educated guesses. For example over the last 50 years the desire/propensity to make journeys (all modes) has increased at a faster rate than GDP. The WCML overcrowded argument is no doubt based on accurate observations, but it does not yet constrain operators desires to run more trains on the route. Many of which seem lightly loaded. It is peak capacity that is the real pinch point. So there will need to be ore HS2 plans. For example removing the DC services from Euston, perhaps expanding Chiltern services to Birmingham and reducing WCML services to Birmingham, MML electrification should improve capacity, with say bigger trains serving bits of West Yorkshire in preference to ECML services. At the end of the day it is all tinkering. The big fear of course is that HS2 fails to deliver the passenger usage predicted. Eurostar and HS1 and miles behind the predicted usage. Make HS2 the cheapest route to London (let's not kid ourselves it is there to serve the London CBD) and that might truly free up some capacity on the classic routes.

The way things are going HS2 might well precede MML electrification!

:D
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,840
The official growth forecasts to 2030 seem to suggest that most pinchpoints don't actually need to be 'tackled'. Demand for rail travel between Manchester and London is surprisingly small.

Would be interested to see where it says they don't, work being done within NR suggests they do.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
Yorkie, when the London traffic from Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds, and car drivers in the whole region goes to HS2 instead, why would the line deserve a service better than say Liverpool to Norwich? Beeston, Leicester, and Yorkshire EMT special service places like Scarborough and Wakefield certainly won't have a 9-car HST to London, nevermind the same frequency.
There will be plenty of 9-car sets freed up to do York to London stoppers, which are currently only hourly and are mostly used by people making intermediate journeys to or from places you don't mention on the existing line.

The frequency of journey opportunities such as Doncaster to Newark, or Grantham to Retford could be increased in a way that is not possible today.
The services HS2 will result in are very important, no one has even planned out how it will effect the network fully yet. I can't support a project which hasn't worked out it's impact.
You will not support the building of new railway lines because the full timetable that could be implemented when the line is built isn't available yet?
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
I would much rather we did something NOW to benefit the north QUICKLY. HS2 is too slow, and too London-centric. Putting the money from a scrapped HS2 into the North would see the benefits happen within, I'd say, 10 years. Not 33. Not 30+

I agree, HS2 is too slow. Too many inquiries, too many nay-sayers. They should have started digging 3 years ago.

As I understand it the first benefit to the north - not just in trains to London, but also opening up more journey opportunities to the midlands (say more Preston-Nunneton trains as the existing fast train to London is replaced by a Preston/Wigan/Warrington/Crewe/Stafford/Thames Valley train) - will come when the first train runs in 9 or 10 years time and paths are freed on the WCML. Currently there's 1 train an hour from Preston/Wigan to Crewe, and no direct trains from Stoke to the north west. Capacity will be freed up by HS2 in 2026. Even more benefits to t'north come when it reaches Crewe in 11 years.

I'd personally like to see services running into OOC before any disruption starts at Euston. I think not safeguarding land to allow 4 tracks between Crewe and London is a bad move too.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
...There has to be a way to use or improve existing infrastructure, including timetabling, platform length and such, which alleviates any potential pinchpoints across the WCML. ....
Feel free to make detailed suggestions. Or even basic ones! Just saying "there has to be a way" does not mean there is (or at least not cost effectively!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top