• 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!

Environmentalists vs trains

Status
Not open for further replies.

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
This mainly applies to locals as opposed to hardcore environmentalists who - to be fair - will also campaign nationally against projects primarily to get publicity.
Entirely - they're the "sincere and consistent" people I wasn't criticising. My comment was direct more at the NIMBY-in-environmental-campaigner's-clothes arrangement of which I think we're seeing more.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,066
And what's the solution. You say it's cosmetic, but if it wasn't a tunnel, there'd be even more outcry than their already is, so you can't just build it on the land. HS2 needs to build the line somewhere, so where would you put it?
Where did you see an opinion in my post?
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,444
Location
London
Entirely - they're the "sincere and consistent" people I wasn't criticising. My comment was direct more at the NIMBY-in-environmental-campaigner's-clothes arrangement of which I think we're seeing more.

I think there's a lot of muddled opposition to HS2 which come from all parts - the hardcore environmentalists / Greens for seemingly (short-termist) ideological reasons, local 'environmentalists' who are more NIMBY in nature, other opposition who wants to invest in "local railways" (whatever that means), people who think its a colossal waste of money and think that HS2 is only for business travellers that won't be around post-Covid and people who complain it's all too London-centric. And many of these groups overlap.

I'd say HS2 has failed somewhat on a PR front regarding these disparate groups to promote its real benefit.
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
11,648
I'd say HS2 has failed somewhat on a PR front regarding these disparate groups to promote its real benefit.
You may well be right!

And just to be clear, what, in your opinion, is now the real benefit of HS2, and thus the persuasive counter argument against the environmentalists?
 

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
776
Location
Somewhere
then there are bonkers people (Extinction Rebellion types) who wish to prevent people leaving their local area and despise all modes of transport, including trains. There is no reasoning with these people; they despise everything about our way of life.
I tend to avoid politics whenever discussing HS2, however I believe there is a third party not associated with environmentalists who also believe that HS2 mustn't be built, these being nationalists, the same kind who voted for UKIP/Brexit/Reform Party - even as far as Nigel Farage calling for HS2's cancellation. Their suggestion for alternatives to HS2? I'll let you guess...
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
I tend to avoid politics whenever discussing HS2, however I believe there is a third party not associated with environmentalists who also believe that HS2 mustn't be built, these being nationalists, the same kind who voted for UKIP/Brexit/Reform Party - even as far as Nigel Farage calling for HS2's cancellation. Their suggestion for alternatives to HS2? I'll let you guess...
I expect Farage's view on HS2 (which has influenced most of those with similar politics to him) is more opportunism than anything else. He contested Buckingham in the 2010 general election (when it was the Speaker's seat so no major party candidates stood), and must have presented himself as anti-HS2 to try and curry favour there. Later on they gained a lot of council seats in Aylesbury and targeted it in the 2015 general election. That is another place where HS2 is the sort of issue which any party wanting to win on a localist kind of campaign would emphasise.

It's certainly possible to imagine nationalist arguments in favour of HS2, for example that such a large infrastructure project would be something to take pride in as a country - and it wouldn't surprise me if Boris Johnson had said something along those lines at some point.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,081
Location
Liverpool
Where did you see an opinion in my post?
Sorry, I just grouped you in with the people you mentioned. However, I feel I still make an important point. If someone is against the tunnel, they need to show real alternatives. Otherwise they aren't really helping anyone.
And just to be clear, what, in your opinion, is now the real benefit of HS2, and thus the persuasive counter argument against the environmentalists?
Trains are cleaner than cars and planes, especially when using clean energy. Also, the current system is at capacity, and we need someway to increase capacity across the majority of the network. HS2 does this, and while alternatives are possible, it's the one being built, and it's so much better than nothing at all.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
I tend to avoid politics whenever discussing HS2, however I believe there is a third party not associated with environmentalists who also believe that HS2 mustn't be built, these being nationalists, the same kind who voted for UKIP/Brexit/Reform Party - even as far as Nigel Farage calling for HS2's cancellation. Their suggestion for alternatives to HS2? I'll let you guess...
True; there are all sorts of bonkers people who completely disagree on most other matters, who have united to argue against HS2, albeit for completely different reasons.

I'm surprised and disappointed some normal people are actually fooled by any of the arguments of the various extremists.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,081
Location
Liverpool
True; there are all sorts of bonkers people who completely disagree on most other matters, who have united to argue against HS2, albeit for completely different reasons.

I'm surprised and disappointed some normal people are actually fooled by any of the arguments of the various extremists.
Well just look at who gets all the air time....
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,628
I'd rather spend the money on putting the whole thing in tunnel than have endless fights with environmentalists, conservationists and god knows who else.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,081
Location
Liverpool
I'd rather spend the money on putting the whole thing in tunnel than have endless fights with environmentalists, conservationists and god knows who else.
It's the tunneling that was being blocked, lol. Well, I did see one report of them sitting in trees, which makes more sense, but actively blocking measures designed to cause less damage is just counter productive.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
Also, the current system is at capacity, and we need someway to increase capacity across the majority of the network. HS2 does this, and while alternatives are possible, it's the one being built, and it's so much better than nothing at all.
Well, actually no it isn't just now. Predicting the future usage of rail is very hard post-Covid, but I do wonder if building a very high speed line from which freight is excluded by design will turn out to have been a bad move in the long term. Long distance freight is one thing that rail is really efficient at, environmentally speaking. Yes, I know the official answer is that HS2 will take passenger traffic from WCML and make more room for freight, but maybe in forty to fifty years most long distance passenger will go by autonomous car. The railway has survived as long as it has by being adaptable, and HS2 isn't.
 

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
782
Well, actually no it isn't just now. Predicting the future usage of rail is very hard post-Covid, but I do wonder if building a very high speed line from which freight is excluded by design will turn out to have been a bad move in the long term. Long distance freight is one thing that rail is really efficient at, environmentally speaking. Yes, I know the official answer is that HS2 will take passenger traffic from WCML and make more room for freight, but maybe in forty to fifty years most long distance passenger will go by autonomous car. The railway has survived as long as it has by being adaptable, and HS2 isn't.
Autonomous cars will never match the speeds of rail over long distances and there are environmental concerns regarding the production of batteries and the particulates produced by their tires. Plus this idea would require more roads to be built.

There are services today that don't stop between London and Crewe, York, and Stoke. It makes sense to build a high-speed line to carry these, allowing the existing lines to carry more freight and services which stop more frequently.

I'm also unconvinced that any HS2 opponent would support a freight line. East West Rail is evidence of this - a standard line, partly on an existing alignment, and people are up in arms.

Regarding the suggestions of tunneling the whole of HS2, the tunnels create a lot of emissions during construction so from an emissions perspective it's better to avoid tunnels.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,081
Location
Liverpool
Well, actually no it isn't just now. Predicting the future usage of rail is very hard post-Covid, but I do wonder if building a very high speed line from which freight is excluded by design will turn out to have been a bad move in the long term. Long distance freight is one thing that rail is really efficient at, environmentally speaking. Yes, I know the official answer is that HS2 will take passenger traffic from WCML and make more room for freight, but maybe in forty to fifty years most long distance passenger will go by autonomous car. The railway has survived as long as it has by being adaptable, and HS2 isn't.
It's not just HS2. There will also be High Speed North, and hopefully a line to Bristol if MPs can stick together two brains cells. It's a massive undertaking not just revolving around high speed trains, but also removing Intercity travel which is what we use now. Only if Intercity travels dies completely is high speed rail a bad investment, and I highly doubt that will happen. Would you rather live in an overcrowded, or commute in to the city?
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
Regarding the suggestions of tunneling the whole of HS2, the tunnels create a lot of emissions during construction so from an emissions perspective it's better to avoid tunnels.
Doing anything (not just rail stuff) is bad from an emissions perspective.
So we'd best just stop doing anything, and watch the country grind to a halt as we die a slow death from starvation and hypothermia... :D:D
 

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
782
Doing anything (not just rail stuff) is bad from an emissions perspective.
So we'd best just stop doing anything, and watch the country grind to a halt as we die a slow death from starvation and hypothermia... :D:D
"Stop doing anything" I'd quite a common suggestion! Personally I'd rather get HS2 and other rail projects built and start working on modal shift to rail for both passengers and freight.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
The railway has survived as long as it has by being adaptable, and HS2 isn't.

HS2 creates choices for future use of whole-network capacity that do not exist today, so is essential precisely in order for the future rail network to be adaptable.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,623
Location
Another planet...
I'd rather spend the money on putting the whole thing in tunnel than have endless fights with environmentalists, conservationists and god knows who else.
To be honest, the excessive tunnel sections (and noise-reducing fencing on the open bits) will count in the negative if I'm deciding whether to travel to London via HS2 or the classic network. One of my favourite things about train travel is being able to look out of the window and watch the world go by!
 

2192

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2020
Messages
372
Location
Derby UK
To be honest, the excessive tunnel sections (and noise-reducing fencing on the open bits) will count in the negative if I'm deciding whether to travel to London via HS2 or the classic network. One of my favourite things about train travel is being able to look out of the window and watch the world go by!
Avoid High Speed lines altogther if you want to look out of the window. So much is in cutting or tunnel so folk living nearby can't see or hear the trains, not that they are very loud to start with.
 

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
776
Location
Somewhere
I'd rather spend the money on putting the whole thing in tunnel than have endless fights with environmentalists, conservationists and god knows who else.
I reckon that many emergency access points would have to be implemented, and the exits shouldn't randomly come up to a Buckinghamshire field but actually somewhere close enough to services where passengers can require assistance in an event of emergency. That's probably why (most of) HS2 is being built in surface so that emergency services can easily access the site.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,628
I reckon that many emergency access points would have to be implemented, and the exits shouldn't randomly come up to a Buckinghamshire field but actually somewhere close enough to services where passengers can require assistance in an event of emergency. That's probably why (most of) HS2 is being built in surface so that emergency services can easily access the site.

People are far more willing to accept an emergency access site that will almost always be quiet and deserted than a scar across the landscape that makes significant noise 36 times per hour, most hours of the day, most days of the year.

A linear structure like a railway also impedes the environment much more than a handful of buildings standing on hardstanding next to roads that already exist.
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
769
All very well, but I seem to remember a lot of vitriol when a rail tunnel between Scotland and N Ireland was promoted, but I think a lot of that was because money would be spent in Scotland and NI, and not in England.

It seemed to me that Billions can be spent in GB, but anywhere else can just go without.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,081
Location
Liverpool
All very well, but I seem to remember a lot of vitriol when a rail tunnel between Scotland and N Ireland was promoted, but I think a lot of that was because money would be spent in Scotland and NI, and not in England.

It seemed to me that Billions can be spent in GB, but anywhere else can just go without.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The bridge was more of a publicity stunt to try and unite the union (whatever that means), and while HS2 is being used in a similar manner, it will actually achieve a lot more, particularly when combined with other high speed projects.
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
769
It's a bit more complicated than that. The bridge was more of a publicity stunt to try and unite the union (whatever that means), and while HS2 is being used in a similar manner, it will actually achieve a lot more, particularly when combined with other high speed projects.


Here we go again, spending in England is good, spending in NI is bad. If the objective is to reduce air travel, I fail to see the logic that deems GB air travel to be reduced, yet all the flights from NI to GB are ok.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
It's a bit more complicated than that. The bridge was more of a publicity stunt to try and unite the union (whatever that means), and while HS2 is being used in a similar manner, it will actually achieve a lot more, particularly when combined with other high speed projects.
Here we go again, spending in England is good, spending in NI is bad. If the objective is to reduce air travel, I fail to see the logic that deems GB air travel to be reduced, yet all the flights from NI to GB are ok.
Without wanting to start a new discussion on the comparative merits of those projects, I recall that most of the serious criticism attracted by the GB-NI fixed link centred on its technical complexity and, as a result, its extraordinarily immense cost.*

It should be noted however that Northern Ireland, like Scotland, receives Barnett consequentials arising from Westminster spending on HS2, though for the life of me I can't find any telling of how much it amounts to at the moment.

* = And also all the unexploded ordnance. But mainly the cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top