HS2 Review ongoing

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by Jorge Da Silva, 1 Sep 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. underbank

    underbank Established Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2013
    Location:
    North West England
    Aviation is here to stay. The industry will make it cleaner. Obviously it will never be zero-omissions, but reductions will make it more acceptable in the long term. You're not going to stop people travelling - that genie is long out of the bottle and won't be going back in any time soon.

    The public would far more support cancellation of HS2 than flights/airports being scrapped.
     
  2. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    46,977
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    I could see HS2 leading to a ban on domestic flights, though.
     
  3. Camden

    Camden Established Member

    Messages:
    1,717
    Joined:
    30 Dec 2014
    I think that all sorts of dirty deeds are possible to keep this project alive, but I don't see that. That would set the government against big business. That's the only group they're not prepared to, or able to, screw over.
     
  4. kevin_roche

    kevin_roche Member

    Messages:
    398
    Joined:
    26 Feb 2019
    Last week Heathrow themselves decided to delay the project:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50861132
    or
    https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...unway-construction-by-three-years-19-12-2019/
    Maybe my objection to the construction worked ;)
     
  5. HSTEd

    HSTEd Established Member

    Messages:
    10,674
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2011
    Heathrow is a terrible place for an airport.
    Gatwick is hardly much better.

    But people baulk at the cost of an all new Airport.

    There isn't really any reason to have more than one airport in the South East of England.
     
  6. Bald Rick

    Bald Rick Established Member

    Messages:
    10,870
    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    See the aviation thread, the third runway has gone back at least 3 years.
     
  7. Bald Rick

    Bald Rick Established Member

    Messages:
    10,870
    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    No chance! There a lot more domestic flights than areas served by HS2!
     
  8. AlbertBeale

    AlbertBeale Member

    Messages:
    669
    Joined:
    16 Jun 2019
    Location:
    London
    With the planetary ecosystem (at least one which can sustain our species in tolerable comfort) dying in front of us, the idea that aviation can continue at a level even remotely like that currently expected by frequent flyers in the UK is - I'd say - a poison pie in the sky.
     
  9. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    46,977
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    The vast majority are London to Scotland or Manchester. Those could go.
     
  10. squizzler

    squizzler Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    Joined:
    4 Jan 2017
    How do you propose they acheive that? In the channel islands an operator is considering the possibility of electric aircraft for trips between the individual islands. They will start with a traditional small plane but are willing to take a punt that in a few years time battery technology will reach the point that for planes with a handful of people a trip of a few tens of nautical miles will be possible. A long way from intercontinental travel for the masses.

    This short range and low capacity begs the question of whether there might be an inversion of the current way of doing things where planes feed the trains rather than the other way round. Electric aircraft - in the form of 'flying taxis' or other Dan Dare type of flying machine - would go from small landing pads and have no use for the twentieth century's legacy airfields.

    I maintain that Heathrow third runway is looking like a white elephant and the money would be better spent on expediting the rollout of the national HSR network.
     
  11. Gareth

    Gareth Member

    Messages:
    768
    Joined:
    10 Mar 2011
    Location:
    Liverpool
    The Manchester ones, at least, are predominantly people changing onto a long haul flight with a through ticket. Can’t see them enthusiastically switching to train without a significant financial incentive to do so. Even then, they may just elect to connect at Amsterdam or wherever instead. Doubt BA would be happy with that.
     
  12. SamYeager

    SamYeager Member

    Messages:
    236
    Joined:
    20 Mar 2014
    Keeping the existing two runways with its existing traffic just means the four stacks of aircraft will continue circling around in the air above the south east for probably a minimum of 10 minutes whilst waiting to land at Heathrow. Of course the engines are more inefficient at lower altitude so they burn more fuel. Anyway this is well offtopic so I'll stop there.
     
  13. HSTEd

    HSTEd Established Member

    Messages:
    10,674
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2011
    So now we have talk of a £100bn budget for this scheme.

    Which means that based on reasonable assumptions, simply putting the entire scheme in a tunnel would be cheaper.....

    How on earth have we ended up here?
     
  14. Max

    Max Forum Staff Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    5,352
    Joined:
    8 Jun 2005
    Location:
    London
    Folks, this thread is to discuss the HS2 Review, not the pros/cons of domestic air travel or Heathrow as a location for an airport. Please can we try to keep this discussion on track... (see what I did there? ;)).

    We do have an Other Public Transport section of the forum including aviation and we'd be more than happy for you to take this discussion over there - thanks!
     
  15. Bald Rick

    Bald Rick Established Member

    Messages:
    10,870
    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    They’re not the vast majority. I think what you mean is ‘domestic flights covering mainland terminals which can be realistically replaced by HS2’.

    Even then, it won’t happen. Manchester’s remaining flights to London - about 10 a day - are largely taken by people interlining at Heathrow. Easyjet do a daily trip to Stansted, and I’d be surprised if that lasts (it’s a bit of en experiment for them, helped by the two airports having the same owner). Same for Leeds and Newcastle flights to London. Banning them, or significantly raising APD, will simply shift the traffic to connect via Schiphol, CDG or Frankfurt - arguably causing more emissions than going direct.

    And of course HS2 will do nothing for the hundreds of daily flights crossing the country from Bristol / Southampton / Exeter / Norwich / Cardiff etc to destinations in Scotland and the north. And that’s before we talk about Belfast, the Channel Islands or the Scottish isles ;)

    What HS2 will do is significantly improve the attraction of the train versus air between London/Birmingham and Scotland. When Phase 2 is complete I’d expect HS2 to up the rail mode share to something like 50% compared to 30% now, and that will cause airlines to retrench and reduce frequency.

    (Sorry Mods, I’m trying to be on topic).
     
  16. Bald Rick

    Bald Rick Established Member

    Messages:
    10,870
    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Clearly, it wouldn’t be cheaper to be all in Tunnel. Think about the stations costs...
     
  17. HSTEd

    HSTEd Established Member

    Messages:
    10,674
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2011
    The stations would be in Trenches/Boxes like at Stratford International obviously.

    There would be no landowner worries, no stories about erasing ancient woodland or centuries old trees, and no need to engage in endless compulsory purchase or whatnot.

    The original argument used against this was it would cost far more than the proposed scheme.

    And yet the proposed scheme's cost continues to spiral.
     
    Last edited: 23 Dec 2019
  18. mmh

    mmh Established Member

    Messages:
    1,973
    Joined:
    13 Aug 2016
    Oh please. I realise it appears to be accepted wisdom on this thread, but we are not about to die. Not within 2 years, not within 20 years or whatever other nonsense schedule suggested by the alarmists.

    And no, I am not a climate change "denier", I'm a pragmatist who doesn't believe in apocalyptic cults. Reversing progress for some neo-Luddite fantasy will do nothing. HS2 will do nothing.
     
  19. HowardGWR

    HowardGWR Established Member

    Messages:
    4,806
    Joined:
    30 Jan 2013
    If the HS2 Review did not take into account the effect of it on regional aviation, then there would have been something seriously amiss with it. So I don't see how discussing this aspect is even a smidgeon off topic.

    Yes, Easyjet already advertises interlining via Schiphol, so a 'ban' or some other measure to weigh further against airlines, such as HS2 itself being implemented, will undoubtedly result in such a switch.

    An environmental case for or against HS2 has to take into account the environmental cost of constructing it, as opposed to the operating environmental savings achieved by HS2, assuming there are any.
     
  20. Bald Rick

    Bald Rick Established Member

    Messages:
    10,870
    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Euston already is in a trench, a very big one. The land is largely bought, at least for Phase 1 and 2a.

    My point is that the stations are expensive, and when you include it in the average cost per mile, it makes it look very expensive. HS1 was as near as makes no difference £100m/mile. If you take out the cost of St P, Stratford and Ebbsfleet, it was £75m/mile. If you take out the cost of all of Phase 2, it was £40m/mile (all at outturn costs). If you take out the costs of the difficult bits for HS2, (stations, tunnels), then the cost per mile is much cheaper than if it were tunnelled.
     
  21. AlbertBeale

    AlbertBeale Member

    Messages:
    669
    Joined:
    16 Jun 2019
    Location:
    London
    As someone with a science background, I don't think reacting rationally to the evidence is being alarmist in any pejorative sense; in my judgement we're right to be alarmed. Of course we won't all die in the next few years (though some people in other parts of the world are dying every day on account of ecosystem degradation); but with the very real danger of tipping points being reached, it seems that the only sensible approach is to choose to make major changes as quickly as possible (including reversing some things that some people see as "progress"). Otherwise, even more drastic change might be forced on us.

    I also can't abide apocalyptic cults, by the way. Also, by the way, I think you might be misunderstanding the history of the Luddites - the term as usually used is not, I think, based on a full historical understanding of their stance: it was not opposed to technology, but opposed to the use of technology in a way which increased unfairness in society.
     
  22. The Ham

    The Ham Established Member

    Messages:
    6,733
    Joined:
    6 Jul 2012
    Whilst there are a lot more places most of these would make up relatively few passenger movements.

    As an example of you take the total number of passengers from London airports (12.88 million passengers) and revive all the passengers to those places which would likely most benefit from HS2 (the likes of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leeds and Manchester) then you have the potential to not need to fly about 56.5% of domestic air travel (or about 7.3 million passengers) which start/end at a London airport.

    A 10% to 13% (730,000 to 949,000) shift would probably be enough that with other flows that you'd get to 1 million fewer air passenger (as predicted in the HS2 model).

    However it should be noted that domestic air travel had been falling (and often switching to rail) for some time. As such a 20% to 30% (of those flows to places which benefit most from HS2) shift could be entirely possible and so you could be looking at 1.5 million to 2.2 million fewer air passengers.

    Especially given that as passenger numbers drop so the viability of the current frequency falls, and if frequency does fall then so will the attractiveness of flying. Add in the fact that people are being more environmentally conscious (which will also have an impact) and that airlines could use those slots for other routes which might be more profitable and 15% could be fairly easy, 30% might be a bit of a challenge to get. However it's still not beyond what could be possible).
     
  23. 158756

    158756 Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    Joined:
    12 Aug 2014
    Heathrow-Manchester is all the way down to about 7 a day now, and if Easyjet ran flights from Stansted they've already gone. Flybe tried Southend as well, that didn't last either. Like you say the passengers are most!y connecting at Heathrow and are unlikely to be persuaded by HS2. Leeds is an even better example of this - the frequency there is such that absolutely no one would think to use it for travel between London and Leeds, but some flights do still exist. The only way to get rid of flights between the North and London is probably to ban them, but that could be done now, HS2 won't make that much difference. A ban on flights to Scotland would still be unpopular in Scotland even after HS2 given journey times will still be substantially longer.

    How the CO2 emissions stack up for Heathrow vs Amsterdam etc depends where the destination is - people from Scotland or northern England are already extending their journey in going via Heathrow.
     
  24. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    46,977
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    I would suggest that there should be "rail codeshares" protecting the connection. If they were banned, BA could whine all they liked, they would still be banned.

    HS2 would make it easier via a quick connection to son-of-HEx or the Elizabeth Line at OOC. I do accept that as things are now arriving at Euston and heading to LHR is a faff.
     
  25. The Ham

    The Ham Established Member

    Messages:
    6,733
    Joined:
    6 Jul 2012
    Something that the review would have considered is how likely the 1 million passengers switching from air travel to HS2. This equates to about 13% of London/airports which would most benefit from HS2 services.

    Now many of those are to the Central Belt, which may only see that, however others, like Leeds London may see all passengers switch.

    As between Leeds and London passenger numbers were 103,706 (average of ~290 a day) in 2018 however in 2017 that figure was 162,042 so has seen a significant drop in passenger numbers.

    Looking at the monthly figures 2019 may recover some of those losses (as some months are up a little whilst a few are down a little) but not all of the losses seen and probably not by a long way.

    If you were to build HS2 then it's likely that you would see those numbers fall further.

    As I've said before there must come a point where a landing slot at Heathrow would be more profitable to switch to being used to fly somewhere else over being a connection for travel between domestic and international flights.

    Now whilst these are still fairly full (145 passengers each way, so just over 70% full on an aircraft with 200 seats) they will continue to be viable. However I'd suggest that it wouldn't take much for that landing slot to be more profitable being used for something else.

    Especially given that those from Leeds can't connect with morning flights out of Heathrow or with afternoon flights in to Heathrow without an overnight stay. In comparison to the 13:55 arrival time at Heathrow from Leeds you can arrive by train by 10am, even allowing for 3 hours for check-in and a delay in your train that's still the ability to get a flight an hour before you otherwise could.

    Heading the other way the flight leaves Heathrow at 11am so unless you're flying overnight and landing fairly early that's another overnight stay, whilst by rail you can leave Heathrow to until 6pm and still be home by 10pm, which would give you many more flights to pick from.

    Shorten that journey time (potentially to closer to 2 hours, with 1.5 hours Leeds - London and 30 minutes London - Heathrow, using Crossrail, which doesn't even account for changing at Old Oak Common) and simplify the trip so only one change and it's likely to make air very much less attractive.

    If that then means that few would choice to fly and take the train instead, it's then less likely that the route would remain.

    Repeat that across Manchester, Newcastle and the Central Belt and it's easy to see how you could exceed the 1 million passengers expected to switch from air to HS2.

    If the review concluded that there's scope for more of a shift from air (which could be the case) and so the assessment is accurate.

    That's part of the point of the review, to see if the assessment is correct. There may be complaints that there's not much of a shift from air to HS2 (1% of HS2 passengers), but that's not what's being looked at.

    Unless people can show that the assessment is wrong then the review is unlikely to be that interested.
     
  26. YorkshireBear

    YorkshireBear Established Member

    Messages:
    7,713
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    Lots of MPs saying it should be scrapped, as I asked the green party campaigners who knocked on my door. What are you going to replace it with? Then come replies of Local and Regional Transport. Okay which projects? ermmmmm. errmmm. Don't know. Until someone explains to me what they are going to do to replace the capacity HS2 provides, at a national, regional and local level, then there is no point surely.
     
  27. squizzler

    squizzler Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    Joined:
    4 Jan 2017
    I wish I was able to write a demolition of the 'business as usual' tropes half as eloquent as this.
     
  28. The Ham

    The Ham Established Member

    Messages:
    6,733
    Joined:
    6 Jul 2012
    Even those opposed to HS2 admit that rail growth is rising, even if it doesn't hit the expected numbers at the right time there's a need for something.

    By the way, currently rail growth is above predictions, to the extent that they are ahead of the growth rate required to cover 100% of HS2 passengers rather than just 70% from rail used in the model. As such if passenger growth is off its either going to be over or not that far below, and certainly nothing like HS1.
     
  29. janahan

    janahan Member

    Messages:
    42
    Joined:
    13 Feb 2014
    I may be showing my age, but I remember when the Channel Tunnel was first started, again people were going on about the cost, the disruption, and everything. Calling it a white elephant. There were even arguments about the security aspects (France has an easy invasion path). And indeed it scuppered earlier attempts at building the tunnel in victorian times.

    However, now its done, people use it, noone talks about the costs or even closing it down any more, in fact if it was to close, it would be unheard of. Also plane journeys areas covered by eurostar have dropped.

    Maybe as a country we have a habit of complaining, being negative about large projects such as these?
     
  30. squizzler

    squizzler Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    Joined:
    4 Jan 2017
    Whilst forum moderation has questioned my invocation of Third Runway, I maintain that they are rival National transport infrastructure projects. Maybe these posts ought to be peeled off into an HS2 vs Third Runway thread?

    If we look at the two projects as rivals the criticisms made against HS2 start to make some sort of sense. Taking just three:
    • It mainly benefits London. HS2 actually runs through London, the Midlands and parts of the North. Heathrow is in the Southeast whatever way you cut it.
    • It's only going to benefit a wealthy business elite. Surely an international airport in London will have a higher proportion of "wealthy business elite" than would a national railway network.
    • The railway will damage the environment and blight homes. An airport whose flight path is over one of the world's big cities will cause far more blight. An electric railway will produce much less greenhouse gas than kerosine fuelled aircraft. Heathrow is one of the biggest - if not the biggest - point sources of such emissions in the country.
    Considering how HS2 criticisms all apply - but to a much greater extent - to the Third Runway, I cannot help feel the promotors of the third runway have managed a campaign to project their own project's disbenefits onto HS2 and use HS2 as a cover under which to sneak their project through. A classic case of 'look over there'.
     
    Last edited: 24 Dec 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page