HS2 Review ongoing

[The Ham]

The Brexit part doesn't want it because we managed without it in 1976.

I'd better not stand as a candidate for them then as I'm unlikely to get any votes (I was born after then).

 

[RichT54]

Brexit Party because they only like roads and hate public transport. Green Party because.. Umm haven't quite worked that one out yet.

The Green Party's Transport Policy does contain their ideas for public transport. The section on rail, starts about halfway down the page. I can't see a specific reference to HS2, but it does say:

TR233 The Green Party will give high priority to introducing new rail services and increasing the capacity of existing services, by:

1. Adding more tracks and grade separated junctions to existing lines.
2. Reintroducing passengers to lines that at present are used only for freight. (see TR351)
3. Major investment in new rail infrastructure, either along disused lines where applicable, or by building new lines where these would serve perceived demand.
4. Opening additional stations to give all communities reasonable access to the rail service.
5. Building more rolling stock to relieve overcrowding and handle increasing demand.

and

TR244 The Green Party believes that long-distance service provision should not concentrate on high speeds where this will affect local service provision or take up an excessive amount of limited resources. The Green Party supports the principle of a new north-south high speed line which would reduce the number of short-haul flights within the UK.

 

[6Gman]

There are times when you despair of this country - and this is one of them.

Whatever the costs and merits of this particular project, we are decades behind the other major industrial countries (except the USA) who have all deployed this technology long ago.

The French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Swiss, the Japanese all have this technology and the Chinese over the last 20 years have built more high-speed track than all the conventional rail track we have.

Even if it were to go ahead, then England would get a few hundred miles of high speed rail 60 years (count them folks) after the TGV came into service. Now that's an incredible record for a supposedly advanced economy.

What is wrong with us ?

"Me too" is an unconvincing argument (deployed by Adonis and others to "justify" the scheme).

We should have HSR in the UK if it's appropriate, not because others have it.

 

[MarkyT]

The Brexit part doesn't want it because we managed without it in 1976.

Their libertarian paymasters are allergic to all forms of public transport, and especially those requiring any form of public expenditure, or threatening to reduce the demand for petroleum products. Not all right wingers are anti-rail of course. Salvini is very supportive of the proposed new high speed line through the mountains between Italy and France, Orban rebuilt the little steam train in his Hungarian hometown, and Mussolini famously made the trains run on time. Doesn't detract much from them all being very nasty populist demagogues though.

 

[AlbertBeale]

They dislike anything that carves up the countryside. They seem to think adding more tracks to existing rail routes and upgrading freight lines to passenger will do the trick.

I understand that the Green Party opposition was because HS2, as (over-)specified, is a far less environmentally friendly plan than other ways of expanding capacity; and also that it is indeed destructive, not only of the countryside but of communities too - eg the homes and businesses that have already been trashed around Euston. Additionally, I've heard them complain about it being an elitist project, of special value to rich people for whom a small time saving is "valuable", when the same resources - put into improving less "sexy" local transport all over the country - would be of immense value to millions of ordinary people (whose time savings don't seem to count ... eg bus passengers' time not being counted as part of the "value" of speeding up bus services). Their fear about some of these aspects has, I think, been exacerbated by the fact that HS2 wouldn't tie in fully with existing rail infrastructure, instead having out-of-town "parkway" stations planned (thereby encouraging car use), and by the expectation that use of it would be priced as a premium product, leaving poorer people getting a worse-than-now service on the existing lines (like Domestic HS1 only much more so).

I believe the Green Party are very pro the expansion and improvement of pubic transport, certainly including railways ... but just not this particular scheme. I quite understand that "train fans" seem not to like any rail development to be questioned, especially something as snazzy as HS2. But that shouldn't be a reason to misunderstand or misrepresent the views of the Green Party over this. (NB - I'm not a Green Party member!)

 

[6Gman]

Their libertarian paymasters are allergic to all forms of public transport, and especially those requiring any form of public expenditure, or threatening to reduce the demand for petroleum products. Not all right wingers are anti-rail of course. Salvini is very supportive of the proposed new high speed line through the mountains between Italy and France, Orban rebuilt the little steam train in his Hungarian hometown, and Mussolini famously made the trains run on time. Doesn't detract much from them all being very nasty populist demagogues though.

Urban myth. He didn't.

 

[MarkyT]

Urban myth. He didn't.

Perhaps he thought so because all the trains HE travelled on were punctual. Like the Queen assuming the world naturally smells of fresh paint and polish!

 

[muddythefish]

"Me too" is an unconvincing argument (deployed by Adonis and others to "justify" the scheme).

We should have HSR in the UK if it's appropriate, not because others have it.

"Me too" is very convincing when the country is decades behind in 21st century infrastructure, has roads and railways that have severe capacity constraints, a population of 60m plus that is forecast to hit 70m in the years ahead and needs substantial investment in transport to enable people and goods to get around, and quite frankly, looks very silly compared to its neighbours and competitors.

 

[The Ham]

Urban myth. He didn't.

Apparently it was just one train.

 

[Mogster]

I understand that the Green Party opposition was because HS2, as (over-)specified, is a far less environmentally friendly plan than other ways of expanding capacity; and also that it is indeed destructive, not only of the countryside but of communities too - eg the homes and businesses that have already been trashed around Euston. Additionally, I've heard them complain about it being an elitist project, of special value to rich people for whom a small time saving is "valuable", when the same resources - put into improving less "sexy" local transport all over the country - would be of immense value to millions of ordinary people (whose time savings don't seem to count ... eg bus passengers' time not being counted as part of the "value" of speeding up bus services). Their fear about some of these aspects has, I think, been exacerbated by the fact that HS2 wouldn't tie in fully with existing rail infrastructure, instead having out-of-town "parkway" stations planned (thereby encouraging car use), and by the expectation that use of it would be priced as a premium product, leaving poorer people getting a worse-than-now service on the existing lines (like Domestic HS1 only much more so).

I believe the Green Party are very pro the expansion and improvement of pubic transport, certainly including railways ... but just not this particular scheme. I quite understand that "train fans" seem not to like any rail development to be questioned, especially something as snazzy as HS2. But that shouldn't be a reason to misunderstand or misrepresent the views of the Green Party over this. (NB - I'm not a Green Party member!)

The Green Party don’t seem to have anything sensible to say about HS2. Just vague stuff about upgrading existing lines and opening freight lines for passengers. No detail about how they’d upgrade the WCML or how much it would cost. No detail about which current freight only lines would be useful.

If anything HS2 and modern HSR doesn’t seem to be popular with rail enthusiasts. They prefer to contemplate the reopening of Victorian branch lines serviced by 50 year old locos pulling rakes of coaches

 

[Nagora]

If anything HS2 and modern HSR doesn’t seem to be popular with rail enthusiasts. They prefer to contemplate the reopening of Victorian branch lines serviced by 50 year old locos pulling rakes of coaches

Yeah, what a crime. Wanting a train network instead of three lines all running in the same bloody direction. How terribly terribly Victorian.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The Green Party don’t seem to have anything sensible to say about HS2. Just vague stuff about upgrading existing lines and opening freight lines for passengers. No detail about how they’d upgrade the WCML or how much it would cost. No detail about which current freight only lines would be useful.

If anything HS2 and modern HSR doesn’t seem to be popular with rail enthusiasts. They prefer to contemplate the reopening of Victorian branch lines serviced by 50 year old locos pulling rakes of coaches

I remember seeing some documentation some years ago from critics of HS2 - which I think might have been Green Party ones - which had specific ideas with some figures attached for improvements to WCML etc. Though, as I said, the GP's emphasis is (as I understand it) on prioritising the upgrading of smaller-scale local connections (bus as well as train), so at to improve people's day-to-day lives and to enhance levels of local and regional self-sufficiency - which makes environmental sense and cuts long-distance commuting, and might also relieve some of the general pressure for longer-distance travel, or at least make it less skewed to certain times of day.

I make no comment on rail enthusiasts - though I do recognise the stereotype, as much as I recognise the "any big fast new rail connections is good" stereotype. I don't consider myself to be in either of those camps (though I do find both heritage systems and modern whizzo systems interesting).

 

[6Gman]

"Me too" is very convincing when the country is decades behind in 21st century infrastructure, has roads and railways that have severe capacity constraints, a population of 60m plus that is forecast to hit 70m in the years ahead and needs substantial investment in transport to enable people and goods to get around, and quite frankly, looks very silly compared to its neighbours and competitors.

We will have to disagree. Why not apply "me too" to other overseas infrastructure? Trolleybuses (like the French), toll roads (France again), trams (the Dutch) etc etc

HSR might be appropriate for the UK, but not just because others have it.

 

[Meerkat]

Isn’t the TGV a massive debt millstone for the French?

 

[AlbertBeale]

Isn’t the TGV a massive debt millstone for the French?

I think they've partly covered it by not investing in regional lines, which are pretty infrequent in some areas.

 

[muddythefish]

We will have to disagree. Why not apply "me too" to other overseas infrastructure? Trolleybuses (like the French), toll roads (France again), trams (the Dutch) etc etc

HSR might be appropriate for the UK, but not just because others have it.

Other countries have motorways and roads too, but it doesn't mean we should have them.

 

[HSTEd]

Isn’t the TGV a massive debt millstone for the French?

That depends on what accounting tricks you use.
But I very much doubt the french state would be better off if it had never been built at all.

I think they've partly covered it by not investing in regional lines, which are pretty infrequent in some areas.

Local services are infrequent in france partially because of the drastically lower population density compared to, say, the UK. Which is much closer to the Netherlands and Belgium in that respect.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If you build you phase 2b first either you have to build Curzon Street anyway (which would push the costs up for phase 2b and reduce the costs for phase 1) as I'm not sure what extra services you could run without it, or you would be limited to running Leeds/York to the East Midlands.

Now it could be that phase 2b could be started to be built sooner and/or faster so that it opens sooner. Although given the size of the project doing this could be difficult and run the risk of costs being higher than you would otherwise need.

This would be supply and demand, if HS2 had more works at the same time then there would be a need for more construction resources. Let's say that there's a limit of 100 of HS2 is taking 15 then there's still lots left for other works. However if it requires 30 then sky-high there's still a lot left that's likely to mean that the cost will have gone up to use them as there would be more other projects bidding to use them.

There is the risk to fall into the HS2 paradox, we want HS2 in the North more than in the South, that's not on the table and so we don't want HS2 at all.

Clearly it's better to get HS2 in 2040, or even 2060, than not have it at all. Yes there'll be less of us around to see it, but actually what does it matter if we can use it. The question should be, would the country be better off of HS2 existed? Part of that requires you to answer other questions including:
Do we need or not more rail capacity?
How will this help with carbon neutral goals?
What's the alternative if we don't?
Are there better value ways (these may not be just the cheaper ones) to achieve this?

I know I keep harping on about it, but rail growth has it performed what it should have done to justify HS2, which then results in it being better value than it otherwise would be. This also allows it to absorb some of the additional costs.

View media item 3340
In 2009 rail usage between London and the North West had 6,576,000 passenger movements per year. Based on predictions (2.5% growth per year) the target passenger movements per year for future years would have been:
2018 - 8,213,000
2026 - 10,280,000
2027 - 10,537,000
2033 - 11,894,000

Well in 2018 the actual figure was 11,213,000 which is:
36.5% higher than predicted for 2018
9.1% higher than predicted for the opening of Phase 1
6.4% higher than predicted for the opening of Phase 2a
5.7% lower than predicted for the opening of Phase 2a

If growth continues at an average of 2.5% per year then there's a 1/3 extra passenger movements to cover the post of the increases in costs.

If growth broadly results in passenger movements being the same then there could be problems with the increased costs. However when has that ever happened when you've provided extra capacity? As such that's a fairly unlikely outcome, which makes the outcome that passenger numbers will fall even less likely.

However another possible outcome is that there would be faster than 2.5% per year growth. If that happens then it could be that by 2040 could have seen growth, assuming 2.75% growth per year, to 20,366,000 (81.6% higher than today).

Assuming that the average loading of trains today was currently the first figures then the second figure would be the loadings in 2040 without building HS2:
40% / 72%
50% / 90%
60% / 109%
70% / 127%
80% / 145%
90% / 163%

Now if we build HS2 with its trains axle to carry 1,100 passengers then those loadings drop from/to:
72% / 38%
90% / 48%
109% / 58%
127% / 68%
145% / 77%
163% / 87%

That would mean that in 2040 comparable HS2 services could be almost as busy as they are now in passenger loading terms. The above is based on the assumption that we are comparing 11 coach trains with the new HS2 services.

That's with 2.75% growth per year, which is hardly a large amount. If it is lower growth then we'll hit those capacity figures a bit later. If it's higher than we got then sooner:
1.5% growth then 2060
2% growth then 2050
3% growth then 2038
4% growth then 2033

Now that higher figures are fairly unlikely, and is unlikely to be achieved, mostly because there'd be so little time after any part of HS2 is built for you to see growth because of the extra capacity.

However the opposite is also true, that growth of as little of 1.5% is also unlikely because of the big capacity improvements from HS2 attracting more users.

Either way, comparable services could be as well loaded by about the middle of this century with HS2 as they are now without it.

I don't deny it's not justified passenger-wise,just,if we're spending this much on HS2 already, let's do it properly and build the whole lot in tunnel apart from the stations and if that means cutting it back to OOC and postponing the Birmingham-Manchester of Phase 2a with provision for future building as this corridor is already pretty well served by classic rail, then that's a price worse paying. The environment is what I care about and that must be protected at all costs. You could argue HS2 will reduce emissions by a large amount but it doesn't have to be at the expense of the rest of the environment.

 

[al78]

You could argue HS2 will reduce emissions by a large amount but it doesn't have to be at the expense of the rest of the environment.

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Carbon-and-HS2-GG21-flyer.pdf

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Isn’t the TGV a massive debt millstone for the French?

SNCF's debts are something like €50 billion (not dissimilar to Network Rail's).
The French government has demanded reform of SNCF (hence the strikes last year), and has written off half of the debt.
Its current priorities are solving congestion on the classic network.

France exports its high speed rail technology around the world (USA, Morocco, South Korea, HS1 etc) and is seen as a national asset.
By contrast the UK has ignored the industry and export potential of high speed rail.

 

[kevin_roche]

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Carbon-and-HS2-GG21-flyer.pdf

Interesting but I wonder why they came to the conclusion that carbon would be reduced by "Constructing city centre stations rather than parkway stations". Are there so many people living in cities with good transport now that is true.

On a recent visit I made to San Jose in California the locals were making claims that by running commuter trains along the freeway and allowing people to park and go by car that had saved lots of carbon being generated.

For many people driving to a parkway station will be easier than driving into a local town which causes more traffic and pollution. I have lived in an area with poor local transport links most of my life so the choice is to drive to the station or stay at home. I have a car that runs on electricity and so will most others by the time HS2 is complete.

 

[AM9]

Interesting but I wonder why they came to the conclusion that carbon would be reduced by "Constructing city centre stations rather than parkway stations". Are there so many people living in cities with good transport now that is true.

On a recent visit I made to San Jose in California the locals were making claims that by running commuter trains along the freeway and allowing people to park and go by car that had saved lots of carbon being generated.

For many people driving to a parkway station will be easier than driving into a local town which causes more traffic and pollution. I have lived in an area with poor local transport links most of my life so the choice is to drive to the station or stay at home. I have a car that runs on electricity and so will most others by the time HS2 is complete.

The problem with a metropolitan area as large as London, (or even Birmingham and Manchester)is that a parkway station woulld be in the sector that the line heads out through, thus potential passengers from London and the Home Counties, particularly south-east London/Kent and east London/Essex would then drive some way around the M25 to get the train. With the current plan, almost every passenger wanting to use the service would use existing rail services into central London. These provide easy access from almost every area in the home counties. Birminham and Manchester would have similar issues with passengers getting across the region by car to likely parkway stations.

 

[Roast Veg]

We will have to disagree. Why not apply "me too" to other overseas infrastructure? Trolleybuses (like the French), toll roads (France again), trams (the Dutch) etc etc

Yes, no, yes.

 

[kevin_roche]

The problem with a metropolitan area as large as London, (or even Birmingham and Manchester)is that a parkway station woulld be in the sector that the line heads out through, thus potential passengers from London and the Home Counties, particularly south-east London/Kent and east London/Essex would then drive some way around the M25 to get the train. With the current plan, almost every passenger wanting to use the service would use existing rail services into central London. These provide easy access from almost every area in the home counties. Birmingham and Manchester would have similar issues with passengers getting across the region by car to likely parkway stations.

I understand that applies for London, but Birmingham less so as rail transport in Birmingham is much less developed.

The planned station at Birmingham Airport is likely to attract drivers from all over the area. Personally if I lived on the outskirts of Coventry I'd be unlikely to choose to use HS2 without it. Perhaps the plan is to set parking charges so high that people will choose not to use it but then if they drive all the way that's worse.

Does it apply to other places on the HS2 route? The planned station near Nottingham and Derby will definitely attract drivers. Manchester Airport too.

 

[The Ham]

I don't deny it's not justified passenger-wise,just,if we're spending this much on HS2 already, let's do it properly and build the whole lot in tunnel apart from the stations and if that means cutting it back to OOC and postponing the Birmingham-Manchester of Phase 2a with provision for future building as this corridor is already pretty well served by classic rail, then that's a price worse paying. The environment is what I care about and that must be protected at all costs. You could argue HS2 will reduce emissions by a large amount but it doesn't have to be at the expense of the rest of the environment.

If we tunnel then we have less opportunity to create the green corridor which happens alongside railway lines with embankments and cuttings. Due to the provision of noise bunds then HS2 is likely to better in this regard than the existing railways.

The other thing to consider is that concrete is very bad environmental, and you'd need a lot of it for the tunnel linings, which would increase the emissions for the construction of the project.

There's even the potential that HS2 would provide additional protection to the ancient woodland near to it, in that few would want to build close to it (few would want to own a house close to it). As such it could reduce the likelihood of development in the areas near it and so provide indirect protection.

As an example from a different area, if you lived in a village would you like to have a crematorium on your doorstep? Probably the initial answer is no. However given that you can't build it within set distances and no new development can be built within those same distances, then it protects that village from having extra houses being built. It also means that there's a large area of green space which is kept. As such there are benefits to having a crematorium.

Whilst I agree that there's much more which could be done to improve things in terms of the environment, in not sure that tunnels are the right thing to do.

Personally I think that the Woodland Trust missed a trick. They should have highlighted their concerns and then launched an appeal called "High Speed Tree" with the goal to buy up other ancient woodland and undertake tree planning around them. This would allow then to further mitigate against the impact of HS2 by enlarging ancient woodland and increasing the numbers of trees planted.

In addition they could have approached HS2 and asked if they could have been gifted any areas of ancient woodland which they purchased and didn't need with the view to improve things further.

 

[AlbertBeale]

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Carbon-and-HS2-GG21-flyer.pdf

I think this is a key aspect of this document for environmentalists:
The first phase of HST "is estimated to reduce emissions by 1.8 million tonnes CO2e over 60 years [sic] because of the expected reductions in car and air travel. This comfortably offsets the 1.2 million tonnes of embedded carbon that will result from construction of the line".
Even if, over a couple of generations, there's a clear net gain in carbon emissions, the severity of the crisis we face is such that we need to stop most carbon emissions now. We can't deal with the current situation by massive carbon-intensive developments which make matters even more dangerous in the short term despite the fact that they can balance the books decades down the line.

Similar arguments apply to other things which seem superficially to be helpful - like "offsetting" flights with investment into planting trees that will only soak up the damage caused by flying when it's all too late. If we face an emergency, then we have to do things that have a more immediate effect, and which don't make things even worse in the short term. That means reining in massive projects like HS2 and stopping most flying and car transport (amongst other things of course).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Isn’t the TGV a massive debt millstone for the French?

Well they hardly run any short distance air flights between places where TGV goes, so carbon wise it is not debt but gain.

 

[al78]

Interesting but I wonder why they came to the conclusion that carbon would be reduced by "Constructing city centre stations rather than parkway stations". Are there so many people living in cities with good transport now that is true.

On a recent visit I made to San Jose in California the locals were making claims that by running commuter trains along the freeway and allowing people to park and go by car that had saved lots of carbon being generated.

For many people driving to a parkway station will be easier than driving into a local town which causes more traffic and pollution. I have lived in an area with poor local transport links most of my life so the choice is to drive to the station or stay at home. I have a car that runs on electricity and so will most others by the time HS2 is complete.

Possibly because having the stations in town/city centres means they are roughly central to the local population, which maximises the number of people who can feasibly walk, cycle or use public transport to get to the station (the car is not the only way to do short local journeys), and they are convenient for those whose destination is somewhere in or near a city centre. Parkway stations (in my experience) tend to be out of the way, which is convenient when building a brand new high speed rail line, but very inconvenient for those who want to use it and can't/don't want to drive to the station.

For example: I can easily cycle to Horsham station, as it is less than two and a half miles away. If it was located in Faygate, it would be unpleasant to try and cycle to it, and likely more people in Horsham would drive the full length of their journey instead of driving to a remote station to catch a train.

 

[CdBrux]

Similar arguments apply to other things which seem superficially to be helpful - like "offsetting" flights with investment into planting trees that will only soak up the damage caused by flying when it's all too late. If we face an emergency, then we have to do things that have a more immediate effect, and which don't make things even worse in the short term. That means reining in massive projects like HS2 and stopping most flying and car transport (amongst other things of course).

Better switch off your computer to save some electricity. And don't buy another computer should yours break.

 

[HSTEd]

The other thing to consider is that concrete is very bad environmental, and you'd need a lot of it for the tunnel linings, which would increase the emissions for the construction of the project.

Emissions for concrete are negligible, there will not be that much concrete involved in the tunnel linings, compared to emissions from operations of the railway over decades to centuries.

There's even the potential that HS2 would provide additional protection to the ancient woodland near to it, in that few would want to build close to it (few would want to own a house close to it). As such it could reduce the likelihood of development in the areas near it and so provide indirect protection.

How is that different from simply having the government undertake to perpetually deny planning permission on that land?

EDIT:

Also worth noting that temperature and humidity conditions inside a tunnel are much more stable.
Depending on how good the lining and drainage is it is highly unlikely there will ever be leaves on the rail, large amounts of standing moisture and certainly never any ice on the railhead.

This will measurably improve achievable braking performance - which might allow the headways to be significantly reduced, to the point we can get another path or two in.