HS2, unaffordable in ten steps?

[najaB]

There are so many other changes we could make to our infrastructure and broadband yet we must make everything else wait for high speed rail?

I wasn't aware that all other infrastructure projects had been cancelled in favour of HS2.

I must've imagined Crossrail, the Ordsal Chord, GWML electrification, A9 upgrades, Hinkley Point C, et al were happening

Thanks for letting me know.

 

[NSEFAN]

Long term forum members will know that I've always got heated against hs2. It annoys me because of it is a grossly inappropriate solution looking for a problem. We don't need and can't afford such sn expensive way to get to Euston all of ten minutes quicker. It's annoying to see high speed as an answer. There are so many other changes we could make to our infrastructure and broadband yet we must make everything else wait for high speed rail? Doesn't sit well with be. Never has.

Phase 1 is for Euston to get high speed rail and a wholesale revamp. It's London-centric. It has always been sold as a way to get into London ten minutes faster than now. The connection at Old Oak is beneficial to London travellers.

So it's the high speed aspect, rather than more capacity on the WCML, which bothers you? Would you be prepared to accept the money spent if it instead resulted in an extra pair of running lines following the current WCML? I would hazard a guess that this would actually be more expensive than a new line through the countryside, high speed or not, as residential and industrial land is probably more expensive than farm land.

 

[najaB]

I would hazard a guess that this would actually be more expensive than a new line through the countryside...

Easily an additional 50% in land purchase costs, not to mention the disruption to the existing railway.

 

[6Gman]

We are planning to spend an absurd amount of money at the same time when every rural area in the uk has had their rural bus services decimated by Spending cuts. The first thing David Cameron did was virtually abolish all the spending reforms the previous labour government brought in. And then he proposes to spend billions on a route duplication project.
The only area of Britain that hasn't seen their bus services slashed in London. What a surprise.
Thatcher brought in deregulation and then the Tories have progressively slashed the budgets for councils to provide socially necessary services. On the one hand councils have a legal duty to fund socially necessary services whilst on the other hand the government that introduced these legal obligations take away the means to do so.
And we have the same government spending billions on this duplicating existing rail routes.
Do the public have any say in this?
Apparently not. That's democracy uk style. Where the Tories paymasters get richer through this massive transfer of public money to the private sector and these in rural areas who rely of public transport due to poverty, age and disability literally don't matter.
All of this was planned a long time ago as the Tories plan well ahead.
Of course, London will always be funded.

A few observations.

1. When Cameron took over in 2010 (and I'm no Conservative) he faced a massive annual public expenditure deficit. Spending reductions and/or tax increases were inevitable. Even Labour admitted so ... "there's no money left" (Liam Byrne MP)
2. You need to recognise the difference between (one-off) capital expenditure and (ongoing) revenue expenditure. HS2 is the former, bus subsidies the latter.
3. Since the late 90s significant amounts have been spent on subsidising rural buses (e.g. Rural Bus Grants) - some of this has resulted in sustainable networks, an awful lot ended up making no difference at all.

 

[6Gman]

That was clumsy phrasing by me, the reference was specifically about HS2.

Long term forum members will know that I've always got heated against hs2. It annoys me because of it is a grossly inappropriate solution looking for a problem. We don't need and can't afford such sn expensive way to get to Euston all of ten minutes quicker. It's annoying to see high speed as an answer. There are so many other changes we could make to our infrastructure and broadband yet we must make everything else wait for high speed rail? Doesn't sit well with be. Never has.

You mention other countries. They have very different geographic concerns than we do. Context is all.

It's more than 10 minutes.

I'd rather see a new railway than billions spent on broadband I don't need.

What is "waiting" because of HS2?

[Incidentally, I wouldn't build HS2 as proposed. It would be slower, but bigger and with more stations. But this HS2 is the only show in town and the alternative isn't electrification of Preston to Ormskirk and Colne or Pacer replacement yesterday. It's nowt...]

 

[Ianno87]

Phase 1 is for Euston to get high speed rail and a wholesale revamp. It's London-centric. It has always been sold as a way to get into London ten minutes faster than now. The connection at Old Oak is beneficial to London travellers.

It has never, never, ever been sold as only taking 10 minutes off journey times to London (more actually - 30+ minutes from Brum, 40-50 minutes from Manchester). Capacity has always been first and foremost in the case, and what the business and strategic cases are based on.

The whole reason we've gone down the concept of an entirely new line in the first place was the 2009 Network Rail 'New Lines' report which showed the *capacity* benefits of a whole new line. And if you build a new line, it might as well be high speed for the relatively little extra this costs.

With hindsight, so much of this could have been avoided simply by having a name other than 'High Speed 2'. 'New WCML' or 'New Central Trunk Line' or even 'Great Central 2.0'. Avoids 'speed' being in the name and perpetuating the myth that that's what it's solely about - when it's not.

 

[Snapper]

It's not often I blog about what's left of the anti Hs2 campaign nowadays as they're really a complete waste of time, but I couldn't help but notice this piece of nonsense from today: https://paulbigland.blog/2018/05/06/when-the-stophs2-campaigns-out-in-force-in-trowell/

 

[PR1Berske]

It's not often I blog about what's left of the anti Hs2 campaign nowadays as they're really a complete waste of time, but I couldn't help but notice this piece of nonsense from today: https://paulbigland.blog/2018/05/06/when-the-stophs2-campaigns-out-in-force-in-trowell/

Other than promoting your blog like a spammer, what is it that you actually do? Successfully?

 

[Darandio]

Other than promoting your blog like a spammer, what is it that you actually do? Successfully?

Did the article touch a nerve? As it turns out, he's a rather successful photographer, much more successful as you'll ever be of stopping HS2 anyway.

 

[PR1Berske]

Did the article touch a nerve? As it turns out, he's a rather successful photographer, much more successful as you'll ever be of stopping HS2 anyway.

Of course it didn't touch a nerve. He sniffs out anything he can to sneer and poke, he has not blogged a single solitary word in favour of HS2 for years, it's all poking fun at people, he doesn't ever blog positive posts! If he's pro-HS2, why is that blog so sneering and petty towards opponents? If there's a good reason for HS2, let me hear it, because that blog doesn't say a word.

 

[tbtc]

Of course it didn't touch a nerve. He sniffs out anything he can to sneer and poke

Okay then - to prove that you aren't sneering or poking, could you answer the following simple question?

"Should we have spent millions of pounds on the recent upgrade/electrification schemes that give Preston faster/ newer/ longer trains to Manchester (and Bolton, Blackpool etc), given the cost-over-runs, delays and the fact that it clearly only benefits Manchester?"

 

[Ianno87]

It's not often I blog about what's left of the anti Hs2 campaign nowadays as they're really a complete waste of time, but I couldn't help but notice this piece of nonsense from today: https://paulbigland.blog/2018/05/06/when-the-stophs2-campaigns-out-in-force-in-trowell/

To be fair, the folks there (and in a number of places) do have a reasonable concern - the local impact of the HS2 route (even if they get a high speed station on their doorstep at the end of it). I would say their efforts far from being a 'waste of time' on this count.

The idea of stopping HS2 entirely - yes, I agree.

It'd be more helpful if thwy ceased uniting under the banner of 'Stop HS2'. I.e. we don't like the way its proposed right now, so the whole thing is bad. They're better, in my personal view, of focusing their efforts on getting it right for their area, engaging with the HS2 consultation process (if they are not doing so already).

Some of the final details of Phase 2B are still up for grabs - look at the changes made to the Phase 1 route from the original concept - and still plenty of scope for mitigations locally. That *is* worth uniting and campaigning for (even if it ultimately has no resulting effect).

 

[PR1Berske]

Okay then - to prove that you aren't sneering or poking, could you answer the following simple question?

"Should we have spent millions of pounds on the recent upgrade/electrification schemes that give Preston faster/ newer/ longer trains to Manchester (and Bolton, Blackpool etc), given the cost-over-runs, delays and the fact that it clearly only benefits Manchester?"

Time and time again I have said on this forum that I prefer focused regional upgrades rather than a London-based scheme. I have said on the Colne-Skipton thread how I would prefer that line being (re)opened over HS2 (and I stepped back from my support after the thread persuaded me to look again at the finances). I support reinstating the Burscough Curves. I have moved from opposition to measured support for P15/16 at Piccadilly over the course of my time on this forum.

I don't have a problem with the electrification schemes up here. other than the quite obvious worried about the delays and disruption. I see what has been worked on as an overdue improvement to the region.

The difference between the Manchester schemes and HS2 is surely obvious? I can see the consequential improvements to the regional network, and what new services could be created as a result. I have never seen wires on the bridge near to my house, it's great to see the improvement and investment. What has been delivered is a very clear improvement. Here's the scheme - Blackpool-Preston-Manchester wired - and here are the benefits.

HS2 is nothing close to the Manchester electrification scheme, you can't compare them. Whereas the Manchester scheme was clearly and explicitly sold as a regional plan, HS2 has waffled around uncertain of its role or function. While I can see the improvements and potential improvements to the region's railways and passenger connectivity, I can see nothing of the sort with a new railway into London Euston. I just see the two as very different concepts. One focused and regional, one ill-defined and with no clear purpose. One has definition and clear goals, the other is a national experiment. One is a very "railway" scheme, the other is "governmental".

I know people on this forum mocked me for saying that HS2 will be amongst the greatest disasters for this country but I truly mean it. While the Manchester scheme has delivered a specific regional improvement, HS2 has only managed to publish hard-spined books for coffee tables. I don't believe that the Manchester scheme only benefits Manchester because I can see here in Preston what the investment means for travelling (and I hope that it means Cottam train station will finally be built!). All I see from HS2 is talk, talk, talk, some vague promises for the benefit of London, and nothing else. That's why there's a difference. I can see the electrification scheme can offer actual benefit to the region because it's focused on what really matters. HS2 is just a rich man's game, a plaything to give to London once Crossrail is delivered.

 

[najaB]

HS2 has waffled around uncertain of its role or function

That might be your impression, but that's definitely not the case. HS2 is and always has been about relieving the WCML (and ECML to an extent) and providing a massive increase in North-South capacity.

 

[The Ham]

Time and time again I have said on this forum that I prefer focused regional upgrades rather than a London-based scheme. I have said on the Colne-Skipton thread how I would prefer that line being (re)opened over HS2 (and I stepped back from my support after the thread persuaded me to look again at the finances). I support reinstating the Burscough Curves. I have moved from opposition to measured support for P15/16 at Piccadilly over the course of my time on this forum.

I don't have a problem with the electrification schemes up here. other than the quite obvious worried about the delays and disruption. I see what has been worked on as an overdue improvement to the region.

The difference between the Manchester schemes and HS2 is surely obvious? I can see the consequential improvements to the regional network, and what new services could be created as a result. I have never seen wires on the bridge near to my house, it's great to see the improvement and investment. What has been delivered is a very clear improvement. Here's the scheme - Blackpool-Preston-Manchester wired - and here are the benefits.

HS2 is nothing close to the Manchester electrification scheme, you can't compare them. Whereas the Manchester scheme was clearly and explicitly sold as a regional plan, HS2 has waffled around uncertain of its role or function. While I can see the improvements and potential improvements to the region's railways and passenger connectivity, I can see nothing of the sort with a new railway into London Euston. I just see the two as very different concepts. One focused and regional, one ill-defined and with no clear purpose. One has definition and clear goals, the other is a national experiment. One is a very "railway" scheme, the other is "governmental".

I know people on this forum mocked me for saying that HS2 will be amongst the greatest disasters for this country but I truly mean it. While the Manchester scheme has delivered a specific regional improvement, HS2 has only managed to publish hard-spined books for coffee tables. I don't believe that the Manchester scheme only benefits Manchester because I can see here in Preston what the investment means for travelling (and I hope that it means Cottam train station will finally be built!). All I see from HS2 is talk, talk, talk, some vague promises for the benefit of London, and nothing else. That's why there's a difference. I can see the electrification scheme can offer actual benefit to the region because it's focused on what really matters. HS2 is just a rich man's game, a plaything to give to London once Crossrail is delivered.

I think you may have missed my post below:

I don't know Manchester very well, but according to Wikipedia (and I'm sure someone will correct me if this isn't accurate) before HS2 opens there'll be 16 (including the two which are planned) platforms however when HS2 opens it is due to add 5 more platforms.


That's circa 30% more platforms with the existing platforms with several long distance services moved over to the new platforms.

Can you explain how 5 extra platforms at Manchester will only benefit London (or for that matter the other platforms which are proposed outside of London)?

Can you explain how improving journey times for those between Birmingham and several Northern cities is only benefiting London?

Can you explain how providing a significant increase in capacity between Manchester and Birmingham and they their airports only benefiting London?

Can you explain how by removing long distance services from the existing lines, and therefore allow extra services to be run, will only benefit London?

[cue a certain member going quite until they can ignore this post, as had been the case in the past when they get asked such questions, for the simple reason that it doesn't support their world view]

 

[The Ham]

Phase 1 is for Euston to get high speed rail and a wholesale revamp. It's London-centric. It has always been sold as a way to get into London ten minutes faster than now. The connection at Old Oak is beneficial to London travellers.

Old Oak Common will benefit passengers from Reading, Basingstoke, Southampton and the like from day one. Once the Southern Approach to Heathrow is built it will also benefit those from Woking, Guildford and Portsmouth.

As rail travel to Birmingham (let alone Manchester or other Northern cities) will be quicker and probably more frequent than using XC services by heading to Old Oak Common. Given how costly XC tickets can be when running through the core I doubt that cost will make much difference (even if you believe that HS2 will charge more just because it's faster and faster means more costly, ignoring the fact that the railways use cost to price people off the busiest services and the large increase in capacity that HS2 will provide removes this to an extent).

 

[Ianno87]

Time and time again I have said on this forum that I prefer focused regional upgrades rather than a London-based scheme. I have said on the Colne-Skipton thread how I would prefer that line being (re)opened over HS2 (and I stepped back from my support after the thread persuaded me to look again at the finances). I support reinstating the Burscough Curves. I have moved from opposition to measured support for P15/16 at Piccadilly over the course of my time on this forum.

I don't have a problem with the electrification schemes up here. other than the quite obvious worried about the delays and disruption. I see what has been worked on as an overdue improvement to the region.

The difference between the Manchester schemes and HS2 is surely obvious? I can see the consequential improvements to the regional network, and what new services could be created as a result. I have never seen wires on the bridge near to my house, it's great to see the improvement and investment. What has been delivered is a very clear improvement. Here's the scheme - Blackpool-Preston-Manchester wired - and here are the benefits.

HS2 is nothing close to the Manchester electrification scheme, you can't compare them. Whereas the Manchester scheme was clearly and explicitly sold as a regional plan, HS2 has waffled around uncertain of its role or function. While I can see the improvements and potential improvements to the region's railways and passenger connectivity, I can see nothing of the sort with a new railway into London Euston. I just see the two as very different concepts. One focused and regional, one ill-defined and with no clear purpose. One has definition and clear goals, the other is a national experiment. One is a very "railway" scheme, the other is "governmental".

I know people on this forum mocked me for saying that HS2 will be amongst the greatest disasters for this country but I truly mean it. While the Manchester scheme has delivered a specific regional improvement, HS2 has only managed to publish hard-spined books for coffee tables. I don't believe that the Manchester scheme only benefits Manchester because I can see here in Preston what the investment means for travelling (and I hope that it means Cottam train station will finally be built!). All I see from HS2 is talk, talk, talk, some vague promises for the benefit of London, and nothing else. That's why there's a difference. I can see the electrification scheme can offer actual benefit to the region because it's focused on what really matters. HS2 is just a rich man's game, a plaything to give to London once Crossrail is delivered.

I think that's actually the point - what the northern sections of HS2 are *for* are actually (and deliberately) inspecific and open-ended. This is for a line that won't open for another 15 years yet - so it would be inapprpriate now to start committing to things like "oh yes, there'll definitely be a new hourly service to Hazel Grove" or whatever using the released capacity.

HS2 creates options for what you can do with the conventional network in a decade and a half's time. It will be for funders and specifiers then to determine how its used then, based on what the world looks like (15 years being a long time in railways - back 15 years from today things were still being planned on 'no growth' Northern, for example)

What we do know is that if we want to give the service funders and specifiers of the future the ability to make these choices, we need to get going with HS2 now to do so.


[And without labouring the point again, HS2 does not in itself come at the 'cost' of preventing schemes like Skipton-Colne from happening. If things like this have a good enough case, then people will choose to fund them *alongside* HS2 - East West Rail being a superb example of this. But each one has to gave a good enough case on its own merits]

 

[PR1Berske]

I think you may have missed my post below:



Can you explain how 5 extra platforms at Manchester will only benefit London (or for that matter the other platforms which are proposed outside of London)?

Can you explain how improving journey times for those between Birmingham and several Northern cities is only benefiting London?

Can you explain how providing a significant increase in capacity between Manchester and Birmingham and they their airports only benefiting London?

Can you explain how by removing long distance services from the existing lines, and therefore allow extra services to be run, will only benefit London?

[cue a certain member going quite until they can ignore this post, as had been the case in the past when they get asked such questions, for the simple reason that it doesn't support their world view]

A lot of those things are pencil sketch proposals which might not form part of Phase 2. There may not yet be a Phase 2.

I'm currently working a Bank Holiday shift and on a phone, not my laptop, so a fuller answer will have to wait until I'm at home. Sorry if not responding rapidly is some kind of problem, I am not online all the time!

 

[Nonsense]

It's not often I blog about what's left of the anti Hs2 campaign nowadays as they're really a complete waste of time, but I couldn't help but notice this piece of nonsense from today: https://paulbigland.blog/2018/05/06/when-the-stophs2-campaigns-out-in-force-in-trowell/

NIMBYs. You never see them out campaigning for something. It’s hardly surprising that the numbers of objections have dwindled. HS2 means that trains will Wizz through their relative vicinity in tree lined cuttings and on grassy embankments, just like any other railway they scarcely ever notice, and once the occasional temporary traffic controls are removed after construction, the impact on their lives will be negligible. Better ways to spend your life than moaning.

Those on the direct path, having to up sticks, have my sympathies, however, but what ever route was decided, it was always going to affect some.

 

[Chester1]

NIMBYs. You never see them out campaigning for something. It’s hardly surprising that the numbers of objections have dwindled. HS2 means that trains will Wizz through their relative vicinity in tree lined cuttings and on grassy embankments, just like any other railway they scarcely ever notice, and once the occasional temporary traffic controls are removed after construction, the impact on their lives will be negligible. Better ways to spend your life than moaning.

Those on the direct path, having to up sticks, have my sympathies, however, but what ever route was decided, it was always going to affect some.

Its very unfortunate but most new lines or reopenings require at least some residential demolition. The Ashton line on Metrolink springs to mind and most lines that people propose to reopen have had some encroachment on the alignment.

As for HS2 phase 2 being just pencil sketch proposals... The HS2 phase 2a bill passed second reading in the House of Commons several weeks ago, its likely to become law by the end of the year or early next year. That argument won't work for much longer! Phase 2a will bring significant benefits to the north through relieving WCML capacity constraints south of Crewe, new stock and faster services to both London and Birmingham.

 

[PR1Berske]

I think you may have missed my post below:



Can you explain how 5 extra platforms at Manchester will only benefit London (or for that matter the other platforms which are proposed outside of London)?

Can you explain how improving journey times for those between Birmingham and several Northern cities is only benefiting London?

Can you explain how providing a significant increase in capacity between Manchester and Birmingham and they their airports only benefiting London?

Can you explain how by removing long distance services from the existing lines, and therefore allow extra services to be run, will only benefit London?

[cue a certain member going quite until they can ignore this post, as had been the case in the past when they get asked such questions, for the simple reason that it doesn't support their world view]

I told myself to stay away from HS2 threads and I find myself looking for the exit door again. I don't have forensic knowledge of each and every detail of the project and its consequences. Neither do you. You seem to be exceptionally certain about the national benefits of HS2, as though it's a certainty that all will be positive. I don't dig at you asking for further and further answers.

I can't give answers to your questions. That's not the same as ignoring or going quiet. Neither you nor I can say what an extra 5 platforms will mean for Manchester or London. I see the extra 5 platforms as being part of a scheme which is counter to what we need up here. Swinging the focus from affordable local services to unaffordable high-speed intercity services seems to fall into a narrative which sees 'walk up' fares grow ever more costly, which sees local services reduced in favour of expresses and city-to-city connectors. You've posed questions I can't answer.

I think that HS2 is only for London, I can't shake that at all. Extra platforms at Manchester to serve an high-speed, high cost service to London don't seem a great investment. I'm sorry that I can't be convinced or shake that belief, I just see things that way. I'm sure that comes across as one thing or another, but that's bad phrasing as much as anything, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Darandio]

I told myself to stay away from HS2 threads and I find myself looking for the exit door again.

Which is baffling to many of us as it's you who normally starts or bumps them.

 

[najaB]

You've posed questions I can't answer.

I think that HS2 is only for London, I can't shake that at all. ... I'm sorry that I can't be convinced or shake that belief, I just see things that way.

I'm glad that we've finally reached the point where you admit that your objections to HS2 aren't rational but rather a matter of faith. If there's one thing I've learned it is to respect other's religious beliefs and not to try to attempt to argue them as if they were based on reason, fact or logic.

 

[PR1Berske]

I'm glad that we've finally reached the point where you admit that your objections to HS2 aren't rational but rather a matter of faith. If there's one thing I've learned it is to respect other's religious beliefs and not to try to attempt to argue them as if they were based on reason, fact or logic.

I had not thought about it like that before. Maybe you're right. I have been accused of being "obsessed" before. Maybe that's true, too. I do worry about it far too much for an ordinary barely-minimum wage earning paper shuffler. As a topic it's always caused a negative reaction, I get quite angry about it, as you know. "Faith" is not something I thought about before, but there we are.

I do feel, by the way, as though I am at a particularly difficult job interview. I can't always get answers to your questions. perhaps i'm not here to provide all of them, I don't know.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I'm glad that we've finally reached the point where you admit that your objections to HS2 aren't rational but rather a matter of faith. If there's one thing I've learned it is to respect other's religious beliefs and not to try to attempt to argue them as if they were based on reason, fact or logic.

Which is similar to the issues that the likes of Stephenson(x2), Brunel et al had in the early days of the railways. Like the idea that traveling faster than a galloping horse would cause people to suffocate or that allowing the masses to travel further than they could normally walk would lead to a collapse in law and order. You could call it parochialism or lack of vision, either way PR1Berske clearly has it in spades! And equally it is not that unusual a trait among humans. It falls upon "leaders", who are not necessarily politicians, to overcome such obstinacy. Perhaps some of us here are such "leaders".

 

[Ianno87]

A lot of those things are pencil sketch proposals which might not form part of Phase 2. There may not yet be a Phase 2.

I'm currently working a Bank Holiday shift and on a phone, not my laptop, so a fuller answer will have to wait until I'm at home. Sorry if not responding rapidly is some kind of problem, I am not online all the time!

Struggling to follow the logic here. You are opposed to HS2 because you don't believe it will happen in its fullest form to benefit 'The North'. (Incidentally, it'd be pretty pointless building a high speed line to Manchester at all if it barely had any platforms to gandle trains at Piccadilly - it'd be operational and business case nonsense)

Surely that's a reason to support HS2 to make sure it happens in the way the most benefits you and the north as a whole?

 

[The Ham]

I told myself to stay away from HS2 threads and I find myself looking for the exit door again. I don't have forensic knowledge of each and every detail of the project and its consequences. Neither do you. You seem to be exceptionally certain about the national benefits of HS2, as though it's a certainty that all will be positive. I don't dig at you asking for further and further answers.

I can't give answers to your questions. That's not the same as ignoring or going quiet. Neither you nor I can say what an extra 5 platforms will mean for Manchester or London. I see the extra 5 platforms as being part of a scheme which is counter to what we need up here. Swinging the focus from affordable local services to unaffordable high-speed intercity services seems to fall into a narrative which sees 'walk up' fares grow ever more costly, which sees local services reduced in favour of expresses and city-to-city connectors. You've posed questions I can't answer.

I think that HS2 is only for London, I can't shake that at all. Extra platforms at Manchester to serve an high-speed, high cost service to London don't seem a great investment. I'm sorry that I can't be convinced or shake that belief, I just see things that way. I'm sure that comes across as one thing or another, but that's bad phrasing as much as anything, I don't know what else to tell you.

Thank you for your honest answers.

Although I admit that I don't have a forensic knowledge of the scheme the logical conclusion I come to when looking at the sorts of questions I've asked if you is that I come to the conclusion that the probability is that HS2 will result in benefits for a lot of areas beyond just London - Birmingham.

 

[6Gman]

It's not often I blog about what's left of the anti Hs2 campaign nowadays as they're really a complete waste of time, but I couldn't help but notice this piece of nonsense from today: https://paulbigland.blog/2018/05/06/when-the-stophs2-campaigns-out-in-force-in-trowell/

The woman who took her 11 year old with her because the children will be paying for HS2 through their Council Tax sums up how bizarre the Stop HS2 arguments have become.

 

[najaB]

I do feel, by the way, as though I am at a particularly difficult job interview. I can't always get answers to your questions. perhaps i'm not here to provide all of them, I don't know.

Don't worry, you aren't. I respect your viewpoint even though I don't agree with it. One of us will be proven correct by future events, hopefully we'll be able to share a couple of pints over it.

 

[tbtc]

Time and time again I have said on this forum that I prefer focused regional upgrades rather than a London-based scheme. I have said on the Colne-Skipton thread how I would prefer that line being (re)opened over HS2 (and I stepped back from my support after the thread persuaded me to look again at the finances). I support reinstating the Burscough Curves. I have moved from opposition to measured support for P15/16 at Piccadilly over the course of my time on this forum.

I don't have a problem with the electrification schemes up here. other than the quite obvious worried about the delays and disruption. I see what has been worked on as an overdue improvement to the region.

The difference between the Manchester schemes and HS2 is surely obvious? I can see the consequential improvements to the regional network, and what new services could be created as a result. I have never seen wires on the bridge near to my house, it's great to see the improvement and investment. What has been delivered is a very clear improvement. Here's the scheme - Blackpool-Preston-Manchester wired - and here are the benefits.

HS2 is nothing close to the Manchester electrification scheme, you can't compare them. Whereas the Manchester scheme was clearly and explicitly sold as a regional plan, HS2 has waffled around uncertain of its role or function. While I can see the improvements and potential improvements to the region's railways and passenger connectivity, I can see nothing of the sort with a new railway into London Euston. I just see the two as very different concepts. One focused and regional, one ill-defined and with no clear purpose. One has definition and clear goals, the other is a national experiment. One is a very "railway" scheme, the other is "governmental".

I know people on this forum mocked me for saying that HS2 will be amongst the greatest disasters for this country but I truly mean it. While the Manchester scheme has delivered a specific regional improvement, HS2 has only managed to publish hard-spined books for coffee tables. I don't believe that the Manchester scheme only benefits Manchester because I can see here in Preston what the investment means for travelling (and I hope that it means Cottam train station will finally be built!). All I see from HS2 is talk, talk, talk, some vague promises for the benefit of London, and nothing else. That's why there's a difference. I can see the electrification scheme can offer actual benefit to the region because it's focused on what really matters. HS2 is just a rich man's game, a plaything to give to London once Crossrail is delivered.

Okay.

I'm sure you can appreciate some similarities between a scheme that links a big city at the southern end of the route with smaller places at the northern end by significantly upgrading the quality of service? Albeit you are fine with the one that benefits your town and struggle to understand the one that doesn't directly benefit your town.

Fair enough.

Faster longer newer trains from Preston to Manchester "has definition and clear goals", faster longer newer trains from Manchester to London "is just a rich man's game".

You don't want to fill in the gaps in your knowledge about HS2 but you do keep starting threads about how bad HS2 is? This is the fourth thread that you've started this year about HS2 but you don't want to actually learn about it, just come up with the same old stuff about "rich men" and "London's plaything".

But, for someone who keeps starting threads to complain about HS2, you admit that you can't be convinced, so apparently there's no point in trying to explain things to you?

Best of luck.

I think that's actually the point - what the northern sections of HS2 are *for* are actually (and deliberately) inspecific and open-ended. This is for a line that won't open for another 15 years yet - so it would be inapprpriate now to start committing to things like "oh yes, there'll definitely be a new hourly service to Hazel Grove" or whatever using the released capacity

I think that's a really good point that you are making.

Taking the fastest services off the Stockport corridor and building five additional platforms at Piccadilly will transform capacity into Manchester - significantly faster trains to Birmingham will be a boost - the new Airport development will be too - but it's far too far into the future to start promising those additional paths to specific routes, so there's no "sop" to give to other lines just yet.