What if...HS2 is scrapped?

[R G NOW.]

I think the best way for now is to cancel HS2, and invest in the existing railway for the whole country( except London) and provide better and longer trains up and around Manchester, Newcastle over towards Liverpool. Although I live down south in Gloucester, we do not see much either, our infrastructure is crumbling, with an over 50 year old signalling system. The signals date from the sixties and still have bulbs in.

 

[PR1Berske]

It certainly appears that the mood music against HS2 is building. See this update from Birmingham where alternative plans are being signed in case the project doesn't get built.

Plans for a hotel and office scheme, which would also feature student and residential flats, in Birmingham have been revealed. The scheme would be built on the site earmarked for the HS2 Curzon Street Station if the project doesn't go ahead.

Quintain City Park Gate Birmingham Ltd has submitted the proposals to the city council for land at Moor Street, Albert Street and Park Street.

They include a 180-bedroom hotel with 224,000 sq ft of space, 459 student flats across 574,000 sq ft, 705 residential apartments with 930,000 sq ft, 365,000 sq ft of office space and a 1,808 sq ft pub.

The applicant has submitted a 'Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development' to the council for consideration, adding that the proposals have been developed on the basis that HS2 is not going ahead.

Source: https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/midlands/alternative-plans-revealed-for-hs2-station-site

 

[Ianno87]

From what I saw on that programme the other day, the north needs more investment, having loads of people trying to ram into an already full class 142 is nothing short of ridiculous. Also it was noted that some were being left behind on a platform, having to wait for the next one, which was also full up and they are then late for work. I want to say, that this way could be damaging peoples health? Could even be worse than smoking.

The programme also conveniently glossed over the huge influx of new longer trains for Northern and TPE quite literally on the verge of being introduced that will consign 142s (and the conditions shown) to the scrap yard very, very soon.

All of which happening at the same time HS2 is moving towards delivery, proving that we can indeed have both.

 

[The Ham]

I think the best way for now is to cancel HS2, and invest in the existing railway for the whole country( except London) and provide better and longer trains up and around Manchester, Newcastle over towards Liverpool. Although I live down south in Gloucester, we do not see much either, our infrastructure is crumbling, with an over 50 year old signalling system. The signals date from the sixties and still have bulbs in.

Although there's a need for more investment in the existing rail infrastructure, given that for last year for which there are numbers NR spent £4bn on Enhancements (the largest since 2009) and HS2 spent £2bn it would appear (at least for now) that it's HS2 and existing improvements.

Cancel HS2 and can you be sure that the money being spent on it would be used on the existing rail network (or anything else for that matter)?

 

[6Gman]

Yes, I think the money would be better spent, finishing off what has been started, especially by moor street. scrapping phase 2, and spending on the existing routes by getting the line from Maindee north junction to Shrewsbury and the one completed from westerleigh junction to Bromsgrove provided with OHLE This would help to cut c02 emissions even further. It would allow more duel trains to run and the wires could also go from Worcester shrub hill to Didcot. These lines are already there, and are heavily used. What do you think?. I also feel some 4 tracking would increase capacity.

What is the point of electrifying to Shrewsbury?

 

[6Gman]

Because my comment is not really threadworthy in my opinion, I have a speculative question:

Should the new build bits (liverpool-manchester-bradford-leeds) of Northern Powerhouse Rail be included in HS2 phase 2 (phase 2c perhaps?)?

Obviously the £56bn budget will need to be increased but at least that means one less target to inevitably miss. I think this would make hs2 an easier sell to, well, everyone outside the M25.

Transport for North can still carry on their project focussing on the finer details such as upgrades and the small matter of the entire north east

I think part of the problem in the North is that while there's agreement that "something needs to be done" there's no agreement on what that "thing" is !

 

[6Gman]

It certainly appears that the mood music against HS2 is building. See this update from Birmingham where alternative plans are being signed in case the project doesn't get built.



Source: https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/midlands/alternative-plans-revealed-for-hs2-station-site

Not sure what you mean by "being signed".

I must confess that despite a background in planning a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development is a new one for me.

It may be a way of protecting the landowner's interests in the event of compulsory purchase, but that's just speculation.

EDIT: Mr Google confirms my suspicion. In fact it would appear that a CAAD can only be applied for if a site is subject to CPO procedures. Basically it would appear to be a landowner saying "you may be serving me with a compulsory purchase order, but you'll need to offer me more than that because the site would otherwise be developed for a hotel, student residences etc etc which would make it far more valuable than what you're offering."

 

[VT 390]

If HS2 was cancelled now then existing routes such as the WCML and ECML may be upgraded to have more capacity but eventually a new line will be needed and it would be better to build it now so that the capacity is there otherwise in years time when the capacity is needed more than it is now it will be to late and it would still need to be built but would mean many more people would have overcrowded journeys for longer.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure what you mean by "being signed".

I must confess that despite a background in planning a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development is a new one for me.

It may be a way of protecting the landowner's interests in the event of compulsory purchase, but that's just speculation.

EDIT: Mr Google confirms my suspicion. In fact it would appear that a CAAD can only be applied for if a site is subject to CPO procedures. Basically it would appear to be a landowner saying "you may be serving me with a compulsory purchase order, but you'll need to offer me more than that because the site would otherwise be developed for a hotel, student residences etc etc which would make it far more valuable than what you're offering."

So a cheeky bit of speculation by the landowner, sounds like the Euston one that thinks he is entitled to what the value of the land would be if redeveloped.

 

[liam456]

honestly, I sometimes thing that big infrastructure like the national grid or the phone network wouldn't get built in today's political climate.

"Rather than waste money putting up those unsightly electricity pylons, why don't we instead just improve the existing gas infrastructure. People manage just fine with gas lighting, why do they need a duplicated energy source? And anyway, all that's needed is to increase the volume of the existing pipes, that's easy to do! The maintenance work will only take their gas main out for a few months, they can make do with a coal fireplace until then!

And why exactly does everybody need a telephone line to their house? All it will do is encourage even MORE people to communicate, and further afield than they already do by letter! People could keep their conversations local and have a nice chat with the neighbours instead!"

Spot on with this mentality that seems to dog infrastructure projects like these all over the place.

 

[6Gman]

So a cheeky bit of speculation by the landowner, sounds like the Euston one that thinks he is entitled to what the value of the land would be if redeveloped.

Some of the Anti-HS2 people seem to be getting a bit excited over this.

But I suspect it's a lot less significant than they think.

[ Not necessarily "cheeky", just a standard piece of gaming the system. ]

 

[The Ham]

Some of the Anti-HS2 people seem to be getting a bit excited over this.

But I suspect it's a lot less significant than they think.

[ Not necessarily "cheeky", just a standard piece of gaming the system. ]

It's fairly common, it can impact on road schemes too. In the greater scheme of things there's not always a big difference, but you do end up with happier land owners.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That dispatches can only be described as anti-HS2 propaganda. There was no counter argument and they never mentioned how full the WCML is. Also the love child they kept falling back on won't be as useful without HS2 and may even not be built at all if HS2 is cancelled.

 

[R G NOW.]

What a mug!!. I was led to believe it was true, and thought maybe the government were going to scrap it. Also the overcrowding they showed.

 

[6Gman]

What a mug!!. I was led to believe it was true, and thought maybe the government were going to scrap it. Also the overcrowding they showed.

You were led to believe what was true?

 

[R G NOW.]

You were led to believe what was true?

The content of that programme. Then after reading posts on this forum, had to change mind.

EDIT; Added note.

 

[PR1Berske]

A lot of what was said on the documentary (and the BBC version) is true, and both here and other threads on RailUK there are concessions to that.

 

[R G NOW.]

A lot of what was said on the documentary (and the BBC version) is true, and both here and other threads on RailUK there are concessions to that.

No need for me to worry then?

 

[The Ham]

A lot of what was said on the documentary (and the BBC version) is true, and both here and other threads on RailUK there are concessions to that.

As such those opposed to HS2 and want the money spent on the NHS instead are wrong, as that would be less help to those stuck on the overcrowded trains which we saw than building HS2.

It's also worth questioning why is the return on NPR better value than HS2? I would suggest that is because HS2 will have built the big platforms at Manchester, Leeds, etc. All of which are expensive and would have to adfed to the NPR budget if HS2 is ditched. Which would make NPR of less value.

However I'm still awaiting an answer to these questions (anyone can answer them):

I'll ask my questions yet again, as they appear to have been missed in my above post (and the one before that):


Has passenger growth been higher or lower than predicted?



If higher what's the option to facilitate for this growth if not HS2?



Maybe HSUK? Only that uses that week known under used line for getting out of London the MML.


Anyone that's opposed to HS2 who can provide an answer to those questions I'll be willing to hear what they have to say, but if they remain unanswered most other points about HS2 being cancelled are of little interest and are likely to be just repeating the same things which have been said before.


For clarification a viable alternative needs to provide at least a 50% increase in capacity (which is just replacing an 11 coach 390 with a new full length HS2 train).


However that would still fall short of HS2 as a whole, but that's another matter.

 

[PR1Berske]

No need for me to worry then?

To be charitable to HS2.

It hasn't been very well advertised, designed, justified. The reason why "Let's scrap HS2" is gaining traction is because there are many unanswered questions. And yes, as said either here or the other HS2 thread recently, there's no reason why there should be exact details about specific timetables for thirty years hence.

*All that said*, the project comes across still as one championed by politicians and disliked by ordinary people. Until the former can convince the latter we are facing a multi million pound engineering scheme with very little support being built without a purpose.

Documentary television producers are not, incidentally, expected to produce perfectly balanced programmes.

 

[anme]

*All that said*, the project comes across still as one championed by politicians and disliked by ordinary people.

Genuine, not rhetorical question - is there polling or similar to support that assertion?

 

[PR1Berske]

Genuine, not rhetorical question - is there polling or similar to support that assertion?

YouGov has opposition at 52% I think. A poll on the ConservativeHome website has support in the low 20s, though that is a "zombie poll"

 

[The Ham]

To be charitable to HS2.

It hasn't been very well advertised, designed, justified. The reason why "Let's scrap HS2" is gaining traction is because there are many unanswered questions. And yes, as said either here or the other HS2 thread recently, there's no reason why there should be exact details about specific timetables for thirty years hence.

*All that said*, the project comes across still as one championed by politicians and disliked by ordinary people. Until the former can convince the latter we are facing a multi million pound engineering scheme with very little support being built without a purpose.

Documentary television producers are not, incidentally, expected to produce perfectly balanced programmes.

Has passenger growth exceeded the 2.5% per year predicted in the HS2 model? Yes or no?

If yes why should HS2 be cancelled?

Anyone?

 

[PR1Berske]

Has passenger growth exceeded the 2.5% per year predicted in the HS2 model? Yes or no?

If yes why should HS2 be cancelled?

Anyone?

If you're desperate for me to say "yes" so you can quote me, then, I believe it has, yes.

But if you're hanging your support on one set of figures, then you will have to hope to high heaven's that we haven't reached "peak passenger". Especially because passenger flows through the area where HS2 will be built without intermediate stations won't be helped by it.

 

[anme]

If you're desperate for me to say "yes" so you can quote me, then, I believe it has, yes.

But if you're hanging your support on one set of figures, then you will have to hope to high heaven's that we haven't reached "peak passenger". Especially because passenger flows through the area where HS2 will be built without intermediate stations won't be helped by it.

If we are worried that we've reached peak passenger, we have to stop all rail investment for growth now Better stick with those Pacers after all.

 

[anme]

YouGov has opposition at 52% I think. A poll on the ConservativeHome website has support in the low 20s, though that is a "zombie poll"

Do you have a link to the Yougov poll? Google only finds very old polls.
One of the polls suggests that people think the HS2 money should be spent on the NHS. Do you think the public would say that about more or less any public investment?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we are worried that we've reached peak passenger, we have to stop all rail investment for growth now Better stick with those Pacers after all.

Replacing Pacers isn't investment for growth, it's investment for quality and safety.

 

[Clip]

But if you're hanging your support on one set of figures

As you do with old Yougov polls or polls from other sources which Artic Troll posted which had such a small sample adn didnt show the question asked nor where it was asked so cant be rerliable either but yet on and on you go

there are many unanswered questions

Such as? I mean we are still awaiting your 'smart flexible timetabling' to make an appearance but it doesnt - thats an unanswered question and as such HS2 should go ahead

 

[tbtc]

The reason why "Let's scrap HS2" is gaining traction is because there are many unanswered questions

I don't know if it's gaining traction or not (I agree that HS2 is non popular but that's not the same as gaining/falling in popularity).

But I do know that in 2019, the Great British Public seem to be against large long term projects, they aren't happy with "jam tomorrow", they distrust most arms of Government and generally prefer simple short term solutions. Something like HS2 will take a decade or more to build, it has benefits that are currently unquantifiable to most people (partly because some of the twentysomethings who might be using HS2 to commute in the mid 2030s are still at primary school, whilst today's "rich businessmen" so beloved of clichés will have retired by the mid 2030s, so it's hard to see "what's in it for me" when planning so far ahead).

After best part of a decade of austerity, it's hard to "sell" the idea of any big government investment projects because it's easy to counter with emotive responses along the lines of "why are people using foodbanks when there's money to build railway lines".

There's also an anti-intellectual approach in much of UK life nowadays, the way that people sneer at "experts", the way that people prefer "simple common sense" to anything convoluted or "clever". Some might feel that it's much easier to say "why can't they have smarter timetables" than to listen to experts in the industry who will try to explain complications.

But most people aren't against HS2 because of unanswered questions about the number of services stopping at Oxenholme in the 2030s, they are generally against it because of gut feel, because most reactions nowadays are gut based rather than on factual grounds.

Put it another way, the railway would be in a much better position today if we'd delivered all of those projects/ suggestions planned in the early years of the millennium (e.g. the Virgin plan for an ECML-bypass from London to Doncaster) but we didn't do them (partly because we didn't realise how much passenger numbers would rise between then and 2019). If we had done them, it might have taken fifteen years to deliver them, because that's how long some projects take. With 20:20 hindsight, should we have got our shovels in the ground back then? Yes. But we didn't. How do we plan now for the 2030s and 2040s?

If we are worried that we've reached peak passenger, we have to stop all rail investment for growth now Better stick with those Pacers after all.

Agreed - some people on here seem to treat HS2 in a bubble and ignore the awkward fact that, if the reasons they give for not building HS2 *do* happen (falling passenger numbers etc) then that scuppers all rail projects.

If passenger numbers have plateaued then the same arguments apply to all the other investment plans (crayon-based and/or real world).

Replacing Pacers isn't investment for growth, it's investment for quality and safety.

But we are replacing thirty metre Pacers (and twenty three metre 153s) with trains that are at least forty metres long - it's not a "like for like" replacement - we are replacing them with trains that are *bigger* as well as *better*.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But we are replacing thirty metre Pacers (and twenty three metre 153s) with trains that are at least forty metres long - it's not a "like for like" replacement - we are replacing them with trains that are *bigger* as well as *better*.

Longer, but as with buses not adding much seating capacity due to the need (no bad thing) for proper wheelchair access, wheelchair accessible toilets, 2+2 rather than 3+2 seating with more legroom etc. As I said, it's a quality upgrade, not a capacity upgrade. The Northern changes add surprisingly (and inadequately in my view) little capacity.