LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Maybe during the peaks but that would require an extra set that could be otherwise used to increase capacity elsewhere's.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)
- Thread starter ABB125
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I expect the desired service patterns will require revised junctions at the south end of Toton. There are already points in the area on the high speed line, associated with serving the multiple HS platforms there (four in number), and the proposal would see those junctions reconfigured to also create connections onto the conventional network. Such a south end connection could also allow Derby and Nottingham central stations to be served directly by rear portions from London detached from full length HS2 trains at Toton, and reversed to access their respective destinations. That could justify an island of further OHLE in this part of the East Midlands, where track remodelling has been completed recently and signalling renewals made wiring-ready. An OHLE island would also be of use for the bi-modes planned to operate on the MML, to reduce urban emissions, preserve off-wire range and reduce engine hours. Running from Leeds HS to Leicester and Bedford suggests these ought to be MML fast trains running on to St Pancras, and this favours completion of electrification throughout, if diesel bi-modes were not permitted on the new line, although I don't see why diesels on board should really be a problem in this area, as long as the trains were fast and powerful enough to keep up with the flow of London trains, and it will be a surface railway unlike the long London approach tunnels on the main trunk. If the gaps in wiring were small enough such that batteries could be capable of powering through them at normal operational speed, then an on-board storage solution might be appropriate rather than a diesel hybrid, and these shouldn't pose any problem from a safety point of view on the new railway. There might be some scope to tweak line speed downward a bit on this segment to better suit the potential traffic mix at maximum capacity with a number of regional expresses sharing the new infrastructure. The German-style 250kph intermediate speed might be appropriate, and there are quite a number of off the shelf European train designs with this ceiling, as it's a speed threshold in the TSI regime, above which more stringent design requirements and testing apply. Trains with this maximum speed can be lighter and more energy efficient than the ultra high speed designs, although those are also improving in this respect with their latest iterations.
Last edited:
Some sort of south-facing junction at Toton is a key part of the Midlands Connect plan. The rest is electrification (no need for bi-modes - they are explicit on this), and presumably rolling stock.
The Leeds trains aren't about Leeds-London, which is why, I guess, they aren't talking about extending them beyond. Also capacity issues on the southern MML, and keeping the option of sending them via E-W Rail open, would mean that they avoid those questions by keeping it vague south of Bedford.
The Leeds-Leicester service's main functions are as follows:
1) put Leicester on the HS2 map - this seems to be most of their aim
2) provide access from Leicester, Loughborough and EMP to Toton
I doubt they thought about
3) extend Leeds-Sheffield NPR services south so they don't clog up Sheffield station.
The Leeds trains aren't about Leeds-London, which is why, I guess, they aren't talking about extending them beyond. Also capacity issues on the southern MML, and keeping the option of sending them via E-W Rail open, would mean that they avoid those questions by keeping it vague south of Bedford.
The Leeds-Leicester service's main functions are as follows:
1) put Leicester on the HS2 map - this seems to be most of their aim
2) provide access from Leicester, Loughborough and EMP to Toton
I doubt they thought about
3) extend Leeds-Sheffield NPR services south so they don't clog up Sheffield station.
Last edited:
You couldn't make this up:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49757411
Effectively "Let the outrage begin, how can we do this? We should be cancelling HS2 due to this dedication."
However it's funny how Joe was quiet over Freckleton Street Link Road in Blackburn, which also disturbed the final resting places of others:
https://headlandarchaeology.com/excavations-at-st-peters-burial-ground-blackburn/
I could go and find other examples (Crossrail for instance), but HS2 isn't a unique case.
Just because you become aware of something happening due to HS2 it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49757411
Effectively "Let the outrage begin, how can we do this? We should be cancelling HS2 due to this dedication."
However it's funny how Joe was quiet over Freckleton Street Link Road in Blackburn, which also disturbed the final resting places of others:
https://headlandarchaeology.com/excavations-at-st-peters-burial-ground-blackburn/
I could go and find other examples (Crossrail for instance), but HS2 isn't a unique case.
Just because you become aware of something happening due to HS2 it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
This is one of the dumbest statements I heard all week
Geezertronic
Established Member
The guy is just an idiot. Campaign Manager for StopHS2, what they really mean is he's the only active member of StopHS2 which is a failed group that hasn't stopped anything. I look forward to seeing @Snapper blog on this load of tosh
ABB125
Established Member
Broadly, although the Birmingham branch is missing from the picture.
Yes, for the current time. And it's an excellent idea that will only improve with an HSR extension to Glasgow/Edinburgh. The lack of an HS2-HS1 link is unfortunate but the likely traffic Birmingham-Paris is never going to make the numbers add up - and the change at Euston-StP should be relatively painless. What could swing it is remaining in the EU, joining Schengen (thereby removing the cost of transposed border enforcement) and having an HSR and tunnel to Ireland - but this is hardly likely at the moment.
And the spurs to the existing network for through running at Crewe, Wigan, Chesterfield and York.
ABB125
Established Member
Ah yes, I forgot about those.
Aren`t there ideas somewhere to upgrade stretches of the ECML north of York to 140 mph ?
Last edited:
hexagon789
Veteran Member
I think 140mph could only be realistically done on the York-Darlington section North of York and you'd save maybe 3 mins with decent acceleration to that speed.
Yeah, but that's road, so that's different.
You will tend to find that those who use appeals to emotion to oppose rail development rarely have any problems with road development, because they personally use roads but not rail. Normally, if a development infringes on something that may be of archeological or historical significance (which must have happened plenty of times before), is the normal proceedure to move the artifacts/graves/whatever somewhere else, rather than cancelling or rerouting the development?
Yeah, but that's road, so that's different.
Normally, if a development infringes on something that may be of archeological or historical significance (which must have happened plenty of times before), is the normal proceedure to move the artifacts/graves/whatever somewhere else, rather than cancelling or rerouting the development?
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/tunbridge-wells/news/graves-to-be-dug-up-for-development-201567/ has a quote from a council.
For historic sites it seems to be that the archaeologists will get an opportunity to study for a period before it’s handed over to the developers. I suspect if something of significance was discovered they might have to consider rerouting.
PartyOperator
Member
- Joined
- 26 May 2019
- Messages
- 166
Yeah, but that's road, so that's different.
Indeed. How many people are campaigning against plans to spend £450m on a few miles of dual carriageway through the Cotswolds AONB with a BCR of 1.04? Pretty much nobody as far as I can tell. At least one local MP is trying to take the credit for this road and the 'net zero emissions' policy. Amazing stuff.
MotorcycleAlan
Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2012
- Messages
- 309
If you are referring to the 3.5 miles of the missing link in the A417 (M4 to M5 link), this has been proposed since 1998, and consulted upon countless times. It is the only section of single carriageway in 40 miles of dual, and causes massive delays, and hence extra emissions day after day, with the lengthy queues at the two ends of the dual carriageway. In the real world, roads are a vital part of the economy, and whilst we need to reduce use of them and encourage rail as much as possible, failing to complete a vital link in a strategic route like this does nobody any good, and does not help improve the environment either. This was talked about long before HS2, so the idea that roads just get quickly built is totally untrue.
PartyOperator
Member
- Joined
- 26 May 2019
- Messages
- 166
That's the one. It's projected to lead to an extra 850,000 tons of CO2 emissions over 60 years and will take away resources (money, people, concrete etc.) that could be used on projects that would benefit the environment. It's poor value. The 'strategic road network' is only worth extending if your strategy is to increase car traffic. Filling in all the gaps on a UK-wide network of high-capacity roads does seem appealing for all the crayon-loving completists out there but it shows that people still haven't thought through what reducing car use really means.
One of the implications is that if your little bit of the economy depends on driving between Swindon and Gloucester every day, you'll need to change. This will probably accelerate urbanisation and the decline of small towns. Some assets will end up stranded. But that's a choice - we could invest in moving towards densely populated medium sized towns with good internal public transport and connected by good rail links. Most of the pieces are in place, and half a billion pounds would go a long way in an area with about half a million people. Or we could stretch out the car-dependent status quo, and the road spending will either be a colossal waste of money or we will fail to meet our emissions goals.
With HS2 we face a similar choice about how economic growth is concentrated. Do we want to improve transport into and between a few big cities and hence grow GDP in those cities, and not grow as much elsewhere except through links to the big cities? Or do we want to make incremental improvements to roads and keep building low-density housing estates and business parks? Productivity will be lower, emissions will be higher, but maybe that's what people would prefer. I don't know.
MotorcycleAlan
Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2012
- Messages
- 309
Millions of people and thousands of tons of goods will have to move by road for a very long time to come, and if, as many on here seem to think, that rail is the solution to transport needs, they are going to be disappointed.
Although slightly OT, why not duplicate the road and make it electric vehicles only?
ABB125
Established Member
It's worth noting that free-flowing traffic is better for the environment than stop start traffic. Especially if that stop start is up a steep hill (which it is in the case of the A417 at the Air Balloon Roundabout).
However, we do seem to have wandered off topic slightly.
PartyOperator
Member
- Joined
- 26 May 2019
- Messages
- 166
Sure, but when it comes to building new infrastructure you need to have some priorities about how you'd like people and goods to be moved. It's not feasible to rip up all the roads and move all transport onto rail/bus/bicycle instantly. It is feasible to stop building new roads and recognise that this will shape the direction of future growth. Building HS2 won't mean we can block up the M40 but it's preferable (in my opinion) to widening the road or accepting lower economic growth.
Yes assuming the total flow doesn't change, but this kind of road improvement leads to an increase in the total traffic volume - that's the point of doing it. The overall effect of the A417 scheme on air quality will be adverse (assessed NPV of about minus £1m), with a similar magnitude of benefit to noise (thanks to the new alignment rather than traffic speed) and a large increase in greenhouse emissions.
I think both are required, investment in public transport and addressing bottlenecks on busy major roads. There are several places on the road network where the junctions between primary routes are not up to the job, or even dangerous, and upgrading those junctions to improve traffic flow is a reasonable investment.
https://www.roads.org.uk/badjunctions
ABB125
Established Member
That's true, but in this case how much of the extra traffic will be vehicles that currently go via Bristol in order to stay on the motorway? If these vehicles were to go on the newly upgraded A417, their overall distance travelled would be less, which is better for the environment.
PartyOperator
Member
- Joined
- 26 May 2019
- Messages
- 166
I'm going by the Highways England modelling work which included the M4, M5, M42 etc. and concluded that there would be an increase in distance travelled and total emissions.
https://highwaysengland.citizenspac...417_missing_link_scheme_assessment_report.pdf
As a driver, I'd love some of these junctions to be improved. I've probably wasted days of my life sitting on the M6 in Birmingham, and trying to get between the A38 and M5 at Almondsbury still terrifies me every time I have to do it. I'd rather walk to London than deal with the M25. I was in a taxi in Manchester when a sinkhole opened up on the Mancunian Way. Thanks to all these bad roads, I usually take the train when I'm going into one of these cities. So, much as I'd personally have an easier life if the roads weren't bad, overall it's probably best that they stay bad and we focus on improving other transport infrastructure.
On the basis that traffic will always increase to the capacity of the road system, the pinch points are always going to be at junctions and any junction is a bad junction if it's overloaded, eliminating bad junctions is probably a impossible anyway. I'd rather see changes to improve safety even if it reduces capacity, ideally matched by improvements elsewhere. The number of people trying to get into London, Birmingham and Manchester is so vast that I'm not convinced any road-based solution could make the roads less unpleasant. HS2 probably can (there's my on-topic thought for this roadpost).
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I think that's exactly the point. The road space taken up by one single car is huge: It's large enough to make it pretty much impossible to build enough road capacity to meet all the demand that would exist if that demand wasn't beingi cut off by congestion at pinch points. In other words, those pinch points, such as the one one on the A417 are, to a large extent, what is limiting the amount of traffic on the roads. If you build a dual carriage way at that so-called missing link, sure, you'll eliminate the congestion there. But the extra cars you induce onto the roads will just replace that with congestion and jams at whatever the next pinch point it.
That's the fundamental reason why we need to invest in rail and public transport (and walking/cycling) instead of road-building. Even without thinking about pollution etc., the key point is that the road (or rail) space taken up by one person travelling on a train or bus is massively less then the road space taken up by that person in a car - meaning that, if public transport is the main way that people travel, it becomes very easy in principle in most of the country (albeit, expensive) to provide enough infrastructure to satisfy demand for all the journeys people want to make.
I'm not deathly opposed to HS2 but there's a chronic lack of carriages on trains throughout the country that aren't going to or from London. If your train isn't going to London, or leaving London, then you're hoarded in like cattle. Local journeys are a nightmare, Cross Country is a nightmare, east-west is a nightmare.
Another one of the problems of the railway is the amount of people going to London who don't need to be there. I can get a straight train from Liverpool-Norwich, but it tends to be quicker to go from Liverpool to London and London to Norwich than sit on a train for 5 and a half hours. Norwich is actually north of Birmingham! Yet it's quicker to go via London from the north west. THere's so many journeys where this an issue. In the south as well, you want to get from a to b via railway (say Essex to Kent) you've got to trek to London first.
If you throw HS2 into the mix then it exacerbates this. More people travelling to London who don't need to be there because it's quicker to go via London. Yet it's a vicious circle becuase the more people going to London means London needs extra capacity. Mass centralisaton around London (and other major cities) is another major problem which HS2 only increases.
TOC's like Cross Country, TPEX, LNR and Northern have a chronic lack of carriages on services. The east-west connections, services, capacity, carriages, speed are pitiful. Yet a faster line to London is apparently the answer to all the problems on the network and for 10s and 10s of billions more than it was supposed to cost.
Another one of the problems of the railway is the amount of people going to London who don't need to be there. I can get a straight train from Liverpool-Norwich, but it tends to be quicker to go from Liverpool to London and London to Norwich than sit on a train for 5 and a half hours. Norwich is actually north of Birmingham! Yet it's quicker to go via London from the north west. THere's so many journeys where this an issue. In the south as well, you want to get from a to b via railway (say Essex to Kent) you've got to trek to London first.
If you throw HS2 into the mix then it exacerbates this. More people travelling to London who don't need to be there because it's quicker to go via London. Yet it's a vicious circle becuase the more people going to London means London needs extra capacity. Mass centralisaton around London (and other major cities) is another major problem which HS2 only increases.
TOC's like Cross Country, TPEX, LNR and Northern have a chronic lack of carriages on services. The east-west connections, services, capacity, carriages, speed are pitiful. Yet a faster line to London is apparently the answer to all the problems on the network and for 10s and 10s of billions more than it was supposed to cost.
I agree absolutely, that's why schemes to convert motorways on the cheap to 'smart motorways' is so,pointless. Stretches of the M1, once three lanes full of traffic plus a clear safety hard shoulder are now four lanes full of traffic with nowhere for vehicles or the emergency services to go in the event of breakdowns or worse. How many road users altered their behaviour because the extra lane was opened? That was a pointless action now the traffic is 33% more and less safe.
More roads breed more (private) traffic.
More people means more traffic as well. There's 12 million or so more people in the UK than 25 years ago and more and more people are in and around London and major cities. A lot of town and city populations have flatlined whereas the likes of London are ridiculously overpopulated and the infrastucture can't cope with it.
ohgoditsjames
Member
I’m not against HS2, actually I’m very pro HS2 however what I am against is the watered down version that Sheffield will get, along with Derby and Nottingham.
If rumours are true it’s very probable that the spur will be cancelled. The contempt for our city is disgraceful. You’d almost forget that we are one of the countries largest cities and the most central.
Anyway, assuming HS2 will disappoint Sheffield ("show contempt"), then don't worry because we still have the following to look forward to:
MML electrification ...oh, no, wait...
30 min Sheff-Mcr trains at 6tph through NPR ...oh, no, wait...
30 min Sheff-MAN airport trains at 2tph ...oh, no, wait...
A Trans-Pennine road base tunnel ...oh, no, wait...
Supertram Asset Renewal in 2024 ...oh, no, wait...
The possibility of an SCR-wide Mass Transit System ...oh, no, wait...(that's predicated on the tram renewal).
If rumours are true it’s very probable that the spur will be cancelled. The contempt for our city is disgraceful. You’d almost forget that we are one of the countries largest cities and the most central.
Anyway, assuming HS2 will disappoint Sheffield ("show contempt"), then don't worry because we still have the following to look forward to:
MML electrification ...oh, no, wait...
30 min Sheff-Mcr trains at 6tph through NPR ...oh, no, wait...
30 min Sheff-MAN airport trains at 2tph ...oh, no, wait...
A Trans-Pennine road base tunnel ...oh, no, wait...
Supertram Asset Renewal in 2024 ...oh, no, wait...
The possibility of an SCR-wide Mass Transit System ...oh, no, wait...(that's predicated on the tram renewal).
- Status