Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[Mogz]

I must confess that I haven’t read all of the 128 page thread, however I would observe the following:

Until Brackley the alignment of HS2 follows the old Great Central Main Line for most of its route.

This route had, when it was the GCML, many stations.

HS2 will have none between London and Birmingham.

Many of the communities that will be affected by the construction of HS2 will not benefit from the line at all.

A re-think which could:

a) Meet with much approval by those whose communities the line will pass through.

b) Benefit the environment by taking many more cars off the road,

c) Benefit other lines (principle the WCML) by increasing capacity on the network as a whole, and

d) Cut the cost of the project significantly.

could be achieved by:

1. Building the line, but as a conventional main line railway.

2. Providing stations along the route to communities that lost their station when the GCML was closed.

3. Providing Parkway stations at strategic points close to major roads.

and perhaps

4. Realigning the route north of Brackley so that the line follows the GCML as far as Rugby before diverging on new route towards Birmingham.

Please feel free to chime in with reasons the above can’t be done.

 

[Ianno87]

I must confess that I haven’t read all of the 128 page thread, however I would observe the following:

Until Brackley the alignment of HS2 follows the old Great Central Main Line for most of its route.

This route had, when it was the GCML, many stations.

HS2 will have none between London and Birmingham.

Many of the communities that will be affected by the construction of HS2 will not benefit from the line at all.

A re-think which could:

a) Meet with much approval by those whose communities the line will pass through.

b) Benefit the environment by taking many more cars off the road,

c) Benefit other lines (principle the WCML) by increasing capacity on the network as a whole, and

d) Cut the cost of the project significantly.

could be achieved by:

1. Building the line, but as a conventional main line railway.

2. Providing stations along the route to communities that lost their station when the GCML was closed.

3. Providing Parkway stations at strategic points close to major roads.

and perhaps

4. Realigning the route north of Brackley so that the line follows the GCML as far as Rugby before diverging on new route towards Birmingham.

Please feel free to chime in with reasons the above can’t be done.

1. Saves a little bit of money yes, but more significantly diminished the benefits, requires more rolling stock, bigger depots, etc.. and less of a modal shift from Air for London-Scotland (for example) through Longer journey times.

2. Loses capacity overall. Intermediate stations = Fewer trains can run.

3. Other than Birmingham Interchange, East Midlands Hub and Manchester Airport?

4. Why? Just makes it longer and thus more expensive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

2. Providing stations along the route to communities that lost their station when the GCML was closed.

To add to @Ianno87's reply, what communities? The line passes almost entirely through open countryside between London and Birmingham. There are few communities near the line that are big enough to justify building a new station for, even if it was for local commuter services, and none that I can think of that are big enough to justify stopping fast London-Manchester and London-Scotland etc. trains at.

(The open countryside is of course deliberate: Aside from it being cheaper to build there, the whole point of the line is to remove the very fastest trains off the WCML (and later the ECML). That is to say, the trains that you don't really want to have stopping between London and Birmingham because they are there for long-distance passengers. So obviously, the sensible thing is to route those trains away from the intermediate towns that they wouldn't be stopping at anyway!)

 

[squizzler]

If we increase rail use by 50% (from 8% of miles traveled to 12%) but that reduces car travel by 1/10th (from 78% to 70%) we'll be better off. As not only will we have reduced total milage by 4%, but another 4% will be by a mode which (even if powered by the same fuel source) is more environmentally friendly.

We need to double or even triple the proportion of journeys made by rail as part of a giant shift to low carbon travel. No way that can be achieved on the network we got.

That's why, as a country, we would be spending our time more productively in discussing the rollout of new regional and light rail to follow on from the HSR programme rather than wasting time with endless 'reviews' of the lines we are already committed to.

 

[The Ham]

What about the extra mileage between home and the public transport "hub"? People need to get themselves to the railway station in the first place, so there could be a lot of "unforeseen" taxi journeys, lifts from friends, etc., especially in places where bus services are poor or where they don't run early morning/late night or skeleton weekend services. Same at the other end of course. Lots of people live many miles from a train station and likewise their ultimate destination is many miles from a station. Not everyone lives in a city and wants to travel to another city centre.

You need a properly integrated public transport service to run alongside better railway network.

Also it needs to be a proper 24/7 operation. It's stupidity in the extreme that people in the more distant corners of the North West can't get by train to Manchester Airport for the early morning flights, or can't get home again if their return flight lands late at night. You really can't have a public transport system that only works fully during the day time 5 or 6 days per week. Similarly the first South bound London train on a Sunday is 11am from preston. Then people wonder why cars are still the "mode of choice" for most journeys.

Something like 85% of people live in an urban setting (town of >10,000), there's not many towns which are over this size which don't have a train station. However there's also places which are smaller than this which do, so it probably balances out.

Quite a lot of that population would be within 3 miles of a train station, so there's a lot of people who would be able to walk or cycle to the train station.

However people often use trains for longer trips, so even if someone drives a friend 10 miles (5 there and 5 back) at each end of the journey but their trip is a total of 100 miles (shortest for to door travel) then they've reduced their travel by road travel by 60 miles.

Even if rail means that the travel distance is 20 miles longer than by car, then the overall result (even assuming that car travel = rail travel in terms of emissions, which is not even looking at diesel Vs diesel) is an overall benefit.

 

[The Ham]

We need to double or even triple the proportion of journeys made by rail as part of a giant shift to low carbon travel. No way that can be achieved on the network we got.

That's why, as a country, we would be spending our time more productively in discussing the rollout of new regional and light rail to follow on from the HSR programme rather than wasting time with endless 'reviews' of the lines we are already committed to.

Which is why the latest unofficial review (which suggests an alternative to HS2) is flawed as it suggests that rather than £43 billion of spending on regional city public transport that we should spend only £22.5 billion.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We need to double or even triple the proportion of journeys made by rail as part of a giant shift to low carbon travel. No way that can be achieved on the network we got.

This post made me curious about how much HS2 might increase rail passenger traffic by, so I did a quick estimate, based on phases 1 and 2 being built in their entirety - which I invite people to check and see if they agree with the figures.

New line: say 100 miles London to Birmingham, with an additional 100 miles north of Birmingham on each of the 2 branches. And 18tph London-Birmingham. Not sure of the likely frequencies North of that, but let's say 9tph on each branch to make the calculations easy: So that's the equivalent of 18tph on about 200 miles of track. And let's say the trains run for 14 hours a day (in practice it'll be a bit more, but with lower frequencies at the beginning and end of the day). And I believe 1100 seats per train - call it 1000 to keep the calculation simple.

So total daily passenger miles = 2 directions x 18 x 14 x 1000 x 200miles. That comes to an astonishing 100 million passenger miles/day.
To get per year - I'll multiply by 300 (not 365 as not sure if there'll be fewer trains on Sundays). We get 30 billion passenger miles/year.

Now obviously I've been a bit generous in some assumptions. Trains won't generally run completely full. Some classic-compatible trains will be shorter. Maybe frequencies will be lower. And there may be some offsetting reduction in passengers on the parallel WCML. So let's divide by 3, and say 10 billion passenger miles/year.

A quick check on rail passenger miles statistics shows rail currently carries about 10 billion passenger-miles/quarter or 40 billion miles/year. That suggests that, on my very crude estimates, HS2 could just by itself add up to 25% to total UK passenger miles. Pretty astonishing for one new railway line!

I'm not sure if there's anything wrong in my calculations or whether I've been too generous with the assumptions by more than a factor of 3, but, even so, that makes me think that HS2 would by itself cause a noticeable increase in the % passenger miles rail carries in the UK.

 

[Bald Rick]

Please feel free to chime in with reasons the above can’t be done.

Because hundreds (now thousands) of people have spent a decade and £8bn considering hundreds of route and alternative options, planning, consulting, and designing the chosen line to a fine level of detail, plus bought all the land necessary, such that it is ready to build. What you suggest resets the clock to 2009. The time for discussion about where HS2 goes has long passed.

 

[The Ham]

Because hundreds (now thousands) of people have spent a decade and £8bn considering hundreds of route and alternative options, planning, consulting, and designing the chosen line to a fine level of detail, plus bought all the land necessary, such that it is ready to build. What you suggest resets the clock to 2009. The time for discussion about where HS2 goes has long passed.

You could almost guarantee that there would be someone who sold a property for HS2 who works then have to sell a second property when the alternative was being built.

 

[Grumpy Git]

We are hopeless at building new infrastructure period. You only need look at airport capacity in the SE to see that.

I'm also not sure how you can make the argument to get people off SE to Scotland flights when current build dates for the parts above Leeds are beyond when a lot on here will be alive, including myself.

 

[squizzler]

Thank you @DynamicSpirit for the calculation. I argue you might have forgotten something in your calculations: freight. We ought to see a lot more of it taking advantage of the paths liberated from the legacy network.

The scale of modal shift needs to be ambitious. Double the proportion of travel aboard trains and we become like the Swiss. Triple it and we are where the Japanese are. Who reckons they can get to that point with only the legacy network at their disposal?

Looking at the growth in motoring that occurred between the 1950s and 1990s, who really thinks this could have been achieved without the motorways and other new highways? Would small enhancements to the legacy highway system such as some white paint, a few traffic lights and maybe the odd roundabout have done the trick? Now we wish to rebalance things back away from motoring we really have to get equally serious with the railways. And bikes. And busses.

Now as for the cost. Whilst the cost might be staggering in ordinary terms, I checked over at Wikipedia and found that the higher estimates of the cost of HS2 is in the ballpark of what any one of either Geoff Bezos Bill Gates, Bernard Arnult or are reckoned to be worth ($113.0 billion, $113.0 billion, $106.6 billion, since you ask). Just think about that for a moment: you too might have that amount of cash one day if you think of some cunning wheeze and have an extraordinary number of lucky breaks along the way. Perhaps an amount deemed by society as perfectly acceptable for one person to spend on their own fancies is is also acceptable for a nation to be able to spend on the betterment of its citizens?

 

[Ianno87]

We are hopeless at building new infrastructure period. You only need look at airport capacity in the SE to see that.

I'm also not sure how you can make the argument to get people off SE to Scotland flights when current build dates for the parts above Leeds are beyond when a lot on here will be alive, including myself.

Even the journey time savings from just Phase 1 will start to tip the balance away from air.

 

[gavin1985]

As a resident of Edinburgh I am in favor of HS2, however what needs to happen is HS rail to continue all the way to Scotland. Yes if the current phases and NPR are completed then there is going to be huge reduction times travelling to Birmingham or London, for full benefit of reduced times Scotland should have HS rail as well, of which I believe is already being considered to Newcastle to make a journey of 45 minutes.
https://www.transport.gov.scot/projects/high-speed-rail/high-speed-rail/#42615

High speed trains running on the new line could also be capable of a sub 45 minute journey time between Edinburgh and Newcastle and a journey time of approximately 3 hours to London in combination with the new HS2 lines running between London, Manchester and Leeds.

What we need to realize is that London is often used as the connection airport for many international flights. So unless there is ticket options upon booking long haul flights that only include rail, then the domestic Scotland to London flights will continue.

My work has me traveling from time to time, I often do try to think of getting the train to be more green. Unless the flight is delayed flying is usually the much better option. Funnily enough though 1st class rail to London even to Portsmouth is within our policy, whereas most flights any class is without policy this is despite rail tickets costing 2 or 3 times more than flights. The journey times is just normally better with flights, whereas if there was HS rail then it would be extremely hard to justify flying over rail.
If HS rail was implemented, the overall flight times would roughly be the same as 3 hour train journeys, this is because of the time for getting through security etc, which at best can be a nightmare.

For leisure, it is almost impossible to justify paying rail tickets, I don't travel enough via train to warrant a railcard, but current prices pretty much make you want to either fly or drive.

 

[The Ham]

This post made me curious about how much HS2 might increase rail passenger traffic by, so I did a quick estimate, based on phases 1 and 2 being built in their entirety - which I invite people to check and see if they agree with the figures.

New line: say 100 miles London to Birmingham, with an additional 100 miles north of Birmingham on each of the 2 branches. And 18tph London-Birmingham. Not sure of the likely frequencies North of that, but let's say 9tph on each branch to make the calculations easy: So that's the equivalent of 18tph on about 200 miles of track. And let's say the trains run for 14 hours a day (in practice it'll be a bit more, but with lower frequencies at the beginning and end of the day). And I believe 1100 seats per train - call it 1000 to keep the calculation simple.

So total daily passenger miles = 2 directions x 18 x 14 x 1000 x 200miles. That comes to an astonishing 100 million passenger miles/day.
To get per year - I'll multiply by 300 (not 365 as not sure if there'll be fewer trains on Sundays). We get 30 billion passenger miles/year.

Now obviously I've been a bit generous in some assumptions. Trains won't generally run completely full. Some classic-compatible trains will be shorter. Maybe frequencies will be lower. And there may be some offsetting reduction in passengers on the parallel WCML. So let's divide by 3, and say 10 billion passenger miles/year.

A quick check on rail passenger miles statistics shows rail currently carries about 10 billion passenger-miles/quarter or 40 billion miles/year. That suggests that, on my very crude estimates, HS2 could just by itself add up to 25% to total UK passenger miles. Pretty astonishing for one new railway line!

I'm not sure if there's anything wrong in my calculations or whether I've been too generous with the assumptions by more than a factor of 3, but, even so, that makes me think that HS2 would by itself cause a noticeable increase in the % passenger miles rail carries in the UK.

Given that trains are typically 30%-40% full then dividing by 3 (33%/ is probably about right.

The thing where there's the potential for the maths going wrong is that you've not allowed for the existing intercity passengers, however it is probably fairly reasonable to assume that these would be replaced by new local passengers, and what they wouldn't be traveling as far they could be traveling in greater numbers.

As such it's probably fairly reasonable to assume a figure of 15% to 20% extra rail travel.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm also not sure how you can make the argument to get people off SE to Scotland flights when current build dates for the parts above Leeds are beyond when a lot on here will be alive, including myself.

The reduction in journey time and doubling of frequency to Glasgow on the WCML pretty much doubled the number of people using the train for SE to Scotland journeys. Phase 1 and 2a together will double frequency again and knock half an hour off. That will shift a fair few more.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Given that trains are typically 30%-40% full then dividing by 3 (33%/ is probably about right.

The thing where there's the potential for the maths going wrong is that you've not allowed for the existing intercity passengers, however it is probably fairly reasonable to assume that these would be replaced by new local passengers, and what they wouldn't be traveling as far they could be traveling in greater numbers.

As such it's probably fairly reasonable to assume a figure of 15% to 20% extra rail travel.

Yes I agree with that.

FWIW I thought about the possible offset of passengers on the parallel southern WCML (and ECML) but I figured that, since the plan is to use the paths freed by HS2 to provide more stopping services, these lines are going to see only small reduction (if any) in the numbers of trains running along them. Add to that that maybe the new commuter-ish trains on them won't be as full as the current long distance ones, and there is definitely some offset, but it's going to be pretty small compared to total passengers on HS2 trains, and therefore - since I'm only doing a ballpark estimation anyway - not worth worrying about. Further, I'm only counting new passenger-miles on the actual new HS2 track, but a lot of HS2 trains will continue their journeys on the conventional lines North of Manchester/Leeds - and they will almost certainly be carrying more passengers than are currently conveyed - because of people taking advantage of the faster overall journey times. That's an increase in passenger numbers on the conventional lines, which I also haven't counted. (And I haven't counted passenger miles from new passengers who travel on other trains to connect with HS2, for example at OOC).

Putting that all together, even if you discount my calculated crude 25% increase by another 20% (to make your 20%) or even by 40% (to make a 15% increase), you're still talking about a step-change in total UK passenger miles.

Which of course raises the question for HS2-opponents: Are you sure you want to oppose a new line that has the plausible potential to single-handedly increase the total passenger-miles that the UK rail network carries, maybe by 25%? In favour of upgrades to existing lines whose potential to increase capacity is basically peanuts by comparison?

 

[Grumpy Git]

.......... so why is it cosing soooooo much dosh?

Is there any evidence projects like this in the UK are generally more expensive than in comparable European countries?

 

[JamesT]

.......... so why is it cosing soooooo much dosh?

Is there any evidence projects like this in the UK are generally more expensive than in comparable European countries?

There have been various studies such as https://www.starconference.org.uk/star/2017/Rye.pdf showing our costs of building infrastructure are higher than elsewhere for a variety of reasons.
With HS2 I get the impression a significant factor is the cost of buying the land, especially in the South East with our overheated property market.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Ultimately, the issue with HS2 is not whether it is needed (the WCML South of Rugby is already ridiculously full) or whether it would be used (clearly it would be), but whether HS2 Ltd has a credible cost and time estimate for building it. I read a significant element of the recent report as arguing that neither of these are yet in place. Until they are, and HMG is clear that it is affordable, the project should be put on ice (although even that has a significant cost...)

 

[class26]

.......... so why is it cosing soooooo much dosh?

Is there any evidence projects like this in the UK are generally more expensive than in comparable European countries?

Because in countries such as France and Spain there are large swathes of open countryside which is cheap to build on whereas in the southern half of England it is densely populated and built on. How much of the French or Spanish network is built in tunnels for example ?

 

[squizzler]

.......... so why is it cosing soooooo much dosh?

The numbers being banded about are impossible to comprehend unless you can make meaningful comparisons. That's why I am very chuffed to have spotted that the price range attached to the project almost exactly matches the fortunes amassed by the world's richest individuals. The worst speculation (80bn or something, the press seem to change it every week) might just be enough to clean out Bernard Arnault or Bill Gates but probably not Geoff Bezos.

Until Oakervee reports otherwise, I understand the official price for the entire 'Y' shaped network is remains £56 bn. That's only a Zuckerberg.

Is there any evidence projects like this in the UK are generally more expensive than in comparable European countries?

Yes, 25% more than international average for land acquisition reasons given above.

Which of course raises the question for HS2-opponents: Are you sure you want to oppose a new line that has the plausible potential to single-handedly increase the total passenger-miles that the UK rail network carries, maybe by 25%? In favour of upgrades to existing lines whose potential to increase capacity is basically peanuts by comparison?

We know how much Network Rail is spending on track upgrades per year (there has been a graph somewhere in this thread) and we know how much rail travel increases per year. Mathematicians amongst us should therefore be able to hazard a guess as to how many new passengers you get per pound by spending on the legacy network viv-a-vis how many each pound in HS2 gets you.

 

[PartyOperator]

Yeah - it’s not so much the cost of the land (the most expensive bits have already been purchased), but the cost of building in a way that reduces the visual/noise/environmental impact while meeting the design specification. Compare to high-speed lines in China where the railways tend to be at a higher elevation, with much more on viaducts above the countryside. The geotechnical engineering challenges (the most uncertain and variable bits) are then reduced to building foundations for the viaduct, with a standardised process of construction on top. The footprint is much smaller, cuttings are shorter and shallower, drainage is much simpler (a huge amount of land for HS2 will be used for flood prevention), there’s much less need for custom-designed bridges and underpasses etc. (the railway just goes over everything), and much less tunnelling. The disadvantage is that many more people can see and hear the railway.

 

[D365]

The disadvantage is that many more people can see and hear the railway.

Certainly not high on China’s list of priorities

 

[al78]

The numbers being banded about are impossible to comprehend unless you can make meaningful comparisons. That's why I am very chuffed to have spotted that the price range attached to the project almost exactly matches the fortunes amassed by the world's richest individuals. The worst speculation (80bn or something, the press seem to change it every week) might just be enough to clean out Bernard Arnault or Bill Gates but probably not Geoff Bezos.

I fail to see why that is a meaningful comparison at all. All you are doing is comparing a huge number to another huge number. I could just as easily try and trivialise major terrorist attacks by saying British motorists killed as many people as the World Trade Centre attacks within the following year, and for every year after that. Or maybe I could make the UK road death toll look insignificant by saying it is a small fraction of those killed by heart disease, so we should plough money into the NHS and health education, not traffic police.

 

[si404]

Certainly not high on China’s list of priorities

Hiding stuff isn't. Showing it off is.

Elevated High Speed Rail shouts "hey look at what wonders we're giving you!".

 

[squizzler]

I fail to see why that is a meaningful comparison at all. All you are doing is comparing a huge number to another huge number. I could just as easily try and trivialise major terrorist attacks by saying British motorists killed as many people as the World Trade Centre attacks within the following year, and for every year after that. Or maybe I could make the UK road death toll look insignificant by saying it is a small fraction of those killed by heart disease, so we should plough money into the NHS and health education, not traffic police.

Unfortunately for your argument, your 'meaningless' factoids support a consistent logic. Reduce motoring in the UK and the highway deaths will decrease. So too will heart disease deaths because people will be get more exercise through walking and cycling. Death through (islamic) terrorism will also decline because our country will be less entangled in the middle east for energy supplies.

Pointing out that HS2 could be built by any one of the world's five richest men as a personal train set not only 'grounds' an astronomical number but is also a pretty sobering comment on how much money one person is allowed to accrue. Is is the world's sixth largest economy unable to afford what any one of the five richest men can?

 

[Purple Orange]

Ultimately, the issue with HS2 is not whether it is needed (the WCML South of Rugby is already ridiculously full) or whether it would be used (clearly it would be), but whether HS2 Ltd has a credible cost and time estimate for building it. I read a significant element of the recent report as arguing that neither of these are yet in place. Until they are, and HMG is clear that it is affordable, the project should be put on ice (although even that has a significant cost...)

I disagree. The focus on the absolute cash value of the scheme is the wrong approach to take when looking at infrastructure projects that will last well beyond the 22nd century.

As a country we spend £83bn per annum on capital investment. Let's say HS2 is delivered by 2035, therefore as a project it is accounting for 6% of capital spend. It will be running well in to the 23rd century and longer if the railways the victorians are anything to go by. It is an asset for the future and can certainly help shift cars and lorries off the roads and fewer planes in the air.

 

[ExRes]

Pointing out that HS2 could be built by any one of the world's five richest men as a personal train set not only 'grounds' an astronomical number but is also a pretty sobering comment on how much money one person is allowed to accrue. Is is the world's sixth largest economy unable to afford what any one of the five richest men can?

What a strange comparison, I rather think that our Government has a few more pressing commitments than any of the five richest men in the world and those commitments are why many people are against the ever increasing costs of both HS2 and Crossrail

 

[MarkyT]

... ever increasing costs of both HS2 and Crossrail

I think the increased cost ceiling of Crossrail is pretty well known now. The elastic timescale is no doubt at least partly down to attempts to limit that cost, as the massive web of dependencies on such a complex project are negotiated with myriad suppliers. That's what happens when projects fall off critical paths and contractor 1 can't get on with task C until contractor 2 has finished task B which relies on substantial completion of task A etc, etc, and they all have expensive professional resources sitting on their butts that they want to move on to other profitable projects but can't. It all ends up in a Tsunami of claims and counterclaims. The last 10% of a project spend is always the most complex and hair raising as that's when all the very complex systems like platform edge doors and signalling are finally integrated and commissioned.

 

[TrafficEng]

Unfortunately for your argument, your 'meaningless' factoids support a consistent logic. Reduce motoring in the UK and the highway deaths will decrease. So too will heart disease deaths because people will be get more exercise through walking and cycling.

I was unaware HS2 was building a station in the town immediately to the east of where I live and another in the town immediately to the west, with the effect of removing almost all motorised transport (including vans and lorries) using the connecting road and thus making it attractive for me to cycle along. I have just changed my position from being 'HS2-neutral' into 'HS2-super fan'.

The problem with maths like DynamicSpirit's (aside from the validity of the assumptions) is that the end result - a 25% increase in rail passenger miles - does not automatically equate into a corresponding decrease in person-miles using other modes (e.g. the ones unwanted by transport planners).

In a worst case scenario we end up with 100+x% total person-miles of travel which increases the total energy consumption of travel (with some proportional impact on emissions) and delivers absolutely no net decrease in road-based vehicle mileage. Therefore the benefits you've assumed simply don't happen.

To achieve mode shift - rather than just an increase in total travel - there would need to be some corresponding disincentive to using motorised road-based transport. Since HS2 is a 'corridor' solution the benefits will largely be confined to that corridor, rather than achieving a wider mass mode-shift. In policy terms it then becomes hard to apply disincentive policies against road-based transport because the corridor(s) of benefit don't necessarily align with road use. It might be more feasible to disincentivise air travel for example by either legally restricting the number of flights, or by applying additional taxes to routes such as London-Edinburgh.

One of HS2's PR problems is it suffers from some credibility gaps in the claimed benefits. This isn't helped when people try and add claims of additional benefits on top which the public in general either don't want, or don't believe.

Death through (islamic) terrorism will also decline because our country will be less entangled in the middle east for energy supplies.

Bother. Here I was thinking the electric car I was going to buy next time I need a replacement was going to achieve exactly the same thing.