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

[TrafficEng]

Can someone explain concisely what any of this air discussion has to do with HS2.

Part of the justification for HS2 is its ability to draw people off domestic airlines and therefore contribute to a CO2 reduction. For that reason it seems in order to discuss whether that assumption is valid, and the extent to which it influences people's support/opposition to HS2.

Less concisely: If you don't need to attract people who would otherwise fly then the high speed issue becomes less important. The capacity constraint (passenger and freight) could be dealt with by building a conventional railway at lower cost and reduced environmental impact (possibly).

 

[EastisECML]

I'm not opposed to HS2, but could it not be argued that the current strength of the aviation industry, particularly the domestic market - is very vulnerable to change? The environmental costs is going to have to be addressed at some point whether willingly or because we can no longer ignore it. Flying from point A to point B in the same country is going to be seen more and more as a luxury that causes too much damage. So is it right for rail to try and compete at a level that the airline industry itself might not be able to maintain?

For me the best argument has always been that building a new line is far simpler than trying to upgrade existing track. I don't think competing with aviation is probably all that realistic given HS tracks might not even reach Scotland.

 

[jfowkes]

I'm not opposed to HS2, but could it not be argued that the current strength of the aviation industry, particularly the domestic market - is very vulnerable to change? The environmental costs is going to have to be addressed at some point whether willingly or because we can no longer ignore it. Flying from point A to point B in the same country is going to be seen more and more as a luxury that causes too much damage. So is it right for rail to try and compete at a level that the airline industry itself might not be able to maintain?

Yes, anything that increases the relative merits of high speed rail compared to air travel is a good thing. Some people will choose not to travel over flying, but a lot will not. Even if there is not enough demand to run a flight, they might decide to drive. Or take the train, but hate it because it's slow. Whereas a competitive high-speed rail option is an easy switch from flying.

 

[underbank]

Whereas a competitive high-speed rail option is an easy switch from flying.

Only if it's reliable. Can't see many people caught up in the OHLE fiascos continuing to go by train if there are flying alternatives.

 

[EastisECML]

Only if it's reliable. Can't see many people caught up in the OHLE fiascos continuing to go by train if there are flying alternatives.

It can probably be safely assumed that captive HS2 services will be free of such problems. But I guess that only matters if HS2 goes all of the way to Scotland.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

It can probably be safely assumed that captive HS2 services will be free of such problems. But I guess that only matters if HS2 goes all of the way to Scotland.

Let’s wait for it to get to Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield before we even begin to think
about Scotland!

 

[The Ham]

I'm not opposed to HS2, but could it not be argued that the current strength of the aviation industry, particularly the domestic market - is very vulnerable to change? The environmental costs is going to have to be addressed at some point whether willingly or because we can no longer ignore it. Flying from point A to point B in the same country is going to be seen more and more as a luxury that causes too much damage. So is it right for rail to try and compete at a level that the airline industry itself might not be able to maintain?

For me the best argument has always been that building a new line is far simpler than trying to upgrade existing track. I don't think competing with aviation is probably all that realistic given HS tracks might not even reach Scotland.

Whilst it's true that HS2 lines don't reach Scotland, how is that people can drive to Scotland even though the M1 and M6 also doesn't reach the Scottish Border?

Whilst it's also likely that the airline industry could cease to exist in its current form, that isn't necessary a reason not to improve rail's capability to compete with air travel so that until the airline industry dues cease to exist.

In fact by making those improvements or would mean that the loss of the airline industry was less of an impact than would otherwise be the case.

 

[AM9]

It can probably be safely assumed that captive HS2 services will be free of such problems. But I guess that only matters if HS2 goes all of the way to Scotland.

Why does Scotland need to be directly on HS2 for OLE to be an issue. HS1 has been running quite happily for 12+ years with virtually no OLE issues.

 

[jfowkes]

It's not as if airlines don't have their own reasons for cancellations and delays.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why does Scotland need to be directly on HS2 for OLE to be an issue. HS1 has been running quite happily for 12+ years with virtually no OLE issues.

It’s had a few, trust me!

 

[The Ham]

It's not as if airlines don't have their own reasons for cancellations and delays.

With a 35 minute flight time vs a 4 hour train journey at first glance flying looks quicker, however what happens when there's disruption?

With a train the most you can be delayed before you start getting something for being delayed is 1 hour (full refund), compare this with airlines which is a minimum of 4 hours before you get anything.

Therefore you could take 5 hours due to an hour's delay, but then it be free. Conversely you could take 4:34 minutes by going on an aircraft and it still be the full price.

That would be 25% extra journey times by train, whilst by air it would be a much bigger (+700%) delay when compared to the advertised journey time.

 

[futureA]

The Telegraph is reporting that a consensus has been formed within the government regarding the direction in which to take HS2.

Although the details are quite vague, it is claimed that the London to Birmingham leg will be cancelled or seriously curtailed. In it's place a number of smaller projects will be ordered in an attempt to bring similar benefits. The article specifically mentioned that platform lengthening is being looked into to allow for longer trains.

The article seems to suggest that the northern leg will go ahead but will be de scoped to save money. Chiefly the speed will be reduced.

The government is apparently very keen to build the East-West, Manchester to Leeds (HS3) route and will pay for it from the money saved on the rest of the project.

The next few weeks will be interesting.

 

[Gareth]

I'm hardly in love with HS2 but if one part is needed, it is the bit between London and Birmingham. The northern sections make little to no sense without it.

 

[Noddy]

Although the details are quite vague, it is claimed that the London to Birmingham leg will be cancelled or seriously curtailed. In it's place a number of smaller projects will be ordered in an attempt to bring similar benefits. The article specifically mentioned that platform lengthening is being looked into to allow for longer trains.

The article seems to suggest that the northern leg will go ahead but will be de scoped to save money. Chiefly the speed will be reduced.

The government is apparently very keen to build the East-West, Manchester to Leeds (HS3) route and will pay for it from the money saved on the rest of the project.

Given the debacle this week over the FlyBe situation I can’t believe they are seriously considering this. Exactly how are they going to extend platform capacity at places like Birmingham New Street? They had the chance around 2000 when the Bullring was redeveloped but blew it. Given how much predevelopment work has already taken place it would be crazy to cancel now. Just look at Google maps between Kenilworth and the site of Birmingham Interchange. A fortune has been spent already.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm hardly in love with HS2 but if one part is needed, it is the bit between London and Birmingham. The northern sections make little to no sense without it.

The reality is that in the eyes of almost the entire population extra capacity between London and Birmingham isn't needed - they see the Pendolinos on the West Coast and think they are a perfectly adequate way of getting between the two cities - people who don't want to catch those use the Chiltern line or LNR and are happy to do so.

It is a massive leap of understanding to imagine the West Coast line without fast trains to the historic destinations and that is the problem. Very few people see HS2 as anything other than a faster route to Birmingham and struggle with the idea that the fast trains need to be displaced off the existing line.

I suspect that most people in Milton Keynes and the other stations on the route don't even realise that HS2 is for their benefit.

Although the details are quite vague, it is claimed that the London to Birmingham leg will be cancelled or seriously curtailed.

Seems to me that a large number of people would be perfectly happy with this.

The government is apparently very keen to build the East-West, Manchester to Leeds (HS3) route and will pay for it from the money saved on the rest of the project.

Even of this cost loads more than it would without HS2, it seems that this would actually be more popular with people than spending the money on HS2 because people have got in their mind that links in the north are slow and crowded. They don't see the WCML like this (or indeed any of the main lines out of London) because of the investment that has already been made and what seems to be a fast service.

I think another point is that there are lines in the south east into London that have a worse service than the stopping services on the lower WCML, MML or ECML.

I can see what HS2 is about and it would be great if it was built but without it nobody would know any better.

Getting from Birmingham to Manchester or Leeds quicker or between Manchester and Leeds quicker seems much more valuable than getting to London quicker.

 

[The Planner]

Given the debacle this week over the FlyBe situation I can’t believe they are seriously considering this. Exactly how are they going to extend platform capacity at places like Birmingham New Street? They had the chance around 2000 when the Bullring was redeveloped but blew it. Given how much predevelopment work has already taken place it would be crazy to cancel now. Just look at Google maps between Kenilworth and the site of Birmingham Interchange. A fortune has been spent already.

The Bullring gave no opportunity to extend the platforms at New St.

 

[nick.c]

The reality is that in the eyes of almost the entire population extra capacity between London and Birmingham isn't needed...

You may indeed be right that the majority of people don't think there is a need for extra capacity between London and Birmingham - the problem is that that view is not shared by those who are actually charged with the responsibility for providing it in the long term.

 

[Robertj21a]

Let’s wait for it to get to Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield before we even begin to think
about Scotland!

I'd wait for it to even get to Birmingham.....

 

[Ianno87]

Even of this cost loads more than it would without HS2, it seems that this would actually be more popular with people than spending the money on HS2 because people have got in their mind that links in the north are slow and crowded. They don't see the WCML like this (or indeed any of the main lines out of London) because of the investment that has already been made and what seems to be a fast service.

I think another point is that there are lines in the south east into London that have a worse service than the stopping services on the lower WCML, MML or ECML.

I can see what HS2 is about and it would be great if it was built but without it nobody would know any better.

Getting from Birmingham to Manchester or Leeds quicker or between Manchester and Leeds quicker seems much more valuable than getting to London quicker.

The frustrating thing is that Phase 1 getting canned now won't make one jot of difference to improved links in the north (equally needed) appearing any quicker....

 

[matacaster]

The frustrating thing is that Phase 1 getting canned now won't make one jot of difference to improved links in the north (equally needed) appearing any quicker....

I suspect that if HS2 doesn't get canned, the money available for HS3 will be pretty much zilch as HS2 will take it all up.

When I travel to various parts of the country, it is always the trains to and from London which are the best appointed and have the best timings. The quality and speed of trains appears inversely proportional to the distance from London, ie the further away the worse it gets. Even those to Scotland get slower from Preston.

Cross-Country trains should be double the length and many journeys which should be cross-country are actually cheaper and quicker via London because the trains are too short and the line speed is pathetic.
Transpennine is replacing its 185's with longer trains, but these will be full within a year or two - in London they would have been 6 coach trains ages ago and 8 coaches now. Look at the miserable service in the South West, North East. Because travel to / from London has been made so much better than any other journeys, people travel to / from London and London becomes ever-more the greater focus as they dream up CrossRail1, then CrossRail 2. Government and business needs spreading more around the country. Execs and Senior Civil servants will not move to the sticks unless the CEO / directors or top Civil servants move too.

The best way to get proper transport planning in this country would be to move the Department of Transport away from London to Hull, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds or Exeter.

A further point is that lack of capacity on passenger services between London and Birmingham is in my opinion a bit of a falacy. During a serious disruption at Kings Cross, I went to St Pancras and a Pendalino at 19.30 to Manchester was virtually empty.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

The only way the whole project will ever be delivered would be to commit to starting both the northern section and the southern routes simultaneously but we know that won’t ever happen!

 

[The Ham]

I suspect that if HS2 doesn't get canned, the money available for HS3 will be pretty much zilch as HS2 will take it all up.

When I travel to various parts of the country, it is always the trains to and from London which are the best appointed and have the best timings. The quality and speed of trains appears inversely proportional to the distance from London, ie the further away the worse it gets. Even those to Scotland get slower from Preston.

Cross-Country trains should be double the length and many journeys which should be cross-country are actually cheaper and quicker via London because the trains are too short and the line speed is pathetic.
Transpennine is replacing its 185's with longer trains, but these will be full within a year or two - in London they would have been 6 coach trains ages ago and 8 coaches now. Look at the miserable service in the South West, North East. Because travel to / from London has been made so much better than any other journeys, people travel to / from London and London becomes ever-more the greater focus as they dream up CrossRail1, then CrossRail 2. Government and business needs spreading more around the country. Execs and Senior Civil servants will not move to the sticks unless the CEO / directors or top Civil servants move too.

The best way to get proper transport planning in this country would be to move the Department of Transport away from London to Hull, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds or Exeter.

A further point is that lack of capacity on passenger services between London and Birmingham is in my opinion a bit of a falacy. During a serious disruption at Kings Cross, I went to St Pancras and a Pendalino at 19.30 to Manchester was virtually empty.

If the TPE trains were in London then they would have been 8 coaches some time ago and would have been mostly lengthened to 10/12 coaches by now. Whilst there would be calls for an increase in frequencies as even they were inadequate for the numbers traveling, hence the likes of Crossrail and Crossrail 2.

Whilst it's easy to currently find trains which have capacity (which would see capacity improvements by HS2), that's not likely to be the case in 10 years time. Average passenger growth in the last 9 years between London and the region's which benefit from HS2 was 50%. If that is repeated in the next 10-15 years then those trains with 1/3 of seats free will be totally full (600 seat train with 400 seats occupied when passenger numbers grow by 50% would see all 600 seats full).

However then what happens if growth is higher than 50%? What if it's 75% and the trains have 700 passengers on board?

Yes HS3 is needed, however there's scope to improve quite a bit over the next 10 years to cater for most expected growth. However I wouldn't be surprised if the plan was London to Crewe with then Leeds to Crewe via starting so that it was finished a few years after Crewe was reached. Then Birmingham Leeds being built more slowly, maybe even with the plan being ~2050.

Of course the good thing about building the Northern section first is that the bit between London and Birmingham then gets cheaper to do as the expensive bits are already done and so the case for building it gets a whole lot better.

 

[3270]

For journeys to London the northern half of HS2 surely isn't much use without the southern half because once the HS2 trains reach the southern end of the HS2 line somewhere in the Midlands they have nowhere to go except onto the already congested West Coast Main Line. Where would the WCML paths come from for the HS2 trains?

You could replace a conventional Manchester - Euston train with an HS2 equivalent so that the conventional train's path could be used on the southern WCML but that wouldn't provide a major increase in the number of seats from Manchester and the smaller stations in the north would lose out if the HS2 train didn't (or couldn't) call at them.

Even if an HS2 train from Manchester to Euston was in addition to an existing conventional Manchester - Euston train (thus giving more seats from Manchester) it would still have to replace another train when it joined the southern WCML so the users of that other train would lose out. Which existing southern WCML trains do we axe to make room for the HS2 trains?

 

[class26]

For journeys to London the northern half of HS2 surely isn't much use without the southern half because once the HS2 trains reach the southern end of the HS2 line somewhere in the Midlands they have nowhere to go except onto the already congested West Coast Main Line. Where would the WCML paths come from for the HS2 trains?

You could replace a conventional Manchester - Euston train with an HS2 equivalent so that the conventional train's path could be used on the southern WCML but that wouldn't provide a major increase in the number of seats from Manchester and the smaller stations in the north would lose out if the HS2 train didn't (or couldn't) call at them.

Even if an HS2 train from Manchester to Euston was in addition to an existing conventional Manchester - Euston train (thus giving more seats from Manchester) it would still have to replace another train when it joined the southern WCML so the users of that other train would lose out. Which existing southern WCML trains do we axe to make room for the HS2 trains?

The Today Programme this morning (Radio Four) is saying London - Brum will be built as will Brum northwards to Manchester but de scoped with lower speeds but the eastern leg NOT built

 

[Noddy]

The Bullring gave no opportunity to extend the platforms at New St.

Yes, there was the opportunity. What there wasn’t was any will to do it by the politicians, by the developers or by Railtrack. It would have required a much bigger project, but the hole could have been excavated to track level, the throat widened allowing platforms to be extended, and then the Bull Ring to be built over the top.

But anyway, the alternative arrangements such as platform extensions simply won’t deliver what HS2 will.

 

[jagardner1984]

Another good day for the economists and consultants. How many times has this been redesigned now ?

presumably there is a rolling stock saving on lower speed trains, but how much can be saved on the infrastructure now the route is broadly set and there are actual holes in the ground ?

 

[ABB125]

The Today programme this morning is saying London - Brum will be built as will Brum northwards to Manchester but de scoped , lower speeds but the eastern leg NOT built

As long as the speed doesn't go below 200mph I'm happy with that. I wonder what could be descoped from the Manchester branch? Maybe all that means is it will be transferred to the Northern Powerhouse Rail project. The eastern leg can be built later, possibly incorporated into a new eastern high speed line from London.

 

[ABB125]

Another good day for the economists and consultants. How many times has this been redesigned now ?

presumably there is a rolling stock saving on lower speed trains, but how much can be saved on the infrastructure now the route is broadly set and there are actual holes in the ground ?

Conversely, I believe that a lower top speed actually increases rolling stock costs because you need more trains to run the same timetable.

 

[class26]

As long as the speed doesn't go below 200mph I'm happy with that. I wonder what could be descoped from the Manchester branch? Maybe all that means is it will be transferred to the Northern Powerhouse Rail project. The eastern leg can be built later, possibly incorporated into a new eastern high speed line from London.

If I recall the programme correctly the de scope was in the southern part only (nothing was said as to what constituted the de scope)

My thoughts are simply get something built and running and once its realised how effective it is there will be clamours for add ons ie the eastern leg , continuation to Scotland from the SNP etc

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Today programme this morning is saying London - Brum will be built as will Brum northwards to Manchester but de scoped , lower speeds but the eastern leg NOT built

London-Brum is the most important bit, so I'm glad that's in. That's the bit that relieves the south WCML for everyone and will allow both improved reliability and more semifast services on the WCML itself. With a plan having just been announced to take MK's population from circa 250K as it is now to 400K+ we need it!

Brum-Manchester will allow improved local services in south Manchester and north Brum, so good there too. It will also mean Brum to Manchester is a far less awful journey!

The other bit has somewhat of a weaker case, because the ECML is already straight and fast and nowhere near as congested. It could I guess be added afterwards, though.