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

[matacaster]

It seems to me that there is an impetus amongst those directly involved in hs2 etc and enthusiasts for the project to go ahead whatever the cost. Is there an upper limit before YOU would pull the plug £100b, £150b,£200b?

Yes, hs2 provides lots of extra capacity between London and Birmingham, but how much of this is actually necessary rather than avoidable? The extra capacity will not be available for at least 10 years, how will we cope for that time if the situation is supposedly at maximum now (despite new Blackpool services sneaking in)?

The answer is meetings will be retimed to afternoons, more homeworking etc. Journeys will be avoided if there is no room on some or all services, its quite simple really.

 

[Mogster]

It seems to me that there is an impetus amongst those directly involved in hs2 etc and enthusiasts for the project to go ahead whatever the cost. Is there an upper limit before YOU would pull the plug £100b, £150b,£200b?

Yes, hs2 provides lots of extra capacity between London and Birmingham, but how much of this is actually necessary rather than avoidable? The extra capacity will not be available for at least 10 years, how will we cope for that time if the situation is supposedly at maximum now (despite new Blackpool services sneaking in)?

The answer is meetings will be retimed to afternoons, more homeworking etc. Journeys will be avoided if there is no room on some or all services, its quite simple really.

People will continue to clog the cities with cars by driving singly or even choose to fly probably.

 

[matacaster]

People will continue to clog the cities with cars by driving singly or even choose to fly probably.

Ah yes, quite possibly.

 

[The Ham]

If it's true it will cost £110bn- and the government report says that's what it'll cost- then what is this "fake news" you speak of?

Naysayers said you wouldn't build HS2 for the original budget. We were right.



HS1 is such a roaring economic success it was built for £8bn and sold to the Canadians for £2bn.

Still, it's all about context. Compared to what HS2 have spent £8bn on- demolishing a pub and a derelict goods shed, upsetting the Tory Shires, and, er, that's it- HS1 is a beacon of economic success

HS1 wasn't sold it was leased for 30 years in 2010, given that the holders of that lease have to maintain it so that it's returned in the same condition as when it was leased.

As such in December 2040 it will, at no cost (well there's likely to be some admin costs but not much), return to the government.

At which point it could then be leased again.

 

[matacaster]

Forgive my ignorance here, but if hs2 phase1 goes to Curzon st, how do passengers from Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow benefit over the day 10 years after phase1 is built?

Will existing ecml and WCML trains be somehow diverted via connecting lines and be restricted to 125mph or will say a Leeds passengers run across Birmingham to catch a WCML train north from new St? Or perhaps short new hs2 stock which will fit in Leeds Station?

 

[The Planner]

Forgive my ignorance here, but if hs2 phase1 goes to Curzon st, how do passengers from Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow benefit over the day 10 years after phase1 is built?

Will existing ecml and WCML trains be somehow diverted via connecting lines and be restricted to 125mph or will say a Leeds passengers run across Birmingham to catch a WCML train north from new St? Or perhaps short new hs2 stock which will fit in Leeds Station?

This is why people get annoyed with some of the responses posted on this thread. Plenty of pro and anti people yet many have not even researched or have knowledge of the project and make ill-informed comments which are easily answered just by Googling for 5 minutes. It doesn't just go to Curzon St. Curzon St is a spur from the main line, the main line joins the WCML between Lichfield and Rugeley as part of phase 1. Phase 2a ends at Basford Hall Jn south of Crewe. Leeds and the north eastern leg is part of phase 2b, as is Crewe to Manchester.

 

[matacaster]

This is why people get annoyed with some of the responses posted on this thread. Plenty of pro and anti people yet many have not even researched or have knowledge of the project and make ill-informed comments which are easily answered just by Googling for 5 minutes. It doesn't just go to Curzon St. Curzon St is a spur from the main line, the main line joins the WCML between Lichfield and Rugeley as part of phase 1. Phase 2a ends at Basford Hall Jn south of Crewe. Leeds and the north eastern leg is part of phase 2b, as is Crewe to Manchester.

Yes, but if only HS1 phase1, what stock of what length at what speed will travel say London to Birmingham, then branch off and end up in man picadilly? If the platforms at picadilly are not lengthened, then hs2 stock surely will not fit, if it isn't and existing pendalinos, then won't the get in the way of 225mph HS1 trains?

 

[The Planner]

Yes, but if only HS1 phase1, what stock of what length at what speed will travel say London to Birmingham, then branch off and end up in man picadilly? If the platforms at picadilly are not lengthened, then hs2 stock surely will not fit, if it isn't and existing pendalinos, then won't the get in the way of 225mph HS1 trains?

Again, easy info to find out. HS2 train sets will be 200m long, either operating single or doubled up. On the existing network they will travel at the governing line speed, Im not sure why you would think they would travel faster on the existing infrastructure than currently.

 

[Facing Back]

Do we know whether there will be HS2 trains which bypass Birmingham after phase 1a (or phase 1 if 1b is built at the same time....) and go straight to Manchester (or further north) on the classic track north of Lichfield? Or are we expecting all north bound trains to stop at Curzon St and reverse out and head north?

I assume there will be trains which do not stop at Curzon St or we wouldn't need the delta junction?

 

[The Ham]

It seems to me that there is an impetus amongst those directly involved in hs2 etc and enthusiasts for the project to go ahead whatever the cost. Is there an upper limit before YOU would pull the plug £100b, £150b,£200b?

Yes, hs2 provides lots of extra capacity between London and Birmingham, but how much of this is actually necessary rather than avoidable? The extra capacity will not be available for at least 10 years, how will we cope for that time if the situation is supposedly at maximum now (despite new Blackpool services sneaking in)?

The answer is meetings will be retimed to afternoons, more homeworking etc. Journeys will be avoided if there is no room on some or all services, its quite simple really.

It's not at the maximum now, it's always been said that the WCML would be at capacity in the mid 2020's. As we aren't there yet (we've not even finished the first month of the 2020's yet), it's not surprising that there's scope for extra services to be run.

There's much said about there being 50% full trains in 2011, based on the predictions this would have gone up 2.5% each year and allowing for a 10% uplift in fleet capacity from the 11 coach trains that leaves capacity at 55% in 2019, this would then rise to 66% in 2026 and 81% full in 2034.

However rail growth has grown faster than that expected 2.5%, it's even out performing 3.33% (which would be the figure allowing for all growth including modal shift from air due to faster journey times).

However even at 3.33% growth sets capacity at 58% in 2019 before rising to 75% in 2026 and 98% in 2034.

If we don't build HS2 then chances are, although there'll be some reduction in actual travel, that most of the slack will be taken to by road and air travel.

However, even with the "we'll just travel less" as an option there's an element of people not understanding the story of change which would be needed to achieve this.

Government predictions are that population growth over the next 10 years will likely mean just to stand still in terms of capacity constraints we'd all need to travel 10% less than we currently do. Even if this isn't what happens then it's still likely to be 5% population growth.

For someone who clocks up 10,000 miles in their car that means reducing their travel by 500 miles a year (10 miles a week). Could you do that?

As a family, due to the average miles per person being 7,000, we should be doing something like 35,000 miles a year from all modes of travel. Given my and my children's commute is 12 miles a week each (walking/cycling), so circa 3,000 a year and our car does circa 10,000 and we do a further circa 4,000 miles by bus/train we're already about 1/2 that of a typical family.

For us to reduce this by a further 1,700 miles (our share of the 5% reduction of the average) would be fairly hard, if it were to be the full 10% then that would be really very hard to do). What would be easier would be to shift more travel from car to train (although even that would be reasonablely hard). We could reduce our shopping milage a bit if we had a shop closer to us (there is one planned which would cut our walk/drive from 1 mile to 0.3 miles which would mean that were more likely to walk for those few items which we needed as a top up shop).

Quite a lot of our walking/cycling is to/from work/school/other local activities and so would have to carry on anyway.

That's the point of HS2, people can more easily such from flying/driving to rail, They're not so easily going to be able to stop all together. It's likely that if you asked them to stop all together that nothing would change. Whilst if you get them to switch to rail that they would walk/cycle more as well.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not convinced it actually needs to be faster unless you live in Scotland. It is and should be about capacity, but wasn't always. £100b to save 30-60 mins on a 2hr journey which could easily be achieved by getting out of bed earlier or rescheduling meetings doesn't seem reasonable. Whether it's the best way of gaining capacity is in fairness more a matter of opinion.

If it wasn't faster than there's no capacity advantage to the ECML. In that it would take longer to get to Leeds/York going via Birmingham.

If it's going to take longer, although some may swap they are going to be a fairly small minority, then people will mostly stay on the existing services.

 

[Purple Orange]

Do we know whether there will be HS2 trains which bypass Birmingham after phase 1a (or phase 1 if 1b is built at the same time....) and go straight to Manchester (or further north) on the classic track north of Lichfield? Or are we expecting all north bound trains to stop at Curzon St and reverse out and head north?

I assume there will be trains which do not stop at Curzon St or we wouldn't need the delta junction?

Curzon st will see 3 TPH to/from London if it is just Ph1. Everything else bypasses Birmingham.

 

[Facing Back]

Curzon st will see 3 TPH to/from London if it is just Ph1. Everything else bypasses Birmingham.

Thanks

 

[si404]

And that’s just for starters.

indeed. They've built a temporary motorway junction, a few work sites and haul roads.

Plus there's stuff that has nothing to do with the scheme itself (even when you factor in that it's more than just the railway), like the things that have had grants from the environment and community fund.

 

[Mogster]

People keep saying the HS2 time savings are insignificant but as a regular WCML user I would value them.

I could save 60mins or more on a regular round trip from Wigan to Brum. I’m sat on a pendo now knowing I’ve got another hour to Birmingham New Street [BHM], although not unpleasant it’s just wasted time from my life. A 37min travel time to Brum would be incredible and make driving the journey absurd imo. Just because the time savings seem insignificant to you personally doesn’t mean they are so to others.

 

[class26]

People keep saying the HS2 time savings are insignificant but as a regular WCML user I would value them.

I could save 60mins or more on a regular round trip from Wigan to Brum. I’m sat on a pendo now knowing I’ve got another hour to BNS, although not unpleasant it’s just wasted time from my life. A 37min travel time to Brum would be incredible and make driving the journey absurd imo. Just because the time savings seem insignificant to you personally doesn’t mean they are so to others.

A very valid point and is in real danger of being over looked in the 100b to save 20 minutes argument. The uk is fairly on the efficiency stakes and these times savings would greatly help

 

[Tetchytyke]

However even at 3.33% growth sets capacity at 58% in 2019 before rising to 75% in 2026 and 98% in 2034.

Assuming that ten years' growth can be extrapolated into a 30 or 40 year plan is as fallacious as BR and LT in the 80s assuming ten years' decline can be extrapolated into a 30 or 40 year plan.

As we've seen in recent years- numbers remained almost static in 2016/17 and actually dropped in 2017/18- economic fortune influences rail travel. And as Brexit looms into view...

 

[mpthomson]

However even at 3.33% growth sets capacity at 58% in 2019 before rising to 75% in 2026 and 98% in 2034.

I'd love to see you back that up. Don't worry, I know you can't.

You can't simply extrapolate numbers like that as it ignores a whole host of other factors, some of which may not even be known at this stage. It's this kind of dreamland and over-simplified use of statistics that makes many of the more sceptical (note, not necessarily anti) HS2 followers wonder if it isn't more just about having a huge and stupidly expensive shiny new train set with shiny new trains rather than about any actual value for money return.

 

[nidave]

I'd love to see you back that up. Don't worry, I know you can't.

You can't simply extrapolate numbers like that as it ignores a whole host of other factors, some of which may not even be known at this stage. It's this kind of dreamland and over-simplified use of statistics that makes many of the more sceptical (note, not necessarily anti) HS2 followers wonder if it isn't more just about having a huge and stupidly expensive shiny new train set with shiny new trains rather than about any actual value for money return.

So you are saying... Just because some things might not work out means we should not do anything.

Car journeys may reduce. Let's close roads
Bus routes are not as busy... Let's close them and cut off public transport for villages.
People won't need more than 10 mbs of Internet speed... Let's stop developing broadband
People won't need more than 640k of memory... "Bill Gates"

Yes, it's a guess but it's an educated guess. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do something

 

[quantinghome]

Assuming that ten years' growth can be extrapolated into a 30 or 40 year plan is as fallacious as BR and LT in the 80s assuming ten years' decline can be extrapolated into a 30 or 40 year plan.

As we've seen in recent years- numbers remained almost static in 2016/17 and actually dropped in 2017/18- economic fortune influences rail travel. And as Brexit looms into view...

Rail travel has been growing for 25 years, not 10. People said rail growth had stopped when the financial crash hit, and it did for a short while, but then came roaring back, throughout the 2010-2015 period when the economy was flatlining. There have been significant structural changes in our economy and demographics which have driven, and will continue to drive, growth in rail travel.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Rail travel has been growing for 25 years, not 10.

And before that it had been declining for over 40 years, since the 50s. Which is my point, you can't simplistically extrapolate past performance into indefinite growth (or decline), just as BR and LT shouldn't have done so in the 80s.

As others have said, I'm skeptical that growth will continue indefinitely- rail travel will eventually and naturally plateau, and the financial performance of the current franchisees suggests this is now happening- and I think HS2 is more about a) engineering multinationals lobbying for lucrative work and b) politicians wanting the glory of having a shiny new train set.

 

[jfowkes]

And before that it had been declining for over 40 years, since the 50s. Which is my point, you can't simplistically extrapolate past performance into indefinite growth (or decline), just as BR and LT shouldn't have done so in the 80s.

As others have said, I'm skeptical that growth will continue indefinitely- rail travel will eventually and naturally plateau, and the financial performance of the current franchisees suggests this is now happening- and I think HS2 is more about a) engineering multinationals lobbying for lucrative work and b) politicians wanting the glory of having a shiny new train set.

Rail might not grow indefinitely, but the current levels of demand are highly indicative that at least the extra capacity provided by HS2 will be filled. TOCs might be struggling financially, but it's not for want of customers.

 

[AM9]

Rail might not grow indefinitely, but the current levels of demand are highly indicative that at least the extra capacity provided by HS2 will be filled. TOCs might be struggling financially, but it's not for want of customers.

Since the '50s and, personal car ownership has been ascending, so in times of recession, rail travel has plateaued or even declined. In 2018, a trend in car ownership outside of any defined recession was noted (a 5% drop) https://assets.publishing.service.g.../800502/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2018.pdf
thought by some to be caused by lessening interest in cars from young persons, (maybe in consideration of energy use and climate change). Meanwhile, rail travel has continued it's climb.
In the next 10 years there will be even more downward pressure on car driving as environmental measures and restriction start to bite, so it is not unreasonable to expect both of those trends to continue and plan accordingly.

 

[AM9]

People keep saying the HS2 time savings are insignificant but as a regular WCML user I would value them.

I could save 60mins or more on a regular round trip from Wigan to Brum. I’m sat on a pendo now knowing I’ve got another hour to BNS, although not unpleasant it’s just wasted time from my life. A 37min travel time to Brum would be incredible and make driving the journey absurd imo. Just because the time savings seem insignificant to you personally doesn’t mean they are so to others.

What is 'BNS', surely not Barnes? You have used an abbreviation without explaining what it means.

 

[Grimsby town]

And before that it had been declining for over 40 years, since the 50s. Which is my point, you can't simplistically extrapolate past performance into indefinite growth (or decline), just as BR and LT shouldn't have done so in the 80s.

As others have said, I'm skeptical that growth will continue indefinitely- rail travel will eventually and naturally plateau, and the financial performance of the current franchisees suggests this is now happening- and I think HS2 is more about a) engineering multinationals lobbying for lucrative work and b) politicians wanting the glory of having a shiny new train set.

Can I ask if you have any experience in forecasting rail demand or if you just have a gut feeling? Yes rail demand could grind to a halt or even start decreasing but there are conceivable situations in which rail travel growth is even higher than it has been over the past 25 years. Most political parties and the majority of the public subscribe to climate change. To get anywhere near our emissions target we need to stop short distance flying and using petrol cars. Electric cars are getting closer but manufacturing is still pretty carbon intensive and battery life is still not brilliant.

If we continuing to invest in rapid local transit and pursue integrated ticketing, accessing rail services in city centres will become increasingly easy.

The main argument against travel demand growing is that the internet is making travel obsolete but working in the service sector, I've seen how skype could actually increase travel by allowing people to work on projects outside their immediate locality. Not everything can be done on Skype and until it can imitate being a room with somebody I don't think it's going to reduce demand that significantly. Arguing that HS2 is not needed because the demand may not materialise is a silly argument because demand could be higher than forecast.

 

[class26]

What is 'BNS', surely not Barnes? You have used an abbreviation without explaining what it means.

Presumably Birmingham New Street ?

 

[Darandio]

Presumably Birmingham New Street ?

Well of course.

There is a rule here about abbreviations, but the way many members are now trying to self police it with snarkey comments is tedious to the extreme.

 

[Tetchytyke]

TOCs might be struggling financially, but it's not for want of customers.

Filling a train or plane is the easiest job in the world, just charge everyone 20p a ticket. You won't make any money, but you'll have loads of demand.

We already see this in practice on the WCML. WMT/LNR charge pence for London-Brum advances, to undercut Avanti, and then argue they need more capacity to accommodate their Home Counties commuters. It looks like demand for London-Brum is increasing rapidly but in reality people are only travelling because it's costing them a tenner, and if it stops costing them a tenner they won't travel.

 

[The Ham]

I'd love to see you back that up. Don't worry, I know you can't.

You can't simply extrapolate numbers like that as it ignores a whole host of other factors, some of which may not even be known at this stage. It's this kind of dreamland and over-simplified use of statistics that makes many of the more sceptical (note, not necessarily anti) HS2 followers wonder if it isn't more just about having a huge and stupidly expensive shiny new train set with shiny new trains rather than about any actual value for money return.

What can't I back up? That growth had been 3.33% between 2011/12 and 2018/19?

That's 7 years, so 25.5% over that timeframe.

Virgin in 2011/12 had 30.2 million passengers by 2018/19 there were 39.5 million that's 30.8% growth.

Whilst nationally passenger numbers have gone up and down a bit of late, in 2018/19 our back to to be higher than any of the falls.

Also if you look at the TOC values Virgin hasn't seen a fall over that timeframe.

 

[TrafficEng]

In 2018, a trend in car ownership outside of any defined recession was noted (a 5% drop) https://assets.publishing.service.g.../800502/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2018.pdf

Where does that stat come from? The source you've provided a link for shows (page1) a 5% drop in first-time registrations of vehicles but that isn't the same as 'car ownership' because (a) it doesn't take into account the scrappage rate and (b) includes all motorised road vehicles subject to the registration system.

Figure 1 shows the breakdown by vehicle type. There we can see first-time registration of cars fell by 6.7%, but all categories other than 'motorcycles' also dropped, the highest fall being buses and coaches at -8.8%. This demonstrates the factors involved are far more complex than young people's interest in climate change. (the growth in motorcycle sales is notable).

Total licensed vehicles (page 7) is really what we need to be looking at. This shows us that in fact the total number of licensed cars (in GB) increased by 1% in 2018. The bottom of page 8 gives us the clue that this is partly explained by an increase in average age of vehicles: indicative that people are keeping their cars longer and hence reducing the number of first-time registrations.

...thought by some to be caused by lessening interest in cars from young persons, (maybe in consideration of energy use and climate change).

That is speculation though, and since the premise (car ownership dropped) is incorrect we should probably look elsewhere for some answers.

My thoughts are that an increase in costs (partly exchange-rate driven) will be a factor, as well as a change in people's spending behaviour with one eye on Brexit. Delaying the purchase of a new vehicle is a simple and effective strategy for people and businesses who wanted to limit their spending in the run up to Brexit.

Another reasonable speculation would be that Government announcements regarding future bans on ICE cars, and also the EV market starting to take off, may lead to some people delaying the purchase of a new vehicle in order to see what happens. The attack on Diesel cars will also make people nervous about committing significant personal resources to any particular fuel technology now, when the vehicle may become virtually worthless in short order.

Meanwhile, rail travel has continued it's climb.

Here we need to note that whilst the data for cars was about vehicle ownership, the data for rail travel relates to passengers and/or passenger km. Rail passenger numbers and passenger km is relatively easy to quantify, and a robust system is in place to monitor the figures.

Car driver/passenger figures are harder to work out and rely on estimates using sampling techniques. (e.g. Household survey data) The accuracy of the data therefore depends on the robustness of the methodology and the assumptions made in the sampling process. Subtle changes in usage may be missed because the methodology cannot detect them.

In the next 10 years there will be even more downward pressure on car driving as environmental measures and restriction start to bite...

That relies on an assumption that additional environmental measures and restrictions will be applied, and that they will take effect in the next 10 years. I would suggest it is unlikely to happen in the first 4 at least, and quite possibly the next 9.

Any measures and restrictions applied will initially target the most polluting vehicles. It will be difficult to restrict use of EVs (on pollution grounds) - not least while their purchase and use is incentivised to hasten the change away from ICE vehicles.

And then when a majority of cars are EV, the environmental case for restricting car use (in favour of rail) becomes far weaker. Congestion is a different issue - and for that it is worth again noting the increase in first-time registrations of motorcycles.

...so it is not unreasonable to expect both of those trends to continue and plan accordingly.

Broadly that approach is familiar to us as 'predict and provide'. In the case of strategic road building it was largely discredited in the 1990's on the basis that providing more will stimulate demand, with the increased demand in turn resulting in increased predictions and further capacity requirement.

I've not yet seen a cogent argument as to why a methodology which has been rejected as flawed when it comes to road building is still seen as wholly valid when it comes to railway building. (or for that matter airport runway provision and house building)