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

[Peter Kelford]

No, you specifically said "timetabled 1 minute aftervthe previous one".

This has figurative connotations.

Initial delay will natural dissipate through the following trains until recovered.

If trains are timed at minimum intervals, then that will take a very long time.

 

[JonathanH]

If trains are timed at minimum intervals, then that will take a very long time

But they won't be - it has been explained in this thread that the realistic constraint is the delta junction for Birmingham. On the main section of route the trains just follow each other.

It will be no more difficult for the timetable to recover than it is on the section of line between Euston and Rugby and anyone criticising HS2 doesn't usually think that having a service with 3 minute intervals is inappropriate on the WCML.

 

[Esker-pades]

"Don't build HS2; The Croxley Rail Link is far more important."

https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/18256868.letter-croxley-rail-link-beneficial-hs2/

There is, however, a real negative side effect: if, and it is likely, HS2 will be the draw for years to come on available money, the immensely useful Croxley Link will still be regarded as a bridge too expensive. The vanity project of making Birmingham 30 minutes closer for a few outweighs the huge advantages across north west London of joining Underground services with mainline ones.

Help. How can I write spoofs when this is an actual thing?

 

[Facing Back]

"Don't build HS2; The Croxley Rail Link is far more important."

https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/18256868.letter-croxley-rail-link-beneficial-hs2/



Help. How can I write spoofs when this is an actual thing?

I didn't read it carefully but if it actually said we should spend the HS2 money on putting a person on the moon I could be persuaded. And I'm a fan of HS2!

 

[Peter Kelford]

"Don't build HS2; The Croxley Rail Link is far more important."

https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/18256868.letter-croxley-rail-link-beneficial-hs2/

Help. How can I write spoofs when this is an actual thing?

For goodness sake. Croxley link seems to me to be far more insignificant. So insignificant in fact that Croxley Link's cancellation will have nothing to do with HS2.

 

[miami]

I didn't read it carefully but if it actually said we should spend the HS2 money on putting a person on the moon

Bung a few million to Musk and book a ticket. Even on Musk timetables it'll be quicker than HS2.

I have a few candidates in westminster who I think we could do a just-giving to pay for a one-way trip.

 

[HSTEd]

Well we now have Phase 2c as a thing.

Which is the end of the eastern spur

 

[ohgoditsjames]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...speed-rail-before-leeds-hs2-minister-suggests
This all but confirms my concerns.

Transport department confirms plan to split northern spurs of HS2 into two stages

Manchester may get high-speed rail before Leeds, the new minister for HS2 has suggested.

In his first speech in the job, Andrew Stephenson said the next step for government was to “bring forward legislation to bring high-speed rail into Manchester as soon as practical”. There was no mention of Leeds as he addressed the New Statesman’s northern powerhouse-themed conference in Manchester.

Until now, the two northern spurs of HS2 – from Birmingham up to Manchester and Leeds – had been treated as one project, called phase 2b.

The plan now is to split those two spurs into two stages, with Manchester going first, a transport department press officer confirmed. This is to integrate it with Northern Powerhouse Rail, the new east-west line across the Pennines, which includes 50 miles of HS2 track, including a tunnel from Manchester airport to Manchester Piccadilly.

Stephenson, a Mancunian former insurance broker who has represented Pendle in east Lancashire since 2010, said he was “thrilled” to become the first minister for “HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and Transpennine route upgrade”.

But he said he knew much work would need to be done to get the public on side with HS2 in particular, due to spiralling costs and fears about environmental degradation.

A YouGov poll last month found the public was opposed to HS2, by 39% to 34%. London was the only region where a majority supported the project, the poll suggested, with 43% in favour and 34% against.

“HS2 is not simply a project that the north and Midlands benefit from. It is a project for the north and Midlands,” Stephenson said in his speech. “The critics who say that HS2 will only benefit London are simply wrong. They ignore the voices in towns and cities across the north, all the businesses and passengers who are crying out for investment and change. They ignore people in my own constituency of Pendle.”

He insisted there must be a “realistic, pragmatic and hard-nosed management of costs” to to convince people about the scheme, and improved public engagement.

He said: “Too many times I have heard stories of unacceptable treatment of those impacted by this line. There will be disruption. We can’t deny that. But we must manage this work efficiently and effectively while always being sympathetic to those affected.”

He added: “It needs to regain the public’s trust. The entire energy of government must now be behind this project. Together with the secretary of state, I will be holding regular cross-government meetings, as happened with the Olympics. We must get this project right. In terms of the next steps, we will be bringing forward legislation for the high-speed rail into Manchester as soon as is practical.

“But before those designs are finalised, we are going to be presenting one integrated rail plan for the north and Midlands. It will examine how northern powerhouse rail and HS2 can best work together.”

Work is due to start building the London to Birmingham leg of HS2 in April. Earlier this month the government said it would “revive the legislation to deliver phase 2a (connecting Birmingham to Crewe) as soon as possible so that preparation works can move forward”.

I recall Councils in Yorkshire arguing years ago that the two legs had to be delivered simultaneously not to give the NW cities an early huge connectivity advantage which could draw their trade away and be difficult for them to ever catch up that trade again even after the eastern leg is delivered; they pointed out that the NW benefits from Ph1 (and now also Ph2A) many years before Yorks / NE sees any benefit at all from HS2 (i.e. from Ph2B). Clearly building Ph2B West before Ph2B East is going to increase the relative delay in those benefits years further.

That said, I do wonder if the rather subdued championing of the project of late from the Eastern side promoters, and outright hostility to it from a growing number of MPs and Local Authorities in those areas blighted along the Eastern Leg but without their own station (e.g. Rotherham Council motion of opposition "unless route moves back to Meadowhall" - unanimously passed, Doncaster - same, Wakefield Council - long opposed to scheme, etc), means that the 'Integration Review' taking place until December might consider a complete scrapping of the Eastern Leg, or a complete rework and re-consultation of its route with more of it being part of a Yorks NPR network?

As I've said for the past 3 years, Sheffield will get absolutely NOTHING from either HS2 or HS3/NPR.

 

[6Gman]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...speed-rail-before-leeds-hs2-minister-suggests
This all but confirms my concerns.


As I've said for the past 3 years, Sheffield will get absolutely NOTHING from either HS2 or HS3/NPR.

Well, you can keep saying it but whether it will prove to be true is another matter.

 

[HSTEd]

As I've said for the past 3 years, Sheffield will get absolutely NOTHING from either HS2 or HS3/NPR.

Sheffield perhaps shouldn't have tried to get one over on Rotherham by insisting on a city centre station instead of Meadowhall should it?

 

[Skymonster]

Well, given the possible delay to the eastern leg of HS2 and today's news that the possibility of a third runway at Heathrow has received a setback:
1. Sort out and go ahead the remaining electrification of the MML north of Market Harborough through Nottingham, Derby and on to Chesterfield and Sheffield. The East Midlands does not need HS2 if that is done.
2. Realign HS2 in West London so that it goes under Heathrow with a station there. Proper access to the airport with protected connections air-rail and vv could enable the government to restrict domestic flights into Heathrow creating more slots for long haul. But Old Oak is useless for access to the airport - its just too much faff.

 

[jfowkes]

1. Sort out and go ahead the remaining electrification of the MML north of Market Harborough through Nottingham, Derby and on to Chesterfield and Sheffield. The East Midlands does not need HS2 if that is done.

You don't get the benefits associated with relieving the ECML or the Cross-Country BHM-DBY-LDS route if phase 2B doesn't get built.

2. Realign HS2 in West London so that it goes under Heathrow with a station there. Proper access to the airport with protected connections air-rail and vv could enable the government to restrict domestic flights into Heathrow creating more slots for long haul. But Old Oak is useless for access to the airport - its just too much faff.

Too late for that. HS2 phase 1 is being built now. To redesign for a station at Heathrow would just add time and expense. The debate about what should have happened can go on indefinitely, but the debate on what shall happen is past.

 

[nidave]

HS2 tickets are likely to be proportionally more expensive anyway.

Source please. Or are you just pulling rubbish from thin air.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Well, given the possible delay to the eastern leg of HS2 and today's news that the possibility of a third runway at Heathrow has received a setback:
1. Sort out and go ahead the remaining electrification of the MML north of Market Harborough through Nottingham, Derby and on to Chesterfield and Sheffield. The East Midlands does not need HS2 if that is done.
2. Realign HS2 in West London so that it goes under Heathrow with a station there. Proper access to the airport with protected connections air-rail and vv could enable the government to restrict domestic flights into Heathrow creating more slots for long haul. But Old Oak is useless for access to the airport - its just too much faff.

I agree.

If I could jump on ONE train at Liverpool Lime St. and alight at Heathrow in ~2 to 2.5 hours (within WALKING DISTANCE of check-in), it would be a good result.

I'll be well retired (or dead) by then though!

I guess the end result will be a fudge of some description, but will have at least provided employment in the construction industry and generously topped-up the pensions of the CEO's of a few well known civil engineering companies.

 

[HSTEd]

If I could jump on ONE train at Liverpool Lime St. and alight at Heathrow in ~2 to 2.5 hours (within WALKING DISTANCE of check-in), it would be a good result.

We are probably not too far from being able to do that with the classic lines after HS2.
Use the Dudding Hill line to reach Heathrow from the WCML.

 

[MarkyT]

Well, given the possible delay to the eastern leg of HS2 and today's news that the possibility of a third runway at Heathrow has received a setback:
1. Sort out and go ahead the remaining electrification of the MML north of Market Harborough through Nottingham, Derby and on to Chesterfield and Sheffield. The East Midlands does not need HS2 if that is done.
2. Realign HS2 in West London so that it goes under Heathrow with a station there. Proper access to the airport with protected connections air-rail and vv could enable the government to restrict domestic flights into Heathrow creating more slots for long haul. But Old Oak is useless for access to the airport - its just too much faff.

Nonsense on both points. Electrification of MML will do nothing for ECML capacity and redirecting via Heathrow will add journey time and many billions more to the construction costs, not to mention vast delays for new parliamentary powers. Old Oak will have direct frequent services to each terminal complex.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Old Oak will have direct frequent services to each terminal complex.

Direct from OOC is not direct to LHR though, and thank you, but its a no from me.

 

[Skymonster]

Too late for that. HS2 phase 1 is being built now. To redesign for a station at Heathrow would just add time and expense. The debate about what should have happened can go on indefinitely, but the debate on what shall happen is past.

Totally disagree. It has been proven today with the Heathrow runway issue that things can change. The sad reality is that HS2 as it is currently proposed was designed to appease the pro-rail lobby rather than offer a solution truly integrated into the uk transport system. With Heathrow on the rocks now is absolutely the time to recognise that a realignment of HS2 can address several problems at once - more west coast rail capacity, a reduction in domestic flying, and thus reduced emissions.

Nonsense on both points. Electrification of MML will do nothing for ECML capacity and redirecting via Heathrow will add journey time and many billions more to the construction costs, not to mention vast delays for new parliamentary powers. Old Oak will have direct frequent services to each terminal complex.

On the contrary, HS2 as it stands will do very little (nothing actually) the the East Midlands that could not be addressed with electrification of the MML. The extra cost of routing it via Heathrow would have huge advantages that will not be realised by its proposed alignment. But of course the pro-rail lobby bleating about costs and a few minutes added on a journey has sadly drowned out common sense that could have delivered a properly integrated rail-air system as well as add more capacity to the West Midlands and the west coast.

The title of this thread asks why people are against HS2. IMO it is a wasteful use of resources and a huge missed opportunity. I live around six miles from one of the proposed stations and I don’t see it bringing any meaningful benefit to me and I know there are plenty of local travellers who feel the same.

 

[MarkyT]

Direct from OOC is not direct to LHR though, and thank you, but its a no from me.

The problem is a notional HS2 station at Heathrow could not serve ALL terminals directly and might not be able to get very close to ANY of them so would still require a transfer possibly a few km to each by an expensive new APM system. All OOC does is to place that interchange point a little further away, where it can also serve other functions, and to use existing rail transit for the transfer. Whether you as an individual would use it is irrelevant; market research and modelling have demonstrated OOC to be a good compromise and assumes many people WILL use it. Also if Heathrow was to be seriously degraded, even closed in the future, what would be the point of the expensive diversion?

 

[Skymonster]

The problem is a notional HS2 station at Heathrow could not serve ALL terminals directly and might not be able to get very close to ANY of them so would still require a transfer possibly a few km to each by an expensive new APM system. All OOC does is to place that interchange point a little further away, where it can also serve other functions, and to use existing rail transit for the transfer. Whether you as an individual would use it is irrelevant; market research and modelling have demonstrated OOC to be a good compromise and assumes many people WILL use it. Also if Heathrow was to be seriously degraded, even closed in the future, what would be the point of the expensive diversion?

Rubbish. The correct solution is a station at Heathrow, protected connections air-rail and rail-air, and bag drops for outbound air passengers at HS2 stations. The Swiss manage it with rail connections to Zurich Airport, no reason why we shouldn’t. Then a shortish walk/travelator from/to a single HS2 station at Heathrow would be the easy option that Old Oak completely fails to deliver. Again - with Heathrow third runway now potentially on the rocks, now is totally the right time for the government to sort out the short-sightedness of not routing HS2 via Heathrow and changing it to deliver a truly integrated transport network.

 

[Grumpy Git]

The problem is a notional HS2 station at Heathrow could not serve ALL terminals directly .....

I know, Heathrow itself is not fit for purpose when compared to Schiphol or Munich. Even at Frankfurt it is simple to change terminals.

You only have to try and check out trains from Heathrow to see how many complicated options there are. It's a complete joke.

 

[Skymonster]

Besides, just think of what could be done to sort out and improve the existing network (capacity improvements, lime speed improvements, electrification, flood defences, signalling enhancements) if we weren’t misguidedly spending so much money on the folly known as HS2.

 

[Esker-pades]

Totally disagree. It has been proven today with the Heathrow runway issue that things can change. The sad reality is that HS2 as it is currently proposed was designed to appease the pro-rail lobby rather than offer a solution truly integrated into the uk transport system. With Heathrow on the rocks now is absolutely the time to recognise that a realignment of HS2 can address several problems at once - more west coast rail capacity, a reduction in domestic flying, and thus reduced emissions.

What do you disagree with in the statement that you quoted?
Is Heathrow's third runway being built? If so, has it got as far as HS2 phase 1? If the answer to either question is 'no', then it is not really comparable.

On the contrary, HS2 as it stands will do very little (nothing actually) the the East Midlands that could not be addressed with electrification of the MML. The extra cost of routing it via Heathrow would have huge advantages that will not be realised by its proposed alignment. But of course the pro-rail lobby bleating about costs and a few minutes added on a journey has sadly drowned out common sense that could have delivered a properly integrated rail-air system as well as add more capacity to the West Midlands and the west coast.

The title of this thread asks why people are against HS2. IMO it is a wasteful use of resources and a huge missed opportunity. I live around six miles from one of the proposed stations and I don’t see it bringing any meaningful benefit to me and I know there are plenty of local travellers who feel the same.

OK.

Rubbish. The correct solution is a station at Heathrow, protected connections air-rail and rail-air, and bag drops for outbound air passengers at HS2 stations. The Swiss manage it with rail connections to Zurich Airport, no reason why we shouldn’t. Then a shortish walk/travelator from/to a single HS2 station at Heathrow would be the easy option that Old Oak completely fails to deliver. Again - with Heathrow third runway now potentially on the rocks, now is totally the right time for the government to sort out the short-sightedness of not routing HS2 via Heathrow and changing it to deliver a truly integrated transport network.

Could you show on a map the position of a Heathrow station that could be a "shortish walk/travelator from/to the terminal"? I've had a look at the maps for both Zurich and Heathrow airports, and as airport layouts, they're not really comparable.

 

[duffield]

I get the impression that most of those calling for major changes to phase 1 at this stage are basically just trying to get it cancelled by the back door; given the point we've got to now with land purchases, parliamentary approval and planning, any major changes now would cause years of delay and throw the entire scheme back into doubt - which is exactly what they want.

If people still want phase 1 cancelled, just come out and say so. But at present phase 1 *is* going ahead on the current route and there is every indication that most of the relevant big money contracts will be awarded fairly soon so I think it's almost certainly futile.

 

[Esker-pades]

Besides, just think of what could be done to sort out and improve the existing network (capacity improvements, lime speed improvements, electrification, flood defences, signalling enhancements) if we weren’t misguidedly spending so much money on the folly known as HS2.

What capacity improvements? Specifically. Because there hasn't been a reasonable specific suggestion in 186 pages, but I'm very interested to hear one.

How will limes improve the railway? (Yes, I know it's a typo - see the proper question below.)
How will increasing the line speeds improve capacity to the same extent? Especially on the mixed traffic railways where increasing line speed only increases the differences between the fastest and slowest services and thus reduces capacity.

What electrification and where?

Signalling enhancements - again which ones and where?

 

[Grumpy Git]

I get the impression that most of those calling for major changes to phase 1 at this stage are basically just trying to get it cancelled by the back door; given the point we've got to now with land purchases, parliamentary approval and planning, any major changes now would cause years of delay and throw the entire scheme back into doubt - which is exactly what they want.

If people still want phase 1 cancelled, just come out and say so. But at present phase 1 *is* going ahead on the current route and there is every indication that most of the relevant big money contracts will be awarded fairly soon so I think it's almost certainly futile.

I dont want to throw out HS2 but I think the whole scheme is extremely poorly planned.

The "Tatton Curve" is one part of the farce.

I also dont see the need to try and go 20-25% faster than existing HS railways in Europe. Maybe we want to invent the technolgy, strangle the development budget, sell it to China, then buy it back at 100x the cost?

 

[Skymonster]

I get the impression that most of those calling for major changes to phase 1 at this stage are basically just trying to get it cancelled by the back door; given the point we've got to now with land purchases, parliamentary approval and planning, any major changes now would cause years of delay and throw the entire scheme back into doubt - which is exactly what they want.

If people still want phase 1 cancelled, just come out and say so. But at present phase 1 *is* going ahead on the current route and there is every indication that most of the relevant big money contracts will be awarded fairly soon so I think it's almost certainly futile.

If that’s referring to me then the answer is no. I do think HS2 is a massive folly and I don’t support it but I accept it’s happening. The real problem is the huge lost opportunity (especially respect Heathrow connectivity) which the government still should and could address - especially given today’s court decision. Sadly the government already has and I suspect will continue to yield to the pro-rail lobby and ignore common sense and what’s good for the whole of the UK.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Successive governments tend to concentrate most on getting elected in five years time.

 

[duffield]

If that’s referring to me then the answer is no. I do think HS2 is a massive folly and I don’t support it but I accept it’s happening. The real problem is the huge lost opportunity (especially respect Heathrow connectivity) which the government still should and could address - especially given today’s court decision. Sadly the government already has and I suspect will continue to yield to the pro-rail lobby and ignore common sense and what’s good for the whole of the UK.

You think it's a massive folly, and you want a major change to the route of phase 1 *at this stage*; to reiterate, for the reasons I've given that's virtually equivalent to cancelling it - it would probably reset the whole process to another parliament. As good as cancellation in my book. OK, I accept that's not your 'back door' plan, but that *is* the likely outcome of what you're asking for.

Anyhow, sorry to be a bit more 'combative' than usual, it's not my normal posting style on here, I've got chronic toothache despite painkillers and it's making me a bit cranky.

 

[Skymonster]

You think it's a massive folly, and you want a major change to the route of phase 1 *at this stage*; to reiterate, for the reasons I've given that's virtually equivalent to cancelling it - it would probably reset the whole process to another parliament. As good as cancellation in my book. OK, I accept that's not your 'back door' plan, but that *is* the likely outcome of what you're asking for.

Anyhow, sorry to be a bit more 'combative' than usual, it's not my normal posting style on here, I've got chronic toothache despite painkillers and it's making me a bit cranky.

Two or three weeks ago the rail industry was waiting on the government review of HS2 which carried with it a risk the project might be cancelled. In the event it wasn’t cancelled but anyone who believes the project has become so indelibly cast in stone in the intervening period that common sense could not prevail and it could be rerouted via Heathrow is being rather naive in my view. The challenge, as I’ve said, is for the government to have the political will to decide to do the right thing and deliver a properly integrated transport network rather than pander to the blinkered rail lobby that is only interested in the upside for rail.