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

[Lucan]

Reading this thread it seems that some posters are giving reasons why people interested (professionally or as amateurs) in rail might be against it (prefer electrification elsewhere, upgrading existing lines, etc) and some are giving reasons why the general public (including politicians and local councillors) might object. It is really the latter (the non-rail people) who matter.

In my experience, the majority of people have little interest or knowledge of railways. They see them as old fashioned and irrelevant, a nest of trade unionism, and a money sink. If they have been on a train in the last 10 years it is probably on a heritage railway doing 25mph and they think all trains are like that. It would be interesting to do a public survey asking people if they even know even where their nearest railway station is. That is why they don't see the point of a new line being built.

 

[tbtc]

I can understand people being against HS2 - I was myself once - but they get weirdly quiet when it comes to alternatives (given how throwing money at one bottleneck often just pushes the problem up to the next junction).

What's particularly galling is that the kind of enthusiasts who are against HS2 are the ones who fill threads about re-opening some rural branch line with comments like "just go ahead and build it, regardless of the business case" or suggest we should throw tens of millions of pounds at every electrification hurdle because money should be no object to such an important project... yet when it comes to HS2, they are zealously analysing the business case, wanting to complain about the costs etc.

Weirdly the same objections (about how in the future we'll all be working from home and will have smart technology that means we'll not need to do journeys between cities) never seem to have such doubts about the viability of re-opening lines through Woodhead/ Millers Dale/ Okehampton etc. Maybe those places won't be affected by the technology that will mean everyone in Birmingham can stay at home and work from their houses?

Just like only "rich businessmen" will apparently benefit from HS2, whereas a plan for some pet scheme in the Lake District/ Devon/ Lincolnshire will presumably only be used by blue collar workers.

Essentially, it's Not Invented Here syndrome, or maybe Not Invented By Victorians - if it followed some mystical path of a long abandoned line then people would be desperate to build it - instead, they dislike it because it's brand new thinking - which is scary to the rather conservative world of train enthusiasts.

(I've said this before, I know, but we should really have an "HS2 - Good Or Bad" thread, to stop every conversation about high speed railways turning into this debate)

The WCML is not congested to the extent that it once was

There's literally an eleven/twelve coach train running at 110/125mph every three minutes - dean is growing - how is that not "congested"?

There are other solutions to building a line going into Birmingham with no immediate stops

As ever, you are great at saying that there are 'other solutions' but then going rather quiet when it comes to what they actually are...

 

[HowardGWR]

Essentially, it's Not Invented Here syndrome, or maybe Not Invented By Victorians - if it followed some mystical path of a long abandoned line then people would be desperate to build it - instead, they dislike it because it's brand new thinking - which is scary to the rather conservative world of train enthusiasts.

Actually of course HS2 follows large chunks of the GCR, so perhaps that fact might go down well with the reopeners and traditionalists.
I don't know the answer to the OP. It's a new railway, what's not to............etc

 

[vtiman]

I'd much rather the money was spent elsewhere on the network in particular on a rolling programme of electrification (amongst other things) that benefits the whole country not just the South Eastern bit.

Liverpool Manchester Leeds Sheffield Birmingham and Derby /Toton / Nottingham aren’t I the southeast though yet will be served by hs2 trains as will Scotland. I don’t understand this argument at all.

The M6 and the M62 join to the m1 and a1(m) which connect to London. Yet people in the North use them regularly yet some do not go to London. It’s about connectivity. Plus London is currently where a lot of people go.

Electrification is sadly out of flavour. Due to massive overruns. The industry needs to sort this out. Until they do there is no guarantee that any moneys from hs2 would redirected anywhere. Especially with the Tories hell bent on destroying the economy.

So we now have the ridiculous suggestion of using diesel or hydrogen bi modes on the MML. Bi modes, electrics, battery electrics and hydrogen will have their uses. But not on a intensively worked 125 inter city railway !

 

[PR1Berske]

As ever, you are great at saying that there are 'other solutions' but then going rather quiet when it comes to what they actually are...

Invest more specifically in the WCML, improve signalling, introduce smart timetabling, move away from always focusing on London; I've repeated these suggestions every single time.

 

[Ianno87]

Invest more specifically in the WCML, improve signalling, introduce smart timetabling, move away from always focusing on London; I've repeated these suggestions every single time.

"Improve signalling". Show me a high speed, mixed traffic railway anywhere in the world that provides better than the current 3 minute WCML planning headway does. And where you put all these trains when you get to the end of the line

"Smart timetabling": What is "dumb" about the current WCML timetable? Where is lack of smartness currently wasting capacity?

"Move focus from London". Done. The centre of the HS2 network is Birmingham, which sees a huge step change in its northwards comnectivity with HS2, arguably moreso than London..

 

[PR1Berske]

Move focus from London". Done. The centre of the HS2 network is Birmingham,

Only if the entire route is built. As we are only currently promised London Euston to the Midlands with no immediate stops, you can I both know where the centre truly lies.

I did promise myself not to repeat my opposition yet here I am. There truly is nothing left for me to say.

 

[Mogster]

HS2 is a massive national project, as such it becomes the focus of the usual under funded pet project moans...

Im a regular WCML traveller to both London and Birmingham. HS2 isn’t perfect, but then what is in public transport, however I’ve come to the conclusion I’d much rather see it built as currently proposed than not. If it isn’t built then thinking the released funds will be spread around improvements to the current rail network is very naive.

 

[Ianno87]

Only if the entire route is built. As we are only currently promised London Euston to the Midlands with no immediate stops, you can I both know where the centre truly lies.

I did promise myself not to repeat my opposition yet here I am. There truly is nothing left for me to say.

Two intermediate stops... Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange, with the places in between (Milton Keynes etc) benefitting from released capacity. As you well know and have had explained to you repeatedly.

Phase 2A is going through parliament as we speak as well... Followed by Phase 2B. You can't do it all in one go. Again, as you well know.

 

[Camden]

HS2 was a project only special interest groups ever wanted, and a headline looking for a reason to exist. It would take far less time to say what's right about it than what's wrong.

People spend their lives trying to turn around neglected economies. Trying to make it so business people have 9am meetings to get to in Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. So the government spends £60bn on getting them to London for 9am instead. And as if that's not bad enough in doing so either bodges or designs the project to actually damage one of the above economies, which has been set back ever since the route was published. Noting the spivocratic times this project really got going, and the role property has played, I have my doubts as to whether this was by accident.

But then again, given some of the other things that have gone on, maybe it was.

Now they're talking about running even fewer trains on it, so who knows where things go from here. .

It's all so very obviously wrong headed, and yet supported by a fanatical clique and pressed ahead with by driven and secretive political will, I consider it damaging to the probity of the UK as a whole.

 

[Bevan Price]

1. I have mixed feelings about HS2. I see some merits for it, but could there be less expensive alternatives? It will cost a huge amount, and despite what some have claimed, I suspect that, to recover some of that cost, fares (particularly "walk-on" ) will be almost unaffordable for many (non-expense account) potential passengers.

2. WCML passenger capacity (for the majority of passengers) could be increased quite simply by abolishing 1st class. That would increase the number of standard class seats by at least 20 to 30%, enabling a reductiion in the number of trains per hour outside peak hours. Of course, vested financial interests will stop that from happening.

3. History in recent years has demonstrated that things with involvement of UK civil service often suffer vast cost overruns and design flaws -- just think plans for national computer systems for NHS; costs of new aircraft carriers and military planes; relative costs of Classes 800 & 802, etc.

4. HS2 fails to serve directly some major population centres, e.g. Coventry, Stoke on Trent, Nottingham, Derby. Forcing people to change at somewhere like Toton Yard will not be a popular move for many passengers, and I would expect many will prefer slower journeys via existing routes - without changes, rather than endure a change in trains just to save a few minutes.

5. I am not convinced that HS2 will lead to many more paths becoming available on WCML - maybe only 1-2 per hour. Places like Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Coventry, Wolverhampton, etc. will all want good services without having to change stations in somewhere like Birmingham - and attempts to worsen or "kill off" their current services would be politically very unpopular.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is this your mythical "smart timetabling" solution again? find me the capacity that deals with the next 20 years south of Rugby, ta.

Invest more specifically in the WCML, improve signalling, introduce smart timetabling, move away from always focusing on London; I've repeated these suggestions every single time.

This made me laugh out loud! 62minutes between the posts...

 

[Lucan]

If it isn’t built then thinking the released funds will be spread around improvements to the current rail network is very naive.

Exactly. It would be spent on building motorways.

 

[ABB125]

1. I have mixed feelings about HS2. I see some merits for it, but could there be less expensive alternatives? It will cost a huge amount, and despite what some have claimed, I suspect that, to recover some of that cost, fares (particularly "walk-on" ) will be almost unaffordable for many (non-expense account) potential passengers.

2. WCML passenger capacity (for the majority of passengers) could be increased quite simply by abolishing 1st class. That would increase the number of standard class seats by at least 20 to 30%, enabling a reductiion in the number of trains per hour outside peak hours. Of course, vested financial interests will stop that from happening.

3. History in recent years has demonstrated that things with involvement of UK civil service often suffer vast cost overruns and design flaws -- just think plans for national computer systems for NHS; costs of new aircraft carriers and military planes; relative costs of Classes 800 & 802, etc.

4. HS2 fails to serve directly some major population centres, e.g. Coventry, Stoke on Trent, Nottingham, Derby. Forcing people to change at somewhere like Toton Yard will not be a popular move for many passengers, and I would expect many will prefer slower journeys via existing routes - without changes, rather than endure a change in trains just to save a few minutes.

5. I am not convinced that HS2 will lead to many more paths becoming available on WCML - maybe only 1-2 per hour. Places like Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Coventry, Wolverhampton, etc. will all want good services without having to change stations in somewhere like Birmingham - and attempts to worsen or "kill off" their current services would be politically very unpopular.

Much of what you have said is similar to my opinion. There are many areas in the current plans that I don't feel are the best they could be. For example:

• In the Birmingham area, as far as I am aware there is no connection planned to the classic network allowing access to New Street and beyond (although I would sincerely hope that passive provision is to be made for such a link)
• Toton station just doesn't seem like a good idea at all. I suspect it has been discussed at length before, so apologies, but why can't the East Midlands station be built at East Midlands Parkway? There appears to be plenty of room (yes, I have been there) and it is right next to a major road.

However one thing I do think "they" have got right is the delay to Phase 2B, which will hopefully, assuming that Britain is capable of this, result in seamless integration with HS3 or NPR or whatever it's called this week, thus resulting in huge benefits for the north.

 

[ABB125]

Exactly. It would be spent on building motorways.

Remind me of the environmental impact of motorways? And the noise (and air) pollution?
Maybe HS2 seems quite attractive after all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only if the entire route is built. As we are only currently promised London Euston to the Midlands with no immediate stops, you can I both know where the centre truly lies.

I did promise myself not to repeat my opposition yet here I am. There truly is nothing left for me to say.

The "centre" is the south WCML. Think of it as a new pair of fast lines, cheaper to build on a new alignment than alongside the existing ones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2. WCML passenger capacity (for the majority of passengers) could be increased quite simply by abolishing 1st class. That would increase the number of standard class seats by at least 20 to 30%, enabling a reductiion in the number of trains per hour outside peak hours. Of course, vested financial interests will stop that from happening.

Another option would be changing First Class to 2+2 and instead justifying the price hike by way of quality, i.e. better seats, slightly (but not massively) more legroom and free food etc. That said, that would cause me to completely cease First Class travel, as I only do it to get a seat that is both a window and an aisle, I have no interest in freebies. As would be buying some rolling stock so that all "VTs" are 11-car and all "LNRs" are 240m long (be that 12x20 or 10x24). That won't help freight, though!

5. I am not convinced that HS2 will lead to many more paths becoming available on WCML - maybe only 1-2 per hour. Places like Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Coventry, Wolverhampton, etc. will all want good services without having to change stations in somewhere like Birmingham - and attempts to worsen or "kill off" their current services would be politically very unpopular.

MKC and Watford will get a substantially enhanced service as more trains will stop at the latter, and most likely all at the former as it will be the most significant settlement on the classic line that doesn't have an HS2 service. Rugby similarly. Wolves has 1tph VT with barely anybody boarding or alighting there so it really doesn't justify it, the primary demand is into Birmingham. Coventry will be about the only significant loser, but will still be served and will be able to buzz up to the Airport if they really want to use HS2.

That is the gain.

 

[yorkie]

Those who wish to propose "smart timetabling" or "abolishing first class" should create new threads in Speculative Ideas, where these ideas can be explored and debunked in more detail. I don't think such ideas are really relevant in this thread.

I am not convinced that HS2 will lead to many more paths becoming available on WCML - maybe only 1-2 per hour.

HS1 will be able to support several paths per hour in addition to the WCML paths.

 

[PR1Berske]

HS2 was a project only special interest groups ever wanted, and a headline looking for a reason to exist. It would take far less time to say what's right about it than what's wrong.

People spend their lives trying to turn around neglected economies. Trying to make it so business people have 9am meetings to get to in Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. So the government spends £60bn on getting them to London for 9am instead. And as if that's not bad enough in doing so either bodges or designs the project to actually damage one of the above economies, which has been set back ever since the route was published. Noting the spivocratic times this project really got going, and the role property has played, I have my doubts as to whether this was by accident.

But then again, given some of the other things that have gone on, maybe it was.

Now they're talking about running even fewer trains on it, so who knows where things go from here. .

It's all so very obviously wrong headed, and yet supported by a fanatical clique and pressed ahead with by driven and secretive political will, I consider it damaging to the probity of the UK as a whole.

It is always a relief to read in these threads increasing numbers of posters who agree with my sentiment - perhaps not with my occasional flourishes of language! - against HS2. I once felt almost alone on RailUK when standing up against HS2, that is no longer the case.

 

[abn444]

1. I have mixed feelings about HS2. I see some merits for it, but could there be less expensive alternatives? It will cost a huge amount, and despite what some have claimed, I suspect that, to recover some of that cost, fares (particularly "walk-on" ) will be almost unaffordable for many (non-expense account) potential passengers.

2. WCML passenger capacity (for the majority of passengers) could be increased quite simply by abolishing 1st class. That would increase the number of standard class seats by at least 20 to 30%, enabling a reductiion in the number of trains per hour outside peak hours. Of course, vested financial interests will stop that from happening.

3. History in recent years has demonstrated that things with involvement of UK civil service often suffer vast cost overruns and design flaws -- just think plans for national computer systems for NHS; costs of new aircraft carriers and military planes; relative costs of Classes 800 & 802, etc.

4. HS2 fails to serve directly some major population centres, e.g. Coventry, Stoke on Trent, Nottingham, Derby. Forcing people to change at somewhere like Toton Yard will not be a popular move for many passengers, and I would expect many will prefer slower journeys via existing routes - without changes, rather than endure a change in trains just to save a few minutes.

5. I am not convinced that HS2 will lead to many more paths becoming available on WCML - maybe only 1-2 per hour. Places like Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Coventry, Wolverhampton, etc. will all want good services without having to change stations in somewhere like Birmingham - and attempts to worsen or "kill off" their current services would be politically very unpopular.

I agree with a fair bit of that, I can just see the cost going up from the already expensive £50bn (they're talking about it already) and I can see them putting the fares up too high for most people, so people will still use existing trains as they'll be cheaper and so you'll end up with existing trains just as busy (if not busier if they put in extra stops) while there'll be a new very expensive line with expensive fresh air carriers running along it.

What's particularly galling is that the kind of enthusiasts who are against HS2 are the ones who fill threads about re-opening some rural branch line with comments like "just go ahead and build it, regardless of the business case" or suggest we should throw tens of millions of pounds at every electrification hurdle because money should be no object to such an important project... yet when it comes to HS2, they are zealously analysing the business case, wanting to complain about the costs etc.

That's a problem with HS2 that's often seems to be overlooked and why TBH I think people would prefer a conventional railway to be built/rebuilt instead of HS2 if they're going to do anything, re-opening a branch line gives local people/communities access to the rail network. This is something HS2 does not do (and something a conventional line might achieve) because there are no intermediate stations (for phase 1 anyway) between London and the West Midlands meaning there are a lot of local communities that'll be impacted by the line's construction and operation once it is running but have no access to it, at least a conventional railway might give more scope for additional stations. I know people say that other areas might get an improved service because of it but that still doesn't directly help the people living near HS2.

 

[PR1Berske]

That's a problem with HS2 that's often seems to be overlooked and why TBH I think people would prefer a conventional railway to be built/rebuilt instead of HS2 if they're going to do anything, re-opening a branch line gives local people/communities access to the rail network. This is something HS2 does not do (and something a conventional line might achieve) because there are no intermediate stations (for phase 1 anyway) between London and the West Midlands meaning there are a lot of local communities that'll be impacted by the line's construction and operation once it is running but have no access to it, at least a conventional railway might give more scope for additional stations. I know people say that other areas might get an improved service because of it but that still doesn't directly help the people living near HS2.

I agree with this, and people often fail to answer exactly why a lack of access is a good thing.

Were a new motorway being built, there would be outcry if junctions were not installed at least half-way through. HS2 offers no access to the railways, only a faster way to get (initially at least) between London and Birmingham. That does not "reduce the gap between northern and southern economies", in my eyes.

If we are supposed to be convinced by the case of HS2, then as you say, you need first to bring in those local communities through which the line will speed. Without that connectivity, then all you have is a very expensive, very well designed, London By-Pass On Rails.

 

[PR1Berske]

This made me laugh out loud! 62minutes between the posts...

I wonder how people would have reacted had I not responded to the question put to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Were a new motorway being built, there would be outcry if junctions were not installed at least half-way through. HS2 offers no access to the railways, only a faster way to get (initially at least) between London and Birmingham. That does not "reduce the gap between northern and southern economies", in my eyes.

It's not supposed to do that, and if that is being used as a reason for it then that is typical politician wibble.

What it is for is additional south WCML capacity. Everything else is a convenient side effect.

By the way, there is a local service on the line of route (near enough). It's called the Chiltern Line.

 

[MarkyT]

4. HS2 fails to serve directly some major population centres, e.g. Coventry, Stoke on Trent, Nottingham, Derby. Forcing people to change at somewhere like Toton Yard will not be a popular move for many passengers, and I would expect many will prefer slower journeys via existing routes - without changes, rather than endure a change in trains just to save a few minutes.
5. I am not convinced that HS2 will lead to many more paths becoming available on WCML - maybe only 1-2 per hour. Places like Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Coventry, Wolverhampton, etc. will all want good services without having to change stations in somewhere like Birmingham - and attempts to worsen or "kill off" their current services would be politically very unpopular.

The need to minimise journey times for the fastest Pendolinos from the major north western and Scottish cities to London leads to the very limited number of stops at intermediate places and the various skip stop patterns employed. This results in comparatively infrequent services from the intermediate stations like Rugby, Milton Keynes and Watford compared to similar sized places on other main lines. Putting the fastest expresses on HS2 frees the WCML path- space for more stops at these places. No more trains in total on the fasts than today, perhaps, but incorporating many more stops leading to potentially very frequent attractive services at these growing towns to both London and to midlands and northern destinations. Stoke is planned to be served by an hourly Macclesfield services via Stafford, leaving HS2 at the Handsacre connection. At other places not directly served it might be possible to successfully trade off slight increases in journey time against frequency on existing routes. Its good that there will still be choices available from the East Midlands.

 

[PR1Berske]

t's not supposed to do that, and if that is being used as a reason for it then that is typical politician wibble.

Nonetheless, that has been used as justification. I point you to this article from the Daily Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...-fix-for-bridging-the-North-South-divide.html


Quote:

By tackling the North-South divide through the transport infrastructure, we can start to address those economic disparities that have held the country back for too long and take decisions that will promote long-term, sustainable growth in the North and the Midlands.

That’s why we have argued that investing in HS2 would be good for the whole of Britain. And that is why I am urging people and businesses across the country to embrace the once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our rail network and support our proposals. That way, we can build a railway, and an economy, fit for the 21st century.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nonetheless, that has been used as justification. I point you to this article from the Daily Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...-fix-for-bridging-the-North-South-divide.html

Quote:

That politicians are liars is nothing new.

I used to be against it. I then looked at what it actually does, and now I'm very much for it - though I do think the section north of Birmingham is just an expensive sop to Manchester and Liverpool (which would be better spent on expanding Merseyrail and Metrolink) and should itself not be built. There is certainly no case for going past the North West of England.

 

[MarkyT]

... why can't the East Midlands station be built at East Midlands Parkway? There appears to be plenty of room (yes, I have been there) and it is right next to a major road.

It's quite poorly located on the local road network especially in relation to the city of Nottingham itself. That could be why it has not been particularly successful as a local parkway on the conventional network.

 

[Wivenswold]

My opposition is not based on an objection in principle to HS2 but;
1) There's a mainline between Birmingham and London that's not electrified. While it wouldn't provide the High-Speed benefits, improvements to line speed and new signalling would provide a big lift in capacity between the two cities.
2) There's a mainline between London and Yorkshire that's not electrified, see above.
3) If you want to boost the economy across the country then make the country better connected. New faster, electrified lines would improve the public's ability to commute to areas that were previously not viable due to slow, packed services. There's plenty of electric trains to spare, even if they need refurbs to pass the PRM legislation.
4) There are areas of Britain that have no or limited rail links. If you're serious about getting people off the roads and onto more environmentally friendly forms of transport like trains, you need to have a train service for people to use.
5) Marketing a service primarily at business users has one fatal flaw in 2019. Most businesses encourage video conferencing instead of physical meetings. My company is not the only one in the city putting a squeeze on expenses. The business model does not take changing habits into account, I checked with the DfT in 2015.

When you consider the above, HS2 starts to look like a vanity project.

 

[GrimShady]

My only issue with the scheme is that it doesn't go far enough. All the population areas in the UK should have access to it.

It would make a massive difference to the North if we had access to it I.E Scotland and Northern England.

Sadly to say, London benefits again, oh and Birmingham.

 

[Starmill]

What is true is that the politicians who take the decisions can override the results of the business case if they don’t like the result. (For this reason, the Northern Pacer fleet is being replaced). But the Business case stands as a statement of fact.

Politicians and political parties can write their own criteria analysis that captures the effects of many things which current cost benefit analysis is very poor at incorporating. The results may be rather different to what the business case said.

They could also of course go on their hunches, which seems to be what you are suggesting and I don't doubt this has happened.

Wouldn't it be better then if a more formal use of criteria analysis were available? The economy, and the business of government, is filled examples of things where apparently terrible value for money procurement is agreed upon as necessary expenditure by a great many people.