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

[mmh]

Phase 2B sees Leeds-Euston and Newcastle-Euston services, therefore no need to retain such services* into King's Cross instead.

Similarly, Sheffield-Euston services would take demand off current Sheffield-St Pancras services, so more space for those joining at Leicester.

*Well, some services would likely stay in some form, but stopping at more stations to pick up intermediate flows more as trains will no longer be full of longer distance passengers.

This in turns takes more Stevenage/Peterborough passengers off GTR, etc etc etc

That argument isn't very persuasive to those of us who are cynical about HS2.

It might deliver some benefit for end to end journeys at some unknown point in the future, 30 plus years away, for some unknown cost.

And it'll free up space for the London dormitory town region because by then we'll still be more concerned with piling ever more distant commuters into a city that can't cope with it rather than spending all this money trying to reverse excessive commuting.

Except we won't free up all the space cos we reluctantly accept it's reasonable to want to travel from Newcastle to Stevenage, say, on the nice straight line between the two rather than changing at Birmingham. So instead we'll have to have a wider variation of stopping patterns.

I'm afraid I'm completely unconvinced.

 

[camflyer]

Exactly.

HS2 is London planned, London designed, London aimed, London focused.

There are no other answers to this.

So why has HS2 the backing of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield city councils?

 

[anme]

That argument isn't very persuasive to those of us who are cynical about HS2.

It might deliver some benefit for end to end journeys at some unknown point in the future, 30 plus years away, for some unknown cost.

And it'll free up space for the London dormitory town region because by then we'll still be more concerned with piling ever more distant commuters into a city that can't cope with it rather than spending all this money trying to reverse excessive commuting.

Except we won't free up all the space cos we reluctantly accept it's reasonable to want to travel from Newcastle to Stevenage, say, on the nice straight line between the two rather than changing at Birmingham. So instead we'll have to have a wider variation of stopping patterns.

I'm afraid I'm completely unconvinced.

I am not able to follow your argument about Newcastle to Stevenage passengers. Won't they benefit because the Newcastle to London passengers will be on HS2 so there will be more room on the ECML trains for them? The point is that they won't have to go via Birmingham, right?

 

[JamesT]

That argument isn't very persuasive to those of us who are cynical about HS2.

It might deliver some benefit for end to end journeys at some unknown point in the future, 30 plus years away, for some unknown cost.

7 years for the first benefits, with long-distance travellers on the WCML bypassing the southern end at speed. 14 years for further benefits with Phase 2b. Hardly 30 years.

And it'll free up space for the London dormitory town region because by then we'll still be more concerned with piling ever more distant commuters into a city that can't cope with it rather than spending all this money trying to reverse excessive commuting.

If there was a magic way to disperse jobs so commuting into London wasn't necessary, I think we'd have found it by now.

Except we won't free up all the space cos we reluctantly accept it's reasonable to want to travel from Newcastle to Stevenage, say, on the nice straight line between the two rather than changing at Birmingham. So instead we'll have to have a wider variation of stopping patterns.

It might not be all, but taking the current hour on RTT as potentially representative, I make it 8 Northbound and 5 Southbound that pass through Stevenage without stopping. Those probably have a variety of stopping patterns to give destinations further North an express service to London. Whereas with those passengers on HS2 you're more likely to have a consistent stopping pattern that serves more stations more often.

 

[JohnB57]

So why has HS2 the backing of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield city councils?

Because City Hall politicians are even more clueless than Westminster ones?

 

[The Box Photter]

Good luck operating Euston with locos that need to be released. Simply wouldn't work. (I know, I used to plan it when it was a loco-hauled railway)

Weren't the pre-Pendolino services run as push-pull with a loco at one end and a DVT at the other? That solves the problem of having to release locos at termini. Just get the driver to walk to the other end of the train (once they've had their PNB of course). Or better still, employ a few more drivers and have the new one waiting to jump into the other cab.

Obvs the new DVTs would have to comply with current crashworthiness standards so that passengers could ride in them instead of parcels, but isn't that what's happening with the new Trans-Pennine loco hauled stock?

There, solved that problem and we can go back to proper trains which can be lengthened at times of peak requirement, like summer Saturdays and Friday evenings. There's lots of railway land available to lay sidings on which the not-required stock can be stabled and the railway can make sure the sidings are properly protected from graffiti artists, vandals and vagrants. How many BTP officers and rolls of razor wire can you get for £100billion?

 

[kylemore]

So why has HS2 the backing of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield city councils?

Well Andy Burnham in Manchester sees which way the tide is turning!

 

[mmh]

Because City Hall politicians are even more clueless than Westminster ones?

That, plus they have no option. For Birmingham it's no question, for the others it's "hi, we're going to reroute trains to London, would you still like one?"

Liverpool, for example, was never going to say "nah don't bother connecting us, everyone can change at Crewe."

Other than as a "solution" to the "full" south WCML (controversial opinion here - it isn't full), HS2 is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[EM2]

How many BTP officers and rolls of razor wire can you get for £100billion?

And how many maintenance staff for all the new track and signalling, as well as for the stock itself and the facilities that will need? Back to timetabling, how do you get that stock into the trains that need it, without pilot locos, or moving that train to the sidings for the extra coaches to be added? Where's the capacity for those movements?

 

[6Gman]

Weren't the pre-Pendolino services run as push-pull with a loco at one end and a DVT at the other? That solves the problem of having to release locos at termini. Just get the driver to walk to the other end of the train (once they've had their PNB of course). Or better still, employ a few more drivers and have the new one waiting to jump into the other cab.

Obvs the new DVTs would have to comply with current crashworthiness standards so that passengers could ride in them instead of parcels, but isn't that what's happening with the new Trans-Pennine loco hauled stock?

There, solved that problem and we can go back to proper trains which can be lengthened at times of peak requirement, like summer Saturdays and Friday evenings. There's lots of railway land available to lay sidings on which the not-required stock can be stabled and the railway can make sure the sidings are properly protected from graffiti artists, vandals and vagrants. How many BTP officers and rolls of razor wire can you get for £100billion?

Well, you did actually write about release at termini. And loco +DVT would have certain advantages. But also certain disadvantages - notably that the loco would take up platform space which would mean a loss of seating capacity. Bearing in mind that at several locations an 11car Pendolino only just fits then loco + stock cannot provide additional capacity.

 

[6Gman]

How many BTP officers and rolls of razor wire can you get for £100billion?

If by the £100billion you mean the (speculated) cost of HS2 then you get no BTP officers. Because one is capital and the other is revenue expenditure.

 

[The Box Photter]

And how many maintenance staff for all the new track and signalling, as well as for the stock itself and the facilities that will need? Back to timetabling, how do you get that stock into the trains that need it, without pilot locos, or moving that train to the sidings for the extra coaches to be added? Where's the capacity for those movements?

So you're against the creation of additional skilled jobs on the railway then ...

 

[camflyer]

Well Andy Burnham in Manchester sees which way the tide is turning!

He still says he wanted to see both HS2 and NPR

One answer is to give these metro mayors more power over public transport in their areas. If Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield want to work together to push ahead with NPR then they should be able to do so without central government getting in the way.

 

[EM2]

So you're against the creation of additional skilled jobs on the railway then ...

Not at all. But they all have to be paid for out of your fantasy £100bn.

 

[The Box Photter]

Well, you did actually write about release at termini. And loco +DVT would have certain advantages. But also certain disadvantages - notably that the loco would take up platform space which would mean a loss of seating capacity. Bearing in mind that at several locations an 11car Pendolino only just fits then loco + stock cannot provide additional capacity.

So pour a bit of concrete and lengthen the platforms. There's no shortage of the stuff when it comes to spunking it on the HS2 white elephant. There's a lot of "not invented here" attitude on this forum. What we need is a "how can we make things better for more passengers?" attitude.

Politicians, engineers and building contractors love shiny new things because it looks like something is being done. Lengthening platforms to accommodate 12, 13 or 14 coach trains and the associated track & signalling changes isn't big or sexy and doesn't look impressive in Parliament when the next election comes round.

 

[EM2]

What we need is a "how can we make things better for more passengers?" attitude.

By building more lines so there's more capacity for more trains to carry more passengers.

 

[The Box Photter]

Not at all. But they all have to be paid for out of your fantasy £100bn.

It's no more fantasy than the £100bn successive governments seem to be willing to spend on the Albino Pachyderm Line just so they can get to Brum twenty minutes quicker. I can only imagine the number of Tory donors' palms that are being greased by way of lucrative contracts to knock down homes, build ludicrously long tunnels so the Tory-voting Chilltern electorate won't have to look at the nasty, noisy trains and to fund the legal expenses of a million commercial lawyers just to oversee the subcontracting of subcontracts.

I know that's the way the world works today, but there comes a time when the ordinary voter needs to put their foot down and say, enough!

 

[EM2]

It's no more fantasy than the £100bn successive governments seem to be willing to spend on the Albino Pachyderm Line just so they can get to Brum twenty minutes quicker.

Just out of interest, did you feel the same way about the M40 and the M6 Toll?

 

[The Box Photter]

If by the £100billion you mean the (speculated) cost of HS2 then you get no BTP officers. Because one is capital and the other is revenue expenditure.

That's just an accounting exercise. If the money is there, spend it on something really useful.

 

[The Planner]

Other than as a "solution" to the "full" south WCML (controversial opinion here - it isn't full), HS2 is a solution looking for a problem.

How much capacity is left on it then?

 

[The Box Photter]

Just out of interest, did you feel the same way about the M40 and the M6 Toll?

I have to admit that when the M40 extension was built, it was a great alternative route from London to the North, until everyone in West London discovered it was quicker than the M1/M6. It's now as ghastly to use as all the other UK motorways. I also use the M6 toll. But just because I choose to do that it doesn't make the case for HS2. How much of the public purse did the M6 toll cost?

I also know that because it's a toll road, hardly any commercial traffic uses the M6 toll, so it's usually only used by private cars (and rarely to capacity, also because of the cost). So you could say that the M6 toll is a waste of space too and the land would have been put to better use in improving the West Midlands rail network.

I do know that I'd be much more likely to use the train to get from the south of England to the north if:

• the fares were more reasonable
• I was guaranteed a seat
• It was guaranteed that I wouldn't have to spend part or all of the journey with someone's backside in my face because the train is full & standing
• I didn't have to put up with an engine beneath my feet or a claustrophobic interior with high-backed seating, small badly aligned windows and a constant smell from the Elsan at the end of the carriage

 

[EM2]

I have to admit that when the M40 extension was built, it was a great alternative route from London to the North, until everyone in West London discovered it was quicker than the M1/M6. It's now as ghastly to use as all the other UK motorways. I also use the M6 toll. But just because I choose to do that it doesn't make the case for HS2. How much of the public purse did the M6 toll cost?

So you can understand why alternative routes are a good thing?

I also know that because it's a toll road, hardly any commercial traffic uses the M6 toll, so it's usually only used by private cars (and rarely to capacity, also because of the cost). So you could say that the M6 toll is a waste of space too and the land would have been put to better use in improving the West Midlands rail network.

That's because a lot of people would rather spend time than money. I saw the same in Ireland.

I do know that I'd be much more likely to use the train to get from the south of England to the north if:

• the fares were more reasonable
• I was guaranteed a seat
• It was guaranteed that I wouldn't have to spend part or all of the journey with someone's backside in my face because the train is full & standing
• I didn't have to put up with an engine beneath my feet or a claustrophobic interior with high-backed seating, small badly aligned windows and a constant smell from the Elsan at the end of the carriage

You can get good fares, by booking in advance. You can also reserve seats. HS2 will be electric, so no diesel vibration. Can't say about the interior design yet

 

[PR1Berske]

That argument isn't very persuasive to those of us who are cynical about HS2.

It might deliver some benefit for end to end journeys at some unknown point in the future, 30 plus years away, for some unknown cost.

And it'll free up space for the London dormitory town region because by then we'll still be more concerned with piling ever more distant commuters into a city that can't cope with it rather than spending all this money trying to reverse excessive commuting.

Except we won't free up all the space cos we reluctantly accept it's reasonable to want to travel from Newcastle to Stevenage, say, on the nice straight line between the two rather than changing at Birmingham. So instead we'll have to have a wider variation of stopping patterns.

I'm afraid I'm completely unconvinced.

Thank you.

 

[The Box Photter]

So you can understand why alternative routes are a good thing?

That's because a lot of people would rather spend time than money. I saw the same in Ireland.

You can get a good fares, by booking in advance. You can also reserve seats. HS2 will be electric, so no diesel vibration. Can't say about the interior design yet

I think there has to be a trade-off between the benefits of alternative routes. If the costs outweigh the benefits, there's no problem in providing the alternative. As far as I can see, the costs of HS2 are

• a spiraling initial infrastructure cost (with no fiscal cap)
• the destruction of numerous homes and the blighting of others outside the compulsory purchase zones
• the destructive effect on greenbelt and agricultural land
• the marginal time saving over current routes
• the inevitable high cost of use for passengers to recoup the build cost (or massive government subsidy)
• the probability that services on the "classic" routes will be decelerated to drive more business onto HS2 (see SouthEastern High Speed as a previous model)

Given time, I can probably think of more costs. The benefits would seem to be

• the devotion of the southern WCML to commuter traffic to/from Milton Keynes, Northampton and Rugby
• shiny new trains (possibly named after great British politicians)
• shiny new stations in the wrong places (meaning people will have to drive to them) - maybe that's a cost too
• an extra 20 minutes drinking time in Birmingham before having to get the train back to London
• did I mention shiny new trains?

 

[6Gman]

So pour a bit of concrete and lengthen the platforms. There's no shortage of the stuff when it comes to spunking it on the HS2 white elephant. There's a lot of "not invented here" attitude on this forum. What we need is a "how can we make things better for more passengers?" attitude.

Politicians, engineers and building contractors love shiny new things because it looks like something is being done. Lengthening platforms to accommodate 12, 13 or 14 coach trains and the associated track & signalling changes isn't big or sexy and doesn't look impressive in Parliament when the next election comes round.

Except that it is big. Notably at Liverpool Lime Street where you need to get your trackwork sorted before the tunnels.

 

[Ianno87]

And it'll free up space for the London dormitory town region because by then we'll still be more concerned with piling ever more distant commuters into a city that can't cope with it rather than spending all this money trying to reverse excessive commuting.

Except we won't free up all the space cos we reluctantly accept it's reasonable to want to travel from Newcastle to Stevenage, say, on the nice straight line between the two rather than changing at Birmingham. So instead we'll have to have a wider variation of stopping patterns.

Exactly! You've made my argument for me, thank you!

The likes of Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark and Retford sudddenly become credible dormitory towns for Leeds (encouraging business to locate there), as their train service becomes more about serving them along the way and providing both London and non-London links rather than whizzing straight through.

 

[EM2]

I think there has to be a trade-off between the benefits of alternative routes. If the costs outweigh the benefits, there's no problem in providing the alternative. As far as I can see, the costs of HS2 are

• a spiraling initial infrastructure cost (with no fiscal cap)
• the destruction of numerous homes and the blighting of others outside the compulsory purchase zones
• the destructive effect on greenbelt and agricultural land
• the marginal time saving over current routes
• the inevitable high cost of use for passengers to recoup the build cost (or massive government subsidy)
• the probability that services on the "classic" routes will be decelerated to drive more business onto HS2 (see SouthEastern High Speed as a previous model)

Given time, I can probably think of more costs.

All of these arguments were put forward against HS1. Yet it is a massive success.

 

[EM2]

Lengthening platforms to accommodate 12, 13 or 14 coach trains and the associated track & signalling changes isn't big

Isn't it? How long were the Nottingham, Derby and Lime Street blockades? And you want to do that to the whole of the WCML? How do you deal with somewhere like Coventry, with junctions at each end of the station?

 

[The Box Photter]

All of these arguments were put forward against HS1. Yet it is a massive success.

It's a "massive success" because passengers needing to get from Kent to London on time for work had to use it when their existing train service was made slower and less convenient. HS1 as a means of getting to the Channel Tunnel is a completely different animal and some might say putting domestic commuter services onto it was the wrong thing to do.

 

[The Box Photter]

Isn't it? How long were the Nottingham, Derby and Lime Street blockades? And you want to do that to the whole of the WCML? How do you deal with somewhere like Coventry, with junctions at each end of the station?

None of these blockades were for as long as it's going to take to build HS2, or as costly. The HS2 argument seems to be "It's too difficult to do anything worthwhile on the old railway, so lets forget about it and build a new one". Anyone who commits the heresy of suggesting it won't be the panacea for all ills is somehow a Luddite with no vision. As I've said, there could be an immediate improvement of capacity on the WCML and elsewhere if the operators stopped using two, three, four and five carriage trains. Why are West Midlands Trains allowed to operate services using four car class 350s? Why can Cross Country get away with offering 2 car 170s as long-distance interurban trains? Surely there aren't that many stations (outside Central Wales or Northern Scotland) which can only accommodate a 2 car train. I've seen the platforms at Northampton, Rugby, Tamworth etc and they're massive, but still the trains that turn up are only four carriages long. It's madness.

I know that the money for longer trains or additional carriages will have to come from somewhere, but the government seems to already have a spare £100bn knocking about, so lets use that.