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

[Meerkat]

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

Is it? How does this “success” compare to the expectations at the planning stage?

What was the benefit cost ratio for HS2 when it was £33bn? How is that looking now?
It is just too expensive with little confidence in cost control - every percentage point over budget is a huge amount of money.

 

[SilentGrade]

I haven’t read through the thread so apologies if this had already been said. But I think the main argument for many is that the money should be spent on the existing network instead. However what isn’t realised is that we really are at the limit of what we can do with the existing network in places and there’s only so much 4tracking/flyovers etc. that can be physically built. HS2 is as much about allowing new journey opportunities on the existing network as it is getting people to London in X minutes and that’s especially true for Phase 2. It’s arguably needed more, capacity wise at least, than Phase 1.

 

[JamesT]

Is it? How does this “success” compare to the expectations at the planning stage?

What was the benefit cost ratio for HS2 when it was £33bn? How is that looking now?
It is just too expensive with little confidence in cost control - every percentage point over budget is a huge amount of money.

This evening’s Dispatches quoted a BCR of 2.5 for HS2. I assume that’s based on the current cost.
Though has the cost actually gone up that much? The £33bn didn’t include rolling stock (£7.5bn), and a further £14bn of contingency is included in the current £56bn estimate.

 

[camflyer]

I haven’t read through the thread so apologies if this had already been said. But I think the main argument for many is that the money should be spent on the existing network instead. However what isn’t realised is that we really are at the limit of what we can do with the existing network in places and there’s only so much 4tracking/flyovers etc. that can be physically built. HS2 is as much about allowing new journey opportunities on the existing network as it is getting people to London in X minutes and that’s especially true for Phase 2. It’s arguably needed more, capacity wise at least, than Phase 1.

Quite right. Perhaps the biggest failing of HS2 so far as been in its branding and PR. People keep going on about spending billions to "save 10 minutes from Birmingham to London" when it is about a lot more than that. If anything the Phase 2 works are far more important than the initial line to Brum. On the other hand NPR seems to get universal support despite, so far, any firm route plans.

We need a railway foit for the mid-21st Century. Not one from the mid-20th with sticking plasters.

 

[ABB125]

I have edited the title to slightly broaden the scope of this thread (and to better reflect it's contents).

 

[EM2]

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.

And yet the classic line services are full and standing as well...

 

[swaldman]

I haven’t read through the thread so apologies if this had already been said. But I think the main argument for many is that the money should be spent on the existing network instead. However what isn’t realised is that we really are at the limit of what we can do with the existing network in places and there’s only so much 4tracking/flyovers etc. that can be physically built. HS2 is as much about allowing new journey opportunities on the existing network as it is getting people to London in X minutes and that’s especially true for Phase 2. It’s arguably needed more, capacity wise at least, than Phase 1.

Yeah, this has all been covered, but that doesn't mean people listen. I came to this thread ignorant and sceptical about HS2. I still have few strong opinions on it, but I'm better-disposed to it than I was simply because the people here who want it have consistently presented thought-through explanations of the direct and indirect benefits, while the people who don't want it have consistently gone "la la la can't hear you we shouldn't be spending billions to get to Birmingham ten minutes faster" (an insultingly obvious straw man).

It's frustrating.

 

[kylemore]

He still says he wanted to see both HS2 and NPR

But when push comes to shove, NPR over HS2.

 

[kylemore]

How much capacity is left on it then?

Who cares.

The northern west/east system is in crisis - that should be the priority.

 

[mmh]

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

No, they weren't. HS1 is completely different. The moment the British and French governments decided the channel tunnel was a good idea, there was always going to be a high speed line from it to London.

It was in no plans to only build it to Ashford, with trains trundling along existing lines - a remarkable analogy for what HS2 apologists now like to call the "classic lines" north of Birmingham.

HS1 took decades to build because there were continual problems with funding. And that funding is very relevant to this discussion. HS1 was privately built and there were many arguments over how much subsidy might be appropriate. It's still the only line in Britain which isn't publicly owned. Which is also why St Pancras station is privately owned.

Albeit through private companies with state stakes. There's probably no appetite for similar arrangements like that any more, from politicians of any colour. These days EU competition rules may even prohibit it.

HS2 on the other hand is entirely government funded.

 

[camflyer]

HS1 took decades to build because there were continual problems with funding. And that funding is very relevant to this discussion. HS1 was privately built and there were many arguments over how much subsidy might be appropriate. It's still the only line in Britain which isn't publicly owned. Which is also why St Pancras station is privately owned.

I thought HS1 and St Pancras were owned by London and Continental Railways (LCR) while LCR was state owned

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_and_Continental_Railways

 

[The Ham]

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 carriages

With long 1,000+ seats on a train chances are there's going to be more advanced tickets at reasonable prices, even if you don't think this will happen in the HS2 services the other services will offer it so as to attract customers.

Likewise with a large uplift in capacity the chances of getting a seat are going to go up whilst the chances of being on a full and standing train are going to go down. This is definitely much better than a bit of tinkering on the existing network.

HS2 will be all electric trains, so if you use them then you're reducing the need to travel on a train with an under floor engine.

At I've pointed out before travel from Southampton to Birmingham would be as quick by HS2 and would only be reliant on XC between Southampton and Reading. If you are heading to Manchester or Leeds then the benefits increase significantly.

Yes it requires a change at Reading and Old Oak Common rather than being direct, but then frequencies are likely to be higher than 1tph.

 

[The Ham]

I haven’t read through the thread so apologies if this had already been said. But I think the main argument for many is that the money should be spent on the existing network instead. However what isn’t realised is that we really are at the limit of what we can do with the existing network in places and there’s only so much 4tracking/flyovers etc. that can be physically built. HS2 is as much about allowing new journey opportunities on the existing network as it is getting people to London in X minutes and that’s especially true for Phase 2. It’s arguably needed more, capacity wise at least, than Phase 1.

Last year more money was spent on the classic network in enhancements than in HS2. Since 2009 £25bn had been spent by NR on Enhancements to the classic network (that doesn't include any non NR spend on Crossrail 2)

Even at full spend of £4.5bn a year that's only 50% more than the circa £3bn spend on the existing network.

There's only so much you can do on the classic network at any time because people are annoying and wish to keep using the trains.

 

[Lancs]

The WCML, the MML, and the ECML would get very full very quickly.

Nobody seems to realise that people may want to go in the opposite direction across the country.... You know, Bristol as the hub heading northerly... Especially when you consider the multi-sector trips where Birmingham New Street is more useful than any London station as an interchange for reaching the rest of the country.
Is there a thread for this already?

 

[The Ham]

Nobody seems to realise that people may want to go in the opposite direction across the country.... You know, Bristol as the hub heading northerly... Especially when you consider the multi-sector trips where Birmingham New Street is more useful than any London station as an interchange for reaching the rest of the country.
Is there a thread for this already?

Again Bristol to Birmingham could benefit from HS2, as there wouldn't nearly as many be the Virgin train services wishing to use New Street, which could allow extra services to run (subject to capacity elsewhere).

Even if there wasn't the capacity for it, it becomes a lot easier to fix the remaining locations as there's then space at New Street.

Even if that wasn't possible the capacity on the rest of the XC services (basically all others other than the SW services) is massively increased (by being duplicated by HS2 services) allowing more longer trains to run on the SW services. (For instance free would travel between Leeds an Birmingham or Manchester and Birmingham using XC, making running pairs of units on these services not necessary, allowing those units to be released to use elsewhere).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

None of these blockades were for as long as it's going to take to build HS2, or as costly.

How is that relevant? The point is that upgrading existing lines often requires long blockades, which cause massive inconvenience to passengers (I still remember regularly trying to travel between London and Lancaster at weekends during the WCML upgrade 12-15 years ago. Utter nightmare - not only for months, but literally for years on end). On the other hand, HS2, not matter how long it takes to build, will not for the most part require blockades of existing lines.

The HS2 argument seems to be "It's too difficult to do anything worthwhile on the old railway

The issue of blockades is a minor part of the argument. A much more important part of the argument is that it's not just too difficult but for all practical purposes impossible to do anything to the existing railways that would give anything like the capacity increase that HS2 will provide.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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

More than that: HS1 is a massive success in several different ways. The most obvious success is the numbers of people choosing to use it, and in the massive reductions in journey times from places as varied as Ashford, Canterbury, Gravesend and Gillingham to London. But a secondary success is the way that it has enabled better services to places that are nowhere near the HS1 line. Tunbridge Wells went from 2tph to 4tph. Some metro lines in London also saw frequency increases - for example, the line between Plumstead and Slade Green went from 6tph to 8tph - because of the rolling stock and paths into Charing Cross/Cannon Street that were freed up by HS1.

There's an obvious parallel there with the way that HS2 will enable better services to towns that are nowhere near HS2 because of the transfer of long-distance passengers to HS2.

 

[The Ham]

There's an obvious parallel there with the way that HS2 will enable better services to towns that are nowhere near HS2 because of the transfer of long-distance passengers to HS2.

Quite, for a lot of people Old Oak Common could be a very useful station. Especially if the Southern Approach to Heathrow is built and there are through trains from Guildford and Basingstoke, as that could put a lot of Southern England (i.e. that area which is not southeast or Southwest England - mostly SWR area, but some others as well) potentially within just two changes of anywhere served by HS2 without needing to use the tube to cross London.

Yes that's less than the within one change for XC, however with the slow journey times which are involved in using some XC services there's probably going to be a lot of people who are surprised users of HS2. In that they'll be looking to travel on a route which isn't London to somewhere and find that the rail planners provide then with a leg on HS2 and a faster and/or more frequent service (as two trains an hour which take 40 minutes allows a better departure time for any given arrival time rather than one train per hour taking 30 minutes).

 

[The Ham]

Then one of two things; passenger numbers slow because of capacity constraints or trains get busier and busier with little or no scope to facilitate them.

The point is those opposed to HS2 continue to state that HS2 have got the numbers wrong (which they have) and therefore HS2 isn't needed (even though passenger growth had been higher than predicted).

Has passenger growth been higher or lower than predicted?

If higher what's the option to facilitate for this growth of not HS2?

Maybe HSUK? Only that uses that week known under used line for getting out of London the MML.

I'll ask my questions again, as they appear to have been missed in my above post:

Has passenger growth been higher or lower than predicted?


If higher what's the option to facilitate for this growth if not HS2?


Maybe HSUK? Only that uses that week known under used line for getting out of London the MML.

Anyone that's opposed to HS2 who can provide an answer to those questions I'll be willing to hear what they have to say, but if they remain unanswered most other points about HS2 being cancelled are of little interest and are likely to be just repeating the she things which have been said before.

 

[quantinghome]

But when push comes to shove, NPR over HS2.

The plans for NPR assume HS2 will be built and use its infrastructure. Cancel HS2 and you can kiss goodbye to NPR.

 

[camflyer]

The issue of blockades is a minor part of the argument. A much more important part of the argument is that it's not just too difficult but for all practical purposes impossible to do anything to the existing railways that would give anything like the capacity increase that HS2 will provide.

I would love to see a cost estimate of doubling capacity on the WCML. Just think about all of the land/property which would have to be compulsory purchased, the years delays (and the dreaded bus replacement services) required to do the work and the number of NIMBYs would would complain about it.

 

[Dougal2345]

Sorry if it's been covered already, but what's this about?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/hs2-journey-from-manchester-to-glasgow-slower/

Economist Liam Halligan, who made a TV programme looking at the business case for the controversial train line, revealed that the new HS2 rolling stock will have to travel more slowly than current Pendelino trains.

Speaking to Iain Dale, he said: "This is one of those great little scoops we got that we didn't manage to get on air.

"From Manchester into Scotland, the HS2 rolling stock, because it will be on conventional train lines, will go slower than the existing Pendelinos.

"HS2 will deny that. I've stood that fact up with numerous train engineering experts.

"The HS2 rolling stock from Manchester to Glasgow will be on existing lines and it will go slower than current trains."

 

[jfowkes]

It's because the HS2 trains will not tilt, I imagine.

 

[The Ham]

Sorry if it's been covered already, but what's this about?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/hs2-journey-from-manchester-to-glasgow-slower/

The fastest trains to Edinburgh are TP services, likewise to Glasgow one of the fastest services is a TP service.

As such the delays are unlikely to be that significant and even those which are slower there's going to be services which are unchanged which are quicker.

 

[sprinterguy]

Sorry if it's been covered already, but what's this about?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/hs2-journey-from-manchester-to-glasgow-slower/

HS2 trains will not be able to make use of the Enhanced Permissible Speeds (EPS), used by Pendolinos and Voyagers, on the West Coast main line as they will not tilt. This means that, as things stand, they will be limited to a maximum of 110mph, rather than 125mph, and have to adhere to slower limits on sinuous sections of the route. However with high powered traction motors I would expect any difference in journey times to be negligible to non existent.

 

[underbank]

How is that relevant? The point is that upgrading existing lines often requires long blockades, which cause massive inconvenience to passengers (I still remember regularly trying to travel between London and Lancaster at weekends during the WCML upgrade 12-15 years ago. Utter nightmare - not only for months, but literally for years on end).

I'd be interested to know whether the disruption was better/worse than the original WCML electrification back in the 70's. I remember regular weekend travel to London in the 70s but don't recall too much disruption (but I was young so maybe it passed me by) - my major memory was watching from the train every few weeks as more and more catenary poles appeared each time). Was all the disruption actually necessary or was some of it due to poor planning/implementation?

Re HS2, I don't doubt we need extra capacity, but I'm not convinced it needs to be top-spec with such high speeds. A more traditional line at what is today regarded as normal speeds would surely do the same job of improving capacity, but at probably a fraction of the cost, much quicker - the only downside is that the timings wouldn't be less than today. Is that such a bad thing?

 

[The Ham]

I'd be interested to know whether the disruption was better/worse than the original WCML electrification back in the 70's. I remember regular weekend travel to London in the 70s but don't recall too much disruption (but I was young so maybe it passed me by) - my major memory was watching from the train every few weeks as more and more catenary poles appeared each time). Was all the disruption actually necessary or was some of it due to poor planning/implementation?

Re HS2, I don't doubt we need extra capacity, but I'm not convinced it needs to be top-spec with such high speeds. A more traditional line at what is today regarded as normal speeds would surely do the same job of improving capacity, but at probably a fraction of the cost, much quicker - the only downside is that the timings wouldn't be less than today. Is that such a bad thing?

9/10ths of the cost....

 

[quantinghome]

Re HS2, I don't doubt we need extra capacity, but I'm not convinced it needs to be top-spec with such high speeds. A more traditional line at what is today regarded as normal speeds would surely do the same job of improving capacity, but at probably a fraction of the cost, much quicker - the only downside is that the timings wouldn't be less than today. Is that such a bad thing?

Your 'traditional line' at a fraction of the cost does not exist. If your aim is capacity, and you want the same level of connectivity as HS2:

You'd still need to build new or extended stations (the current ones are at capacity), including the 'out of town' stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange.
You'd still need to build tunnels through London and Manchester as there is no surface route available for a new line at whatever speed.
You'd still need to do all the civil engineering. Lots of tunnels and bridges needed.
These are the main costs of HS2.

You would get savings due to:

Slightly smaller tunnel diameters.
Avoiding some building demolition by being able to reroute due to tighter minimum radius curves.
Shorter dynamic loops.
Less concern about dynamic effects on the structures and ground.
These are marginal with respect to the overall cost.

But you would get increased costs due to:

Needing more trains to run the same frequency of service.
Possibly deeper/higher earthworks (high speed trains can cope better with steeper gradients).

If we can make savings by reducing from 400kph design speed to (say) 320 or 350 kph then I'd be in favour. It would not reduce end to end journey times by that much. However reducing to 200kph would gain little and lose a lot.

 

[6Gman]

I'd be interested to know whether the disruption was better/worse than the original WCML electrification back in the 70's. I remember regular weekend travel to London in the 70s but don't recall too much disruption (but I was young so maybe it passed me by) - my major memory was watching from the train every few weeks as more and more catenary poles appeared each time). Was all the disruption actually necessary or was some of it due to poor planning/implementation?

Re HS2, I don't doubt we need extra capacity, but I'm not convinced it needs to be top-spec with such high speeds. A more traditional line at what is today regarded as normal speeds would surely do the same job of improving capacity, but at probably a fraction of the cost, much quicker - the only downside is that the timings wouldn't be less than today. Is that such a bad thing?

Changes in health & safety requirements have played a big part in this. I can (just about) remember travelling up to London during the early-60s electrification works. (Diesel to Crewe, Electric to Nuneaton, Steam forward!) We would just roll (slowly) past the gangs doing p.way, signalling, overhead work. Wouldn't be allowed now, and quite rightly. One thing that might help would be more ready use of diversionary routes, which seems to be frowned on these days. During the early 70s electrification to Scotland I can recall going to Glasgow via the S&C or the GSW.

I agree strongly with your second paragraph. The ultra high speeds were just (if you'll pardon my language) political willy-waving.

 

[swaldman]

Re HS2, I don't doubt we need extra capacity, but I'm not convinced it needs to be top-spec with such high speeds. A more traditional line at what is today regarded as normal speeds would surely do the same job of improving capacity, but at probably a fraction of the cost, much quicker - the only downside is that the timings wouldn't be less than today. Is that such a bad thing?

Travelling from Aberdeen to London takes about 7 hours.
Travelling from Paris to the south of France - about the same distance - takes about 3.5 hours.

Narrowing that gap would seem to be a good thing. Not at any cost, but speed is certainly worth something. Especially as a sub-4hr journey time between London and the central belt could move a lot of people off planes and onto trains, a strong environmental win.