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

[tom73]

IMHO the money would be far better spent in
a. electrifying the entire network to a high standard
b. checking existing overhead installations to ensure they meet that high standard
c. upgrading all track with permanent speed restrictions to allow 80 mph operation

 

[HOOVER29]

People may not like HS2 as it could lead to massive disruption in their life/area which they may not want. It’s passing about 1/4 mile from my front door which is too near for my liking. It’s also going to cause massive disruption to the already congested area including road closures for at least two years. To use the thing I’m going to have to drive for 30 mins to get to the nearest station at Toton. I can drive to London in 90 mins from my house. 1 hr 50 mins sees me walking up Euston road. If advanced booking I can get the train from Tamworth for around £20 return. Why would I want to use HS2?
It’ll be years before it pays for itself if it ever does. I’ll definitely never use it in my lifetime. The money could be better spent improving our current railway’s or the NHS.

 

[Hadders]

Remember that building something like HS2 isn't just for today's needs, it's got to cater for 30-50 years worth of growth.

As for cost, it is expensive but it will last for years to come. HS1 was opposed by many with similar arguments to what we read on this thread, does anyone really think that noe it's been operating successfully for several years it shouldn't have been built? The same argument could be made for the Jubilee Line Extension, or even the motorway network.

 

[PR1Berske]

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.

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.

IMHO the money would be far better spent in
a. electrifying the entire network to a high standard
b. checking existing overhead installations to ensure they meet that high standard
c. upgrading all track with permanent speed restrictions to allow 80 mph operation

People may not like HS2 as it could lead to massive disruption in their life/area which they may not want. It’s passing about 1/4 mile from my front door which is too near for my liking. It’s also going to cause massive disruption to the already congested area including road closures for at least two years. To use the thing I’m going to have to drive for 30 mins to get to the nearest station at Toton. I can drive to London in 90 mins from my house. 1 hr 50 mins sees me walking up Euston road. If advanced booking I can get the train from Tamworth for around £20 return. Why would I want to use HS2?
It’ll be years before it pays for itself if it ever does. I’ll definitely never use it in my lifetime. The money could be better spent improving our current railway’s or the NHS.

Excellent posts in opposition.

We could have invested in electrification years ago. Generations ago. We are now seeing HS2 being built while existing lines go underfunded or not funded at all. That seems like abandoning the traditional network, the affordable network, and all for something the majority of the country can't access.

Nobody can refute the problem with accessing HS2. As said above, it runs through places without stopping, so people who could use it have to drive for miles; they might as well drive to their destination.

It's fascinating watching this battle between enthusiasts, not least because nobody on the pro-side dare admit that they could be wrong about such an expensive scheme, one which leaves the traditional railway without funding for years.

I'll be very interested to see just how much more opposition grows on RailUK as the year progresses.

 

[ABB125]

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.

Ah right, I suppose that makes sense. But surely it's better than building a brand new station in the middle of nowhere* with no existing transport links?

*Slight exaggeration

 

[whhistle]

1. It costs too much. No project, none, should have such a large and apparently unstoppable budget. HS2 itself cannot confirm what it will ultimately cost. That is not acceptable.

While fairly true, it's difficult to decide what sort of pricing should be applied.
You pay per day, meaning contractors *could* stretch it out to be paid as long as possible, with many "unknown delays".
You pay a set fee for the whole thing, meaning contractors will rush to finish it in the fastest time possible meaning mistakes and dodgy work.
Because of the scale of the work, costs will always rise as every year, costs rise.

2. We don't need it. The WCML is not congested to the extent that it once was. There are other solutions to building a line going into Birmingham with no immediate stops.

What are they?
HS2 is the solution.
The problem is, because some people oppose it, the line has to try and please everyone, and will end up pleasing no-one.

3. London doesn't need it.

No, London doesn't need it. It's not for London, it's for the Midlands.

4. The North cannot wait. The proposals for extending into the north is too little too late. The amount of money spent on getting to Birmingham in the 2030s could be spent on the north *now*.

The deal should have been to start in the North first. That would have pleased some (to see money being spent in the North).

5. HS2 has no justification. First it was about speed, then congestion, then reconnecting the North, then it was about something else. Its lack of purpose is exactly why the budget is spiralling. Its lack of purpose is exactly why enthusiasts struggle to get behind it.

It's all of those things no?
Opposers will poo poo one idea, so supporters will try another approach.

 

[whhistle]

The only thing I don't like, is the fact we're still clinging on to the "classic" compatibility.
I'm sure some station platforms can be rebuilt to allow HS2 trains only (like Crewe), where as other stations are brand new anyway.

I also don't understand why people have the idea "we're fine as we are". Our railways are old, small and slow. Yes, some may say that London to Scotland or London to Birmingham are done in agreeable times... or you can do it in 45 mins on a plane. 4/5 hours against 45 mins. I know which one I'd choose!
Yet other countries almost appear to build high speed as normal - like there is no other choice. That's how we shuld approach all new lines and make efforts to convert our current lines - bigger gauge = more choice.

The only choice we have now is longer trains. That means less space on the tracks, even if in cab signalling and moving block sections gets off the ground properly! We always limit ourselves so projects never seem to realise their full potential.

 

[Robertj21a]

Ah right, I suppose that makes sense. But surely it's better than building a brand new station in the middle of nowhere* with no existing transport links?

*Slight exaggeration

It could be significantly more useful to many people if it was connected to the local tram network.

 

[ABB125]

It could be significantly more useful to many people if it was connected to the local tram network.

Yes, but you also have to have frequent shuttle services to Nottingham and Derby so people who don't live in the suburbs can actually get to where they want to go. Personally I wonder whether it would be better not to have a station in the East Midlands at all, and instead have a series of chords between HS2 and various classic lines both south and north of Derby and Nottingham (a bit like the plan for Sheffield, but better).

 

[Wivenswold]

The reason there's a high-speed network over the water in Europe is;
1) Because there's more space, Britain is a very cramped country especially in corridors between cities.
2) Countries like France, Spain, Italy and Germany are much larger, so getting around the country would take most of the day. So there has to be a fast rail system.
3) Freedom of movement. Over the water they see the benefits of freedom of movement making long-distance travel easier, increasing demand.
4) Most EU countries have traditionally seen rail travel as a public service and funded it properly. We still have Pacers connecting cities.

A far better legacy for this government would have been to set a target for 100% electrification in England and Wales by 2030. Spread the cost, spread the improvements. Then perhaps there would be a good case for HS2 up the spine of the country connecting to the improved network.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

HS2 just had a PR boost with the discovery of the coffin of Matthew Flinders in the old cemetery at Euston, now being excavated for the new terminus.
It will certainly put Euston on the Aussie tourist map of London.
Matthew Flinders is, probably, the second most revered person in Australian history (the first being Captain James Cook).
There are many features named after him in Australia, the most obvious railway connection (if indirect) being Flinders St station in Melbourne.
There is already a statue of him at Euston (complete with cat Trim), but habeus corpus trumps that!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28366309
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46974247

The remains of explorer Captain Matthew Flinders have been identified by archaeologists working on the HS2 project in a London burial ground.
Captain Flinders led the first circumnavigation of Australia and is credited with naming the country

 

[ABB125]

A far better legacy for this government would have been to set a target for 100% electrification in England and Wales by 2030. Spread the cost, spread the improvements. Then perhaps there would be a good case for HS2 up the spine of the country connecting to the improved network.

Whilst I am definitely in favour of electrification, there are a few issues with your proposal:

• There are some lines that would never justify electrification (West Highland line, Conwy valley etc)
• Upgrades cause disruption; new build doesn't (much)
• Do you really think Network Rail are capable of electrifying anything at a reasonable cost, to time?

Nevertheless we should have a rolling electrification programme, but only once Network Rail (or perhaps someone else following the Williams Review) can get their act together.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I am definitely in favour of electrification, there are a few issues with your proposal:

• There are some lines that would never justify electrification (West Highland line, Conwy valley etc)

They'd never justify conventional OHLE at 25kV, but there are ways in which they might, though battery units are probably likely to be the way once we stop burning dead dinosaurs.

 

[al78]

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

High speed trains are not very environmentally friendly. Energy required to accelerate to a pareticular speed goes up non-linearly with the speed (the speed squared IIRC), and a significant amount or our electricity is generated from fossil fuels. From a pure environmental impact standpoint, travelling slower is best. The phasing out of fossil fuel powered cars to electric vehicles will somewhat reduce the environmental impact of motoring, if the electricity supply can be converted to renewable at the same time.

I remain to be convinced it will have much impact on reducing domestic air travel. Possibly if it went to Scotland, but I thought it is only going as far as N England (eventually). It also depends on the price of a ticket. If they start charging Caledonian sleeper level prices then forget convincing people to use it instead of flying.

 

[Mathew S]

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.

What, specifically, would you change on the WCML and where? What changes would you make to signalling? How would you change the timetable? Where would you run trains if not to/from London (remembering that's where the tracks go)?
And how would you implement all of those things to bring the same benefits as HS2 for the same/lower cost and equal/less disruption to make it happen?

I rather suspect that objective, evidence-based answers to those questions will make HS2 - of which I am in favour because it adds capacity to a hideously congested railway - seem all the more attractive.

 

[Aictos]

High speed trains are not very environmentally friendly. Energy required to accelerate to a pareticular speed goes up non-linearly with the speed (the speed squared IIRC), and a significant amount or our electricity is generated from fossil fuels. From a pure environmental impact standpoint, travelling slower is best. The phasing out of fossil fuel powered cars to electric vehicles will somewhat reduce the environmental impact of motoring, if the electricity supply can be converted to renewable at the same time.

I remain to be convinced it will have much impact on reducing domestic air travel. Possibly if it went to Scotland, but I thought it is only going as far as N England (eventually). It also depends on the price of a ticket. If they start charging Caledonian sleeper level prices then forget convincing people to use it instead of flying.

By that, wouldn't it be better if everyone just employed a man with a red flag to walk in front of their vehicle at travel around at 5mph?

As to stating that High Speed trains are not very environmentally friendly, there are facts which refute that which I will share below:

London to Paris by Flight out and back - 3.5 hours, 244 Kg/CO2

London to Paris by Eurostar out and back - 2.75 hours, 22 Kg/CO2

Eurostar makes 91% less CO2 emissions as a result.


London to Edinburgh by Flight out and back - 3.5 hours, 193 Kg/CO2

London to Edinburgh by Eurostar out and back - 4.5 hours, 24 Kg/CO2

Train travel makes 87% less CO2 emissions as a result.

So explain how not very environmentally friendly High Speed Trains are?

Full credit to TheManInSeat61 site.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It's been poorly marketed to the general public.
People see it as 15 minutes off London to Birmingham at the cost of a huge amount of money.
Should be stressing the capacity issue, benefits of high speed network and reduced need for internal flights.
In my view it should kill off internal flights, as has happened to an extent in parts of Europe, and taxes should be imposed on such flights justified on environmental grounds.
Build HS2 instead of a new runway at Heathrow.

There are no internal flights between Birmingham and London.

 

[Journeyman]

It's fascinating watching this battle between enthusiasts, not least because nobody on the pro-side dare admit that they could be wrong about such an expensive scheme, one which leaves the traditional railway without funding for years.

This is one of the things that gets on my wick. If HS2 wasn't being built, the money would not be available to the rail industry at all. There's still a lot of investment in the rail network going on - record levels of it, in fact. It may or may not be enough, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the HS2 budget is actually sucking money away from the classic network.

I'd suggest that any deficiencies in investment and infrastructure are more the fault of Network Rail than anyone else.

 

[Clip]

one which leaves the traditional railway without funding for years.

Can you provide a source for this information or how you came to this conclusion?

 

[Puffing Devil]

One radical suggestion to ensure the HS2 is built and bring real benefit to the North: Shift Parliament to Manchester or Leeds. Leave the ministries in London.

Re-purpose the Palace of Westminster as a tourist attraction and hotel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One radical suggestion to ensure the HS2 is built and bring real benefit to the North: Shift Parliament to Manchester or Leeds. Leave the ministries in London.

Re-purpose the Palace of Westminster as a tourist attraction and hotel.

I'd agree with the latter (I think a circular chamber would be of huge benefit), but Birmingham would be a more sensible location for it on the basis that Scotland is not likely to be part of it for much longer.

 

[Senex]

I'm all for high-speed rail, whether done the French way with new lines effectively designed to link the end-points as fast as possible and serving other places only incidentally or the German way of linking new build very tightly in with the existing infrastructure. We'd have done far better here to get in on the act much earlier and build HS2 instead of undertaking the massively disruptive and hideously expensive West Coast Route Modernisation—or indeed even earlier. But I'm no enthusiast either for doing it now or for the way in which it's being done now. It is another project for London, to allow the provision of extra capacity for commuters on the classic line(s) into London and to bring the yokels from Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, etc faster to London to meet up with their lords and masters in politics and business. It's certainly not designed to provide the best connectivity between, say, Birmingham and Manchester, or, at a later stage, Manchester and Scotland. As things stand, I'd far rather see investment in the existing network. The idea of 49 minutes from London to Birmingham when it looks as if Manchester to Leeds is still going to be taking over 40 minutes, and when there's apparently not enough money to sort out the Manchester area properly (at a fraction of the cost of the recent works at either Reading or London Bridge) just seems absurd—and wrong in the context of any national transport policy. (As for the London commuters, if there isn't the capacity, the ration by price—let London employers pick up the bill for the congestion they cause.)

 

[Senex]

Re-purpose the Palace of Westminster as a tourist attraction and hotel.

I certainly agree with that! The amount apparently going to be spent on renovation and modernisation of the building to make a modern legislature facility is obscene!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It's certainly not designed to provide the best connectivity between, say, Birmingham and Manchester

Phase 2a will have trains from Birmingham to Manchester, I thought? And even Phase 1 will see a chord built from the Curzon Street line northwards, so presumably there is still every possibility of classic compatible services from Curzon Street to Manchester, running via HS2 until it joins the WCML near Lichfield.

 

[PeterC]

People are against it for a number of reasons.
The early emphasis on London to Birmingham speed was definitely a bad PR move. Also with a totally new alignment people on the route don't see a personal benefit. With a new motorway on the other hand the people who aren't actually next to it will get the benefit of a moderately convenient access point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Phase 2a will have trains from Birmingham to Manchester, I thought? And even Phase 1 will see a chord built from the Curzon Street line northwards, so presumably there is still every possibility of classic compatible services from Curzon Street to Manchester, running via HS2 until it joins the WCML near Lichfield.

Indeed. And putting more trains into New St is hardly a *good* idea...

 

[mpthomson]

Good point, although the NHS benefits due to reduced illness caused by pollution because of the modal shift to rail.

Marginally at best I would think, nothing like by the amount HS2 would cost to build.

 

[Ianno87]

Phase 2a will have trains from Birmingham to Manchester, I thought? And even Phase 1 will see a chord built from the Curzon Street line northwards, so presumably there is still every possibility of classic compatible services from Curzon Street to Manchester, running via HS2 until it joins the WCML near Lichfield.

And with Phase 2B, the journey time between Birmingham and Manchester on HS2 will be less than half of what it is today! How that's 'not well designed' is beyond me....

 

[mpthomson]

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.

!

That'll be the economy that's growing faster than any other comparable European nation and has turned a very sizeable structural deficit left by the Labour govt into a now surplus and has rising employment levels, will it? That kind of destroying the economy?

The rest of your post I agree with completely.

 

[nidave]

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.

I cant find the link so I suspect it was in a magazine I read this but It went along the lines of...
The M25 is considered a design failure as there were too many junctions added at the request of local residents and they are too close together for what was supposed to be a ring road to avoid London - there is a lot of traffic using it not for its intended purpose but to travel a short distance.

Edit: Might have been something linked from http://www.roads.org.uk/ringways - good site. Some really interesting articles but they are re writing it all so cant quite remember.

We could have invested in electrification years ago. Generations ago. We are now seeing HS2 being built while existing lines go underfunded or not funded at all. That seems like abandoning the traditional network, the affordable network, and all for something the majority of the country can't access.

Why does it have to be either or - with borrowing (for the moment) at historically low levels the government has been insane not to do both.
Isn't there some benefit in new infrastructure than renal and upgrading in therms of some metric on how the country is doing internationally or something with impacts GDP or the like.
(again I cant remember where I read this - I am going to have to start saving these sorts of links when I come across them as they are useful to refer to)