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

[The Ham]

Sorry typo in my post it was the North WEST.

For completeness the growth from the North East to London was 29% (so still above the 25% in the HS2 model)

 

[class26]

There is no guarantee that HS2 will be so wonderful, glorious, fault--free, as advocates believe.

I notice that I'm expected to "prove it" with response while pro-voices tend to just claim faultless bounty. Why is that?

But you only have to look at HS1 for proof. far fewer delays and late running. Built on budget etc etc

 

[6Gman]

I have, and it always follows that HS2 means a faster service for those with stations built on it, and slower, inconvenient services for the rest of us.

That sounds like "one rule for the rich, another for the poor" to me.

No it doesn't. It really doesn't.

 

[6Gman]

Maybe because we don't think spending £55bn is a good idea in the first place? That's a mammoth amount of money, and its use should be properly audited and justified.

If we are living in a world where £55bn is somehow available, I'd like to see it deployed in regional hotspots, where it truly would benefit ordinary people. New stations, modernise signalling, that sort of thing.

I do wonder if pro-HS2 people truly believe that they are going to spend so much money on a line with no intermediate stations. Just think what that means!

FACTUAL CORRECTION>

There are intermediate stations.

 

[6Gman]

I've answered this question before and I know advocates have admitted that they cannot guarantee that existing services will remain as they are now, and cannot guarantee that services won't survive as they are now.

Lancaster and Oxenholme, for two examples, will lose direct London services.

By the very definition you and others have given me, the WCML will be for stoppers (because HS2 has no intermediate stations) and so will be slower.

No, they may lose direct London services. Or they may not.

They may be calling points for HS2 services and thus get faster direct London services.
They may have to retain their existing services, which may be marginally slowed by (e.g.) an additional stop at Nuneaton, which would be a very slightly slower service but would open up opportunities for connecting services.
By changing at Preston (or Crewe) they will certainly get a faster service to London.

I suspect the level of service they get will reflect the demand for those services. Which seems - sort of - "fair" really.

 

[6Gman]

There is no guarantee that HS2 will be so wonderful, glorious, fault--free, as advocates believe.

I notice that I'm expected to "prove it" with response while pro-voices tend to just claim faultless bounty. Why is that?

I believe you are introducing a straw-man argument with your claims that the advocates say it will be "fault-free" or convey "faultless bounty".

The advocates are simply saying it is the best option to address the issues faced by the WCML (and, to a lesser extent, the MML and ECML).

 

[The Box Photter]

If you can tell us what is needed where that will release as much capacity across the network as HS2 will, then yes it would be enough.

Perhaps if you stopped bullying him, we'd all be able to have a reasoned debate. That's what this forum is about isn't it? In the same way that it can't be PROVEN that money spent elsewhere would be better than being spent on HS2, you can't PROVE what boost to the economy will be generated by building HS2 either. It's all just supposition and guesswork.

Given the likely economic collapse that will follow Brexit, we might all be spending less time commuting, so the existing trains might be quieter anyway.

 

[EM2]

Perhaps if you stopped bullying him, we'd all be able to have a reasoned debate. That's what this forum is about isn't it?

If PR1Berske thinks they are being bullied, they are welcome to report my posts to the moderators.
As for what I'm asking, numerous posters, and other people knowledgeable about the industry outside of the forum, have given examples of what high speed rail can do, and what it costs to improve non-high speed. When other people insist that there are other options, but can't give even a sketchy outline of what they might be, except some vague nebulous concept of 'improvements', then they should be challenged.

 

[si404]

I have, and it always follows that HS2 means a faster service for those with stations built on it, and slower, inconvenient services for the rest of us.

Slower, perhaps, but certainly more-frequent (south of Golborne/Church Fenton) due to having trains that current whizz through them diverted onto HS2, creating space for other trains that do stop there (while still allowing stuff like the Chester service to non-stop if desired).

Don't build HS2 and either Watford and Rugby join the Trent Valley stops in not being served by ICWC trains, or have all trains stopping at those stops and MK (adding two or three stops to all ICWC services), in order to eke out a fraction more capacity.

 

[Thunderer]

The whole scheme is a very expensive white elephant. When I first saw the proposed route beyond Birmingham I laughed my socks off! Somehow the route manages to avoid the densely populated cities of Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Sheffield and Wakefield on its way to Leeds - "Inter-City" it is not, unless you are travelling direct between London and Birmingham or Birmingham and Leeds. The section to Manchester and its Airport makes a bit more sense, but again I personally think MAGLEV or the Hyperloop concept is the future of fast Inter-City travel and it has huge benefits over conventional high speed rail systems.

 

[EM2]

...but again I personally think MAGLEV or the Hyperloop concept is the future of fast Inter-City travel and it has huge benefits over conventional high speed rail systems.

Maglev - there is one high-speed maglev line in the world, in Shanghai. It's 30km long and cost $1.2bn to build (that was in 2004), and has massive financial losses. When it was decided to extend to Hangzhou, maglev was shelved and conventional high speed rail was built instead.
Hyperloop - completely unproven.

 

[Grumpy]

Not sure that train drivers earn three times more than doctors? Stats anyone? If true it shows how powerful the rail unions are.

I actually said 2-3 times more.
In the past couple of weeks GWR have been advertising for drivers at Reading quoting a current base salary of £49819 which it states will rise to £62k in 2020. They also advertised for drivers at Reading quoting the £62k. The Rail Operations group website is seeking drivers and quotes £70k salary although I recall a recent article on them in one of the railway mags where the MD quoted £75k basic salary. I don't know about London but an article in the Telegraph in January 2017 stated that Tube drivers were paid a basic £49673 for a 36 hour week after their "12-16 weeks training". The last group also get 43 days leave compared to 27 for a nurse. At that time the salary of the average British worker was quoted as £26500.
The BMA website shows a foundation year 1 doctor salary of £27146, a year 2 doctor gets £31422. These are people who've probably had to get 3 a* passes at a-level, including chemistry, and then had at least 5 years intensive study at university and in hospitals as a result of which they are possibly lumbered with a personal student loan debt of £60k or so. And there will be no arguing about not working Sundays and unsociable hours. One of my daughters is a doctor who had to work Christmas eve, Christmas day, Boxing Day, New year's Eve and New Year's day this year for no extra pay. Think about this next time you're lying frightened on a stretcher in A&E
As I said, what the country is paying train drivers is barmy and is one of the contributory reasons the industry is out of financial control.

 

[6Gman]

I actually said 2-3 times more.
In the past couple of weeks GWR have been advertising for drivers at Reading quoting a current base salary of £49819 which it states will rise to £62k in 2020. They also advertised for drivers at Reading quoting the £62k. The Rail Operations group website is seeking drivers and quotes £70k salary although I recall a recent article on them in one of the railway mags where the MD quoted £75k basic salary. I don't know about London but an article in the Telegraph in January 2017 stated that Tube drivers were paid a basic £49673 for a 36 hour week after their "12-16 weeks training". The last group also get 43 days leave compared to 27 for a nurse. At that time the salary of the average British worker was quoted as £26500.
The BMA website shows a foundation year 1 doctor salary of £27146, a year 2 doctor gets £31422. These are people who've probably had to get 3 a* passes at a-level, including chemistry, and then had at least 5 years intensive study at university and in hospitals as a result of which they are possibly lumbered with a personal student loan debt of £60k or so. And there will be no arguing about not working Sundays and unsociable hours. One of my daughters is a doctor who had to work Christmas eve, Christmas day, Boxing Day, New year's Eve and New Year's day this year for no extra pay. Think about this next time you're lying frightened on a stretcher in A&E
As I said, what the country is paying train drivers is barmy and is one of the contributory reasons the industry is out of financial control.

Market forces. Worsened (ironically) by privatisation.

 

[MarkyT]

Maglev - there is one high-speed maglev line in the world, in Shanghai. It's 30km long and cost $1.2bn to build (that was in 2004), and has massive financial losses. When it was decided to extend to Hangzhou, maglev was shelved and conventional high speed rail was built instead.
Hyperloop - completely unproven.

Also, whether enclosed within a wholly impractical vacuum tube or not, a maglev is completely incompatible with existing conventional rail routes. Hence to serve the intended full range of cities proposed for HS2 via through running onto the broader network including Newcastle, Sheffield and all Scottish destinations would require vastly more new construction. The phased construction methodology, whereby the London - Lichfield segment provides immediate benefit to many other west coast and Scottish destinations immediately on opening of Phase 1, would also be impossible and any synergies with NPR would be lost.

 

[Geezertronic]

I believe I am right in saying that no HS2 = No £55bn so if that is the case, the people who think the money spent on HS2 can be diverted elsewhere are in for a surprise. Also as there is not a loss of funding for the existing railway or existing rail projects, people cannot say that HS2 is diverting funds that could be better spent elsewhere.

The same argument could apply to Crossrail if that was the case

 

[The Ham]

I believe I am right in saying that no HS2 = No £55bn so if that is the case, the people who think the money spent on HS2 can be diverted elsewhere are in for a surprise. Also as there is not a loss of funding for the existing railway or existing rail projects, people cannot say that HS2 is diverting funds that could be better spent elsewhere.

The same argument could apply to Crossrail if that was the case

Quite, although it's also worth pointing out that since 2009 a figure comparable to 50% of the HS2 budget (£25bn) has been sent on the existing rail network by Network Rail on enhancements (with no apparent signs of slowing because of HS2).

Along with the potential for a further £35bn being spent on NPR, which relies heavily on spending by HS2 around Manchester.

 

[jon0844]

If you don't build HS2 and do nothing else, existing services will get worse as remaining capacity is eaten up.
If you don't build HS2 and also spend money and time on trying to squeeze even more capacity out of the existing mainlines, existing services get worse while you're building new infrastructure, then the small capacity gain gets quickly eaten anyway.

If you build HS2, the average journey time on the train for certain journeys on the existing mainlines might increase. But also the stopping frequency at any one station can be increased, so door-to-door time for a particular journey could improve overall.

That's my understanding of the structure of the post-HS2 railway from reading this thread. I don't think "slower, inconvenient" is accurate.

One big improvement isn't faster journey times, but simply being able to run more trains. How many times have you had tight connections, or impossible connections, and then had to wait an hour or more for the next train? For some trips, especially at weekends, that makes a massive difference to your door-to-door times.

 

[Meerkat]

I believe I am right in saying that no HS2 = No £55bn so if that is the case, the people who think the money spent on HS2 can be diverted elsewhere are in for a surprise.

Which is why I am suspicious of the argument “all the industry experts think HS2 is essential”
Of course they do if it’s “do you want 55bn spent in your industry or not?”

 

[liam456]

Which is why I am suspicious of the argument “all the industry experts think HS2 is essential”
Of course they do if it’s “do you want 55bn spent in your industry or not?”

Like they're going to see any of that 55bn in their bank accounts/pay packets?
Or are you, like Gove thinks Britain is, fed up of experts?

 

[pt_mad]

One big improvement isn't faster journey times, but simply being able to run more trains. How many times have you had tight connections, or impossible connections, and then had to wait an hour or more for the next train? For some trips, especially at weekends, that makes a massive difference to your door-to-door times.

Such as at Liverpool at present.

Perhaps these billions have been allocated from a major infrastructure construction pot. They may not be in the same pot as for existing classic line maintenance and upgrades? Anyone know?

 

[The Ham]

Such as at Liverpool at present.

Perhaps these billions have been allocated from a major infrastructure construction pot. They may not be in the same pot as for existing classic line maintenance and upgrades? Anyone know?

Last year NR spent £4bn on enhancements to the existing rail network and HS2 spent £2bn, both figures were up on the year before and NR spend has generally been growing since 2009.

Refresh spending hasn't changed significantly over that period.

As such HS2 spend is extra money to the industry and not money shifted around within the industry.

 

[The Ham]

From another thread (one about a potential new set of services for London-Liverpool:

The table below shows rail growth between the regions set to benefit from HS2.


In the period covered growth should have been 22% and by phase 1 opening growth was expected to be 52%.


The data shown is unlikely to make for happy reading for those opposed to HS2....


View media item 3337

If not HS2 what do we do to cater for that growth?

(Bearing in mind that we're not far off the growth expected for phase 1 opening for all the regions, however from those which will benefit from phase 1 opening the figures are much higher).

 

[underbank]

Last year NR spent £4bn on enhancements to the existing rail network and HS2 spent £2bn, both figures were up on the year before and NR spend has generally been growing since 2009.

Refresh spending hasn't changed significantly over that period.

As such HS2 spend is extra money to the industry and not money shifted around within the industry.

I thought it was lack of money that stopped things such as the Windermere electrification and northern powerhouse?

 

[The Ham]

I thought it was lack of money that stopped things such as the Windermere electrification and northern powerhouse?

There's a big difference between having money and being able to spend it on specific projects.

Should there be more rail spend? Yes.

Should we be building everything? No.

NPR needs to be argued for, however cutting HS2 isn't the way to do so. As there's some significant spending by HS2 which directly helps NPR.

 

[pt_mad]

From another thread (one about a potential new set of services for London-Liverpool:



If not HS2 what do we do to cater for that growth?

(Bearing in mind that we're not far off the growth expected for phase 1 opening for all the regions, however from those which will benefit from phase 1 opening the figures are much higher).

If Liverpool get the extra five paths I can see growth going even faster. As for five hours of the day you'd have the two services per hour, plus the inter regional London via Birmingham and Northampton.

 

[Sceptre]

The whole scheme is a very expensive white elephant. When I first saw the proposed route beyond Birmingham I laughed my socks off! Somehow the route manages to avoid the densely populated cities of Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Sheffield and Wakefield on its way to Leeds - "Inter-City" it is not, unless you are travelling direct between London and Birmingham or Birmingham and Leeds.

Well, Sheffield could be better served by HS2, but they threw their toys out of the pram and demanded a HS2 station in the city centre without anywhere to put it. Now they get slower trains than if they had to change at Meadowhall (which would've provided a better service for Barnsley and Rotherham too).

On the subject of Toton, I agree that it is a bit of a silly idea, but it's one borne out of trying to find an acceptable compromise through the two cities.

Also, Leicester is much too far south to be properly served by HS2; it'd have to do a massive kink coming out of Birmingham. Exploring whether the GCML could be reopened up from Calvert would be better for Leicester than trying to fit HS2 to serve it.

I personally think MAGLEV or the Hyperloop concept is the future of fast Inter-City travel and it has huge benefits over conventional high speed rail systems.

Hyperloop is one of the biggest crayonista memes going, along with biofuel/hydrogen trains reducing the need for electrification and the digital railway solving congestion. It's an unproven and impractical technology that would be miles more expensive than normal high-speed rail. Maglev would also be much more expensive, mile-for-mile, than high-speed rail (The Chuo shinkansen line is estimated at about £350m/mi)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Anyone see this thread on Twitter - really good bullet point explanation of HS2 https://twitter.com/SarahNobleLD/status/1098598307482517504

 

[Sceptre]

Anyone see this thread on Twitter - really good bullet point explanation of HS2 https://twitter.com/SarahNobleLD/status/1098598307482517504

I should certainly hope I read it; I wrote it! It's meant to be for people who aren't as au fait with railway politics who, for example, were made uneasy by the Dispatches broadcast.

 

[jfowkes]

I should certainly hope I read it; I wrote it! It's meant to be for people who aren't as au fait with railway politics who, for example, were made uneasy by the Dispatches broadcast.

It's a bit weird knowing this. I'd always considered my railforums and my twitter entirely separate worlds.

 

[R G NOW.]

Just been into Asda, and two boys at the checkout with their parents said they want to be train drivers, I wonder if this was the reason because of their pay. Seems to be more than a signaller or gateline person.

When are the government going to decide if it is built or not.