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

[jfowkes]

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.

It's already decided and things are being constructed (prepared for construction, if you want to be super-pedantic). Things will really start ramping up through this year.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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

They already have. Construction has started.
But they haven't silenced the people who would kill it before it gets to the "point of no return" (which I think is starting the main London/Chiltern tunnels).

 

[R G NOW.]

They already have. Construction has started.
But they haven't silenced the people who would kill it before it gets to the "point of no return" (which I think is starting the main London/Chiltern tunnels).

So looks like now it is not being cancelled after all then?.

Or only part going to built. They deciding to continue after the first bit done.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So looks like now it is not being cancelled after all then?.

I don't know what you mean - there is no plan to "cancel HS2", though there is undoubtedly a noisy campaign to try and do so.
The HS2 Act is law and has Royal Assent (that's Phase 1 to Birmingham). Phase 2 (Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds) is still going through parliament.
The government is spending the Phase 1 money as planned (budget £56 billion), work has started at Euston, Birmingham and elsewhere.
HMG could turn the money taps off and stop it but has shown no signs of doing so (but they insist the project must not exceed the budget).
But the antis still think they can derail it one way or another, before the diggers move in to the Chilterns.
However Labour also supports HS2 (they had the idea in the first place), so there is no parliamentary will to stop it except by a limited number of affected MPs.

 

[R G NOW.]

I don't know what you mean - there is no plan to "cancel HS2", though there is undoubtedly a noisy campaign to do so.
The HS2 Act is law and has Royal Assent (that's Phase 1 to Birmingham). Phase 2 (Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds) is still going through parliament.
The government is spending the Phase 1 money as planned (budget £56 billion), work has started at Euston, Birmingham and elsewhere.
HMG could turn the money taps off and stop it but has shown no signs of doing so (but they insist the project must not exceed the budget).
But the antis still think they can derail it one way or another, before the diggers move in to the Chilterns.
However Labour also supports HS2 (they had the idea in the first place), so there is no parliamentary will to stop it except by a limited number of affected MPs.

Thanks for the very informative post. This has answered the things I was trying to get at. You deserve a win on the lottery Saturday.

 

[PR1Berske]

It is worth remembering that no Parliament can bind the next, however, so HS2 can still be curtailed, or entirely stopped.

 

[class26]

I don't know what you mean - there is no plan to "cancel HS2", though there is undoubtedly a noisy campaign to do so.
The HS2 Act is law and has Royal Assent (that's Phase 1 to Birmingham). Phase 2 (Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds) is still going through parliament.
The government is spending the Phase 1 money as planned (budget £56 billion), work has started at Euston, Birmingham and elsewhere.
HMG could turn the money taps off and stop it but has shown no signs of doing so (but they insist the project cannot exceed the budget).
But the antis still think they can derail it one way or another, before the diggers move in to the Chilterns.
However Labour also supports HS2 (they had the idea in the first place), so there is no parliamentary will to stop it except by a limited number of affected MPs.

For accuracy the 56 billion is not for phase one but for the entire project.

 

[Meerkat]

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?

Ignoring the Gove misquote.....of course rail industry people will see it in their pay packets!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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.

Well good to know and wanted to say excellent again.

 

[kilonewton]

It is worth remembering that no Parliament can bind the next, however, so HS2 can still be curtailed, or entirely stopped.

But if contracts are entered into during this Parliament, as is expected, the next Parliament would have to explain to the electorate why they’ve just pissed away billions of pounds with nothing to show for it. Think that’s likely?

 

[mmh]

But if contracts are entered into during this Parliament, as is expected, the next Parliament would have to explain to the electorate why they’ve just pissed away billions of pounds with nothing to show for it. Think that’s likely?

Perfectly easy. It happens all the time. It's just a matter of wording.

Right now I think the public sentiment would be in favour of it being cancelled.

 

[Clip]

Perfectly easy. It happens all the time. It's just a matter of wording.

Right now I think the public sentiment would be in favour of it being cancelled.

I'm glad you speak for the public at heart

 

[jfowkes]

A government that did want to cancel HS2 would probably try and use what was already built to benefit the existing railway - I suspect there would be a lot of political capital in redefining the project to build a "classic" line along the same route for example. A lot would depend on how much had already been built at the time of the decision being made.

 

[The Ham]

A government that did want to cancel HS2 would probably try and use what was already built to benefit the existing railway - I suspect there would be a lot of political capital in redefining the project to build a "classic" line along the same route for example. A lot would depend on how much had already been built at the time of the decision being made.

Assuming that we make it to 5 years after the last election (2017+5=2022) that puts it fairly close to the opening of Phase 1 (2026), at least compared to now.

Even then elections tend to be in the May, I would be surprised if it happened before the summer recess, pushing it into late 2022, maybe early 2023. Which would be only a few years out.

It would also be after a significant amount of the money will have been spent and a lot of the rest will be tied up in contacts which would likely be expensive to withdraw from.

Even if there were an election now you would probably be looking at a further £5bn - £10bn be tied up in money spent and/or signed contracts.

The problem is that often the contracts will state "supply X" if you change it, even if the change results in it being a cheaper option you will find that the costs will go up. As the contractors make their money on changes to the contract, especially as there's no scope to shop around for the best price.

 

[mmh]

A government that did want to cancel HS2 would probably try and use what was already built to benefit the existing railway - I suspect there would be a lot of political capital in redefining the project to build a "classic" line along the same route for example. A lot would depend on how much had already been built at the time of the decision being made.

Rescoping it to be a conventional line would be political suicide. The only repurposing likely to happen would be some new tower blocks at Euston.

HS2's downfall will be because nobody will defend it.

 

[Sceptre]

Perfectly easy. It happens all the time. It's just a matter of wording.

Right now I think the public sentiment would be in favour of it being cancelled.

The public sentiment is in favour of a lot of things, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

As the old Peep Show quote goes, people like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis, you can’t trust them.

 

[Harbornite]

I've never used those words or that expression. My view has always been that there must be ways to deal with the WCML which didn't require building a new railway, leaving the old one to rot.

What I've called "smart timetables" is my term for ways to change from fixed, rigid timetables to using more flexibility and changes in number of carriages.

You should arrange to visit a train planning department, then you'll realise that your suggestions are meaningless.

 

[Sceptre]

You should arrange to visit a train planning department, then you'll realise that your suggestions are meaningless.

I'd make a joke about putting the digital railway on the blockchain of ideas, if Grayling wouldn't take it 100% seriously.

 

[The Ham]

You should arrange to visit a train planning department, then you'll realise that your suggestions are meaningless.

Even Digital Railway's information talk about uptown 40% capacity increases.

Although like most things that say "up to" I would take that figure with a pinch of salt.

However, for now, let's accept that it's achievable. Rail growth between the West Midlands and London and the North West and London has gone up by between 65% & 70% between 2009 and 2017. Which puts it higher than was expected by HS2 for the opening of Phase 1 (52% growth from 2009).

However what isn't well known is that between Birmingham and London growth was expected to be just 1% per year, because this market was seen a mature. However if this were the case then the 67.5% growth seen between the West Midlands and London would be even more spectacular if Birmingham wasn't contributing much of it.

As to that the 71.5% growth seen between the West Midlands and the North West (2009-2017) and you can see why something needs to be done and soon.

Even if we implemented digital railway principles then chances are we'd still need to do something else soon anyway.

By getting on with HS2 we can use digital railway improvements to cater for the extra growth beyond that expected in the model.
It then allows us to use this extra capacity released for extra more local services once HS2 has been built.

If we don't build HS2 then we'd need to do something that looked very much like it (or elements of it) fairly soon anyway.

What's the alternative?

 

[camflyer]

A government that did want to cancel HS2 would probably try and use what was already built to benefit the existing railway - I suspect there would be a lot of political capital in redefining the project to build a "classic" line along the same route for example. A lot would depend on how much had already been built at the time of the decision being made.

Do you have any idea how much cheaper a "classic" line would be along the same route? No, neither do I but I suspect that it wouldn't be as big a saving as you think especially when a lot of the design and planning work would have to be done again.

I know this may not be a very fashionable view, but I prefer to trust the words of experts rather than "public sentiment".

 

[jfowkes]

Do you have any idea how much cheaper a "classic" line would be along the same route? No, neither do I but I suspect that it wouldn't be as big a saving as you think especially when a lot of the design and planning work would have to be done again.

I didn't say I supported or agreed with "rescoping to classic". Merely that I think it would be popular if suggested. At first glance, it would seem very sensible. Regardless of the actual costs, instinctively you'd think that a 140mph line is cheaper to build and run than a 250mph one.

I know this may not be a very fashionable view, but I prefer to trust the words of experts rather than "public sentiment".

Entirely agree. But public sentiment is very lukewarm on HS2 and I think it would be easy for the right people to sway that into supporting rescoping even if it made little sense in real terms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I didn't say I supported or agreed with "rescoping to classic". Merely that I think it would be popular if suggested. At first glance, it would seem very sensible. Regardless of the actual costs, instinctively you'd think that a 140mph line is cheaper to build and run than a 250mph one.

I do think that rescoping to 300km/h i.e. 186mph (i.e. standard classic European LGV) would be sensible. This would also simplify and make cheaper the rolling stock.

140mph might save even more as a variant of the Class 800 would be fine for rolling stock (the Javelin EMU is basically very similar to the 800 and is a 140mph unit). Money could also be saved by building for shorter trains - do we really need 400m? Would say 312m (12x26m) suffice? Passive provision could be left in place to extend to 400 if we need to.

 

[Bald Rick]

I do think that rescoping to 300km/h i.e. 186mph (i.e. standard classic European LGV) would be sensible. This would also simplify and make cheaper the rolling stock.

140mph might save even more as a variant of the Class 800 would be fine for rolling stock (the Javelin EMU is basically very similar to the 800 and is a 140mph unit). Money could also be saved by building for shorter trains - do we really need 400m? Would say 312m (12x26m) suffice? Passive provision could be left in place to extend to 400 if we need to.

A 140mph railway on the same alignment will cost almost exactly the same as a 200mph railway.

 

[ABB125]

I do think that rescoping to 300km/h i.e. 186mph (i.e. standard classic European LGV) would be sensible. This would also simplify and make cheaper the rolling stock.

140mph might save even more as a variant of the Class 800 would be fine for rolling stock (the Javelin EMU is basically very similar to the 800 and is a 140mph unit). Money could also be saved by building for shorter trains - do we really need 400m? Would say 312m (12x26m) suffice? Passive provision could be left in place to extend to 400 if we need to.

I think 300km/h is a bit short sighted - I would (begrudgingly) accept 320km/200mph as the maximum though, because many lines are built to this speed. (Although ideally it would be quicker - am I right in thinking that there is a change in EU technical standards for anything beyond 350km/h? If so, perhaps this should be aimed for?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

A 140mph railway on the same alignment will cost almost exactly the same as a 200mph railway.

No, it won't. The OHLE will be cheaper, the signalling will be cheaper, the physical track will be cheaper (e.g. using ballast and sleepers instead of concrete slab track) and the trains will be cheaper. And the trains will use less electricity.

 

[ABB125]

No, it won't. The OHLE will be cheaper, the signalling will be cheaper, the physical track will be cheaper (e.g. using ballast and sleepers instead of concrete slab track) and the trains will be cheaper. And the trains will use less electricity.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that it only costs around 9% more to build high speed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure I've read somewhere that it only costs around 9% more to build high speed.

9% of that sort of sum is a substantial amount of money.

 

[camflyer]

No, it won't. The OHLE will be cheaper, the signalling will be cheaper, the physical track will be cheaper (e.g. using ballast and sleepers instead of concrete slab track) and the trains will be cheaper. And the trains will use less electricity.

And then you would get complaints about the whole project being done "on the cheap", requiring upgrades in a few years time and that it everyone saying that it should have been done properly the first time around.

 

[R G NOW.]

And then you would get complaints about the whole project being done "on the cheap", requiring upgrades in a few years time and that it everyone saying that it should have been done properly the first time around.

This is the reason I would think, why Crossrail (Elizabeth line) has been delayed, they are probably doing it properly.

 

[pt_mad]

Do you have any idea how much cheaper a "classic" line would be along the same route? No, neither do I but I suspect that it wouldn't be as big a saving as you think especially when a lot of the design and planning work would have to be done again.

I know this may not be a very fashionable view, but I prefer to trust the words of experts rather than "public sentiment".

It would be towards impossible imo. What about at Tamworth for example. Two lines were added to the existing two to make it four tracks. A 90 degree retaining wall was erected with gardens literally backing up to the boundary. To add anymore tracks there you'd need to buy up parts of houses and somehow hold back the land from people's kitchens.

Same scenarios on the southern approaches to Atherstone. 90 degree retaining wall on one side with buildings literally up to the boundary, and a residential street against the railway on the other.

So unless any new tracks are going to bottleneck at regular intervals and then go back to 6, then 4 again, it doesn't look simple to me. What regular extra paths you'd get out of having to signal everything back onto 4 tracks at various places I don't know.

I didn't say I supported or agreed with "rescoping to classic". Merely that I think it would be popular if suggested. At first glance, it would seem very sensible. Regardless of the actual costs, instinctively you'd think that a 140mph line is cheaper to build and run than a 250mph one.



Entirely agree. But public sentiment is very lukewarm on HS2 and I think it would be easy for the right people to sway that into supporting rescoping even if it made little sense in real terms.

Don't forget the West Coast Mainline is heavily curved. New trains would probably be needed for 140mph. Tilt would have to kept permanently rather than reverting back to non EPS running once HS2 takes the long distance fast traffic.

Upgrading the line again may hold back communities as last time it appeared to slow patronage growth right down due to regular closures and no trains at weekends in places for a long time.

Or are we talking about building HS2 to 140mph max to potentially save money?