• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
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.

Don't worry, the economy-trashing is in the diary for March 29th.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swaldman

Member
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
372
I have no strong feelings on HS2, beyond one of "if the rest of Europe has been doing it for decades, it can't be all that terrible". I don't claim to fully understand the case for or against.

But based on this thread, I will note two things:
  • Shaving 10 mins off a journey between London and Birmingham is obviously not a good reason to build the thing, and AFAICS nobody here is claiming that it is. This is a straw man, and the people making this argument are either stupid or disingenuous. Please stop it. Useful time savings obviously only kick in with later phases.
  • Those who say that our country is too small to need high speed rail have clearly never ventured outside England. London to Aberdeen takes ~7 hours, and is a distance slightly greater than Paris to the south of France - which takes 2.5-3.5 hours. I'm not suggesting that we should build high speed lines to Aberdeen, but shaving an hour off the journey to the north of England would make a significant difference to journey times beyond. Taking an hour off times to Edinburgh and Glasgow would make rail travel between them and central London unambiguously faster than by air.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
  • Shaving 10 mins off a journey between London and Birmingham is obviously not a good reason to build the thing, and AFAICS nobody here is claiming that it is. This is a straw man, and the people making this argument are either stupid or disingenuous. Please stop it. Useful time savings obviously only kick in with later phases.
  • Those who say that our country is too small to need high speed rail have clearly never ventured outside England. London to Aberdeen takes ~7 hours, and is a distance slightly greater than Paris to the south of France - which takes 2.5-3.5 hours. I'm not suggesting that we should build high speed lines to Aberdeen, but shaving an hour off the journey to the north of England would make a significant difference to journey times beyond. Taking an hour off times to Edinburgh and Glasgow would make rail travel between them and central London unambiguously faster than by air.

Spot on. I'm a regular(ish) traveller from Edinburgh to London. Sometimes I fly, sometimes I take the train. There's not much in it time-wise for me, and often very little in it cost-wise, and I live close to Edinburgh Airport and have a direct bus service there, so it's easier to get to than Waverley is from my house. So...sometimes I fly, sometimes I take the train. However, there's a lot of regular Anglo-Scottish travellers that won't even consider taking the train. These are usually people who have a particular routine worked out, and are frequent flyers who can get lounge access and navigate security very quickly. At the moment, the 4.5 hour rail journey time won't get them to jump ship, but as soon as you can shave an hour off that, you'll empty the planes. The West Coast route mod practically destroyed the market for flying between London and Manchester, and Eurostar did the same for London to Paris. HS2, when complete, will make flying from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh far less attractive, and will probably dent traffic to Aberdeen and Inverness as well. Given how much air travel pollutes, we really shouldn't be encouraging it in what is a pretty small country, and I suspect that once HS2 materialises, the train/plane decision for me will swing to train rather more frequently than it currently does.
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
i wasnt at first... but after seeing the cost and timescale I am.

Id like to see the money being spent on overall improvements over the whole country. Signalling improvements on the West Coast to allow more trains.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Id like to see the money being spent on overall improvements over the whole country. Signalling improvements on the West Coast to allow more trains.

That's just not viable - they are properly crammed in at the moment in the peaks and if you breathe on it it collapses.

The only viable way to cram more trains in would be homogenising service patterns, e.g. 30tph on the slow lines all calling at all stations. But that, unless you live in Harrow, would be a terrible idea.
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
i wasnt at first... but after seeing the cost and timescale I am.

Id like to see the money being spent on overall improvements over the whole country. Signalling improvements on the West Coast to allow more trains.

Upgrading existing lines is worthwhile but it is very disruptive - and we all know how unpopular engineering works and bus replacement services are with the public. An upgraded WCML would still be one line so any major problems (such a power lines coming down) brings the route to a halt. Apart from increasing speeds and capacity, HS2 will also add much needed redundancy to the network
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Upgrading existing lines is worthwhile but it is very disruptive - and we all know how unpopular engineering works and bus replacement services are with the public. An upgraded WCML would still be one line so any major problems (such a power lines coming down) brings the route to a halt. Apart from increasing speeds and capacity, HS2 will also add much needed redundancy to the network

Agreed. Those two new WCML "super fast" lines will add much needed capacity - but what they'll also do is if something brings the wires down on the classic WCML they won't also bring them down across all 6 lines.
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,046
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 suggest in job terms the other way round would be better - leave the talking shop down south!
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
i wasnt at first... but after seeing the cost and timescale I am.

Id like to see the money being spent on overall improvements over the whole country. Signalling improvements on the West Coast to allow more trains.

Signalling can only do so much. The WCML is the busiest mixed-traffic railway in Europe, and the London to Birmingham section is the busiest on the WCML itself. You have to mix no less than nine 125mph InterCity services per hour into/out of Euston, with 100/110mph commuter services, a few extra Overground services at the Euston throat, and a huge array of freight at various speeds - you really can't fit anything else in.
 

47421

Member
Joined
7 Feb 2012
Messages
654
Location
london
I used to be neutral, acknowledging the need for the increased capacity but doubtful that the disruption during construction esp at Euston would be worth it. Am more and more anti. Taking into account all the failures of the rail industry to deliver new infrastructure/trains/services over recent years I just dont think it is right to commit so much public money to a single project
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
I used to be neutral, acknowledging the need for the increased capacity but doubtful that the disruption during construction esp at Euston would be worth it. Am more and more anti. Taking into account all the failures of the rail industry to deliver new infrastructure/trains/services over recent years I just dont think it is right to commit so much public money to a single project

The renovation of the area around Euston is one of the major reasons to be supportive of the scheme. Just look how better Kings Cross and St Pancras are since they were tarted up - Euston is by far the worst major station in London if not the whole country. Plus there are all of the urban regeneration potential around at the stations at Old Oak Common, Birmingham, Manchester and elsewhere along the route. Brimingham and Manchester councils see HS2 as been the catalyst for huge amounts of investment in their cities.
 

DH1Commuter

Member
Joined
28 Jun 2018
Messages
57
My DOI: was very much against HS2 and have come around to the benefits, though with reservations:
1) Cost - mentioned many times, but an immediate concern of the public was costs that started high, were predicted to increase and have duly done so, many times, with no end bill in sight. The public perceive large infrastructure projects as being essentially mis-sold to them and they are, in many ways, correct. This aspect of HS2 is hard to forgive.
2) Perceived benefits - this was initially about speed, at least in the press. The name is not helpful, and touting it as a capacity game-changer instead, possibly emphasising that regional/local services would be enhanced as a result, would have helped a lot more than talking about being a bit faster Lond-Birmingham.
3) London - huge and important, yes, but most of the country don't live there. The optics would have been much better had the first section been planned to be built from the north, extending to the south (Manchester-Leeds or Manchester-Brum). People see money being thrown at crossrail and HS2 and wonder when a little may instead be spent on wiring Sheffield, or the transpennine routes.
4) The continual feeling that the northern sections are going to be axed due to cost over-runs. this feeds into 3) - for many in the north, I suspect there is a feeling we won't ever see any benefits
5) Environment - killing domestic air travel would have been a game-changing argument in favour, particularly as the public wises up to climate change, yet it has not been made repeatedly and noisily.

Worthwhile project, but so far very clumsily executed in many ways (I suspect the engineering is excellent, obviously).
 

swaldman

Member
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
372
5) Environment - killing domestic air travel would have been a game-changing argument in favour, particularly as the public wises up to climate change, yet it has not been made repeatedly and noisily.

I don't think it actually will kill domestic air travel - although it should significantly reduce it - because all else remaining equal, it still won't compete on cost. I've met people who fly between London and Newcastle, which takes longer than the train, because it's cheaper.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Euston is by far the worst major station in London if not the whole country.

It's really not. It looks a bit 1960s, but it's warm in winter and cool in summer (something not true of near enough any other large station in the country) and has reasonably good facilities.

It would stand a bit of a tarting-up and the planned removal of those ugly tower blocks, but replacing it with a giant greenhouse would not be an upgrade. I do like the architecture of the new Kings Cross (for instance) but it does suffer temperature issues - as does the impressive new New St.

If you want a worst major station (I think it can be seen as one now it has TPE etc back), my vote is with Manchester Victoria. A right dump in every way. Definitely not Euston.

The main problem with Euston is the "Euston scrum", and they could simply decide to pack that in tomorrow if they wanted to.
 

XC victim

Member
Joined
16 Dec 2015
Messages
150
I feel many people feel that HS2 may not be fully integrated into the National Rail Network, meaning that it has limited benefits for most people. Also whilst it may benefit the economies of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc... these cities have been doing relatively well in recent decades how well will it help those cities and regions that actually need the help like Bradford, Liverpool, Nottingham, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Cumbria, Scotland, Wales etc...

Also will fares be in line with the extortionate fare for the rest of the Rail network or will they be even higher creating a 2 tier rail system leaving most people travelling on a second class service.

And if HS2 is a success are existing services going to be maintained on the WCML and crosscountry services or are passengers on those lines going to lose out?
 

bennunn

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2013
Messages
22
Getting from Euston to the centre of Birmingham or Manchester is already pretty fast. It can't realistically get that much faster.

It's the getting from *specific starting point in the South East* to Euston and then getting from Birmingham New Street to *specific destination in the West Midlands* that takes time. If make a trip from Caterham to Sutton Coldfield, the fast train journey in the middle is going to be the swiftest part of the overall journey by far.

That's why I view HS2 as a wrongheaded solution to a non-problem. The cash could be better spent on improvement projects at either end that would not only have similar effects in reducing overall journey times but benefit local journeys too.
 

swaldman

Member
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
372
Getting from Euston to the centre of Birmingham or Manchester is already pretty fast. It can't realistically get that much faster.

It's the getting from *specific starting point in the South East* to Euston and then getting from Birmingham New Street to *specific destination in the West Midlands* that takes time. If make a trip from Caterham to Sutton Coldfield, the fast train journey in the middle is going to be the swiftest part of the overall journey by far.

That's why I view HS2 as a wrongheaded solution to a non-problem. The cash could be better spent on improvement projects at either end that would not only have similar effects in reducing overall journey times but benefit local journeys too.

You're missing the point. 10 mins or whatever to Birmingham is insignificant. An hour's difference to Manchester (I think?) is significant. An hour's difference to Edinburgh or Glasgow is very significant, and brings the journey time by rail below that by air. If a hypothetical HS3 were to happen... well, people were at one point talking about a 3 hr journey time between London and the Central Belt.

The first phase doesn't help anybody speed-wise (though it may help with capacity), but it's about building that fast spine to really make a difference to longer journeys. If it ever gets built beyond Brum, of course.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I feel many people feel that HS2 may not be fully integrated into the National Rail Network, meaning that it has limited benefits for most people. Also whilst it may benefit the economies of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc... these cities have been doing relatively well in recent decades how well will it help those cities and regions that actually need the help like Bradford, Liverpool, Nottingham, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Cumbria, Scotland, Wales etc...

That's a big list of places - I don't recall people complaining that re-opening something like the Woodhead won't be of benefit to people in Wales and using that as a stick to beat it with.

But, since you asked, at the moment lines like the ECML are full due to the need to provide fast services from London to Leeds/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh. That means services currently running non-stop through places like Peterborough/ Doncaster and scarce paths being prioritised for these big cities at the expense of Hull/ Middlesbrough/ Sunderland/ Bradford.

If you take the fastest services off the southern end of the ECML then you free up a number of paths that could be used for services like London to Hull/ Middlesbrough/ Sunderland/ Bradford, you free up capacity for more services to stop at Peterborough/ Doncaster, you free up paths that could be used for services from Stansted/ Cambridge/ Norwich to Yorkshire.

Take the fastest services off the existing route and you create space for "secondary" places to gain direct services.

Same goes for the WCML and MML, where taking some of the longer distance services off existing routes frees up seats for shorter distance passengers, frees up capacity for more services to stop at intermediate stations, allows more paths to run (e.g. if everything left on the WCML runs at 110mph max then you can fit in more trains than the current 110/125 timetable).

Liverpool, Cumbria and "Scotland" will get direct services via HS2, so they benefit.

Nottinghamshire will have the option of a High Speed service at Toton (convenient for those on the University side of Nottingham and those people who would have to drive into central Nottingham to get the current EMT services) - it won't be suitable for every passenger but it provides an alternative. People on here love the idea of competition when it means cheaper tickets on a 350 taking an hour longer to get up the WCML (compared to a 390) yet seem to dislike Toton because it won't be 100% suitable for 100% of passengers currently using the station in central Nottingham.

Wales? It won't benefit much (other than faster Holyhead - London journeys possible with a change at Crewe). But then will Yorkshire benefit from GWML electrification to Cardiff? Does that mean that they shouldn't have wired the GWML though? Or maybe we could look at projects in terms of who they benefit rather than dismissing them because they don't solve every problem for everybody.

It's a train service. Mass transportation, moving large volumes of people more efficiently than cars/ buses/ planes over the kind of distances HS2 is being built for. So what if it doesn't rebalance the entire UK economy and provide an end to urban squalor in post-industrial towns - there are other government policies better suited to that.

That's why I view HS2 as a wrongheaded solution to a non-problem. The cash could be better spent on improvement projects at either end that would not only have similar effects in reducing overall journey times but benefit local journeys too

Such as what? Better light rail/ local trains within each city/urban area (rather than anything inter-city)?
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
I won't repeat everything I've said on the subject. But my objection lies on the following main points.

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*.

I know that works have begun at Euston. These can be allowed to continue without HS2 being built. Bring those works to a close and then scrap HS2. It's never too late to admit it was a terrible mistake.

The proposal isn't to get "to Birmingham in the 2030s"; it's to get to the North within the 2020s.

Works haven't just begun at Euston. I was at a meeting last night where people were complaining about the impact (already) of HS2 work in North Staffordshire. Well north of Birmingham; even north of Handsacre.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Is this your mythical "smart timetabling" solution again?:rolleyes::rolleyes: find me the capacity that deals with the next 20 years south of Rugby, ta.

PR1Berske seems to have a low opinion of people who plan railways for a living. He seems to think there are some easy answers to capacity issues which he has identified (but can't actually ... well, identify) but which the professionals have all missed.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
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

And how would that enhance capacity on the WCML?
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
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.

And, to the best of my knowledge, you have never defined "smart timetabling". What does it actually mean?
 

abn444

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2016
Messages
149
I don't think it actually will kill domestic air travel - although it should significantly reduce it - because all else remaining equal, it still won't compete on cost. I've met people who fly between London and Newcastle, which takes longer than the train, because it's cheaper.

I agree and don't forget that there are quite a few people who live closer to an airport than they do to Euston and thats just relatively close to London, there's also the people that live much closer to the likes of Southampton, Bristol, Exeter etc airports and if HS2 means CrossCountry services end up getting cut back then thats all the more reason for people from Bristol/Exeter etc to fly. Let's not forget there's still flights to Paris and Brussels (and Amsterdam) despite Eurostar
 

XC victim

Member
Joined
16 Dec 2015
Messages
150
post: 3844073, member: 3177"]That's a big list of places - I don't recall people complaining that re-opening something like the Woodhead won't be of benefit to people in Wales and using that as a stick to beat it with”]

I think you might have slightly missed the point. I was suggesting that some people may ask what benefit those places not directly connected to HS2 will enjoy.

I am not particularly against HS2, but since I don’t regularly travel from Birmingham to London or expect HS2 to be completed in my lifetime (about another 40years I reckon), it really doesn’t affect me. Just as long as it does not prevent any investment in out existing network. In fact as a regular traveller on CrossCountry trains I will any improvement this project has on my journey.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
I agree with a fair bit of that, I can just see the cost going up from the already expensive £50bn (they're talking about it already) and I can see them putting the fares up too high for most people, so people will still use existing trains as they'll be cheaper and so you'll end up with existing trains just as busy (if not busier if they put in extra stops) while there'll be a new very expensive line with expensive fresh air carriers running along it.

That's not how pricing usually works. Businesses who set pricing do not usually work from, 'We have X debts so how what price do we charge to repay them', they work from a much simpler premise: 'What prices will give us the highest profits'. That's the only sensible way to price things because any debts etc. from construction costs are a sunk cost, and will not change based on how much you charge. When people come to work out HS2 fares, factors that they will consider are:
  • Faster journeys making HS2 more attractive - which tend to imply you can charge more
  • Depending who the operator is: Possible competition with the Pendolinos on the WCML. That will tend to depress what fares can be charged.
  • Masses of new seats compared to what we have today. That will also tend to depress what fares can be charged, because there are more seats to fill.
I've no idea how those considerations will be taken into account. Personally, I wouldn't be too surprised if we end up seeing walk-up fares that are comparable to, or very slightly higher than, WCML fares, but combined with much more generous allocations of advance tickets.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
i wasnt at first... but after seeing the cost and timescale I am.

Id like to see the money being spent on overall improvements over the whole country. Signalling improvements on the West Coast to allow more trains.

I think people need to understand how capital investment is planned. It's not a case of "here's £50bn" (or whatever) "what shall we spend it on?"

It's a case of "what overall benefit does this scheme offer per £bn of expenditure"?

Now, I'm sceptical of the business case for HS2 but I can recognise that the return per £ is likely to be much higher than the return on e.g. electrifying the Calder Valley, reopening Skipton-Colne or building grade separation junctions at Stoke or wherever.

Abandoning HS2 is not going to create a pot of money for use elsewhere.
 

GreatAuk

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2018
Messages
60
Personally I'm still very ambivalent - I like the idea of hs2, but I couldn't hand on heart say I believed it was going to be worth spending the humungous amount of money it will cost.

I'd break the reasons down into 6 categories:

1. HS2 keeps shooting themselves in the foot - there have been various news stories such as staff being pressured to make up property price estimates, delays and difficulties in receiving compulsory purchase payments etc. Most of this sort of criticism sounds pretty believable to me, and just gives critics more ammo.
2. Past performance of major railway projects - they are always late and go over budget. People are quite justified in being sceptical about this aspect of hs2. 'on time and on budget' Crossrail would have been a great counterexample to point to, until summer last year when it became yet more damning evidence of the industry's lack of dependability.
3. General failure to sell the benefits and perception it will benefit 'rich businessmen' alone - loads of people want to get to/from London, loads of people would appreciate more regional services on the wcml, making rail a better option than flying from Scotland would have environmental and convenience benefits, and yes, hs2 passenger will also benefit from faster journeys. However, most people aren't really aware of the full picture. This is probably exacerbated by the fact that most people in the North have no need to travel to London for work on any regular basis, and perhaps don't see the benefits to business which (I believe) are realised when connectivity is improved.
4. Actual weaknesses in hs2 design - lack of a proper interchange in Birmingham, the weird Manchester near-the-airport/parkway/not-an-interchange Station, all of the places not quite served by the Eastern branch of hs2, plans to build road bridges with no room for future cycle lanes etc....
5. It's could be seen as a very London-centric project, and rightly or wrongly lots of people are fed up with anything focused on London.
6. The price tag - whether justified or not, it just looks like a ridiculous amount of money when printed in giant font on a tabloid front cover.
 

Old Yard Dog

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2011
Messages
1,466
Because it treats Leeds as if it were the only city of importance in Yorkshire. Leeds is not centre of the universe even though its inhabitants think it is!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top