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

[quantinghome]

I used to be opposed to the idea of HS2, however our Mainline routes were built often more than 100 years ago (some nearly 150 years ago!) and Technology has changed considerably since then.

It's worse than that. When HS2 is complete in 2033, it will be exactly 200 years since work started on the West Coast Main Line.

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

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Invitiation to Tender commenced in July 2018, and the Train Technical Specification was released at that time. That seems like a definitive set of design criteria to me, and the contract is expected to be awarded at the end of this year:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-rolling-stock-procurement

The DfT web site has the Train Technical Spec, but not the ITT.
It had escaped me that we were now in the tender phase.
The contract opportunities spreadsheet says contract award is now Q2 2020.
What I meant by definitive spec was the reported possibility of reducing the maximum speed of HS2 from 360 km/h, which might change the train spec.

 

[The Ham]

From the Twitter account of the Transport Select Committee:

This morning we are questioning Allan Cook, the new Chair of @HS2ltd, about what he has achieved in his three months in the job, and what progress has been made on delivering #HS2.

Watch live on @BBCParliament and on Parliament TV here: https://t.co/v7nHVUpalK https://t.co/p1FR3BXDVh

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I am torn - on HS2. In principal yes but not if it results in a deterioration of the rest of the network (as in France). If investment in new track and stock is finite then it really needs to go where the need is most prevalent and that is in improving local commuter services that people use day in day out as opposed to longer distance services they use occasionally.

 

[quantinghome]

I am torn - on HS2. In principal yes but not if it results in a deterioration of the rest of the network (as in France). If investment in new track and stock is finite then it really needs to go where the need is most prevalent and that is in improving local commuter services that people use day in day out as opposed to longer distance services they use occasionally.

As has been often said before, you can't improve commuter services much when they share the same tracks as high speed services. Removing the long distance services from the WCML, ECML and Transpennine would transform the options available for regional and commuter services which currently have to compromise with the needs of intercity traffic.

 

[Ianno87]

I am torn - on HS2. In principal yes but not if it results in a deterioration of the rest of the network (as in France). If investment in new track and stock is finite then it really needs to go where the need is most prevalent and that is in improving local commuter services that people use day in day out as opposed to longer distance services they use occasionally.

As has been often said before, you can't improve commuter services much when they share the same tracks as high speed services. Removing the long distance services from the WCML, ECML and Transpennine would transform the options available for regional and commuter services which currently have to compromise with the needs of intercity traffic.

This will be where GB's much denser population than France will be of advantage. There will still be a heck of alot of people dependent on the bypassed bits of the WCML as a commuter/interurban railway - Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry etc. and it will remain a major freight artery too.

This is unlike the main lines bypassed by LGVs in France, which tend to become very rural very quickly (with some distance to the next major population centre served), and also have a relatively skeletal service, particularly outside the peaks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This will be where GB's much denser population than France will be of advantage. There will still be a heck of alot of people dependent on the bypassed bits of the WCML as a commuter/interurban railway - Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry etc. and it will remain a major freight artery too.

This is unlike the main lines bypassed by LGVs in France, which tend to become very rural very quickly (with some distance to the next major population centre served), and also have a relatively skeletal service, particularly outside the peaks.

Indeed pretty much the whole reason for HS2 is to allow for a better local/regional express service on the classic WCML. It's totally different from SNCF's model. It has a lot more in common with the German or Swiss models.

 

[Geezertronic]

Indeed pretty much the whole reason for HS2 is to allow for a better local/regional express service on the classic WCML

And that's why, in my opinion, the HS2 name has not sold the reason for the line well. People witter on about "saving 20 minutes to Birmingham" and other StopHS2 crap rather than actually understand the actual reason the line is required

They have started work near me (Balsall Common, Birmingham Interchange, Coleshill etc..) and while it is going to be a right PITA whilst the work is going with closures and diversions, it will be interesting to see the progress

 

[Bletchleyite]

And that's why, in my opinion, the HS2 name has not sold the reason for the line well. People witter on about "saving 20 minutes to Birmingham" and other StopHS2 crap rather than actually understand the actual reason the line is required

One of the difficulties is that by calling it something like the "Milton Keynes West Relief Line", as a road doing the same thing might be called, won't sell it up north.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One of the difficulties is that by calling it something like the "Milton Keynes West Relief Line", as a road doing the same thing might be called, won't sell it up north.

True. But then calling it the 'save 20 minutes between London and Birmingham Line' isn't exactly doing a good job of selling it up North either

 

[The Ham]

I am torn - on HS2. In principal yes but not if it results in a deterioration of the rest of the network (as in France). If investment in new track and stock is finite then it really needs to go where the need is most prevalent and that is in improving local commuter services that people use day in day out as opposed to longer distance services they use occasionally.

The thing is, to date, that the spending on enhancements to the existing network have continued to rise, even as the spending on HS2 has been going up.

View media item 3339
Taken from the Network Rail accounts.

However what is often forgotten is that for every long distance service removed from the WCML there's scope to provide more than one local service in it's place.

For instance, if you remove a London to Manchester service you can provide an extra service for London, an extra service for Manchester and maybe even an extra service for the Trent Valley (which may be something which crosses the WCML at Nuneaton).

There are plans which show "fast" services to London which run between Nuneaton and Coventry. Such a service wouldn't be viable without HS2, yet could provide a positive benefit to Coventry by providing direct services to stations North West of Nuneaton without having to either change trains or doubling back via Birmingham or Milton Keynes.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

It's still just enhancing services on a particular corridor. Enhancements are needed to commuter rail services in cities like Leeds and Bristol for instance not just increasing capacity for even more people to commute into London. All the environmental aspects of encouraging people to use rail are surely more beneficial on the daily city commute than they are for longer distance journeys.

 

[The Ham]

It's still just enhancing services on a particular corridor. Enhancements are needed to commuter rail services in cities like Leeds and Bristol for instance not just increasing capacity for even more people to commute into London. All the environmental aspects of encouraging people to use rail are surely more beneficial on the daily city commute than they are for longer distance journeys.

I don't know about Leeds, but once HS2 gets there chances are by removing long distance services from the existing platforms and tracks there would be more space for local services.

In the case of Manchester (which for long distance services is a terminus) the removal of one long train (11 coaches) could allow two shorter (5/6 coaches) trains to occupy the same platform space.

However even this isn't the full picture, as long distance trains tend to have ~40 minute turn around whilst local services can be turned around much quicker. As such it could be that over a three hour window each platform could have 9 services rather than 4.5. Given that there's 9 trains in a 3 hour window currently that would imply that the equivalent of two platforms are in use all the time for long distance services to London and their risk removal would therefore be like building to extra platforms.

In reality there's still going to be some long distance services using the existing platforms, however once Northern Powerhouse is developed further I would like to think that new line between Manchester and Leeds would connect to the HS2 platforms further increasing capacity for commuter services.

 

[Ianno87]

True. But then calling it the 'save 20 minutes between London and Birmingham Line' isn't exactly doing a good job of selling it up North either

It'll be the 'save nearly an hour between London and Manchester' line then!

 

[6Gman]

It's still just enhancing services on a particular corridor. Enhancements are needed to commuter rail services in cities like Leeds and Bristol for instance not just increasing capacity for even more people to commute into London. All the environmental aspects of encouraging people to use rail are surely more beneficial on the daily city commute than they are for longer distance journeys.

That's not what it does.

It will also benefit capacity into Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

 

[si404]

True. But then calling it the 'save 20 minutes between London and Birmingham Line' isn't exactly doing a good job of selling it up North either

Which is why the antis call it that, despite the time saving being 35 minutes vs most ICWC trains and 24 minutes vs the mono-directional, 1tpd, non-stop ICWC service...

I used to hear 'spend 100bn on phase 1 to save 10 minutes to Birmingham' spouted in opposition as the level of ignorance (the main reason for opposition, not helped by poor marketing and informing by HS2/DfT) where they conflated the cost with all the bells and whistles (LHR spur, HS1 link, Crossrail 2, undefined multi-billion pound schemes in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and the East Midlands, and about 10 billion just to make it a big round number) with the phase 1 cost, and took a fake journey comparison with the token non-stop train (that doesn't go to Birmingham) and a slow walk from Curzon Street to New Street because that's apparently where Birmingham is.

 

[tasky]

One of the difficulties is that by calling it something like the "Milton Keynes West Relief Line", as a road doing the same thing might be called, won't sell it up north.

Call it the Midlands, Lancashire and Yorkshire Intercity Rail Capacity Scheme

 

[Clip]

It's still just enhancing services on a particular corridor. Enhancements are needed to commuter rail services in cities like Leeds and Bristol for instance not just increasing capacity for even more people to commute into London. All the environmental aspects of encouraging people to use rail are surely more beneficial on the daily city commute than they are for longer distance journeys.

So are you saying there are no plans for enhancements of both these cities and thats because the money is being taken up by HS2?

 

[camflyer]

True. But then calling it the 'save 20 minutes between London and Birmingham Line' isn't exactly doing a good job of selling it up North either

The whole branding and marketing of HS2 has been terrible since the start. Even worse is "Phase 2a" and "Phase 2b" which make the northern extensions seem like afterthoughts.

 

[AndrewE]

The whole branding and marketing of HS2 has been terrible since the start. Even worse is "Phase 2a" and "Phase 2b" which make the northern extensions seem like afterthoughts.

You mean they are not?

 

[mmh]

The whole branding and marketing of HS2 has been terrible since the start. Even worse is "Phase 2a" and "Phase 2b" which make the northern extensions seem like afterthoughts.

I agree it's been remarkably badly sold, although I think that's inevitable to an extent because of the confusion, deliberate or otherwise, over what it's actually for.

But even though I'm strongly against HS2 I think it's a bit unfair to criticise calling the second phase Phase 2!

 

[mmh]

There is a fair question about why is it 1, 2a, 2b and not the whole lot in one go though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a fair question about why is it 1, 2a, 2b and not the whole lot in one go though.

It is building the most important bit first (the bit that relieves south WCML capacity issues, and the bit that if I were in charge is the only bit that would be built, with the rest of the money going to rolling stock for the provinces). When money becomes available, do the rest.

 

[Ianno87]

There is a fair question about why is it 1, 2a, 2b and not the whole lot in one go though.

It is building the most important bit first (the bit that relieves south WCML capacity issues, and the bit that if I were in charge is the only bit that would be built, with the rest of the money going to rolling stock for the provinces). When money becomes available, do the rest.

And to split it up into more manageable chunks for the required consents and parliamentary/selext committee time.

Once you have the powers, can build in whatever order you like.

 

[si404]

There is a fair question about why is it 1, 2a, 2b and not the whole lot in one go though.

it's split that way to get through Parliament, with 2a being hived off to speed it up so that it can open with phase 1.

It's planned as continuous construction, even though there's phased planning and phased opening (and I imagine phase 2b will be further split when it comes to opening).

 

[camflyer]

There is a fair question about why is it 1, 2a, 2b and not the whole lot in one go though.

In the scope of spending tens of billions on the whole scheme they could have found a bit of money to spend on some PR consultants to come up with a more imaginative and inspiring name.

 

[Carlisle]

It will also benefit capacity into Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

Given the economy may not do brilliantly post Brexit and rail isn’t generally profitable, is there any guarantee a future government will simply hand the industry whatever cash it demands to operate the hundreds of additional local & regional services that the opening of HS2 will theoretically allow on the classic railway ?

 

[6Gman]

Given the economy may not do brilliantly post Brexit and rail isn’t generally profitable, is there any guarantee a future government will simply hand the industry whatever cash it demands to operate the hundreds of additional local & regional services that the opening of HS2 will theoretically allow on the classic railway ?

Well, the simple answer is No.

But the longer answer is that there are no guarantees, but that if the infrastructure is available it removes one obstacle.

 

[camflyer]

Well, the simple answer is No.

But the longer answer is that there are no guarantees, but that if the infrastructure is available it removes one obstacle.

Indeed. Investment in infrastructure doesn't guarantee economic benefits but it is very hard to get them without it.

 

[Sceptre]

Michael Byng is like an ice-cream salesman to the anti types. They love bringing up his claim that the true budget is £100bn (+£30bn for CR2, £39bn for NPR, etc...) based on his analysis.

So I looked up his figures and said "yeah, I've looked at them and his analysis is incredibly flawed" based just on the evidence he gave to Parliament. But apparently, I'm wrong because I haven't read his full report, which hasn't been published yet.

I get a feeling that he's basically doing the "but I'm an expert" defense that the anti-vax movement love doing.

Incidentally, why is HS2's budget subject to a heightened scrutiny other major projects don't get? GWML electrification nor the Class 345s were accounted for in the headline figure for Crossrail, but there's a sizeable number of idiots who think that any infrastructure project that touches a city that HS2 stops at must be added to its total.