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

[DynamicSpirit]

I wonder whether one of the mistakes they’ve made is to focus the arguments in their PR on speed rather than capacity. It’s handed on a plate to those opposing it the argument “Who cares it only gets to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker ?” Rather than saying “At current rate, all full length trains to Birmingham will be full by 2030 (or whenever it is). So where is the next capacity coming from ?” Without huge disruption to most mainlines simultaneously, significant capacity improvements from existing infrastructure seem to be hard to come by. We seem to struggle in 2019 with the concept of full electrification, let alone the mass widenings, platform lengthenings, infrastructure upgrades this would require.

I think that is exactly the core problem as far as why so many people are opposed to HS2 is concerned. (Though obviously there will always be people who have quibbles because they disagree with aspects of the route etc.)

Ultimately, the costs of this are so eye wateringly high because of the failure of successive governments for 30 years to do any strategic development of the network (note I very carefully use the word network, rather than rail services, which I acknowledge have grown hugely). I’m talking about the big decisions European neighbours have taken to grow large scale high speed rail across their countries.

Even if/when this is done, there will be vast swathes of the country not any closer to seeing a train above 125mph in their area, nor any additional capacity.

That’s a fundamental Problem HS2 and the politicians have failed to engage with.

Maybe that's something to campaign on for the future. After all, didn't the French TGV network start with just one single line? My guess is that HS2 will be very successful once it's running, and within about 10 years of its opening, the debate will be about how to turn it into a proper network of. 100-125mph+ lines. And at that point having something running down to Plymouth would seem a fairly obvious link in any highish-speed network.

 

[underbank]

I wonder whether one of the mistakes they’ve made is to focus the arguments in their PR on speed rather than capacity.

I have to agree. Speed isn't that important to lots of people, especially when the network is perceived to be unreliable as you have to take an earlier service anyway to guarantee getting to your destination on time in case of missed connections, delays, cancellations, etc. If reliability was better, and people didn't need to get an earlier train "just in case", slightly slower journey times would be fine.

 

[MarkyT]

I think that is exactly the core problem as far as why so many people are opposed to HS2 is concerned. (Though obviously there will always be people who have quibbles because they disagree with aspects of the route etc.)

Then there's the hardcore maglev and upstart hyperloop crowd who are joining the bandwagon calling for HS2 to be scrapped. The problem with that, even from their alleged interest point of view, is that such a course of action is likely to lead to yet another generation of lost opportunity while options are researched again, even if a new scheme based on such technologies was suitable, available quickly for implementation, and represented a good BCR (bearing in mind conventional network compatibility benefits of a rail based solution with respect to potential reach of new infrastructure and phasing benefits of an evolving network that cannot be realised with a new type of guideway).

Maybe that's something to campaign on for the future. After all, didn't the French TGV network start with just one single line? My guess is that HS2 will be very successful once it's running, and within about 10 years of its opening, the debate will be about how to turn it into a proper network of. 100-125mph+ lines. And at that point having something running down to Plymouth would seem a fairly obvious link in any highish-speed network.

While the alignment will be curved and graded for the initially specified high design speed, it seems likely that actual operational maximum speeds may be quite a bit lower to save costs. That will not only be on initial capital expense of track construction and day to day traction energy, but probably also on whole life rail and wheel regrinding and renewal expenses, which climb very steeply and non linearly with speed (That is one point on which the maglev enthusiasts are correct). It is apparent in both Europe and East Asia that maximum speed is not typically exceeding a fairly long established 320kph figure, which to me seems a sensible trade off. The latest lightweight and super-powered rolling stock can compensate for a lower maximum using it's stunning acceleration capabilities.

Take Germany for example. On much of the ICE network, 250kph max is now being specified, with new super efficient and high performance 4th generation trains. Overall, that is a sensible compromise on commercial speed versus costs, especially for the majority of routes that have fairly close, even station spacing, so little opportunity to exploit any sustained higher speed running. ICE4s will mean a small drop in maximum speed in certain places, but the ICE1 and ICE2 predecessors are much heavier with less power and tractive effort, so the new trains will be able to match and even improve on journey times. There are a small number of premier 'neubaustrecke' that have longer non-stop segments and are to retain their current 300/320kph limits using ICE3 and future Velaro or similar units, but in terms of total train km operated these represent a fairly small part of the total service offering.

On HS2 the higher than strictly neccessary design speed of the alignment will assist with wear avoidance as gentler curves in particular will save on side wear of rails and wheelsets. The alignment's higher speed spec could be seen as future proofing for as yet unforeseen developments, in much the same way as Brunel's 1840s engineering of the GWR allows todays high speeds, clearly unforeseen at the time.

As to a developing network, I think HS2 is a one off as a complete new end to end route for the UK. It represents a unique opportunity to relieve three significant main lines with one trunk. I believe future GW improvement is much more likely to consist of a number of substantial high speed cutoffs for the existing Peninsula route to speed up and segregate traffic, perhaps starting with the Hungerford area on the B&H and then maybe a Dawlish bypass. A similar approach has been suggested as an alternative to HS2, but the sheer quantity of works required, and the disruption it would cause, on all three main lines, to make an equivalent capacity difference renders that method impractical. Remember the main trunk will host 18 trains an hour. There's no way Devon and Cornwall could ever possibly support that kind of traffic.

 

[Glenn1969]

I am still worried that I keep hearing politicians with past links to the Tory party saying HS2 should be scrapped due to cost reasons. When will they actually start construction works in earnest on Phase 1 and reveal a timetable for Phase 2?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I am still worried that I keep hearing politicians with past links to the Tory party saying HS2 should be scrapped due to cost reasons. When will they actually start construction works in earnest on Phase 1 and reveal a timetable for Phase 2?

Construction work for Phase 1 has already started, and contracts awarded.

 

[QueensCurve]

As the title says.

I am a supporter of high speed rail in general, but I believe that the current plans for HS2 are far from perfect. Nevertheless I am a (reluctant) supporter of HS2. However, many people are opposed to HS2. Why is this?
Reasons I can think of include:

• Causes fairly significant environmental damage (although significantly less than a motorway!)
• Is built for speeds twice as fast as what we currently have
• Isn't a rebuild of an existing alignment
• Exists entirely so that businessmen and well paid bankers and executives can get to London quicker

Is there anything I haven't thought of? Replies from both sides of the debate are welcome.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a below the line comment by John Dalton in The Guardian comes close to my own viewpoint.

 

[Geezertronic]

I am still worried that I keep hearing politicians with past links to the Tory party saying HS2 should be scrapped due to cost reasons. When will they actually start construction works in earnest on Phase 1 and reveal a timetable for Phase 2?

They have already started work on the site of Interchange and the sites north and south of Interchange

 

[liam456]

• Isn't a rebuild of an existing alignment

Is there anything I haven't thought of? Replies from both sides of the debate are welcome.

So those behind HS2 looked at the GCML, found out it was an ideal route, with nothing at all stopping it from being converted into a modern electrified trunk railway, and then all went; No, actually we'll use a completely new alignment just to spite RUK users who long for the return of long-dead railway lines from a better time.

 

[SideshowBob]

That may just possibly have something to do with there being vastly more people who use the WCML every day than use the Transpennine or Calder Valley lines.

I think perhaps you underestimate the numbers of people who use the Transpennine lines at least. In any case, it isn't (imo) a strong argument for not spending money on those lines. Maybe more people would use the TP and Calder Valley if they had some money spent on them? This is a circular argument that could go on and on.

Spoiler

It won't go on and on.

Several issues in there. Firstly, you seem to be arguing as if the only purpose in building railways is to re-balance the economy. It isn't. &c.

True, but it is one of the more common justifications put forward for building HS2, which specifically is what this thread is about.

Secondly, you seem to be implying that there hasn't been much rail investment in the North. Maybe you're unaware of the vast expansion in Manchester Metrolink recently, or of the extensive electrification in the Manchester/Liverpool/Blackpool area. Or of the new train fleets that both Northern and TPE are in the process of introducing. Or of the significant frequency increases that are happening across much of the Northern network (some of them postponed until later this year because of the timetable meltdown last May). Or of the new links that have been/are being built to run services Liverpool-Runcorn-Chester and Manchester-Burnley-Blackburn. Or of the electrification of the Chase line. Or of this little thing called Northern Powerhouse Rail that is being worked on (and which is likely to depend on HS2). Of course, there are good arguments for doing a lot more than that, but making out that places that are not London don't seem to matter for rail investment is just miles away from reality.

I was aware of some of that but not all of it. But anyway, what's your point? That we in the North should just continue to put up with Pacers, or having either punctual trains delayed or already delayed trains being delayed still further because of semi-fasts being unable to get past late-running stoppers because there are no passing loops for distances of 20-30 miles or more, or losing our jobs and marriages due to a horror show of a new timetable implementation, or being left behind on station platforms due to chronic short-forming and/or overcrowding, followed by those responsible for these things deciding to thank us for not lynching them by increasing our fares and start implementing penalty fares, just because we've had the odd bung thrown at us here and there? Have you ever even been on a Pacer? Be honest!

Thirdly, you also seem to have missed that HS2 will - once phase 2b is built - enable much faster and more frequent journeys between cities in the North/Midlands. Birmingham-Leeds for example is likely to go from a 2-hour journey to less than 1 hour. Sheffield-Leeds and Manchester-Birmingham are also likely to become much quicker, while the new line into Manchester will take pressure off the overcrowded Manchester-Stockport corridor.

Phase 2b has yet even to be legislated for. Are you sure it will actually happen? If so, I admire your optimism!
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ster-news/hs2-go-ahead-in-manchester-15726542

Mr Grayling was responding to an open letter penned by more than 40 business and civic leaders suggesting the government is considering scrapping HS2's second phase from Birmingham to Crewe, Manchester and Leeds.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...owns-decline-high-speed-rail-north-birmingham

Yesterday, on the day a report from the New Economics Foundation comprehensively exposed the HS2 project as a London-boosting white elephant, I found myself writing this sitting in a station Wetherspoons because my train from Liverpool to Huddersfield had been cancelled. Last Saturday, I missed a talk for which I had tickets because my train to Manchester, again from Liverpool, was cancelled. On Monday, I was an hour late dropping my daughter at her grandma’s because our train – a Northern Pacer due for the knacker’s yard – broke down at the terminus.


NEF’s report, which can be read as much as an utter indictment of a directionless, actively neglectful government as a cool-headed analysis of a single bad idea, exposes the fact that high-speed rail is unnecessary for everyone except London-based frequent travellers who dislike leaving the capital unless they can be there and back in half a day. The report demands a better service for northern commuters, the electrification of rail lines stuck in the mid-20th century, and the reopening of old branch lines to places lost to the car.

 

[6Gman]

Have you ever even been on a Pacer? Be honest!

I've been on Pacers (three last week). Their fitness depends on what they're used for.

Manchester - Hyde/Romiley: basic, but ok. Look forward to their being replaced.
Southport - Wigan: ditto.
Chester - Llandudno Junction (quite a few years ago now): absolutely awful.

But Pacer replacement has got nothing to do with HS2.

Scrapping HS2 will not speed up their replacement; building HS2 will not delay it.

 

[SideshowBob]

I've been on Pacers (three last week). Their fitness depends on what they're used for.

Manchester - Hyde/Romiley: basic, but ok. Look forward to their being replaced.
Southport - Wigan: ditto.
Chester - Llandudno Junction (quite a few years ago now): absolutely awful.

I'll see all of that, and raise you Manchester Victoria - York, on a freezing cold, filthy wet winter night 3 months ago!

But Pacer replacement has got nothing to do with HS2.

I never said it had. @DynamicSpirit thought I was implying that there hadn't been much Northern railway infrastructure investment, something else I never actually said. My point was and still is that London gets an awful lot more money spent on its transport infrastructure than the north of England does (HS2 being the latest and most glaring example of that). I subsequently backed that assertion up with crunchable numbers from credible sources. @DynamicSpirit went on to give examples of where money on Northern railway infrastructure has in fact been spent, and seemed to be inferring that just because some money's been spent, I should just be happy with that and not rise above my station by demanding or expecting any more. I, and many other Northern rail users, could do without that kind of condescension, thanks all the same.

 

[EM2]

Have you ever even been on a Pacer? Be honest!

The 313, 315, 317 and 455 are all older than Pacers, and will still be in service after the end of this year.

 

[SideshowBob]

The 313, 315, 317 and 455 are all older than Pacers, and will still be in service after the end of this year.

Quite. So why should Northern rail users just be happy with that whilst eye-watering sums of money get spent on a piece of railway infrastructure designed to improve connectivity to London, instead of solely between points in the north where it would be of much greater benefit and value? Especially given that London is already getting several times more money spent on its public transport infrastructure than the North is, and has done for a long time?

 

[AndrewE]

The 313, 315, 317 and 455 are all older than Pacers, and will still be in service after the end of this year.

But they were far better trains in the first place. They may not be older, but the 319 hand-me-downs have transformed a lot of services in the north-west. (Not that I think there is anything wrong with cascading rolling stock, but it shows what we have had to live with until now.)

I'll see all of that, and raise you Manchester Victoria - York, on a freezing cold, filthy wet winter night 3 months ago!

I had a pacer Man Vic to Bradford. It came in coupled to a sprinter, and my other half was not impressed when the 150 was detached and we were put into the nodding donkey for an hour!

 

[Glenn1969]

They shouldn't. Which is why I am annoyed with the delay to sorting out the Manchester area bottleneck when they have spent billions on Crossrail and are considering spending more billions on Crossrail 2

 

[SideshowBob]

They shouldn't. Which is why I am annoyed with the delay to sorting out the Manchester area bottleneck when they have spent billions on Crossrail and are considering spending more billions on Crossrail 2

Hear hear!

I mean, I'm not suggesting that "HS3" instead of HS2 would speed up the replacement of all the knackered old rolling stock in the North - clearly, it wouldn't - but I do find the "you've had some money spent on you, now be quiet while we spend orders of magnitude more on London instead" argument somewhat irksome, not least because London already had that and HS2 will serve only to exacerbate the situation.

 

[SideshowBob]

The key word there is “believe”.

People believe all sorts of things. There’s someone I know, who usually seems to be a well adjusted individual, that believes no-one should vaccinate their children because God will protect them. (I’m not comparing you to this belief by the way, I’m just using it as an extreme example!)

However it is much better to make decisions based on research, evidence, facts and analysis.

Surely not, it must be better to make decisions that give you a nice warm fuzzy emotional feeling inside, at least that is how a lot of people appear to make decisions. If people were primarily influenced by research, evidence, facts and analysis, we would have sorted anthropogenic climate change by now, and the Daily Express and Daily Mail would cease to exist due to lack of sales.

Fair enough. It's a fact that the WCML has had vastly more money spent on it in recent times than either the North & South Transpennine or the Calder Valley lines have. I use the North Transpennine route regularly - it is beset by delays and problems ultimately caused by poor and inadequate infrastructure.

It is also a fact that London is the biggest city in Europe. Its population is larger than that of Scotland (by approx 2m). There are more jobs and opportunities there than anywhere else in the UK. The rail links between London and the provinces are already some of the best and fastest in the UK. The spending per head on public transport in London itself is around 4 times that of Manchester. The London economy is already the biggest in the UK. Why is an already comically expensive high-speed rail link from a regional capital to the national capital needed in addition to the fast rail links that already exist, and how will it help to rebalance regional economies?

&c.

@Bald Rick @al78 - some (more) numbers for you, along with a link to where they came from:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...orth-midlands-london-new-economics-foundation

The government’s planned HS2 high-speed rail project will make the UK even more divided and should be scrapped in favour of boosting services in the less well-off parts of the country, a left-leaning thinktank has said.

A report from the New Economics Foundation found that 40% of the benefits of the controversial project would go to London and that the £56bn budget would be better spent on upgrading the existing network and smaller-scale local projects.

&c.

 

[Adsy125]

I think the spending per head figure is quite misleading, there was a TFL paper a few years ago that showed passengers in London are by far the least subsidised by mile, and per passenger mile Northern is incredibly expensive to run, even including TPE. A government has to be pragmatic with a limited pit of money and build things with the best returns, and clearly HS2 does well enough to be built, unlike some of the crazy schemes it's objectors propose.

 

[The Ham]

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're making here, or how what you're saying relates to the point I was making. Please could you clarify or explain further?


Six and-a-half times. Sorry, my mistake! (To be fair, this article from 2016 is talking about a projected spend over the following four years and only refers to "The North" rather than Manchester specifically, but I would say that my point is still valid! )

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...chris-grayling-crossrail-london-a7177656.html


Halfway through that period, and it's already double...
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...manchester-london-transport-spending-15440344



I'm no statistician or mathematician, and no expert on these matters; just a layperson. There will be more scientific analyses available, no doubt, but hopefully these sources serve to illustrate my point. The MEN article does concede that there has been an increase in transport spending in the North. The difference is still appreciable, though.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're making here, or how what you're saying relates to the point I was making. Please could you clarify or explain further?


Six and-a-half times. Sorry, my mistake! (To be fair, this article from 2016 is talking about a projected spend over the following four years and only refers to "The North" rather than Manchester specifically, but I would say that my point is still valid! )

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...chris-grayling-crossrail-london-a7177656.html


Halfway through that period, and it's already double...
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...manchester-london-transport-spending-15440344



I'm no statistician or mathematician, and no expert on these matters; just a layperson. There will be more scientific analyses available, no doubt, but hopefully these sources serve to illustrate my point. The MEN article does concede that there has been an increase in transport spending in the North. The difference is still appreciable, though.

The point I was making was the fact that people are concerned that there'll be a brain drain to London if it is a journey which can be done in an hour. I was pointing out that there's already case studies which show that relatively few people who are an hour away from London go there for work. Rather local companies take advantage of the good links to London and only send their staff there when needed.

Ah, so it's the INFRASTRUCTURE spend argument. I've pointed out before that if the TOTAL subsidy for TPE was equally given across the whole network that (with the premium payments as well) SWR could have funded Crossrail 2 over a 10 year period.

It also doesn't take on board that to add (say) 50% to the capacity of TPE or Northern there's very little extra infrastructure costs which need to be made. Whilst to add the same capacity to SWR would require Crossrail 2 and a whole load of other works (like the junctures at Basingstoke and Woking).

It also is a per resident basis, when there are a lot of very rural areas across the North, which all add to the population but are unlikely to be viable to run rail services to (even if the network were to already exist).

Finally the South East is fairly low in terms of infrastructure in that it has, from the IPPR figures £1,300 compared to the average for the North of £1,600. Yet most of the South East benefits massively from London. Take as an example the rebuilding of Waterloo, that's clearly a London infrastructure project, yet will bring benefits to a large are of the SWR network. Alternatively how about Crossrail, that's allowing more services into Paddington, which will benefit the Southwest and Wales.

Likewise when Crossrail 2 is built that could see improvements to services to as far away as Exeter (although it would, as indicated above, require other improvements elsewhere).

 

[Sceptre]

So those behind HS2 looked at the GCML, found out it was an ideal route, with nothing at all stopping it from being converted into a modern electrified trunk railway, and then all went; No, actually we'll use a completely new alignment just to spite RUK users who long for the return of long-dead railway lines from a better time.

Serious question: if we re-opened the GCML instead, where would it terminate, and how would it get into London?

 

[AM9]

The point I was making was the fact that people are concerned that there'll be a brain drain to London if it is a journey which can be done in an hour. I was pointing out that there's already case studies which show that relatively few people who are an hour away from London go there for work. Rather local companies take advantage of the good links to London and only send their staff there when needed.

Ah, so it's the INFRASTRUCTURE spend argument. I've pointed out before that if the TOTAL subsidy for TPE was equally given across the whole network that (with the premium payments as well) SWR could have funded Crossrail 2 over a 10 year period.

It also doesn't take on board that to add (say) 50% to the capacity of TPE or Northern there's very little extra infrastructure costs which need to be made. Whilst to add the same capacity to SWR would require Crossrail 2 and a whole load of other works (like the junctures at Basingstoke and Woking).

It also is a per resident basis, when there are a lot of very rural areas across the North, which all add to the population but are unlikely to be viable to run rail services to (even if the network were to already exist).

Finally the South East is fairly low in terms of infrastructure in that it has, from the IPPR figures £1,300 compared to the average for the North of £1,600. Yet most of the South East benefits massively from London. Take as an example the rebuilding of Waterloo, that's clearly a London infrastructure project, yet will bring benefits to a large are of the SWR network. Alternatively how about Crossrail, that's allowing more services into Paddington, which will benefit the Southwest and Wales.

Likewise when Crossrail 2 is built that could see improvements to services to as far away as Exeter (although it would, as indicated above, require other improvements elsewhere).

Yes, it's that same old false dichotomy again. Whenever spending on the railway into London is compared with elsewhere, (usually the north), the population of London (usually stated as around 8m) is used into the calculations. That effectively says that large capital rail investment programmes only benefit the population inside the M25. So Thameslink, Crossrail, Crossrail 2 et al. have no effect on Bedford, Brighton, Cambridge, Reading, Essex, Surrey and beyond. That is totally misrepresenting the case (either deliberately or through ignorance). If a comparison for beneficiaries is to be made, it should be against the Metropolitan Area populations, so:
Populations of UK metropolitan Areas:

1) London 13.709m
2) Birmingham 3.683m
3) Manchester 2.556m
4) Leeds-Bradford 2.302m
5) Liverpool-Birkenhead 2.241m
6) Tyneside 1.599m
7) Sheffield 1.569m
8) Nottingham-Derby 1.534m​

Source: EU ESPON project. see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

So the population of all of those areas within the Northern Rail geographical area total nearly two million less than the London Met. area. If the values of investment per passenger are used, then there is no comparison as 2/3 of all UK rail travel is to, within or from London.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Serious question: if we re-opened the GCML instead, where would it terminate, and how would it get into London?

It would terminate at Amersham and from there either have to piggy-back on the Metropolitan Line or construct an HS2 type tunnel into London.

 

[Mark62]

It’s a total waste of money and would not be happening if it was being built by a nationalised company
The proposed journey time for hs2 between Birmingham and Sheffield will save 8 minutes. Currently, xc can do the run in 56 mins when trains are running late. These timing happen on a regular basis
It’s a lot of money to spend to save 8 minutes.
There are large areas of the uk without any public transport whatsoever. We have local authorities slashing the number of tendered bus routes due to a lack of money whilst at the same time we are proposing to waste hundreds of billions on route duplication.
In 2010 David Cameron immediately stopped all of the previous labour governments local bus transport spending expansion on the basis that there wasn’t any money. At the time had no problem in finding the money to built hs2. Of course this would in essence be a massive transfer of public funds to the private sector. You will find that many of the beneficiaries of this cash handout were Tory party election fund contributors. He who pays the piper etc
Hs2 is a political project aimed primarily at making those who fund the Tory party even richer
Those who live in rural areas and may be disabled and elderly can go to hell.
I’m all in favour of transport expansion. I’m totally opposed to political partiality and duplicity.
Every time I try and make these legitimate comments the devs on this site censor them. We shall see if they do that again.
You cannot remove politics from any serious discussion about transport policy.

 

[mmh]

The 313, 315, 317 and 455 are all older than Pacers, and will still be in service after the end of this year.

And all are a better passenger experience than Pacers. They should have gone to the great maker in the sky years ago. Their comparative age is pretty irrelevant.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It’s a total waste of money and would not be happening if it was being built by a nationalised company
The proposed journey time for hs2 between Birmingham and Sheffield will save 8 minutes. Currently, xc can do the run in 56 mins when trains are running late. These timing happen on a regular basis
It’s a lot of money to spend to save 8 minutes.
There are large areas of the uk without any public transport whatsoever. We have local authorities slashing the number of tendered bus routes due to a lack of money whilst at the same time we are proposing to waste hundreds of billions on route duplication.
In 2010 David Cameron immediately stopped all of the previous labour governments local bus transport spending expansion on the basis that there wasn’t any money. At the time had no problem in finding the money to built hs2. Of course this would in essence be a massive transfer of public funds to the private sector. You will find that many of the beneficiaries of this cash handout were Tory party election fund contributors. He who pays the piper etc
Hs2 is a political project aimed primarily at making those who fund the Tory party even richer
Those who live in rural areas and may be disabled and elderly can go to hell.
I’m all in favour of transport expansion. I’m totally opposed to political partiality and duplicity.
Every time I try and make these legitimate comments the devs on this site censor them. We shall see if they do that again.
You cannot remove politics from any serious discussion about transport policy.

I think you'll find that High Speed Two is just about as nationalised as it gets - the Secretary of State for Transport is the owner of the main development company.

HS2 is so much more than saving 8 minutes between Birmingham and Sheffield (and, in any case, it's not an appropriate comparison to take the fastest possible running time for the existing line vs the regularly timetabled time for the new line). This particular saving is but one (rather minor) benefit. If you compared the journey time to Leeds, for instance, it goes down from about 2 hours to about 1. A massive reduction, and it makes Leeds far better connected to the Midlands and vice versa. That is something that can only be good for economic development.

HS2 certainly isn't without its flaws, and I would say Toton Parkway is probably one of the worse parts of the scheme, certainly if it isn't done with an accompanying tram connection, but it is overall a once in a lifetime opportunity for the railways to see a massive amount of investment.

The choice is, as you say, political - and it is here the choice between £xbn, and nothing at all. Even if the figure is vastly inflated, I'd rather have Government money spent on HS2 than other areas.

 

[mmh]

Absolutely correct that you can't remove politics from any full discussion about HS2. It was a pet project of a much criticised government which simultaneously had a permanent mantra that the country needed to tighten its belt.

I'm a bit surprised the current government didn't just cancel it, but I suppose the combination of being preoccupied with something else and the awkwardness of announcing the cancellation of a huge infrastructure project is a large factor.

 

[PR1Berske]

I'm a bit surprised the current government didn't just cancel it, but I suppose the combination of being preoccupied with something else and the awkwardness of announcing the cancellation of a huge infrastructure project is a large factor.

"Why did you decide to allow HS2 to happen in the face of so little support?"
"We were too awkward to cancel it."

If being embarrassed by potential future headlines is the only firm foundation on which the project is based, that's a rum do!

 

[The Ham]

It’s a total waste of money and would not be happening if it was being built by a nationalised company
The proposed journey time for hs2 between Birmingham and Sheffield will save 8 minutes. Currently, xc can do the run in 56 mins when trains are running late. These timing happen on a regular basis
It’s a lot of money to spend to save 8 minutes.
There are large areas of the uk without any public transport whatsoever. We have local authorities slashing the number of tendered bus routes due to a lack of money whilst at the same time we are proposing to waste hundreds of billions on route duplication.
In 2010 David Cameron immediately stopped all of the previous labour governments local bus transport spending expansion on the basis that there wasn’t any money. At the time had no problem in finding the money to built hs2. Of course this would in essence be a massive transfer of public funds to the private sector. You will find that many of the beneficiaries of this cash handout were Tory party election fund contributors. He who pays the piper etc
Hs2 is a political project aimed primarily at making those who fund the Tory party even richer
Those who live in rural areas and may be disabled and elderly can go to hell.
I’m all in favour of transport expansion. I’m totally opposed to political partiality and duplicity.
Every time I try and make these legitimate comments the devs on this site censor them. We shall see if they do that again.
You cannot remove politics from any serious discussion about transport policy.

HS2 may only save 8 minutes, but it will add a while load of capacity. At 1,100 seats per train vs 250 that's an increase of >400%.

With all those long distance services removed from the city centre stations there's scope to run more services to more minor locations. That could include reopenings which otherwise wouldn't be able to have a path into the major city because there was no space.

This will be improved further with the building of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which would take even more trains out of the existing platforms.

At Manchester Piccadilly in the morning peak there's 5 class 390 services, for each you remove you can lengthen 4 other services (replace one train with 2 six coach trains, then use the platform space they were previously occuping with 2 services which are longer). Let's assume that you can remove 2 services totally, so that's 8 services lengths.

However that's only part of what can be done. In that a 390 will hang around for 30-40 minutes before it goes somewhere else, local services are likely to only wait for 15-20 minutes. If we assume 30/20 then you can fit in 50% more services into the same platform space, that then means you could lengthen 12 services.

That's with just removing 2 out of 5 of the morning peak 390's.

How would you do that without HS2?

Add in the benefits of the extra platforms due from NPR (which is reliant on HS2 spending to build sections to keep its costs down) and it may be a game changer. However bin HS2 and you can almost certainly kiss goodbye to NPR (as the costs would go up, leaving the return goes down) and therefore keep the North in the dark ages (at least compared to London which would almost certainly have Crossrail 2 in the same sort of timeframe).

Unless someone has a cunning alternative which they have been keeping under their hat and haven't shared with the group. Anyone?

 

[Ianno87]

"Why did you decide to allow HS2 to happen in the face of so little support?"
"We were too awkward to cancel it."

If being embarrassed by potential future headlines is the only firm foundation on which the project is based, that's a rum do!

Thankfully, that's not the case here.

 

[si404]

It was a pet project of a much criticised government which simultaneously had a permanent mantra that the country needed to tighten its belt.

What Gordon Brown's Government? They were the ones under whom most of the effort to promote the scheme happened.

The whole point of tightening belts (which didn't actually happen - public spending rose faster than inflation. OK, not as fast as Brown's bribe-the-nation budget done as a dying act of a Government that knew that the upcoming election was very likely to take power away from them) was to enable there to be healthy Government finances after a few years, allowing an end to 'austerity' and big budget schemes like HS2 to be able happen without capsizing the economy.