• 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.

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
Hi @MarkWi72, I strongly suggest that you read the whole thread (I appreciate there's a lot of it) as you will find a lot of answers to your questions and concerns covered there.

There isn't really an answer to the "HS2 will destroy ancient woodland" criticism. It's a fair complaint, but I believe we have to look at environmental damage in the round. Overall, building HS2 will do more good for the environment than not building it. People will still want to travel, and in the absence of decent rail services, they'll drive instead.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
I have described the DC lines as not pulling their weight and you seem to be doing a good job of proving this.
They absolutely pull their weight - they exist to not overload trains from Tring, etc with passengers from additional stops at Hatch End, Harlesden, Kenton, Kensal, etc. They do this. You want them doing this for just one more stop (Watford Junction) at an eye-watering cost of £10 billion.

It's not heavy lifting moving tons of people, sure, but nor are the inner Thameslinks on the MML vs the Bedfords (less busy than the fasts, despite 33% less capacity 8-car). Likewise the Electric lines on GE, while needing and getting a big capacity boost with the Elizabeth line, is less busy wrt crowding and capacity supplied than the mainline. That's due to history and what is next to these lines. Suburban lines built as suburban lines had the railway company develop the land around stations to create passengers. These four-tracking (or 6 with the DC lines) were more about speeding up from further out and removing suburban traffic from overloading those services, with any infill stations added often serving land already developed because of the adjacent railway but designed around freight, not passengers.

As such South Kenton sees 1.21m Bakerloo + 0.570m LO entries/exits per year for a total of 1.78m, while nearby sees Preston Road 3.63m. Kenton sees 2.07m+1.089m= 3.159m while Northwick Park sees 4.52m. The reason the figures are less is simple - the WCML corridor within the M25 doesn't serve the developments deliberately designed to use the railway like other lines. Beyond the M25 there aren't the near neighbours, and the places are much more residential. Add in that Tring on a stopper is less time from Euston than Watford High Street or Watford Met (though sees slightly fewer passengers due to being some way from a built up area) - 45 minutes vs 48 (for both the Watfords), Kings Langley is 30 minutes (or slightly less) vs South Kenton's 32 minutes, and it's not hard to see why commuter demand for the LNWR inner service is more than that on the DC lines. Now, sure, speeding those DC journeys up would spur redevelopment, but that doesn't reduce demand for services from Tring (likewise the next service group out: Leighton Buzzard is ~30 minutes, Northampton is 52-55 - ie a similar time range), merely increase demand for Watford Junction-Euston stoppers that currently have a rather mediocre demand.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Plus local transport networks could and should be improved - e.g. Midland Metro should be on a par with Manchester's. Ho hum.
Indeed, and what is the catalyst for Midland Metro extension to Solihull borough? That's right, the Birmingham Interchange station on HS2... Similar with other tram, etc networks - HS2 is helping the case for creation/extension.
 

MarkWi72

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2017
Messages
243
Indeed, and what is the catalyst for Midland Metro extension to Solihull borough? That's right, the Birmingham Interchange station on HS2... Similar with other tram, etc networks - HS2 is helping the case for creation/extension.

Yes, it is, but my argument is that it shouldn't need HS2 to be a catalyst for a new Metro line. We should be building it in any case, and many more lines of it across Birmingham and the Black Country (And Cov). In fact, the Metro will not go anywhere near Solihull Town Centre - it passes through Washwood Heath, Hodge Hill, Castle Bromwich, Kingshurst and Chelmlsey Wood. We need this line connected to a cross A45 one to Solihull. We need an Amsterdam type solution.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Personally, I think on one hand it could be exciting, but it is a huge vanity project for London & Westminster, when it isn't needed. And why not all the way through to the Channel/Paris/Brussels?

The short reason for no link between HS2 and HS1 is that it would be very, very expensive, for not much traffic (you could fit the entire Manchester + Birmingham to Brussels air market on four trains a week), and there’s of course the usual Border control issues.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Manchester to Amsterdam was 1.035m passengers direct last year but MAN- BRU was not in their top 20 busiest routes so was less than 340,000 direct pax. I agree that border issues would be a problem for a Regional Eurostar service so don't see one being introduced
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
900
Manchester to Amsterdam was 1.035m passengers direct last year but MAN- BRU was not in their top 20 busiest routes so was less than 340,000 direct pax. I agree that border issues would be a problem for a Regional Eurostar service so don't see one being introduced
Manchester and Birmingham to Paris?

And lets not forget the formidable amount of Euro Disney traffic!
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
900
I agree with the reasons not to have a direct HS2 to HS1 link but I think its a shame. Whilst I can walk from Euston to St P the added time and effort makes the flight a lot more attractive from here in the North - to me at least.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Manchester to Paris direct was 628,000 pax direct in 2018

Birmingham had 703,047 pax to Amsterdam and 412,080 to Paris. Again BRU not in the top 20

I suppose a Regional Eurostar service could make a dent in those figures but as said before not sure it will ever happen
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,089
Location
Birmingham
There will be huge upheaval around Berkswell/Balsall Common, not least with road realignments and the construction traffic. Residents' groups have been flooding the council about this for at least 5 years.

I would suggest that the planned works to the A452 between The George pub and the Hampton/Meriden island will improve the road, more from a safety point of view by removing the turn right gaps and replacing with islands for the Berkswell turning and the truck stop turning


Personally, I think on one hand it could be exciting, but it is a huge vanity project for London & Westminster, when it isn't needed. And why not all the way through to the Channel/Paris/Brussels?

You really need to do more research if that is your point of view as the benefits north of Birmingham are stated by more knowledgable people than me in this thread which makes this typical and emotive point of view mute


Use the money to electrify the main lines and connected secondary lines, as I believe capacity has increased in the past decade on WCML. I raised this at 2015 Hustings when local MP Caroline Spelman was defending it - I asked why couldn't the Brum -Rugby section be quadrupled? "Too expensive" came the reply - road bridges had to be kept open etc. Surely this could have been done if the will was present? And this line has hardly any freight now - they go via Nuneaton and Water Orton to or through the West Midlands.

Do you recall the last time the WCML underwent a major upgrade and the massive disruption that caused with regular weekend closures? That is a counterproductive argument, and could destroy passenger numbers. Plus how would the additional lines and traffic route into New Street since the new Bullring footings restrict the addition of extra lines in from the south?
 
Last edited:

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
900
Manchester to Paris direct was 628,000 pax direct in 2018

Birmingham had 703,047 pax to Amsterdam and 412,080 to Paris. Again BRU not in the top 20

I suppose a Regional Eurostar service could make a dent in those figures but as said before not sure it will ever happen
I agree.

Of course if parliament moved to Birmingham and we stay in the EU it probably would.

Although in that case we could just borrow santa's sleigh and harness it to the flying pigs....
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
To say there is no benefit outside the M25 is to completely misunderstand the entire concept.

Are the DC line trains now pretty empty? I find that hard to believe. The 3rd pair of lines need to be a viable 90mph railway, minimum 8 cars. That is a big change in capacity as is making the Bakerloo line 30tph to Wembley rather than 10. Watford is currently taking half the slow line train capacity while the DC lines are not pulling their weight.

I still don’t understand. Perhaps it’s me. If I set out what I think you’re trying to say, perhaps you can say if I get it wrong. Your proposal is:

1) to extend the Bakerloo, in tunnel, from Queens Park to Wembley Central, with deep level stations at each of the existing stations on the D.C. Line.

2) reconstruct the D.C. lines from Watford Junction to Camden Junction as a 90mph railway, involving a new elevated route alongside the WCML from Watford Jn to Bushey (2km), a new route from Wembley Central to Kensal Green (5-6km, route uncertain), upgrading the track and signalling throughout, and providing sufficient extra power in the D.C. electrification system for the higher speeds.

3) retain the current contracted level of service on the D.C. line from Watford to Euston of 4tph, omitting all calls between Stonebridge Park to Willesden Jn inclusive; but retaining all calls Watford to Wembley Central, and Kensal Green to Euston.

4) operate additional services from Watford Jn to Euston on the upgraded D.C. lines, calling intermediately only at Bushey and Harrow & Wealdstone.

5) operate all existing slow line services south of Watford Jn as fast between there and Euston.


Is this right? If not where I have misunderstood you?
 

MarkWi72

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2017
Messages
243
I still think that the Chiltern Line could have been given an upgrade of sorts. Like I said, I have mixed feelings about it, and I do agree with you to a point; I think the benefits for the North West outweigh the Birmingham / West Mids ones.

I didn't totally disagree with MP Spelman - I can see that a Victorian infrastructure can be difficult to work with. However, we have had a lot of WCML changes for the better (several electrification schemes, Norton Bridge, Chase Line) . So why not electrification of Chiltern, New Street - Nuneaton?

I agree about A452 at that point (only one right turn though- Diddington Lane, which may well be cut in half). I was simply suggesting that Balsall Common residents are not too happy at present, although I think they are getting used to what it will be.

There's a lot of road infrastructure taking place in that area too - Jn 6 M42, new Airport relief roads and junctions from A45, M6 smart motorway.
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
900
... Use the money to electrify the main lines and connected secondary lines, as I believe capacity has increased in the past decade on WCML. I raised this at 2015 Hustings when local MP Caroline Spelman was defending it - I asked why couldn't the Brum -Rugby section be quadrupled? "Too expensive" came the reply - road bridges had to be kept open etc. Surely this could have been done if the will was present? And this line has hardly any freight now - they go via Nuneaton and Water Orton to or through the West Midlands.

Plus local transport networks could and should be improved - e.g. Midland Metro should be on a par with Manchester's. Ho hum.
May I ask why you think that the money from cancelling HS2 would be available for upgrading the Midland Metro? Does it meet the criteria for a capital project - upgrades tend not to?
 

MarkWi72

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2017
Messages
243
I agree.

Of course if parliament moved to Birmingham and we stay in the EU it probably would.

Although in that case we could just borrow santa's sleigh and harness it to the flying pigs....

I'd prefer that to what might happen after October...................
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
900
I've just posted something and its "awaiting moderator approval". I'm new here - can anybody let me know what I've done wrong?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Manchester to Amsterdam was 1.035m passengers direct last year but MAN- BRU was not in their top 20 busiest routes so was less than 340,000 direct pax. I agree that border issues would be a problem for a Regional Eurostar service so don't see one being introduced

MAN - BRU was 232k last year; BHX - BRU was 141k.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I've just posted something and its "awaiting moderator approval". I'm new here - can anybody let me know what I've done wrong?

Because you’re new, the mods may check your first few posts until they are reasonably sure you are a real person and don’t have a big box of fresh crayons.
 

tasky

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2018
Messages
381
Use the money to electrify the main lines and connected secondary lines, as I believe capacity has increased in the past decade on WCML. I raised this at 2015 Hustings when local MP Caroline Spelman was defending it - I asked why couldn't the Brum -Rugby section be quadrupled? "Too expensive" came the reply - road bridges had to be kept open etc. Surely this could have been done if the will was present? And this line has hardly any freight now - they go via Nuneaton and Water Orton to or through the West Midlands.

If you're annoyed about woods being built over, wait to see you what quadrupling the WCML would do! There are something like 6,000 houses built facing onto the line and you'd have to knock down at least half of them to add an extra set of tracks. And of course it wouldn't provide anywhere near the benefit of HS2. HS2 is basically in part another set of tracks for the WCML, but built at a more convenient alignment, in a less disruptive, cheaper way, and done high-speed because it doesn't cost much more to do it that way.
 

Alex McKenna

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2011
Messages
29
I presume it has been proposed and rejected before, but would it not make strategic sense to build the line INITIALLY from Old Oak Common, via Birmingham Interchange, and the two forks towards Manchester and to the East Midlands station? This might be a similar cost to “Stage 1”, without the Curzon station, and Euston tunnels, and provide faster access from the North, silencing those Northern critics and others.
This could enable non-stop trains to join the Y-shape bypass from Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield etc, from the classic lines. I admit to being a non-rail layman, so the idea may be entirely impractical.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
I didn't totally disagree with MP Spelman - I can see that a Victorian infrastructure can be difficult to work with. However, we have had a lot of WCML changes for the better (several electrification schemes, Norton Bridge, Chase Line) . So why not electrification of Chiltern, New Street - Nuneaton?

Electrification of Chiltern would be a good thing, but won't solve the essential problem which is that we're running out of capacity on our north-south main lines (WCML in particular). There comes a point when all the sensible upgrades have been done, and the only option is to build more tracks. It's actually less destructive and less disruptive to build these on a different alignment rather than next to the existing line. Also the massive cost overruns experienced in upgrading the WCML and GWML should give us concern when considering large scale upgrades of existing lines in the future. Building a new line also gives options to improve connectivity around the country; the new HS2 station in west London (at Old Oak Common) will make it massively more convenient to get to places around the country by public transport.

I'm afraid I don't buy the 'London vanity project' thing. HS2 will transform the Leeds-Sheffield-East Midlands-Birmingham route making it far more attractive than the current cramped, slow, expensive cross-country trains, and will be able to make a big switch from car use for those journeys. There's a reason why pretty much all northern cities are heavily promoting HS2.

Ultimately we've got by over the last couple of decades by (expensively and disruptively) upgrading existing lines. But if we want to get serious at switching a significant amount of long-distance traffic from road and air to rail then we need to build more capacity, which HS2 does in spades. Any scheme of this nature will unfortunately involve cutting into woodland at points along the route, but I believe the advantages of getting more people using rail justify it.

I could go on about the further advantages of HS2 such as releasing capacity on existing lines for more local and regional services, but I'll leave that to others.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Agree 100% with that analysis and think that alongside HS3 Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool we should look at HS4 Birmingham to Bristol and maybe HS5 to Southampton. But that is a different argument for another thread. My view is HS2 should have been started straight after HS1 because the capacity it will bring is transformational and was needed at least 10 years ago
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
But that is a different argument for another thread. My view is HS2 should have been started straight after HS1 because the capacity it will bring is transformational and was needed at least 10 years ago
Which is basically what British Rail planned - as far as I've been able to understand it, InterCity 250 had basically evolved into what we now know as HS2 (or at least the West Coast elements) before privatisation killed it, and fifteen years were lost.

Based on current plans, that would have seen Phase 1 opened in 2011 and Phase 2 opened in 2018. I dare say we'd be having very different conversations about rail travel if that had been the case.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Which is basically what British Rail planned - as far as I've been able to understand it, InterCity 250 had basically evolved into what we now know as HS2 (or at least the West Coast elements) before privatisation killed it, and fifteen years were lost.
That being the privatisation that had Virgin Trains offer to build a new High Speed Line along the WCML corridor (and also ECML corridor too at a later point) that the Government said no to?

And, of course, there was nothing stopping the Government building the High Speed lines BR were planning before privatisation, especially once Railtrack was renationalised in 2001. The problem here wasn't so much privatisation per say, as the abolition of British Rail and Government not getting the need for new build lines.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
The problem here wasn't so much privatisation per say, as the abolition of British Rail and Government not getting the need for new build lines.
Precisely - British Rail could have strategic vision in a way that the privatised railway doesn't, and could present its' case to Government more effectively than a fragmented railway system.
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
Hi @MarkWi72, I strongly suggest that you read the whole thread (I appreciate there's a lot of it) as you will find a lot of answers to your questions and concerns covered there.

There isn't really an answer to the "HS2 will destroy ancient woodland" criticism. It's a fair complaint, but I believe we have to look at environmental damage in the round. Overall, building HS2 will do more good for the environment than not building it. People will still want to travel, and in the absence of decent rail services, they'll drive instead.

In the grand scheme of things, the amount of ancient woodland being affected is actually pretty small; I think Phase 1 requires the removal of about one motorway service station's worth of woodland.

It's not the best, but it's a worthwhile sacrifice when compared to the alternative (which would involve a lot of interventions on the road network)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top