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

[MarkyT]

You would need passing loops on the HS lines

About 11km long.

I don't see that much traffic for HS2 will go to or come from Oxford via a connection near Calvert. Oxford already has two direct trains an hour calling at Birmingham International (and on to New Street) without the faff of changing trains. It also has, now, two direct trains to Paddington per hour taking less than an hour which will be faster after December this year and two to Marylebone taking between 62 and 70 minutes depending on the stopping pattern. Again, who wants the faff of changing considering any service calling at the hypothetical interchange station won't run more frequently than every 30 minutes. Before the next one arrives you could be halfway to London...

Indeed. And another problem is such a station could draw in a huge amount of parkway traffic possibly from a very wide area, over unsuitable roads and abstracting heavily from the other parallel London commuter routes. That could upset the commercial balance of those operations sufficiently that service reductions might be inevitable and that would particularly affect those who can't or don't wish to use a private car to access a convenient local station. Whether also having an EWR interchange or not, a high speed parkway station in the Chiltern area really would be an elitist facility for the most well heeled rural commuters who can afford to leave an executive car in a parking lot all day and pay a premium fare to London, all while sucking up valuable seat and train path capacity on what is supposed to be a long distance main line. The decision not to provide such a facility is absolutely the correct one and I applaud HS2 and DfT for sticking to it.

 

[camflyer]

Where the lines cross. This would give access to HS2 from Oxford, Milton Keynes (well Bletchley) and Bedford, and in the future maybe Cambridge.

The lines cross in (effectively) the middle of nowhere. Having a huge new station in the middle of a greenfield site would be sure to upset the locals even more.

 

[PR1Berske]

The lines cross in (effectively) the middle of nowhere. Having a huge new station in the middle of a greenfield site would be sure to upset the locals even more.

"As part of HS2, a new railway into London Euston, we're proposing a new Interchange Station for millions of passengers on the East West Link. This new exchange opportunity builds on your already existing travel options by allowing you into the West Coast with no inconvenience to your onward journey

You can never have enough choice, eh?


HS2 - Because Why Not?"

 

[Esker-pades]

Shameless plug:
I've written a 2 part article about HS2 on my blog.
Part 1 - Why HS2 is Required
Part 2 - The PR Failure, and the Damage of Deception

Feedback etc. appreciated, especially from railway insiders who can spot the errors I have most likely made.

High Speed 2 (HS2) is the new railway line currently under construction that should run from London to Birmingham and then on to Leeds (via the East Midlands and Sheffield) and Manchester, with connections to the classic network so trains can run beyond there. Always controversial, a significant amount of media coverage in recent months has meant that public opinion has very much turned against the rail project.

 

[camflyer]

I will certainly agree with you on the terrible PR. It should have all about building a railway network fit for the 21st century. The early message about "saving a few minutes to Birmingham" stuck in everyone's (including the media's) minds. Get rid of the silly names HS2, Phase 2a, 2b etc and call it something inspiring.

 

[Bald Rick]

Should there be an interchange station between HS2 and East-West rail? Would this reduce opposition to HS2 by those who say it's no direct benefit to them?

No x 2.

It would add little benefit for connections, add quite a lot of benefit for people who used lived near the station, but cause great disbenefit to every other HS2 passenger who would have their journey extended by 7 minutes or so. It would also fill HS2 trains up for a short part of the journey.

It’s not going to happen.

 

[Polarbear]

Unsure if it’s been mentioned up-thread, but is there any indication as to where the HS2 terminal would be in Liverpool?

 

[tasky]

What do people think of this piece about HS2 in The Independent?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-financial-benefit-controversy-a8937936.html

The arguments against HS2 are simple, and superficially attractive: why are we spending £55bn on a high-speed line between London and the north, when commuters outside the southeast are cramming onto unreliable, expensive, and infrequent old trains?

The latest polling shows the new railway is unpopular, and Tory leadership wannabes are circling to scrap it, hoping to win the affections of their party members, who hate it even more than the general public.

The government has failed to make the case for HS2. So allow me to make it here, because it’s actually a very good idea.

contd https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-financial-benefit-controversy-a8937936.html

 

[Polarbear]

Overall, I think it’s an excellent article. Yes, it’s not perfect & I very much doubt it would be possible to have a perfect solution at a reasonable cost. The article does clearly set out the reasons in favour of HS2 though.

It’s a pity that HS2 themselves haven’t done something like this at a much earlier stage though.

 

[matacaster]

Shameless plug:
I've written a 2 part article about HS2 on my blog.
Part 1 - Why HS2 is Required
Part 2 - The PR Failure, and the Damage of Deception

Feedback etc. appreciated, especially from railway insiders who can spot the errors I have most likely made.

I like the way you have presented your reasoned and measured assessment of the case, but I'm not convinced!

If its about capacity and not speed, then it would surely have been more sensible to use the proposed freight only route to remove much of the freight from WCML. Think it went along part of GC, Woodhead and across to Manchester and Liverpool. This would have been cheaper, would have been less disruptive as the line would only have needed to be 100mph and could therefore be more twisty.

The WCML is at or near capacity for only a very short period each day - morning into London and evening peak out. Much of the rest of the day its got considerable capacity, with long commuter trains carrying fresh air. The answer here is not to build a new railway, but to change work patterns, where offices are situated in the country and stop the London focus. This is a political imperative.

HS2-Phase 1 is really an extended commuter route for business people in Birmingham - the flows will be markedly towards London in morning and back in the evening. Its London businesses wanting to offer people cheaper housing by living in Birmingham and not having to set up offices in Birmingham. Londoners won't be seen dead in Birmingham unless forced. It clearly is nor was ever about speed to Birmingham.

HS2-phase 2a & 2b were a sop to the north to get Parliamentary and business approval for the vast expenditure on the Phase 1 commuter route. Slowing down the trains maximum speeds to save money means that Phase2a & 2b + any extension to Scotland will take longer (but happily that doesn't really affect Phase 1 significantly). Once north of Birmingham, because of the greater speed than at present, there will be few stops and the benefit will really be for business people. The general public has a lot more flexibility at what time they travel, but having a branch line to get to Sheffield (when it should be a through service), seems a dead end proposal.

As Phase 1 is almost certain to be way over budget(if not cancelled very soon), the likely result is that one or both of Phase 2 a or 2b will get cancelled (probably both) as "clearly we have to finish Phase 1 as its already being built". The rest of the country suffers from not having a single massive destination like London. Instead it has Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle etc most of which cannot be connected on a fast straight line from north to south or indeed east to west. NPR then tries to fix this, but how could connecting them only seem to spring up now? Transport planning in north is a victim of geography, topography and political issues. The political comes as in Bradford being on NPR route. Sure, its a big city and its poorly rail connected with most services going via or to Leeds and two separate stations. But, its a very challenging route, extortionately expensive and in railway terms you would want to avoid it. The local population is unlikely to generate vast numbers of trips, particularly as most trips are relatively local at present. Deprived people in Bradford are unlikely to want to travel to deprived Liverpool for jobs. HS2 only going from Leeds or Manchester means that Bradford people would have to change trains anyway to get to London, hardly a time saver. The impact of HS2 on Bradford is that businesses will move to Leeds (indeed HMRC is already doing so (from Bradford and Shipley) as is Royal Mail (Bradford). Faster rail journeys tend to benefit a dominant place with higher land costs and create a suburban commuter belt form lower cost areas. Lack of suitably qualified staff, lack of entertainment, high crime mean that Bradford will only likely be an origin of choice, rather than a destination.

The slowest part of the journey south from Leeds on existing tracks is from Leeds to Doncaster and worse, Leeds to Sheffield. The dead end at Sheffield on Phase2b doesn't seem to help with this at all. The existing lines could be beefed up some 4-tracking and much straightening and underpinning in mining areas to significantly improve many journey times, not just those to London. It is ridiculous that local trains take so long to get from Leeds to Sheffield. Leeds to Birmingham is also currently very poor, but Birmingham is a Dead end again - if it were for the north as well as London, they would have made Birmingham Curzon street a through station. By the way its being done, as I understand it, a passenger from Leeds to Birmingham is going to have to go to the International station and the connecting service to get to Birmingham itself. One from Bradford to Birmingham will have two changes if I've understood it correctly.

Manchester is more interesting, but if it avoids the airport (can't remember) phase2a will miss out on the clear opportunity for rail transfer from London to Manchester airport if Heathrow 3rd runway is scrapped.

There is a political maxim. "The farther away from London, the less concern we have"

 

[Bald Rick]

If its about capacity and not speed, then it would surely have been more sensible to use the proposed freight only route to remove much of the freight from WCML. Think it went along part of GC, Woodhead and across to Manchester and Liverpool. This would have been cheaper, would have been less disruptive as the line would only have needed to be 100mph and could therefore be more twisty.

Just to pick up on this common misconception.

It isn’t much cheaper (if at all) to build a lower speed railway. Assuming the same alignment, you still need the same amount of land, which means the same amount of consents process; the same formation, the same bridges / tunnels, embankments*, the same amount of track to the same standard (possibly with an extra 100mm of ballast), the same amount of OLE, the same amount of signalling, and so on. And all this needs the same amount of design.

But a more twisty route is by its nature longer, which means more of all the above, which is obviously more expensive. Clearly a more twisty route is better able to avoid difficult ‘obstructions’, but good work in the planning stages of a high speed route can design that out anyway.

* for higher speed lines, you need stronger underbridges and slightly larger tunnels, but for lines that carry freight you need shallower gradients, which means more embankments / cuttings and sometimes longer tunnels. It’s swings and roundabouts.

Besides, freight doesn’t go into Euston.

 

[matacaster]

Just to pick up on this common misconception.

It isn’t much cheaper (if at all) to build a lower speed railway. Assuming the same alignment, you still need the same amount of land, which means the same amount of consents process; the same formation, the same bridges / tunnels, embankments*, the same amount of track to the same standard (possibly with an extra 100mm of ballast), the same amount of OLE, the same amount of signalling, and so on. And all this needs the same amount of design.

But a more twisty route is by its nature longer, which means more of all the above, which is obviously more expensive. Clearly a more twisty route is better able to avoid difficult ‘obstructions’, but good work in the planning stages of a high speed route can design that out anyway.

* for higher speed lines, you need stronger underbridges and slightly larger tunnels, but for lines that carry freight you need shallower gradients, which means more embankments / cuttings and sometimes longer tunnels. It’s swings and roundabouts.

Besides, freight doesn’t go into Euston.

I take your point, but would suggest that freight doesn't need as much tunelling and its removal from WCML would presumably release quite a lot of paths which could be used for passengers, though not all the way to Euston (I'm not sure where the freight actually diverges). I do agree freight doesn't go into Euston!! Freight does not have to go on quite so direct route as HS2, although I don't feel able to speculate which is the best alternative. The issue at Euston would be made simpler if all commuter stock had similar characteristics and thus took up less paths.

 

[hwl]

I take your point, but would suggest that freight doesn't need as much tunnelling and its removal from WCML would presumably release quite a lot of paths which could be used for passengers, though not all the way to Euston (I'm not sure where the freight actually diverges). I do agree freight doesn't go into Euston!! Freight does not have to go on quite so direct route as HS2, although I don't feel able to speculate which is the best alternative. The issue at Euston would be made simpler if all commuter stock had similar characteristics and thus took up less paths.

Freight wouldn't release that much capacity (and certainly not enough to require new lines) in some ways it can inter-operate with semi-fast services quite well.
What is needed is a way to increase fast, semi-fast, stopping and freight paths and the optimal (efficient) way to do this overall is to build a new fast line as the existing fast paths are easier to rework and distribute more effectively among the other 3.

Stopping patterns are much more of an issue that commuter train performance.

 

[Esker-pades]

I like the way you have presented your reasoned and measured assessment of the case, but I'm not convinced!

If its about capacity and not speed, then it would surely have been more sensible to use the proposed freight only route to remove much of the freight from WCML. Think it went along part of GC, Woodhead and across to Manchester and Liverpool. This would have been cheaper, would have been less disruptive as the line would only have needed to be 100mph and could therefore be more twisty.

I can't respond to that any better than @Bald Rick already has.

The WCML is at or near capacity for only a very short period each day - morning into London and evening peak out. Much of the rest of the day its got considerable capacity, with long commuter trains carrying fresh air. The answer here is not to build a new railway, but to change work patterns, where offices are situated in the country and stop the London focus. This is a political imperative.

Change work patterns. I assume that means that some people have to work very early, whilst others very late. Or, shift work for virtually every career. The current medical evidence is that shift work is bad for people's health, so I don't see there being much support for this.

HS2-Phase 1 is really an extended commuter route for business people in Birmingham - the flows will be markedly towards London in morning and back in the evening. Its London businesses wanting to offer people cheaper housing by living in Birmingham and not having to set up offices in Birmingham. Londoners won't be seen dead in Birmingham unless forced. It clearly is nor was ever about speed to Birmingham.

Do you have any evidence for this?

HS2-phase 2a & 2b were a sop to the north to get Parliamentary and business approval for the vast expenditure on the Phase 1 commuter route. Slowing down the trains maximum speeds to save money means that Phase2a & 2b + any extension to Scotland will take longer (but happily that doesn't really affect Phase 1 significantly). Once north of Birmingham, because of the greater speed than at present, there will be few stops and the benefit will really be for business people. The general public has a lot more flexibility at what time they travel, but having a branch line to get to Sheffield (when it should be a through service), seems a dead end proposal.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion about phase 2. As I dealt with in the article, phase 2 attempts to deal with some significant capacity problems. If there isn't HS2, then there will have to be something else at some point soon. Slowing down is a possibility, but it will save very little money (as @Bald Rick has explained - sorry for tagging you in so much here).

You've also fallen into the trap of assuming that the only people who benefit from HS2 are people who travel on HS2. This is not true. Once the faster trains are removed from the "classic" network, there will be more space for other trains on the classic network, which will benefit people.

The idea that the only people who travel on long distance services is rubbish.

As Phase 1 is almost certain to be way over budget(if not cancelled very soon), the likely result is that one or both of Phase 2 a or 2b will get cancelled (probably both) as "clearly we have to finish Phase 1 as its already being built". The rest of the country suffers from not having a single massive destination like London. Instead it has Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle etc most of which cannot be connected on a fast straight line from north to south or indeed east to west. NPR then tries to fix this, but how could connecting them only seem to spring up now?

It was only in the media now; integrating the two is a long term plan.

Transport planning in north is a victim of geography, topography and political issues. The political comes as in Bradford being on NPR route. Sure, its a big city and its poorly rail connected with most services going via or to Leeds and two separate stations. But, its a very challenging route, extortionately expensive and in railway terms you would want to avoid it. The local population is unlikely to generate vast numbers of trips, particularly as most trips are relatively local at present. Deprived people in Bradford are unlikely to want to travel to deprived Liverpool for jobs. HS2 only going from Leeds or Manchester means that Bradford people would have to change trains anyway to get to London, hardly a time saver. The impact of HS2 on Bradford is that businesses will move to Leeds (indeed HMRC is already doing so (from Bradford and Shipley) as is Royal Mail (Bradford). Faster rail journeys tend to benefit a dominant place with higher land costs and create a suburban commuter belt form lower cost areas. Lack of suitably qualified staff, lack of entertainment, high crime mean that Bradford will only likely be an origin of choice, rather than a destination.

I don't follow this... NPR stopping at Bradford will make Bradford more deprived? Surely NPR will make Bradford more of a place. As for HS2, perhaps not everyone from Bradford wants to go to London....?

The slowest part of the journey south from Leeds on existing tracks is from Leeds to Doncaster and worse, Leeds to Sheffield. The dead end at Sheffield on Phase2b doesn't seem to help with this at all.

The dead end in Sheffield City Centre is the fault of politicians. The original proposal was for Sheffield Meadowhall to be a through station, but they wanted a city centre station. Thus, the dead-end spur.

The existing lines could be beefed up some 4-tracking and much straightening and underpinning in mining areas to significantly improve many journey times, not just those to London. It is ridiculous that local trains take so long to get from Leeds to Sheffield.

If I had £1 for everytime someone on this thread proposed 4-tracking a line, I would have enough for an open return from London to Manchester. Is there space to do this? If not, what would have to be demolished? Etc.

Leeds to Birmingham is also currently very poor, but Birmingham is a Dead end again - if it were for the north as well as London, they would have made Birmingham Curzon street a through station.

Yeah, or that there isn't the space.

By the way its being done, as I understand it, a passenger from Leeds to Birmingham is going to have to go to the International station and the connecting service to get to Birmingham itself. One from Bradford to Birmingham will have two changes if I've understood it correctly.

We do not know what the timetable for HS2 will look like. There is provision for trains to run north from Curzon Street, so there will be direct services from Leeds to Birmingham Curzon Street on HS2.

Manchester is more interesting, but if it avoids the airport (can't remember) phase2a will miss out on the clear opportunity for rail transfer from London to Manchester airport if Heathrow 3rd runway is scrapped.

HS2 is planned to serve Manchester Airport.

There is a political maxim. "The farther away from London, the less concern we have"

Yes. Which is why TfL has no subsidy from Central Government anymore.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[MarkyT]

Freight wouldn't release that much capacity (and certainly not enough to require new lines) in some ways it can inter-operate with semi-fast services quite well. What is needed is a way to increase fast, semi-fast, stopping and freight paths and the optimal (efficient) way to do this overall is to build a new fast line as the existing fast paths are easier to rework and distribute more effectively among the other 3. Stopping patterns are much more of an issue that commuter train performance.

Good summary. If, say, a new 'semi fast' pair was built, instead of the proposed fast pair, it could theoretically accommodate a new enhanced semi-fast tier of passenger service as well as much of the freight, particularly the fastest intermodal traffic. The problem would still be that, to be affordable and politically acceptable, the new route would have to skirt existing built-up areas, just as the HS2 design does, so the question arises as to where exactly these theoretical semi-fast passenger calls could be made. It is likely there would have to be a string of new rural 'beetfield' parkway hubs situated far from or on the peripheries of existing settlements, and these would need to be connected to their hinterlands by much new road infrastructure. They would generate large quantities of new road traffic to take abstracted commuters heading out of town to catch the train, while the non-stops continue to thunder through the heart of those existing towns, where most people actually live, on the classic routes, which as a result cannot gain a better service. It is a bit like trying to convert the 'High Street' to a high speed motorway for through traffic, while running the local bus route around a new bypass.

 

[Bald Rick]

I take your point, but would suggest that freight doesn't need as much tunelling and its removal from WCML would presumably release quite a lot of paths which could be used for passengers, though not all the way to Euston (I'm not sure where the freight actually diverges). I do agree freight doesn't go into Euston!! Freight does not have to go on quite so direct route as HS2, although I don't feel able to speculate which is the best alternative. The issue at Euston would be made simpler if all commuter stock had similar characteristics and thus took up less paths.

On the contrary, a freight only line might need *more* tunnelling. Tunnelling on HS2 is being provided for one of three reasons:

1) it’s cheaper to go underground than to buy the land necessary for the route. This applies particularly on the approaches to the big cities, but also through the Chilterns.

2) it’s easier to go underground than to mitigate the environmental impacts of the line, and/or deal with the opposition that comes with it.

3) topography, ie to get through hills it can’t get over.

(1) & (2) apply regardless of what sort of railway it is, on a given alignment. Frankly, it doesn’t matter what alignment you want, if you are building a new railway in London it’s going underground.

(3) applies less to passenger dedicated railways, as the permissible gradients are much steeper (3.5% vs 1.25%). This means it is more likely that tunnels are required for new freight / mixed railways than passenger only railways.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I will certainly agree with you on the terrible PR. It should have all about building a railway network fit for the 21st century. The early message about "saving a few minutes to Birmingham" stuck in everyone's (including the media's) minds. Get rid of the silly names HS2, Phase 2a, 2b etc and call it something inspiring.

How about getting rid of the high speed bit and make it a conventional rail line, capable of 140 mph running, then call it something different like the Southern - Northern Railway company ?

Apologizes if I've offended anyone, when I get a change I shall attempt to read through 90 odd pages or at least attempt to skim read it.

 

[Aictos]

Just call it the New Mainline and be done with it...

 

[jfowkes]

How about getting rid of the high speed bit and make it a conventional rail line, capable of 140 mph running, then call it something different like the Southern - Northern Railway company ?

Apologizes if I've offended anyone, when I get a change I shall attempt to read through 90 odd pages or at least attempt to skim read it.

I don't think you'll offend anyone with questions, but this thread is starting to need it's own FAQ!

Essentially the answer is: it doesn't actually cost that much more to build and run at high speed, so you might as well do so and benefit from decreased journey times.

Fair point on the naming - though any name change now will probably be seen as a cynical attempt to save face.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Unsure if it’s been mentioned up-thread, but is there any indication as to where the HS2 terminal would be in Liverpool?

There's no thought-through plan or business case for an HS2 terminal in Liverpool.
There is a new proposal to build junctions on the Manchester/Golborne HS2 route for a potential new line to Liverpool for joint NPR/HS2 services.
We can only speculate on possible routes and terminal locations, but it won't be confirmed for a long time (ie not part of HS2 phase 2).
And it is unfunded (no money).

 

[Glenn1969]

I think it maybe an NPR plan not per se an HS2 plan

 

[Halifaxlad]

Essentially the answer is: it doesn't actually cost that much more to build and run at high speed, so you might as well do so and benefit from decreased journey times.

My point is that it doesn't need to be high speed at all, so we might as well just make it less complicated and more integrated with existing rail network. Allow freight to use it and have more direct connections into city center's as opposed to out of town stations. Nottingham, Leicester could have direct improved connections, although the current plans with dedicated high speed trains that can only operate upon their own tracks will make it impossible.

I do know about the classic compatible but this whole scheme is more complicated than it needs to. If we could actually use it to take freight off the existing mainlines, then it might be more popular.

 

[6Gman]

I

If its about capacity and not speed, then it would surely have been more sensible to use the proposed freight only route to remove much of the freight from WCML. Think it went along part of GC, Woodhead and across to Manchester and Liverpool. This would have been cheaper, would have been less disruptive as the line would only have needed to be 100mph and could therefore be more twisty.

These suggestions of "using the GC" all seem to work on the assumption that the route is still available. It may be in the rural areas, but that's the easy bit anyway. Where would this route start in the Greater London area? How would it get through Rugby, Leicester and Nottingham? What do you do about the Woodhead tunnels? And how do you get freight from Hadfield to Trafford Park, Liverpool or the WCML?

 

[The Ham]

These suggestions of "using the GC" all seem to work on the assumption that the route is still available. It may be in the rural areas, but that's the easy bit anyway. Where would this route start in the Greater London area? How would it get through Rugby, Leicester and Nottingham? What do you do about the Woodhead tunnels? And how do you get freight from Hadfield to Trafford Park, Liverpool or the WCML?

HS2 is effectively GC-21K; it follows some of the route, will be built to Euro Gauge trains, but has the advantages of serving Birmingham and with faster trains.

From a marketing point calling it GC-21K and hinting that it was following much of the route of the old closed line, then it probably wouldn't have had the opposition from railway circles that it's had.

 

[The Ham]

My point is that it doesn't need to be high speed at all, so we might as well just make it less complicated and more integrated with existing rail network. Allow freight to use it and have more direct connections into city center's as opposed to out of town stations. Nottingham, Leicester could have direct improved connections, although the current plans with dedicated high speed trains that can only operate upon their own tracks will make it impossible.

I do know about the classic compatible but this whole scheme is more complicated than it needs to. If we could actually use it to take freight off the existing mainlines, then it might be more popular.

The track work is a lot more simple than the WCML, in that there's very few junctions, few stations, etc.

It doesn't need to be, however once you go above ~125mph (@Bald Rick will be able give you more details) the extra for going >180mph is very little compared with going at 140mph. As such you may as well have passive provision for going as fast as possible and just use whatever trains you like (as long as they are all the same).

If you go slower than ~125mph then the journeys will be slower, or (at best) no faster, in which case few will opt to switch to the new services defeating the point in having the new line. You would also need to build two lines as the route from London to York via Birmingham would be slower, than the existing. As such doing so would probably end up costing more and wouldn't improve journeys between Leeds/Birmingham.

 

[mmh]

Where the lines cross. This would give access to HS2 from Oxford, Milton Keynes (well Bletchley) and Bedford, and in the future maybe Cambridge.

There are dozens if not hundreds of posts in this thread, in favour of HS2, arguing that the need for it is as a (remarkably elaborate and extravagant) bypass for Milton Keynes.

Given that, I'm afraid I find the idea of slowing the Milton Keynes bypass down by adding a station so Milton Keynes can reach its own bypass slightly bizarre!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My point is that it doesn't need to be high speed at all,

If you don't make it high speed, then you lose much of the benefit of speeding up the long distance services (London-Leeds, London-Scotland, London-Manchester, etc.), which means the service is less attractive and won't do as much to tempt people making those journeys out of cars and planes. Plus the line becomes more expensive to run and probably less profitable in the long run because you need more staff and more trains to run the same level of service. (Admittedly you still have the main benefit of freeing up capacity on the existing lines for slower trains).

so we might as well just make it less complicated and more integrated with existing rail network.

Eh??? Surely if you integrate it more with the existing rail network, that makes it more complicated, not less complicated (more junctions, more scope for disruption to spread to HS2 etc). Besides, I'm not sure that there are any places where you could integrate with the existing rail network without either making HS2 a lot more expensive or making it less useful for its core purpose. Not running into Birmingham New Street is the one people normally cite, but doing that would add billlions to the cost of the project while adding comparatively little extra benefit.

Allow freight to use it

Whaaat? Do you realise that most freight is restricted to a maximum of about 60mph? And the London-Birmingham part of HS2 is planned to eventually to run a passenger train every 3 minutes? What on Earth do you think is going to happen when these passenger trains every 3 minutes get stuck behind a freight train crawling along at 60mph? You'd pretty much destroy all the benefits of the line if you allowed freight on it. Besides, how much freight do you think wants to go to Old Oak Common and Euston (clue: Basically, none).

 

[si404]

Allow freight to use it and have more direct connections into city center's as opposed to out of town stations.

These are mutually exclusive. Freight on the WCML is mostly on the slows, but the peak hour (no freight) sees about 15tph and 12tph on the fasts off-peak. HS2 will have 17 or 18 tph all day. Drop 5 paths due to having freight and serving city centres will be much reduced.

Sheffield's two London trains are splitting/joining at Toton as it is, and meant the merging of Preston services with a Liverpool as it uses another train path south of Birmingham than the Meadowhall option did.

 

[hwl]

My point is that it doesn't need to be high speed at all, so we might as well just make it less complicated

HS2 running at the speeds it is proposed too reduces the number of units required by circa 45% than to carry the same volume of passengers than at max 125mph, hence going faster can reduce costs!

(As well as passenger journey time benefits...)

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I don't watch threads like this much, and the reason is it's often full of "Re-open the Great Central instead" and "Re-open the Woodhead" among other things.

Why am I opposed to HS2?

- I don't approve of the idea of the Birmingham and Leeds termini, for example, not being linked to the existing main line such as to enable realistic through services.
- I don't think we are appropriately considering to what extent HS2 should be built for. When you actually look at the route alignment, and the sort of cities that will not be added to the network (thinking explicitly of Nottingham and Liverpool but also places like Milton Keynes and Coventry) it would be totally in order to build a 4-track alignment north of the tunnels at Ruislip so that a combination of 'stopping' and 'express' services can run. Think of building stations for 'stopping' services (akin to 395s) at Calvert (EWR), Brackley, Kenilworth (LEM-COV) and Castle Bromwich all with big car parks and all for the the purpose of building housing outside of London.
- I don't care much for the fact that Sheffield is basically on a limb.
- I don't think we have bothered to factor into cost all the work we need to make existing main lines at least mildly ready for freight. No fourth track from Rugby to Nuneaton, can't see much evidence of Colwich being done ready for Phase One, or the two track section from Colwich to Milford and such.
- I don't think it's appropriate to spend so much money to then have so many 'NR-compatible sets' which are going to be smaller and have less capacity when realistically we need to bite the bullet and 'build out' the routes they are operating on to attempt to get some bigger, higher-capacity sets to places like Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
- We are seemingly happy to thrust trains onto existing parts of the route known for unreliability and where more freight is likely to be encouraged such as York, Wigan / Preston / Lancaster, Crewe, the route through Dronfield and Masborough and such.
- We aren't being anywhere near ambitious enough. If you're going to spend loads of money, might as well build a much bigger network that is all open from Day 1 (no stupid phased building) and encompass more cities, more accompanying infrastructure and more integrated transport planning. No point building some stupid Toton station where people in Nottingham then have to get on a tram for ~35 minutes which won't handle train loads appearing on the Tram network as well as satisfying locals.

All in all, I want a High Speed network built in Britain but one that's full of interchange opportunities, more cities on the routes and therefore more likely to bring about vast modal shift rather than just movement of current flows onto expensive trains that then keeps demand on existing Intercity services and therefore doesn't free up capacity at places like Milton Keynes, Leicester, Stoke, Peterborough and the like into London.