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

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by ABB125, 24 Jan 2019.

  1. 6Gman

    6Gman Established Member

    Messages:
    5,646
    Joined:
    1 May 2012
    Actually I'm not sure it is counter-intuitive.

    Think of a dual carriageway (and disregard for a moment the matter of junctions). If every vehicle is travelling at 50mph the capacity is maximised. If some are at 40mph, some at 50mph and some at 70mph with vehicles overtaking others the capacity reduces because moving from lane to lane both requires empty space (to move into) and further empty space (created by moving out). So on any given length of road there will be fewer vehicles.
     
  2. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    **Blushes** :)
     
  3. MarkyT

    MarkyT Established Member

    Messages:
    3,799
    Joined:
    20 May 2012
    Location:
    Torbay
    On HS2, the planned 18 tph operating headway gives sufficient margin for a train diverging to a platform loop or branch line to slow down and leave the main line at junction turnout speed (maximum 230kmh/140mph) without affecting the following full speed non-diverging train. To achieve this 'closing up' effect, some of the margin between operating and technical headway is used up, but as soon as the rear of the diverging train leaves the main line the route can be reset straight and full speed all clear given to the following train. Automatic route setting is required to ensure this is done smartly each and every time, and fast acting reliable point actuators. This process still leaves an empty fast path on the main line though. A similar effect in reverse allows a train to join an empty main line path. In that case the merging train joins the main line closer to the previous fast train than the normal spacing (which is allowed as it's not moving at full speed yet, like departing on a yellow in colour light territory) and as it gains speed after passing through the points it 'drops back' into the standard path. In order for all this to take place at optimum speed, loops for a platform stop come out at around 11km long. That means the remainder of the normal braking and acceleration to and from the platform stop takes place on the loop, not on the main line.
     
  4. The Planner

    The Planner Established Member

    Messages:
    9,358
    Joined:
    15 Apr 2008
    Yeah yeah! :lol::lol:
     
  5. Ken H

    Ken H Established Member

    Messages:
    2,121
    Joined:
    11 Nov 2018
    Location:
    in Greece on holiday
    so after reading all the replies (thanks), the consensus is that for overtaking to work on a busy railway, you need long loops with high speed turnouts. and advanced signalling.
    spose I was thinking of the old days of shunting a loose coupled goods train out of the way of an express.
     
  6. Geezertronic

    Geezertronic Established Member

    Messages:
    3,667
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2009
    Location:
    Birmingham
    So you are in favour of restricting people to accept any localised jobs rather than a job they might actually prefer, be trained at, or god forbid enjoy (let alone be better paid)? That is a ridiculous comment... and assumes that everyone who wants to work in London (for example) actually wants to live in London (and afford it)
     
  7. PeterC

    PeterC Established Member

    Messages:
    2,254
    Joined:
    29 Sep 2014
    Plan A was that people would both live AND work in the New Towns and inthe expanded towns like Peterborough. It failed and we are where we are now.

    A friend of mine once bought a flat within walking distance of work. Within the year the office had been relocated giving him a choice of redundancy or going back to commuting.
     
  8. Polarbear

    Polarbear Established Member

    Messages:
    1,550
    Joined:
    24 May 2008
    Location:
    Birkenhead
    Just how would you “discourage” long distance commuting? It’s come about largely due to property prices in the London area so unless you have opportunities for people to work locally & maintain their current lifestyles, commuting will continue.

    Also, my employer is currently reducing the number of offices around the UK from 170 to 13. People are being encouraged to move if they want to keep their jobs. My employer is not alone in doing this, which also impacts on people commuting.
     
  9. RLBH

    RLBH Member

    Messages:
    859
    Joined:
    17 May 2018
    Knocking the bottom out of the housing market in London would do it. There are ways to achieve this, but none of them have anything to do with railways.

    There is a wider point that Britain has a history of trying to compensate for terrible housing policy by distorting transport policy too. That we have the longest average commute in Europe - despite being one of the higher-density countries - is a sign of this.
     
  10. al78

    al78 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,386
    Joined:
    7 Jan 2013
    I certainly don't believe the other extreme, that EVERYONE who has a 60-70-80 mile commute has no viable option to choose a job and a house much closer together. But then again, the only options are not the extremes, as you well know, but it would be a good idea to at least advocate that there are alternatives, and that having the highest wages doesn't automatically equate to a better quality of life as the neo-liberal capitalist militants would have you believe. In any case, the current situation is unsustainable, and an unsustainable situation HAS to change at some point by definition, like it or not. It can either change voluntarily or be forced by natural limitations, history shows that those who choose the latter generally suffer greatly.
     
  11. Glen-Ped

    Glen-Ped On Moderation

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    1 Jul 2019
    It was a political decision to centralise everything in London/South East, at the expense of others. You have hit the nail on the head in that HS2 is merely a commuter line for London.
     
  12. underbank

    underbank Established Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2013
    Location:
    Carnforth
    No, it's come about because large employers have closed down their local/regional workplaces and centralised in London.

    In my local city, there used to be branches of large employers, such as BT, numerous banks, insurance companies, national accountancy/solicitor firms, etc. Local people could work and have good careers in large national firms. Now all that's gone.

    We need to find a way to encourage employers to reverse this trend. I'd suggest incentives such as reduced national insurance (or exempt national insurance) for workers living within a short distance of their workplace - would also benefit the environment as it would promote walking/cycling and local public transport. Also brings back life into declining/decaying town centres.
     
  13. Glen-Ped

    Glen-Ped On Moderation

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    1 Jul 2019
    London is unfairly favoured over the rest of the country - it was an engineered world-city. It did not naturally achieve that position. Economists highlight the bias towards London to the point that it is a black hole for investment at the expense of the rest of the country. "We see that public expenditure on a per capita basis is more than twice invested in London than other regions in the transport and housing sectors." "Thanks to the tax system - that there is an automatic bias in directing investment towards London."

    Transport infrastructure projects are assessed on a DfT "good value for money" calculation.

    Value for money category - Benefit to Cost Ratio - Prospects For the Projects
    • Poor - less than 1 - None
    • Low - Between 1 and 1.5 - None
    • Medium - Between 1.5 and 2 - Some but by no means at all
    • High - Over 2 - Most if not all
    Even a 1 to 1.5 would be considered for London. When the value for money calculations were introduced in 2004, the SLA's head Richard Bowker stated that all outside the M25 will get little. Boy he was right. "London in the growth years, makes a net contribution to the public coffers between £4 and £11 billion. This is disingenuous. The calculation ignores the capital gains that flow from public spending. Public money invested in London yields huge gains in the private sector - in the appreciation in capital assets - that far exceed the financial subsidies that are transferred to the regions."

    The reason capital is not so readily invested in the North is that the privileged aggregation of rents at the centre, London, creates benefits such as the public subsidies to transport, and the opportunity to claw back tax payments as capital gains. This set of incentives encourages the financial institutions to concentrate close to each other in these areas. The cumulative effect is bias towards the centre - London.
    • A higher proportion of public spending in the regions is committed to welfare benefits to people who are rendered unemployable by payrole taxes. Those state subsidies are necessary to keep people alive. Unlike investment in say a new metro system, they do not produce windfall gains in the land market.
    • In London, however, a higher proportion of public money is devoted to improving the quality of transport and schools. This raises the productive capacity of the population working in the capital. The spin-off takes the form of capital gains to landowners. And that means Londoners are more able to claw back the taxes they paid to the exchequer, leaving them with higher disposable incomes to be spent in the retail sectors - which, through the multiplier effect, gives a further boost to the London economy.
    If the London property market is overheating, the chancellor may put up the national interest rate, yet property is not overheating in the north east and they suffer because of the raised interest rate.

    "The boost to London's infrastructure out of the public purse overspills to higher land values, which translates to easier financing arrangements for entrepreneurs who secure an advantage to their competitors in the regions." Everything stacked towards London and the south.
     
    Last edited: 2 Jul 2019
  14. Glen-Ped

    Glen-Ped On Moderation

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    1 Jul 2019
    Excellent post.
     
  15. JonathanH

    JonathanH Established Member

    Messages:
    3,138
    Joined:
    29 May 2011
    The answer to house prices in the South East has always been to move public sector jobs / government out of the capital. This would reduce house prices in the South East at a stroke because it would reduce demand and it is in the hands of the government.

    However, you would need to spend a lot of money on infrastructure, new parliament, office buildings etc somewhere else to allow this change to happen.

    Certain government functions are located elsewhere in the country. The need to link people with central government is one of the things which drives the need for long-distance travel.
     
  16. FelixtheCat

    FelixtheCat Established Member

    Messages:
    2,964
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2015
    Location:
    Edinburgh, London, or somewhere else
    Care to provide some evidence for this, or is this just another set of words?
     
  17. FelixtheCat

    FelixtheCat Established Member

    Messages:
    2,964
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2015
    Location:
    Edinburgh, London, or somewhere else
    Do you have any evidence for the first assertion? Do you have any evidence for the second assertion?

    Do you have any evidence for this?

    Probably one of the most hilarious posts of the forum. Given that I have esentially copied and pasted "any evidence?", there is a severe deficit in the former at least.

    Do you have any evidence for this?

    Duplicating railway lines is not a waste of money if the railway line in question has capacity issues.

    Birmingham - Sheffield/Leeds is not covered by HS3.

    Ah, well, that's all fine then.
    </sarcasm>

    "Not objecting to HS2" they say having spent the past 24 hours objecting to HS2.

    How would you solve the capacity problems with the Southern WCML, the Coventry to Birmingham line, Birmingham New Street, Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester and Stockport to Manchester (plus others which I've forgotten)?

    Sadly, the HS2 merchandise shop doesn't sell knives. I've had to make do with a lovely tote bag instead.

    So, NPR (which hasn't yet got parliamentary approval) is more likely to go ahead than HS2 (which is being built)?
     
  18. Glen-Ped

    Glen-Ped On Moderation

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    1 Jul 2019
    FelixThe Cat, if you need evidence for the points I forwarded, which are vox-pop over the past 10 years, then I suggest you do some research.
     
  19. Glen-Ped

    Glen-Ped On Moderation

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    1 Jul 2019
    It would help, however not the full solution. The capital would need to be moved to a more central location in the UK. Reducing spending on infrastructure in the capital, or leaving it the same and increasing elsewhere, would put the whole country on an even keel. Taxation of land has been suggested. This used to fund Crosssrail.
     
  20. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    No; it enables the southern WCML to become a fully commuter line by getting long distance passengers off of it and on to HS2.
     
  21. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    Vox pop is not evidence.
     
  22. yoyothehobo

    yoyothehobo Member

    Messages:
    175
    Joined:
    21 Aug 2015
    Glen Ped is wrong, and it is entirely up to him to provide evidence that he is not wrong, I have asked a random selection of people in the office if he is wrong and they all agree also, so I am sorry, by your metrics, you are wrong.
     
  23. Facing Back

    Facing Back Member

    Messages:
    68
    Joined:
    21 May 2019
    Sorry if I'm being a bit thick...

    I can see how it is possible for a train to step onto the loop and then decelerate if the loop is long enough. Whilst this would not affect the following train I can't see how that following train would close the gap with the one in-front - surely both will be travelling at the maximum speed already so there will be an empty slot all the way to the destination - do you call that an empty path?

    Likewise to re-join the HS2 mainline, there needs to be an empty slot. If all trains are traveling at max speed and with minimum headway then by definition this is no gap to "slot into" unless all subsequent trains slow down a bit to create the space - aka a busy motorway. Wouldn't the only option be for an empty slot from the start station to this one? That seems to mean that by slopping 1 train at 1 extra looped station, we've reduced capacity from 18 tph to 17. I'm sure it cant be that simple though....?
     
  24. Polarbear

    Polarbear Established Member

    Messages:
    1,550
    Joined:
    24 May 2008
    Location:
    Birkenhead
    Eh? Not sure where that’s come from, and no, I’ve not “hit the nail on the head”.

    Politics has little influence on where private sector employers are based. True, they can offer tax breaks, grants & such like, but in London’s case, it’s grown rapidly since the 1980’s, largely due to the expansion of the financial sector.

    In the same time frame, house prices in London & the south east have risen above the national average. People have therefore chosen to live further away from work as season tickets were relatively cheap, compared to additional mortgage payments.

    Add to that faster rail services (the HST’s created a substantial growth of passengers on the routes they appeared on), and long distance commuting has become a significant market.

    Oh, and whilst my employer is reducing the number of offices from 170 to 13, only two of those will be in the south east, neither being in central London. That’s government policy, and doesn’t smack of a political decision to locate jobs in the south east and/or London.
     
  25. coppercapped

    coppercapped Established Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    Joined:
    13 Sep 2015
    Location:
    Reading
    Oh, God - another conspiracy theorist.

    Londinium grew up where it did as it was the most convenient point to cross the Thames on the land route from the closest point to the continent to the centre and north of the island of Great Britain. It was a narrow river crossing that avoided the mud flats and marshes further down stream and was a sheltered port for boats and ships crossing the channel.

    This development started way back in history - in the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages.

    By Roman times the city was flourishing and 600 years after they left Edward the Confessor started the rebuild of the church we now know as Westminster Abbey. William the Conqueror was crowned there at Christmas in 1066. A few years afterwards the Normans built the Tower and the now lost Baynard's Castle and Montfichet's Castle in London to repress the population. The city has been important for 2,000 years.

    London grew because of its geographical position. Your argument is baseless and complete nonsense.
     
  26. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    That's why there are no intermediate HS2 stations between Old Oak Common and Birmingham (on the 18tph section).

    Unless you stop *everything* (like at Old Oak), a train you do stop lacks the gap to then start back into....unless you create it by running fewer than 18 trains per hour.
     
  27. 158756

    158756 Member

    Messages:
    920
    Joined:
    12 Aug 2014
    What about Birmingham Interchange?
     
  28. MarkyT

    MarkyT Established Member

    Messages:
    3,799
    Joined:
    20 May 2012
    Location:
    Torbay
    The empty slot/path carries carries on following a divergence as you describe, and a vacant slot must exist for a train joining. The trains immediately in front of and behind the diverging train cannot close up (without costing journey time for the one in front) as they are both operating at full speed. Another train might drop into the vacated slot further along, perhaps even from the same loop station. Hope that's clear!
     
  29. pt_mad

    pt_mad Established Member

    Messages:
    2,742
    Joined:
    26 Sep 2011
    Like quite a few of the UK's main issues at the moment it has a lot to do with housing. The prices were left to shoot up for nearly a decade then continue to creep up while property owners felt this was positive and made then feel more wealthy.

    It's only 10 years after the financial crisis that we have now realised, hey, my kids can't buy a house and may be with me in their 30s. And its leading to all sorts of other issues such as delaying millennials growing up, being independent and starting families in their early twenties like the generations before did. It's affecting social cohesion imo and needs serious correctional policy asap. That's for governments to look at rather than us citizens.

    I agree in many ways it appears to be unsustainable. Although many commute for higher wages they have to shell out thousands a year to do so and it's basisically the same as another instant tax in their earnings. I have no idea the level of wages most London commuters commute for, but I'd imagine it must be pretty high because by the time you've factored in the combined hours of travel over a month where they're not actually in work, the season ticket, the time lost from family, it's have to be double what I'd earn in my local town (a low income) to make me even consider doing it. That's without factoring in disruption which would keep you out till the end of the night.

    House prices need to standstill for a good many years to bring things back to a sustainable socially cohesive level imo. One where lower earners will still be able to get on by themselves. Basically back to a level where you can buy a small house for 3 or at a push 4 times your income. And, where if the worst were to happen and your relationship broke down, you wouldn't be left in trouble for the rest of your life because you could only afford a place to live with a joint income. As it's no good having a whole section of society who'd be forced to stay in a relationship they no longer wanted because they're financially trapped. Comes back to the social cohesion thing.

    We seem to have an upcoming society where relationships aren't for life anymore but houses certainly are or you'll get into deep financial trouble.
     
  30. Ianno87

    Ianno87 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    Joined:
    3 May 2015
    Trains start to branch out onto the various routes after that point, thinning out the number of paths north compared to south of there. For example train headed off for Birmingham creates vacant path for a Manchester or Leeds train to call and drop back into.
     

Share This Page