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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Polarbear

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2008
Messages
1,601
Location
Birkenhead
A recent piece on HS2:
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opi...hen-britains-rail-system-fails-on-the-basics/



There's a lot to go through, however the main thing that struck me was that the biggest complaint was a UK based train was delayed (I'd suggest that there's a good chance that if you did it that the UK train could be on time and several of the others could be delayed) not the fact that on one train the heating is a coal fired brazier.

Also they cite that the reason for HS2 is because the 8:10 or of Paddington isn't quick enough, errrr.... Paddington?!? Why would you be using HS2 if you were departing from Paddington?

If this is the quality that those opposed to HS2 can produce then it looks like that it's fairly safe from any serious review.
That does tend to be the level of arguments against HS2. I spend a bit of time on Twitter defending HS2, against some who just cannot see that if you put that much extra capacity within the overall network, a good part of the network will become a lot easier to operate, less congested, & with much better availability of seating etc.

The main arguments against HS2 seem to be;

  • It costs too much
  • It won’t do anything for “my” journey
  • Better spent on improving the existing network
  • Environmental issues
A number of those I respond to on Twitter live on or near the route, and feel they’ve been hard done by as regards compensation. Whilst I obviously don’t know any specific circumstances, I’d guess that an interlinked reason would be that their property is no longer the investment/cash cow it may have been had they been able to sell to another buyer or pass it to family.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Meole

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2018
Messages
233
There is no benefit to either Scotland or Wales from the largest potential capital expenditure post Brexit this reflects very badly on a supposed union.
 

Polarbear

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2008
Messages
1,601
Location
Birkenhead
There is no benefit to either Scotland or Wales from the largest potential capital expenditure post Brexit this reflects very badly on a supposed union.
Are faster journey times between London, the Midlands & Scotland not a benefit? Although Wales doesn’t derive much direct benefit, I’d like to see the North Wales to London service become hourly from the Welsh areas it serves, not just Chester southward.
 

tomuk

Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
167
There is no benefit to either Scotland or Wales from the largest potential capital expenditure post Brexit this reflects very badly on a supposed union.
What rubbish. Journey times between Scotland and the south will be reduced by at least an hour. Journeys from North and Mid will also be improved. eg Aberystwyth to Leeds via Birmingham will be about an hour quicker.
Not to mention the capacity freed up on the non HS2 routes will be beneficial. You could increase North Wales - London WCML services.
 

AM9

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
8,443
Location
St Albans
There is no benefit to either Scotland or Wales from the largest potential capital expenditure post Brexit this reflects very badly on a supposed union.
So what, given that England represents 84.3% of the UK population yet Scotland and Wales combined populations account for less than 13% of the UK total.
On that basis, if we ignore the incorrect statement that only England benefits from the £56Bn investment in HS2, then Scotland should be satisfied with benefitting from UK public funds to the value of £5.5Bn and Wales with £3.13Bn.
 

Clip

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,616
There is no benefit to either Scotland or Wales from the largest potential capital expenditure post Brexit this reflects very badly on a supposed union.
Quicker journey times are not of any benefit to Scotland then? And possibly Wales if they change at brum?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
4,702
There is no benefit to either Scotland or Wales from the largest potential capital expenditure post Brexit this reflects very badly on a supposed union.
Even aside from that there are benefits from HS2 to Scotland (and possibly marginally to Wales), this makes no sense. Do you expect *every* item of capital expenditure to benefit every part of the Union? That would rule out just about everything that is geography-specific (such as the South Wales metro, or the Aberdeen-Inverness upgrades or the London Bridge rebuild). What we should be aiming for is for overall capital expenditure over all projects to be distributed in such a way that every part of the union benefits to a reasonable extent from some projects. (Of course the fact that Scotland and Wales are to some extent responsible for determining their own capital expenditure projects complicates this a bit. I think the same is true in Northern Ireland but not so sure of the situation there).

And by the way, why did you mention Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland? To paraphrase your own logic, doesn't that reflect rather badly on how you view the supposed Union? ;)
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
117
Could anybody tell me how full the Glasgow-Preston trains are in the morning peak? Its a route I only take at quieter times. I know how busy it is from Preston to London.
 

ohgoditsjames

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
274
Location
Sheffield & Shipley
There is no benefit to either Scotland or Wales from the largest potential capital expenditure post Brexit this reflects very badly on a supposed union.
As silly and ridiculous as your post is don’t Scotland want a second referendum to leave the Union so why would they want hand outs from the “Evil” British government? ;)
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,174
Quicker journey times are not of any benefit to Scotland then? And possibly Wales if they change at brum?
Don't forget the frequency increase for Edinburgh and Glasgow, and that North Wales can change at Crewe for HS2 services.
 

kevin_roche

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
448
Has HS2 become so toxic that nobody wants this job?

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...m-curzon-street-contractor-search-11-07-2019/

HS2 forced to restart Birmingham Curzon Street contractor search
And Building says:



HS2 has scrapped the process to find a contractor to build a £435m station in the middle of Birmingham because not enough were prepared to shoulder the risk to build it.
https://www.building.co.uk/news/hs2...-worried-contractors-shun-job/5100576.article
 
Last edited:

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
949
Based on what's happened with other public sector contracts, it sounds pretty clear that HS2 Ltd expected the contractor to take on all the cost and schedule risk on a very complex project. Which means lots of risk. Contractors don't like that, so will either refuse to bid or put in a very high bid in recognition of the risk. HS2 Ltd have looked at that response to the tender, been forced to accept that farming out the risk like that isn't going to get them a good contract, and will come up with a new tender package where more of the risk is kept in-house.
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
3,718
Location
Birmingham
It looks to have gone quiet around the Birmingham Interchange area, there looks to be some pylon moving going on by the M42 by Coleshill Heath Road but not much else to be honest
 

Halifaxlad

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
481
I'm sorry, you may have invested my idea with more seriousness than I had intended. I think Bald Rick may have picked up that I wasn't entirely (read that as "in any way") serious
really ? I was starting to think that with how famous Parliament is, you could market the hotel to all these multi-millionaire, footballers and actors ect ect.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
1,668
That does tend to be the level of arguments against HS2. I spend a bit of time on Twitter defending HS2, against some who just cannot see that if you put that much extra capacity within the overall network, a good part of the network will become a lot easier to operate, less congested, & with much better availability of seating etc.

The main arguments against HS2 seem to be;

  • It costs too much
  • It won’t do anything for “my” journey
  • Better spent on improving the existing network
  • Environmental issues
A number of those I respond to on Twitter live on or near the route, and feel they’ve been hard done by as regards compensation. Whilst I obviously don’t know any specific circumstances, I’d guess that an interlinked reason would be that their property is no longer the investment/cash cow it may have been had they been able to sell to another buyer or pass it to family.
"Danny Alexander (remember him – bit like a spurtle) said the sleeper train would be upgraded in the name of the union back in 2010.

We now have new carriages, but the train is perpetually delayed.

You can pay £200 for a bed, only to be woken at Carstairs and put on to a bus instead.

That’s like booking an ocean cruise and being handed oars."

LMAO :lol:
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,322
That does tend to be the level of arguments against HS2. I spend a bit of time on Twitter defending HS2, against some who just cannot see that if you put that much extra capacity within the overall network, a good part of the network will become a lot easier to operate, less congested, & with much better availability of seating etc.

The main arguments against HS2 seem to be;

  • It costs too much
  • It won’t do anything for “my” journey
  • Better spent on improving the existing network
  • Environmental issues
A number of those I respond to on Twitter live on or near the route, and feel they’ve been hard done by as regards compensation. Whilst I obviously don’t know any specific circumstances, I’d guess that an interlinked reason would be that their property is no longer the investment/cash cow it may have been had they been able to sell to another buyer or pass it to family.
Something which I only realised recently is that HS2 is due to have a LOT of people using it.

It is being cited as being 300,000/day that's circa 100 million a year (depending on the number of days, such as is that weekdays, etc.).

In comparison the TGV network carries 110 million passengers a year on a network which is about 3 times the size.

This means that, even using the figure of £143bn which a lot of those opposed to HS2 like to use (although includes £43bn of other public transport spending), each leg of a journey would have bring in £24 to pay back the infrastructure costs over 60 years.

However that doesn't include any extra income from the extra services on the existing network which would be created by the removal of the long distance services to HS2.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
4,702
However that doesn't include any extra income from the extra services on the existing network which would be created by the removal of the long distance services to HS2.
To be correct, if you are going to use that logic: If you are using the TOTAL income from fares on HS2, then you should also add in any extra income on existing services due to new people being tempted by the new capacity and more frequent commuter services AND subtract the loss of income on existing services from long distance passengers who are now using HS2.
 

Polarbear

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2008
Messages
1,601
Location
Birkenhead
Something which I only realised recently is that HS2 is due to have a LOT of people using it.

It is being cited as being 300,000/day that's circa 100 million a year (depending on the number of days, such as is that weekdays, etc.).

In comparison the TGV network carries 110 million passengers a year on a network which is about 3 times the size.

This means that, even using the figure of £143bn which a lot of those opposed to HS2 like to use (although includes £43bn of other public transport spending), each leg of a journey would have bring in £24 to pay back the infrastructure costs over 60 years.

However that doesn't include any extra income from the extra services on the existing network which would be created by the removal of the long distance services to HS2.
This is a point that's often missed by those opposed to HS2, and many critics ask "who will use it". The answer is most people who currently use the existing fast services between London and those towns/cities served by the WCML (phases 1 and 2a), and also the MML and ECML (Phase 2).
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,473
Location
North West England
This is a point that's often missed by those opposed to HS2, and many critics ask "who will use it". The answer is most people who currently use the existing fast services between London and those towns/cities served by the WCML (phases 1 and 2a), and also the MML and ECML (Phase 2).
Except where the towns currently enjoying fast/direct trains lose them because of HS2. For example, there is HS2 marketing showing no fast trains stopping between Preston and Glasgow, so if that's true, the people of Lancaster, Penrith, Oxenholme and Carlisle won't be using HS2 unless they take a slower connecting service and change at Preston. It's possible slower stopping services using full WCML may be quicker than having to faff around changing at Preston. If the speed/convenience ends up being worse, there may actually be a reduced number of people using the railway from those stations.
 

Polarbear

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2008
Messages
1,601
Location
Birkenhead
Except where the towns currently enjoying fast/direct trains lose them because of HS2. For example, there is HS2 marketing showing no fast trains stopping between Preston and Glasgow, so if that's true, the people of Lancaster, Penrith, Oxenholme and Carlisle won't be using HS2 unless they take a slower connecting service and change at Preston. It's possible slower stopping services using full WCML may be quicker than having to faff around changing at Preston. If the speed/convenience ends up being worse, there may actually be a reduced number of people using the railway from those stations.
Personally, I’d suggest that HS2’s publicity is poor, and that those stations you mention will receive direct services from London. For me, it’s inconceivable that they would sacrifice such journey opportunities.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,322
Except where the towns currently enjoying fast/direct trains lose them because of HS2. For example, there is HS2 marketing showing no fast trains stopping between Preston and Glasgow, so if that's true, the people of Lancaster, Penrith, Oxenholme and Carlisle won't be using HS2 unless they take a slower connecting service and change at Preston. It's possible slower stopping services using full WCML may be quicker than having to faff around changing at Preston. If the speed/convenience ends up being worse, there may actually be a reduced number of people using the railway from those stations.
I would agree that there's a need for more investigation as to what enhancements are needed to such services.

However the numbers using those stations are relatively low (especially the likes of Penrith), so if there is any loss they are likely to be small (and even these could be offset by being able to change and get to/from London/Birmingham faster).
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,473
Location
North West England
However the numbers using those stations are relatively low (especially the likes of Penrith), so if there is any loss they are likely to be small (and even these could be offset by being able to change and get to/from London/Birmingham faster).
I wouldn't say the number of Lancaster and Carlisle users is low.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
4,702
Except where the towns currently enjoying fast/direct trains lose them because of HS2. For example, there is HS2 marketing showing no fast trains stopping between Preston and Glasgow, so if that's true, the people of Lancaster, Penrith, Oxenholme and Carlisle won't be using HS2 unless they take a slower connecting service and change at Preston. It's possible slower stopping services using full WCML may be quicker than having to faff around changing at Preston. If the speed/convenience ends up being worse, there may actually be a reduced number of people using the railway from those stations.
While that's theoretically possible, it seems unlikely. Whether those stations receive fast direct London services post-HS2 is not really a matter of building HS2, it's a matter of whatever decision the Government (or whoever schedules the services post HS2) makes in terms of timetables. Given the levels of traffic from London to - certainly, Lancaster and Carlisle, probably Oxenholme and Penrith too - it would seem utterly foolish to plan a post HS2 timetable that doesn't give those services reasonably good services to London - at least comparable to what they get today. So foolish that I really can't see that happening.
 

FelixtheCat

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,579
Location
Edinburgh, London, or somewhere else
It is important to point out that nobody knows what the post-HS2 timetable will actually look like.

If Lancaster, Carlisle etc. are not served by HS2 services, then I, as a pro-HS2 person, will be very critical of that decision. However, I would not remove my support for the project alltogether. Not serving Lancaster wouldn't make HS2 pointless or not a good idea.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,473
Location
North West England
It's a drop in the ocean in the context of the whole project, and compared to the Scottish market, to compete in which they need to cut as many stops as possible.
Fair enough, but this whole topic is about why some people are against HS2, and I've answered that in that there are some people who believe they'll receive a poorer service, so that's why they'd be against HS2.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,322
I wouldn't say the number of Lancaster and Carlisle users is low.
Nor would I, which is why I said "relatively low". In that compared to the other stations being served by HS2 the number is low, even if the number of passengers is fairly healthy (otherwise Virgin wouldn't serve them) when viewed against quite a few other stations.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
2,425
Nor would I, which is why I said "relatively low". In that compared to the other stations being served by HS2 the number is low, even if the number of passengers is fairly healthy (otherwise Virgin wouldn't serve them) when viewed against quite a few other stations.
That's not accurate, surely? A franchised TOC has to provide the service in the franchise agreement. Virgin have no option to stop serving stations on a whim.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,322
That's not accurate, surely? A franchised TOC has to provide the service in the franchise agreement. Virgin have no option to stop serving stations on a whim.
Although Virgin couldn't stop serving them on a whim, they wouldn't be in a key intercity service (with the time penalty with stopping) if there wasn't likely to be many passengers using the service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top