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

[158756]

I don't think it actually will kill domestic air travel - although it should significantly reduce it - because all else remaining equal, it still won't compete on cost. I've met people who fly between London and Newcastle, which takes longer than the train, because it's cheaper.

We're also spending billions on Heathrow's third runway, supposedly partly to increase domestic flights and competition on those routes (further reducing prices) - 100 extra flights a week to Scotland are claimed. Said runway will also increase demand for travel to Heathrow from all parts of the UK, so HS2 taking a slice of the market won't necessarily reduce flights to the likes of Manchester or Newcastle.

Because it treats Leeds as if it were the only city of importance in Yorkshire. Leeds is not centre of the universe even though its inhabitants think it is!

Sheffield has had the greatest say of any city in what sort of HS2 service it will get.

A Leeds hub concept would be fine if there was a decent standard of public transport within Yorkshire. Leeds will be closer to London than to many parts of Yorkshire if HS2 is completed - something really should be done about that, but there's no money if it doesn't serve London.

 

[Ianno87]

I am not particularly against HS2, but since I don’t regularly travel from Birmingham to London or expect HS2 to be completed in my lifetime (about another 40years I reckon), it really doesn’t affect me. Just as long as it does not prevent any investment in out existing network. In fact as a regular traveller on CrossCountry trains I will any improvement this project has on my journey.

Not even if a significant proportion of current XC demand between Birmingham and Manchester, and between Birmingham, Leeds, York and Newcastle is abstracted onto HS2, freeing up more 'local' capacity.

Even Cambridge/Stansted-Birmingham, the timing travelling via Euston and HS2 will be drastically faster than the current XC route via Melton Mowbray/Leicester.

We're also spending billions on Heathrow's third runway, supposedly partly to increase domestic flights and competition on those routes (further reducing prices) - 100 extra flights a week to Scotland are claimed. Said runway will also increase demand for travel to Heathrow from all parts of the UK, so HS2 taking a slice of the market won't necessarily reduce flights to the likes of Manchester or Newcastle.



Sheffield has had the greatest say of any city in what sort of HS2 service it will get.

A Leeds hub concept would be fine if there was a decent standard of public transport within Yorkshire. Leeds will be closer to London than to many parts of Yorkshire if HS2 is completed - something really should be done about that, but there's no money if it doesn't serve London

Probably the most profound shift in the entire HS2 alignment across the entirety of its length has been specifically to allow HS2 trains to serve Sheffield City Centre!

And the good folk of York will have several trains and hour that pretty much run straight onto HS2 infrastructure a few minutes after departure.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To get directly back to the original question, "Why are people opposed to HS2?", it does seem to me that the whole project has been extraordinarily badly marketed to the public.

In particular, someone upthread mentioned that no indicative post-HS2 WCML timetables have been published. That seems an incredible oversight. Obviously, actual timetables are out of the question so far into the future, but indicative service frequencies showing - for example - more frequent trains at Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby, and much better travel opportunities from the Southern WCML to the North and Scotland - would have gone a long way to demonstrating the capacity benefits of HS2. (And presumably, since the benefits are about capacity, someone at the DfT must've had a stab at thinking about what could happen on the WCML, haven't they?) Ditto - although even more speculative - the MML and ECML post phase 2.

There's also an interesting quote in Rail Technology Magazine:

Later on in the committee hearing, Sir Terry claimed that “most people regret” actually calling the project High-Speed 2.

 

[Ianno87]

To get directly back to the original question, "Why are people opposed to HS2?", it does seem to me that the whole project has been extraordinarily badly marketed to the public.

In particular, someone upthread mentioned that no indicative post-HS2 WCML timetables have been published. That seems an incredible oversight. Obviously, actual timetables are out of the question so far into the future, but indicative service frequencies showing - for example - more frequent trains at Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby, and much better travel opportunities from the Southern WCML to the North and Scotland - would have gone a long way to demonstrating the capacity benefits of HS2. (And presumably, since the benefits are about capacity, someone at the DfT must've had a stab at thinking about what could happen on the WCML, haven't they?) Ditto - although even more speculative - the MML and ECML post phase 2.

There's also an interesting quote in Rail Technology Magazine:

Problem is, that works both ways. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Publish even a specification level, and people will think it's set in stone. e.g. Place X doesn't benefit as much as Place Y, (or Place Xs trains now can call at Place Y on their way to Place Z) so place X now campaigns against HS2, inspite of the benefits to Place Y (who might not realise they benefit, as people don't/can't travel to Place Z today)

With future services, as London Reconnections once put it, its balancing actual current passengers versus theoetical future passengers (who don't exist yet)

It's the latter who are the real beneficiaries of HS2, but don't/can't realise that yet, but it's the former who do exist and can be vocal about how their 0807 into town might arrive at 0812 in future.

 

[radamfi]

but indicative service frequencies showing - for example - more frequent trains at Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby, and much better travel opportunities from the Southern WCML to the North and Scotland - would have gone a long way to demonstrating the capacity benefits of HS2. (And presumably, since the benefits are about capacity, someone at the DfT must've had a stab at thinking about what could happen on the WCML, haven't they?)

What about this report? Appendix A contains schematics showing potential service frequencies along the WCML and ECML and also around Manchester and Leeds.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...s2-released-capacity-study-summary-report.pdf

 

[tbtc]

post: 3844073, member: 3177"]I think you might have slightly missed the point. I was suggesting that some people may ask what benefit those places not directly connected to HS2 will enjoy

You said that "these cities have been doing relatively well in recent decades how well will it help those cities and regions that actually need the help like Bradford, Liverpool, Nottingham, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Cumbria, Scotland, Wales etc" << i.e. you don't like the idea of building railways in prosperous areas and you don't like the idea of building something that won't benefit Sunderland/ Scotland/ Wales?

Nobody seems to have a problem with something like the East-West railway, even though it benefits the relatively prosperous Oxfordshire/ Buckinghamshire/ Cambridgeshire etc - yet when HS2 is proposed the reaction is along the lines of "I'm against it because it won't regenerate various struggling towns".

I'm not sure why HS2 gets treated differently like this - I'm not even sure that heavy rail is the best way to solve the long standing problems of post-industrial towns (not surprising that rail enthusiasts want to solve every problem by building a railway...).

But then it's part of the HS2 hypocrisy. The people who say they are against it because it'll turn big cities like Birmingham/ Leeds into dormitory towns for London tend to be the people who want to link small towns/ villages to big cities (when it comes to re-opening rural lines). Self driving cars aren't a reason not to build Aberystwyth - Carmarthen but will apparently scupper HS2. This new fangled broadband will mean we don't need fast services from Manchester/ Leeds to London, but that doesn't stop people wanting faster services from Manchester to Leeds.

One rule for HS2 and another rule for everything else...

To get directly back to the original question, "Why are people opposed to HS2?", it does seem to me that the whole project has been extraordinarily badly marketed to the public

There seems to be a lot of criticism on here for the marketing, even from intelligent enthusiasts who can clearly see the reality of what HS2 will be achieving - the Government aren't great at advertising many projects but we can assess the costs/benefits of those projects - did the Government market GWML electrification?

Problem is, that works both ways. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Publish even a specification level, and people will think it's set in stone. e.g. Place X doesn't benefit as much as Place Y, (or Place Xs trains now can call at Place Y on their way to Place Z) so place X now campaigns against HS2, inspite of the benefits to Place Y (who might not realise they benefit, as people don't/can't travel to Place Z today)

With future services, as London Reconnections once put it, its balancing actual current passengers versus theoetical future passengers (who don't exist yet)

It's the latter who are the real beneficiaries of HS2, but don't/can't realise that yet, but it's the former who do exist and can be vocal about how their 0807 into town might arrive at 0812 in future.

Agreed - look at all of the moaning on here about very minor changes to the ScotRail timetable (e.g. the Dunblane - Edinburgh service being moved to something like 06:58, rather than a few minutes after seven) - any indicative timetable for ten years time is just going to be a hostage to fortune - a lot can happen in a decade - we could have a nationalised railway, we could be fuelling trains with brand new technology, we could have urban hyper loops/ monorails/ whatever. Ten years ago we were only just getting around to infrastructure investment (the modest "Lancashire Triangle" proposals).

 

[Aictos]

That's a big list of places - I don't recall people complaining that re-opening something like the Woodhead won't be of benefit to people in Wales and using that as a stick to beat it with.

But, since you asked, at the moment lines like the ECML are full due to the need to provide fast services from London to Leeds/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh. That means services currently running non-stop through places like Peterborough/ Doncaster and scarce paths being prioritised for these big cities at the expense of Hull/ Middlesbrough/ Sunderland/ Bradford.

If you take the fastest services off the southern end of the ECML then you free up a number of paths that could be used for services like London to Hull/ Middlesbrough/ Sunderland/ Bradford, you free up capacity for more services to stop at Peterborough/ Doncaster, you free up paths that could be used for services from Stansted/ Cambridge/ Norwich to Yorkshire.

Take the fastest services off the existing route and you create space for "secondary" places to gain direct services.

Same goes for the WCML and MML, where taking some of the longer distance services off existing routes frees up seats for shorter distance passengers, frees up capacity for more services to stop at intermediate stations, allows more paths to run (e.g. if everything left on the WCML runs at 110mph max then you can fit in more trains than the current 110/125 timetable).

Liverpool, Cumbria and "Scotland" will get direct services via HS2, so they benefit.

Nottinghamshire will have the option of a High Speed service at Toton (convenient for those on the University side of Nottingham and those people who would have to drive into central Nottingham to get the current EMT services) - it won't be suitable for every passenger but it provides an alternative. People on here love the idea of competition when it means cheaper tickets on a 350 taking an hour longer to get up the WCML (compared to a 390) yet seem to dislike Toton because it won't be 100% suitable for 100% of passengers currently using the station in central Nottingham.

Wales? It won't benefit much (other than faster Holyhead - London journeys possible with a change at Crewe). But then will Yorkshire benefit from GWML electrification to Cardiff? Does that mean that they shouldn't have wired the GWML though? Or maybe we could look at projects in terms of who they benefit rather than dismissing them because they don't solve every problem for everybody.

It's a train service. Mass transportation, moving large volumes of people more efficiently than cars/ buses/ planes over the kind of distances HS2 is being built for. So what if it doesn't rebalance the entire UK economy and provide an end to urban squalor in post-industrial towns - there are other government policies better suited to that.



Such as what? Better light rail/ local trains within each city/urban area (rather than anything inter-city)?

Indeed, HS2 doesn't directly affect me but it does indirectly benefit me by freeing up more capacity on the classic network for more services which is for the greater good, by allowing more places to be connected to each other as posted above.

As to well HS2 doesn't benefit me so it should be cancelled, what about the OHL projects in Scotland's Central Belt? That doesn't benefit people west of Cardiff to Swansea now does it? Nor does it benefit people from Derby, Sheffield or Nottingham but it doesn't mean it's a bad project as it directly affects people living in the Central Belt by giving them faster and cleaner trains and also indirectly means Anglo Scottish services can make more use of the OHL from Edinburgh as far as Stirling which is far better for the environment as a example it means in future the Highland Chieftain can use the OHL from Kings Cross to Stirling which is a lot of mileage then switch to Diesel for the leg to Inverness rather then use Diesel under the wires so to speak for 3 quarters of the journey!

 

[camflyer]

I don't think it actually will kill domestic air travel - although it should significantly reduce it - because all else remaining equal, it still won't compete on cost. I've met people who fly between London and Newcastle, which takes longer than the train, because it's cheaper.

Yes, I've flown Stansted to Newcastle before as it was more cheaper and easier than driving or taking the train.

For Newcastle to London city centre to city centre, the train will always win but it's not so simple a calculation if you want to get to/from a suburb of either city. Also, if you are in the Toon and want to fly to New York then a connecting flight to Heathrow makes a lot more sense than a train to Kings Cross then schlepping across London.

HS2 should reduce some domestic flights but it won't eliminate them.

 

[si404]

We're also spending billions on Heathrow's third runway, supposedly partly to increase domestic flights and competition on those routes (further reducing prices) - 100 extra flights a week to Scotland are claimed. Said runway will also increase demand for travel to Heathrow from all parts of the UK, so HS2 taking a slice of the market won't necessarily reduce flights to the likes of Manchester or Newcastle.

Several points re: Heathrow expansion.

1. All that has been agreed is that Heathrow Runway 3 is official government policy to support, backed by Parliament
2. One of the grounds of this being policy is that HMG will not contribute directly to the project - all private money. Though sure, there will need to be public money to support it - TfL, LGW and (less so) the DfT say too much as currently proposed.
3. It should be noted that both the official opposition, and a future Tory government, are unlikely to support approving the plans that Heathrow still has to submit due to where important MPs represent. The mayor of London (as an institution, not just Sadiq) is against it and can throw spanners in the works.
4. Domestic flights were needed by LHR to get the SNP, etc on board to counteract the lack of London support. They are unlikely to happen, and the reliance on them will create problems at the inevitable legal challenges.

Thats not to say that your distopia won't happen, just that it isn't yet happening, and there's lots of stuff that means it probably won't, thankfully, come to pass.

 

[Harbornite]

Invest more specifically in the WCML, improve signalling, introduce smart timetabling, move away from always focusing on London; I've repeated these suggestions every single time.

A meaningless post, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Aictos]

Yes, I've flown Stansted to Newcastle before as it was more cheaper and easier than driving or taking the train.

Indeed, I've looked up fares recently and it was at one point far cheaper to simply fly London to Scotland then it was to go via train, pity as I rather go by train but even advance fares 3 months in advance are expensive!

 

[JonathanH]

Nobody seems to have a problem with something like the East-West railway, even though it benefits the relatively prosperous Oxfordshire/ Buckinghamshire/ Cambridgeshire etc - yet when HS2 is proposed the reaction is along the lines of "I'm against it because it won't regenerate various struggling towns".

Isn't that simply because East-West Rail has almost zero profile and awareness anywhere other than on the line of route and perhaps not even there.

There were people in Oxford opposed to more trains between Oxford and Bicester.

 

[Ianno87]

Isn't that simply because East-West Rail has almost zero profile and awareness anywhere other than on the line of route and perhaps not even there.

There were people in Oxford opposed to more trains between Oxford and Bicester.

HS2 is a subject of national media (as it should be, as a project of national strategic importance), but the likes of the BBC don't always help, simply by usually regurgitating press releases and using HS2 stock images. To me, it makes HS2 seem 'different' as an entity, when its in reality just a new railway line (albeit a very quick one)

Also doesn't help the image of the project when the BBC etc. describe it using works like 'controversial' (probably more correct at a local level, rather than national level), and when anti-HS2 material gets published, writing stories based on this material without giving it proper scrutiny or challenge.

 

[tbtc]

Isn't that simply because East-West Rail has almost zero profile and awareness anywhere other than on the line of route and perhaps not even there

Take this Forum as an example - people from all over the UK discuss various projects that may be local to them or may be hundreds of miles away - people have strong opinions about whether we should (for example) extend the "Borders" line to Carlisle or build a route avoiding Dawlish - that's part of the attraction.

Other than the predictable "north-south" arguments specific to *London* improvements ("why are they building Crossrail rather than blah blah blah Lancashire" / "why are London Overground getting new trains when we still have Pacers" etc), nobody seems to have a problem with investing in relatively prosperous areas - nobody on a thread about the "BML2" proposals rejects it because Sussex is a fairly rich place. Any thread about he Cambridgeshire Busway will attract comments about how "they should have built a railway instead" rather than comments about how we shouldn't have put any investment into a rich area.

Yet mention HS2 and suddenly people turn into the worst kind of Socialists, arguments full of 'but this won't help a long list of poor towns that I've quickly googled", as if heavy rail is the main focus of any Urban Regeneration project.

It's fine on this Forum to build a line through Cambridgeshire/ Sussex/ Buckinghamshire/ Oxfordshire and the lines, as long as it's on the path of an old route. But if you want to build a High Speed line through those kind of counties then you're guaranteed to get someone listing half a dozen "rust belt" towns/cities and suddenly develop a concern about regenerating them with an old fashioned railway. Much like the faux concern that the worst kind of Tories develop about UK homeslessness whenever the Foreign Aid budget is discussed (they don't care about homelessness otherwise, but when there's an excuse to cut Foreign Aid they are quick to point out that "we could solve homelessness if only we didn't spend it on poor people overseas").

But, as I've said before, HS2 attracts some rather strange criticisms - the "automated cars"/ "working from home"/ "hyperloops"/ "just spend it on the NHS instead" arguments are never used against other potentially expensive railway projects (Woodhead, Great Central, Wisbech, Lentran Loop, Levenmouth etc).

 

[Aictos]

But, as I've said before, HS2 attracts some rather strange criticisms - the "automated cars"/ "working from home"/ "hyperloops"/ "just spend it on the NHS instead" arguments are never used against other potentially expensive railway projects (Woodhead, Great Central, Wisbech, Lentran Loop, Levenmouth etc).

The only project listed there that should be completed is the Lentran loop as that actually delivers much needed improvements, the others are simply vanity projects that will very unlikely see the light of day.

 

[Camden]

You only have to read the small amounts of information leaking out about Crossrail (against every official effort to prevent transparency) to know that people have every right to be resolutely opposed to HS2 and right to view every aspect of it with cynicism.

Spending upwards of £60bn on this with such little transparency and with no answers to any of the many criticisms, glaring omissions and contradictions beyond an offering of spin, defensiveness or silence... no the objections aren't simply local, nor are they fuelled by the media style of reporting. They're fuelled by very large, self inflicted gaps in credibility, all the way through from justification to quantum to design and latterly implementation.

 

[si404]

The only project listed there that should be completed is the Lentran loop as that actually delivers much needed improvements, the others are simply vanity projects that will very unlikely see the light of day.

Wisbech is cheap, so could happen if the opposite side of the "HS2 is expensive, therefore shouldn't have money spent on it" fallacious argument is made - that because it's cheap, it should happen.

 

[PR1Berske]

A meaningless post, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

And sorry, who are you?

 

[Esker-pades]

The only project listed there that should be completed is the Lentran loop as that actually delivers much needed improvements, the others are simply vanity projects that will very unlikely see the light of day.

Yes! Lentran Loop supporter! (There really don't appear to be many on this forum.)

Invest more specifically in the WCML, improve signalling, introduce smart timetabling, move away from always focusing on London; I've repeated these suggestions every single time.

What do you mean by smart timetabling? The WCML (certainly the southern section) timetable seems to be very well slotted together.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What about this report? Appendix A contains schematics showing potential service frequencies along the WCML and ECML and also around Manchester and Leeds.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...s2-released-capacity-study-summary-report.pdf

If I had seen that report before, I had forgotten about it.
The last few paragraphs/diagrams do give an indication of improved connectivity and frequencies using the released capacity (though not WCML south).
An example being the hourly Nottingham-Grantham-King's Cross service, or half-hourly Chester-Euston (hourly from Holyhead).
If the report had greater publicity it might educate the antis and deflect some of the criticism of "rich man's railway", or "£50bn to save 15 minutes".
However it's essentially a consultants' report on options rather than DfT policy.
No doubt the DfT don't want to be drawn into making particular service commitments.
Just look how the East-West PR has now dropped electrification, freight and through cross-country services as benefits, as the project has been descoped.
But DfT has to demonstrate full integration between its HS2 and RDG arms to exploit all the potential of the investment.
Currently HS2 still looks like an expensive appendage rather than the baseline of the country's new core rail network.

 

[PR1Berske]

What do you mean by smart timetabling? The WCML (certainly the southern section) timetable seems to be very well slotted together.

If it was well slotted together then we wouldn't have the dubious claims of congestion or maximum capacity.
I've always used the phrase smart timetabling to mean exploring how existing services could be retimed or rerouted depending on depending on circumstances, or whether existing timetables could be reworked to reflect passenger numbers over a certain period. Having very fixed and rigid timetables is at the heart is the so called capacity problems.

 

[Esker-pades]

If it was well slotted together then we wouldn't have the dubious claims of congestion or maximum capacity.
I've always used the phrase smart timetabling to mean exploring how existing services could be retimed or rerouted depending on depending on circumstances, or whether existing timetables could be reworked to reflect passenger numbers over a certain period. Having very fixed and rigid timetables is at the heart is the so called capacity problems.

How are such claims dubious? The WCML can only fit a finite number of trains on it, and timetablers have deemed that this has been reached. I would love to see how you would fit additional trains on, and how you would solve the knock-on effects to the other parts of the network.

What do you mean by a "fixed and rigid" timetable? Surely all timetables have to be fixed so that we know where trains will run at what times?

 

[ivanhoe]

The problem that a Project such as HS2 causing so many diverse views, is often the result of extremely bad communications between Government and the electorate. It starts out by Government wanting to prove that you’ll be able to get from Birmingham to London, in less than an hour or Manchester to London in 90 minutes. That then enrages ,quite understandably, citizens of other Cities and towns. Government then concentrate on saying HS2 is required to provide extra capacity.
It then gets drawn into wanting it to be gold plated,state of the art,etc, and you can see that it is all of a sudden being badly communicated to people. If HS2 was originally sold as primarily providing valuable extra capacity, so as to make our current Victorian infrastructure fit for purpose for another 100 years, then I’m sure there would be less fuss. We can easily, get lost in the cost of this project, but think of it over a 50 year period, then such a project could easily be sold as value for money. I actually feel sorry for whoever has to cost this project because you can bet your bottom dollar, that there will be a succession of Chancellors who will be wanting to find savings, over the next 20 years.

 

[Ianno87]

If it was well slotted together then we wouldn't have the dubious claims of congestion or maximum capacity.
I've always used the phrase smart timetabling to mean exploring how existing services could be retimed or rerouted depending on depending on circumstances, or whether existing timetables could be reworked to reflect passenger numbers over a certain period. Having very fixed and rigid timetables is at the heart is the so called capacity problems.

...but if everything was running exactly on time (which regularly happens on good days) you couldn't plan to run a single extra train above what is planned to run today, right? So no actual extra planned capacity, just maybe better regulation during disruption.

Unfortunately, railway capacity planning is by its very nature fixed and rigid due to the finiteness of the system's capacity and flexibility (one train per section at a time irrespective of the cleverness of the signalling - unlike the road network, which has essentially infinite permutations). A planned system is necessary to avoid a chaotic one.

 

[Aictos]

Wisbech is cheap, so could happen if the opposite side of the "HS2 is expensive, therefore shouldn't have money spent on it" fallacious argument is made - that because it's cheap, it should happen.

Yes but if Wisbech gets the go ahead then so should Colne to Skipton which I cannot seeing happening.

Yes! Lentran Loop supporter! (There really don't appear to be many on this forum.)

Indeed, this is a project that although won't benefit me in any way, does benefit users of the Far North lines and as such brings improvements to the Highlands which is a good thing.

Indeed, this excellent post by the Friends of the Far North line actually goes into detail on why this is very much needed:

http://www.fofnl.org.uk/newsletters/0907/090708.html

What do you mean by smart timetabling? The WCML (certainly the southern section) timetable seems to be very well slotted together.

Indeed, the WCML timetable is well managed especially the southern part with a mix of services running between 60mph and 125mph all having to coexist.

If it was well slotted together then we wouldn't have the dubious claims of congestion or maximum capacity.
I've always used the phrase smart timetabling to mean exploring how existing services could be retimed or rerouted depending on depending on circumstances, or whether existing timetables could be reworked to reflect passenger numbers over a certain period. Having very fixed and rigid timetables is at the heart is the so called capacity problems.

But it is already at maximum capacity which isn't dubious as it has to fit in numerous types of services which is why it's the busiest mix traffic route in Europe compared to your claims which are after all made up fairy tales because if the planners who's job it is to find paths to put together a working timetable says it's already at maximum capacity then I would rather take their word for it as they work at this professionally then a armchair expert who has no knowledge of these matters and lacks common sense.

 

[jon0844]

Reading this thread it seems that some posters are giving reasons why people interested (professionally or as amateurs) in rail might be against it (prefer electrification elsewhere, upgrading existing lines, etc) and some are giving reasons why the general public (including politicians and local councillors) might object. It is really the latter (the non-rail people) who matter.

In my experience, the majority of people have little interest or knowledge of railways. They see them as old fashioned and irrelevant, a nest of trade unionism, and a money sink. If they have been on a train in the last 10 years it is probably on a heritage railway doing 25mph and they think all trains are like that. It would be interesting to do a public survey asking people if they even know even where their nearest railway station is. That is why they don't see the point of a new line being built.

It must depend a lot on where people live. In rural areas, I agree that the railway is probably not looked upon as anything like the same as those in big towns and cities, where they DO use rail regularly and far from irrelevant. They're also looked upon as badly managed through privatisation, with the belief that nationalising is the solution to everything.

Given regular users also moan about the cost, I assume there are also many people who think running trains must be quite cheap and that the money is all going to fatcat bosses and shareholders.

HS2 was badly sold to the people so people thought it was about moving rich people to Birmingham faster. I am sure if someone said they were going to completely replace the WCML with a modern line there would be more support even though that wouldn't actually be as good as having both!

 

[jon0844]

But it is already at maximum capacity which isn't dubious as it has to fit in numerous types of services which is why it's the busiest mix traffic route in Europe compared to your claims which are after all made up fairy tales because if the planners who's job it is to find paths to put together a working timetable says it's already at maximum capacity then I would rather take their word for it as they work at this professionally then a armchair expert who has no knowledge of these matters and lacks common sense.

Welcome to the Brexit generation. Facts don't matter. Experts can say things but it's probably fake, but Joe Public who have a hunch know the truth!

 

[PR1Berske]

Welcome to the Brexit generation. Facts don't matter. Experts can say things but it's probably fake, but Joe Public who have a hunch know the truth!

I'm a 38 year old Remain supporter and Peoples Vote campaigner, "Brexit generation" I am not!

 

[jon0844]

I'm a 38 year old Remain supporter and Peoples Vote campaigner, "Brexit generation" I am not!

I wasn't singling you out, rather pointing out that this is where we are today in terms of hunches/knowledge.

 

[Aictos]

Welcome to the Brexit generation. Facts don't matter. Experts can say things but it's probably fake, but Joe Public who have a hunch know the truth!

Otherwise known as RUK Syndrome