No new infrastructure, other than capacity and paths.
HS2: opening up new connections to routes that don't exist. It really is magical.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)
- Thread starter ABB125
- Start date
- Status
No new infrastructure, other than capacity and paths.
HS2: opening up new connections to routes that don't exist. It really is magical.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It will enable the Waterloo services to eventually go 10 car (when the rest of the route's power and platforms have been done), and 3tph on North Downs would almost certainly not have been possible on the od 4A/4B.
Indeed, which is why I said to date.
EM2
Established Member
Clearly it must open up new connections to routes that don't exist, because it doesn't exist itself. Therefore all the connections that it opens up fit that description. When it does open, it will create new routes and connections to them.
Which is why the examples I gave, which shows broadly similar Southampton to Birmingham but better for Southampton to Manchester/Leeds/Scotland journey times, are based on existing infrastructure (other than HS2).
Although the comparable journey times to Birmingham are based on existing services to get to Old Oak Common (with the exception of an additional stop), it is likely that other existing calling patterns could change to provide a through route.
However, the most likely would be that the Southern Approach to Heathrow is built, as with a likely 30 minute journey time between Woking and OOC, 50 minutes from Southampton to Woking and 50 minutes Euston to Birmingham, the change times would have to be fairly bad (especially as at Woking it's a train to Heathrow every 15 minutes) to be a slower route to Birmingham. Whilst to Manchester, Leeds, York, Scotland (especially Glasgow) the services would all be quicker by about 40-60 minutes.
In fact, if there's sufficient flows out could be justified to cut back the XC services to Basingstoke allowing the Heathrow services to be extended to Southampton to improve journey times. However with works (including sending freight via Andover) it could be possible to provide more paths.
Given that we are talking about an area which is a net contributor to the costs of the rail network (even after including its share of the network rail grant) being able to make better use of the existing network and providing extra capacity is likely to improve the profitability.
I'm still awaiting a response on which of the examples I've given which are not credible?
I'll remind you of some of the key highlights:
Faster journey times for Southampton to places North of Birmingham.
12 local services with longer trains due to the removal of 2/5 long distance services from Piccadilly. (Although that's only inbound services, with outbound as well it's 24, in fact even that's not the full picture. As even those services which are still required to serve local stations rather than from London could have shorter turn around times increasing the number of services which could be lengthen further.)
Makes the building of Northern Powerhouse Rail have a better value for money (read more likely to be built) as it relies on HS2 infrastructure. Therefore if HS2 is cancelled then the biggest rail investment which is likely to happen in the North could be at risk.
Without it there's little chance of significant improvements.
Anyone want to respond to this and explain how any of this is not credible?
Oh come on @TheHam, that's tenuous at best. "Faster journey times north of Birmingham". You don't know that. And you could say that for anywhere south of the Midlands, there's no guarantee, and there's no direct benefit. Southampton is not connected to HS2 and so will not see anything from it. They still have to get to the Midlands, they still have to get to London. Southampton isn't getting the billion-pound investment treatment is it?
If HS2, the new railway into London, is cancelled, investment can finally be targeted where it really matters. Claiming that everywhere will benefit "just because" is stretching credibility. And you know it.
If HS2, the new railway into London, is cancelled, investment can finally be targeted where it really matters. Claiming that everywhere will benefit "just because" is stretching credibility. And you know it.
EM2
Established Member
But that won't happen. If HS2 is cancelled that money will be lost to rail, and spent elsewhere.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Not this old chestnut again... It has been pointed out time and time again that the money for HS2 has been ring fenced for HS2 and axing HS2 doesn't mean the money will go to other rail projects, it means that the money is simply lost.
It has also been pointed out numerous times that the existing rail network IS getting investment alongside HS2 not the untruth that HS2 is holding back investment in the existing network that some including yourself seem to be under the impression of.
You still haven't given any viable alternatives to HS2 that actually work and don't fall apart at every point, nor have you any workable ideas on how to deal with the continuous growth that the railways specifically the West Coast Mainline has seen.
Can you give us at least one suggestion of where the investment should go, that really matters. And won’t otherwise?
Or maybe if it really matters it will have a good enough BCR that it will be done anyway, so HS2 won’t affect it...
The Southern platform group was expanded to three tracks, all 12-car length. While there's been no significant change to Waterloo and Gatwick services yet, the capacity is there for greater frequency on both routes.
I think you misunderstand how large scale infrastructure projects are planned and financed.
The Government hasn't found £56bn in a drawer and then looked around for projects on which to spend it.
It has looked at a concept (high-speed rail) and then developed the concept (how fast, where should it go, which route etc). It then analyses the cost and the benefit and determined whether it should proceed.
There have (in my opinion) been many, many flaws in the process. The scheme which has emerged is not the scheme I would have chosen, but - despite a background in train planning - I'm prepared to accept that others more skilled than I have been involved in the decision-making.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the UK, investment in the existing railway has continued, often on schemes with a lower BCR than HS2. Have you not noticed the new trains, the refurbished trains and the electrification in your own NW of England? Did you not notice that the Government approved Pacer replacement despite the poor business case?
If HS2 was to be cancelled at this stage it would not release cash for other schemes. Those schemes would have to stand on their own merits.
And the full scheme (the £56bn scheme) isn't just "a new railway into London".
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I would say that there you have the real answer to the question posed by this thread: "Why are people opposed to HS2?"... It's because so many people have no interest in any actual analysis of the the pros and cons of building HS2, but prefer instead to resort to vague generalised slogans.
Would you care to elaborate on why you think HS2 is a "waste of money"?
The thread title is asking why people are opposed to HS2; are you prepared to elaborate?
EM2
Established Member
It's not your choice at all. You're not in Government. If it's built, and you don't want to use it, that's entirely your lookout, that would be your choice.
Whether it's built or not, the projects already budgeted for in CP6 will go ahead.
Maybe that's my point? That those of us who see HS2, a new railway into London, as a waste of money are being forced to use it despite:
*The budget is going over the top and nobody wants to stop it
*The justification is weak and nobody wants to strengthen it
*The popularity has collapsed and nobody is willing to improve it
*The positive consequences for the north have been proven to be weaker than rice paper and nobody is bothered about resolving that
This forum usually hates anything that comes from the DfT. This project appears to be an exception. I wonder why.
One reason for opposition is that many people simply oppose any expenditure that doesn't align to their personal priorities.
Railwaysceptic
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 1,421
There may be some truth to that but not a lot. I haven't noticed any opposition to spending £140 million on Liverpool Lime Street although that didn't align to most people's personal priorities. Nor to electrifying to Blackpool or a range of investments which do not directly benefit most people.
Esker-pades
Established Member
And Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
I don't think anyone is forcing you to use HS2.
You're a person (I assume) and you want to stop it...
Even pro-HS2 people dislike the fact it is going over-budget.
Repeating the same thing as infinitum doesn't make it a fact.
Firstly, you have claimed that it only benefits commuters on the southern end of the WCML. The benefit to commuters on the southern end of the WCML are a justification. You provide the first one yourself.
Secondly, various users have pointed out the capacity and timetabling issues that not building HS2 will bring. Whilst you continue to insist that "smart timetabling" will solve everything, you have failed to show this despite several people inviting you to do so. In no particular order, here are these capacity improvements:
- Southern end of the WCML (obviously, as you have said before)
- Coventry to Birmingham corridor
- Southern approaches to Manchester (Buxton, Congleton, Mid-Cheshire Line)
- Southern end of the ECML (once the expresses to Leeds and Scotland have shifted to HS2)
- Specific bottlenecks across the routes I have already mentioned
Reduced, yes. Collapsed? I'm less sure.
We had a wave of headlines in the media at the start of this year about how bad HS2 was, which is the driving factor of these reductions. The media is fairly awful at reporting railway news stories with any accuracy. They have also not put the pro-HS2 case forward. With an absence of positive information, one can see why the average member of the public is less supportive of HS2.
How has it been "proved"? Again, there is a severe lack of evidence.
Because most people don't just blindly agree/disagree with an organisation because it is that organisation. Especially on subjects which they have a reasonable level of knowledge.
There's a flow of people from the South coast who travel to Birmingham and northwards from there, as such they will benefit from faster journey times when HS2 is built.
Theres be a report which many opposed to HS2 have been shouting about as 40% of the benefits are for London. However that report claims that all regions WILL benefit from HS2 (although it's based on current long distance rail travel origin/destinations which may well change after HS2 is open, not least because there'd be less people benefiting from splitting tickets at London). They even include the Southwest, East England and Wales and cite that they will benefit.
Yes the benefits for individual cities is likely to be small the further away from the HS2 stations you get. However there's still going to be some who do benefit.
The Manchester - Blackpool electrification went way over budget. Should that have been scrapped? And, if so, at what point?
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
GWML electrification also went massively over budget.
Which could mostly be achieved at a fraction of the cost by increased utilisation of tilt capable stock / routes .
How much time would tilt save on such journeys?
- Status