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

[DarloRich]

As I have written before, I am personally sceptical about HS2. But the thing that convinces me most that HS2 should be built is the abysmal, laughable arguments used against it by the anti-HS2 campaigns.

Above we have a perfect example. The poster writes that "Nothing will" convince him or her to support HS2, and that he or she sees "nothing but negativity".

Someone who is not open to arguments and facts, whatever they might be, is a fanatic. Someone who cannot see a single positive feature about HS2 (even if they think on balance it is a bad thing) is a fanatic. Someone who says they will never use HS2, even if it would be best way to make a journey, is a fanatic.

It is the brexit effect writ large. It is idiotic but it seems to be where we are heading as a society. Facts mean nothing. You are wasting your breath trying to use logical argument to change such petty-minded, entrenched, blinkered views. I have given up trying. it isnt worth it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would not have spent one single penny on London Euston.

I take it you never go to London, then?

 

[DarloRich]

I've been thinking about this on the walk to work.

What would I need to see for HS2 to be acceptable? Well, we all know Option A is "scrap the whole thing", though that's not a helpful response, so let us look at Option B.

I would have started the project in the North, with no connectivity at all with Birmingham to begin with, to radically improve the railways up here with action rather than words.

I would have built P15/16 at Piccadilly, a scheme I was initially against until the evidence became overwhelming that it must be built in conjunction with Ordsall Curve. This could have been the High Speed platforms for the North, allowing for interchange with the wider region.

I would not have spent one single penny on London Euston.

My HS2 would have improved east-west links between strategic points of the region, looking at how to connect the North East to more interchange opportunities. TransPennine routes, both classic and HS, would invigorate the economy far more than a new railway line into Euston.

What we see in the news and through numerous parliamentary reports is the case for HS2 crumbling before our eyes. Had we seen real, confirmed, credible investment up here, rather than at London like always, perhaps the scheme would have been popular and more likely to be built.

As the scheme is built to improve Euston first and connect the north seventh or eighth, I can't see any reason to be enthusiastic about it. Had it been focused on the north first and foremost, maybe I would not be so heavily opposed.

you are actively and willfully misrepresenting the project. The majority of this post is silly, especially the anti north/ pro south agenda you constantly try to push which shows no understanding of the real issues at play.

 

[kilonewton]

So, to sum up the preceding 63 pages...
One or two people (on this thread) think “HS2 bad”.
Two or so pages of arguments, mostly quite reasonable, of why HS2 should be a good thing.
The original one or two people come back on and say “I don’t believe any of that” then stick their fingers in their ears and shout “la la la la la la!” as the arguments for HS2 are restated.
Then repeat, seemingly ad infinitum.

No wonder I’m leaving the country.....

 

[anme]

So, to sum up the preceding 63 pages...
One or two people (on this thread) think “HS2 bad”.
Two or so pages of arguments, mostly quite reasonable, of why HS2 should be a good thing.
The original one or two people come back on and say “I don’t believe any of that” then stick their fingers in their ears and shout “la la la la la la!” as the arguments for HS2 are restated.
Then repeat, seemingly ad infinitum.

No wonder I’m leaving the country.....

To be fair, you could simply not read this thread.

 

[Esker-pades]

So, to sum up the preceding 63 pages...
One or two people (on this thread) think “HS2 bad”.
Two or so pages of arguments, mostly quite reasonable, of why HS2 should be a good thing.
The original one or two people come back on and say “I don’t believe any of that” then stick their fingers in their ears and shout “la la la la la la!” as the arguments for HS2 are restated.
Then repeat, seemingly ad infinitum.

No wonder I’m leaving the country.....

A great summary. Not only for this, but numerous other politically salient issues in the UK at the moment.

 

[DarloRich]

I take it you never go to London, then?

of course not. London is evil! ( and if they do go it is on a Saturday not at 0630 on a Monday)

So, to sum up the preceding 63 pages...
One or two people (on this thread) think “HS2 bad”.
Two or so pages of arguments, mostly quite reasonable, of why HS2 should be a good thing.
The original one or two people come back on and say “I don’t believe any of that” then stick their fingers in their ears and shout “la la la la la la!” as the arguments for HS2 are restated.
Then repeat, seemingly ad infinitum.

No wonder I’m leaving the country.....

Fairly accurate.

 

[The Ham]

I've been thinking about this on the walk to work.

What would I need to see for HS2 to be acceptable? Well, we all know Option A is "scrap the whole thing", though that's not a helpful response, so let us look at Option B.

I would have started the project in the North, with no connectivity at all with Birmingham to begin with, to radically improve the railways up here with action rather than words.

I would have built P15/16 at Piccadilly, a scheme I was initially against until the evidence became overwhelming that it must be built in conjunction with Ordsall Curve. This could have been the High Speed platforms for the North, allowing for interchange with the wider region.

I would not have spent one single penny on London Euston.

My HS2 would have improved east-west links between strategic points of the region, looking at how to connect the North East to more interchange opportunities. TransPennine routes, both classic and HS, would invigorate the economy far more than a new railway line into Euston.

What we see in the news and through numerous parliamentary reports is the case for HS2 crumbling before our eyes. Had we seen real, confirmed, credible investment up here, rather than at London like always, perhaps the scheme would have been popular and more likely to be built.

As the scheme is built to improve Euston first and connect the north seventh or eighth, I can't see any reason to be enthusiastic about it. Had it been focused on the north first and foremost, maybe I would not be so heavily opposed.

A good summary of Northern Powerhouse Rail and it's precursor Trans Pennies Upgrade. The latter of which is happening - with schemes being delivered in the next 5 years (ahead of phase 1 of HS2), with regards to the former, although not confirmed, the rumours are that it will be in due course.

Edit: to confirm as I'll not benefit from the above maybe I should oppose them.

 

[PR1Berske]

you are actively and willfully misrepresenting the project. The majority of this post is silly, especially the anti north/ pro south agenda you constantly try to push which shows no understanding of the real issues at play.

Suggesting that work should be focused on the North is "silly"?

 

[Adsy125]

Suggesting that work should be focused on the North is "silly"?

Starting HS2 in the North would mean there would be nowhere for the trains to go on the classic network south of Birmingham, a little pointless no?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Suggesting that work should be focused on the North is "silly"?

On HS2? Yes, it absolutely is. The main problem it is trying to solve is the south WCML, and so why would you not start it there unless you just had an agenda to push?

Solving the south WCML issue first does of course benefit Lancastrians because they will have a faster and more reliable service to London even when it has only been built to Brum.

 

[jfowkes]

Starting HS2 in the North would mean there would be nowhere for the trains to go on the classic network south of Birmingham, a little pointless no?

This is going to be interpreted as "trains that don't start or finish in London are inherently worthless". Which I'm sure isn't what you meant, but...

 

[DarloRich]

Suggesting that work should be focused on the North is "silly"?

Yes. Absolutely in relation to HS2. However, you know this which makes your constant and willful misrepresentation of this project galling in the extreme. Close your Chip on the shoulder shop and look and things logically and sensibly.

Even if HS2 did start somewhere you thought suitable you would still be nimbying against it!

On HS2? Yes, it absolutely is. The main problem it is trying to solve is the south WCML, and so why would you not start it there unless you just had an agenda to push?

Solving the south WCML issue first does of course benefit Lancastrians because they will have a faster and more reliable service to London even when it has only been built to Brum.

Agenda is correct.

 

[6Gman]

Suggesting that work should be focused on the North is "silly"?

You suggested starting in "the North" without any connection to Birmingham, never mind London.

So what would you have started with?

Electrification of Manchester - Liverpool? DONE
Electrification of Manchester - Blackpool? DONE
New rolling stock for Manchester - Scotland? DONE
Pacer replacement? UNDER WAY

The trouble with trans-pennine infrastructure work is that nobody can agree on what to do ...

Leeds says it should run Manchester-Leeds (and Bradford insists it must come via them)
Sheffield says it should run Manchester-Sheffield (and the cranks say it must involve reopening Woodhead)
Liverpool insists it must reach them (and Warrington insists it must come via them)

Good luck putting together a scheme out of that sackful of ferrets.

 

[The Ham]

@PR1Berske you asked for evidence and then don't respond to it, why is that?

It's the same when you ask the likes of StopHS2 who just ignore it as they can't answer it.

OK, like some evidence like this:
View media item 3340
Looking at the numbers on the table between London and the West Midlands/North West there's now about 10 million (as the figures are in thousands) extra trips being made every year.

That's about 27,000 extra a day, filling an extra 39 trains (assuming 100% seat occupancy) with 429 coaches between them.

That doesn't even allow for Scotland or North Wales, which although have seen smaller and are split over more than one route would only add to those problems.

Based on that can you start to understand why adding a few extra coaches and a few extra trains here and there isn't going to cut it when trying to provide the capacity needed.

It's why those who have looked at the information are more and more thinking, "you know what we do need HS2, or at least something very much like it".

HS2 is far from perfect, but what other option is there? Even if there is one it's probably too late to start design work on it to be able to deliver it within the timeframe.

 

[RLBH]

This is going to be interpreted as "trains that don't start or finish in London are inherently worthless". Which I'm sure isn't what you meant, but...

I think this illustrates the issue. There are two conversations going on.

The first is around the need for new infrastructure to relieve the southern WCML, which has been thoroughly covered. I don't think anyone can sensibly argue that there isn't a mismatch between capacity and demand here. The principle of induced demand suggests that once HS2 is complete (assuming it doesn't get cancelled) the extra capacity will be taken advantage of pretty quickly.

The second is around balancing infrastructure spending and economic growth between London and the rest of the country. By facilitating travel into London, growth in London is promoted. By facilitating travel into Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool, growth in those cities is promoted. Residents of the latter cities have a perception that London always gets to cut the budgetary cake and then pick the best slice for itself. That might be true, and it might even be justifiable because of the importance of London to the national economy.

However, that doesn't really matter. The point is that residents of non-London cities feel that their local economies have been allowed to stagnate in favour of that of London. From that perspective, that the southern WCML is rammed isn't really relevant. The view here is that London should be forced to make do with its' existing infrastructure for a while whilst other cities get the infrastructure development they feel that they need. The effect of this, it is hoped, would be improved growth in the economies of cities other than London, and a reduction in the relative importance of London to the British economy.

Transpennine improvements are only part of this. Even accounting for the greater size of London, the suburban rail networks around other cities fall far short of the same standard. None has a rapid transit system that can really be compared to the London Underground. These are the sorts of shortcomings that the North-first opponents of HS2 want to see rectified.

I'm very much a supporter of HS2, though not without reservations about some of the detailed choices. But at the same time, I think it's hard to argue against the idea that non-London cities are deserving of decent infrastructure, entirely independently of the ease of travelling between them. An easy win, politically, would be to commit to full electrification of the suburban rail networks operated by each of the Passenger Transport Executives in the same timeframe as HS2.

 

[liam456]

I think this illustrates the issue. There are two conversations going on.

The first is around the need for new infrastructure to relieve the southern WCML, which has been thoroughly covered. I don't think anyone can sensibly argue that there isn't a mismatch between capacity and demand here. The principle of induced demand suggests that once HS2 is complete (assuming it doesn't get cancelled) the extra capacity will be taken advantage of pretty quickly.

The second is around balancing infrastructure spending and economic growth between London and the rest of the country. By facilitating travel into London, growth in London is promoted. By facilitating travel into Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool, growth in those cities is promoted. Residents of the latter cities have a perception that London always gets to cut the budgetary cake and then pick the best slice for itself. That might be true, and it might even be justifiable because of the importance of London to the national economy.

However, that doesn't really matter. The point is that residents of non-London cities feel that their local economies have been allowed to stagnate in favour of that of London. From that perspective, that the southern WCML is rammed isn't really relevant. The view here is that London should be forced to make do with its' existing infrastructure for a while whilst other cities get the infrastructure development they feel that they need. The effect of this, it is hoped, would be improved growth in the economies of cities other than London, and a reduction in the relative importance of London to the British economy.

Transpennine improvements are only part of this. Even accounting for the greater size of London, the suburban rail networks around other cities fall far short of the same standard. None has a rapid transit system that can really be compared to the London Underground. These are the sorts of shortcomings that the North-first opponents of HS2 want to see rectified.

I'm very much a supporter of HS2, though not without reservations about some of the detailed choices. But at the same time, I think it's hard to argue against the idea that non-London cities are deserving of decent infrastructure, entirely independently of the ease of travelling between them. An easy win, politically, would be to commit to full electrification of the suburban rail networks operated by each of the Passenger Transport Executives in the same timeframe as HS2.

Phwoar! Level-headed analysis on the London vs rest-of-UK debate of HS2? Get yourself some of this PR1Berske!

 

[DarloRich]

I think it's hard to argue against the idea that non-London cities are deserving of decent infrastructure, entirely independently of the ease of travelling between them. An easy win, politically, would be to commit to full electrification of the suburban rail networks operated by each of the Passenger Transport Executives in the same timeframe as HS2.

I agree - investment is needed all over the country. The fact missed by many is that the investment need is different in each place as is the level of money required. What is needed is targeted investment required to fix local problems. London is still going to get the vast majority of investment because of size and numbers involved ( and that wont change despite the "build it and they will come" fantasies of many here) but that does not mean Leeds and Manchester and Newcastle should not get more money.

However, that money has to be fixed to a defined return and benefit not just spaffed away on fantasy ideas which is what many here seem to want. Otherwise it may as well all go on London where there will be a return!

 

[The Ham]

I agree - investment is needed all over the country. The fact missed by many is that the investment need is different in each place as is the level of money required. What is needed is targeted investment required to fix local problems. London is still going to get the vast majority of investment because of size and numbers involved ( and that wont change despite the "build it and they will come" fantasies of many here) but that does not mean Leeds and Manchester and Newcastle should not get more money.

However, that money has to be fixed to a defined return and benefit not just spaffed away on fantasy ideas which is what many here seem to want. Otherwise it may as well all go on London where there will be a return!

Indeed, I would very much agree that all areas need more rail investment. However I view HS2 as a way of other areas piggy backing on the large investment required too cater for the London traveler to allow them to be able to utilise the spare capacity that it releases without having to justify the expense of the works.

For instance a pair of extra tracks between Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly wouldn't normally be funded if it was for local services. However justify it for long distance passengers, especially those going to London and it gets the go ahead, even though it would likely allow more local services to be run.

I do fear that some of those opposed to HS2 are waiting for everything to be equal rather than accepting that there's currently a bias and using that bias to get what they want.

If you want better transport for, say, around Manchester you make it so that it's HS2 which has to fund that improvement without them realising that's what they're doing.

 

[hwl]

I think this illustrates the issue. There are two conversations going on.

The first is around the need for new infrastructure to relieve the southern WCML, which has been thoroughly covered. I don't think anyone can sensibly argue that there isn't a mismatch between capacity and demand here. The principle of induced demand suggests that once HS2 is complete (assuming it doesn't get cancelled) the extra capacity will be taken advantage of pretty quickly.

The second is around balancing infrastructure spending and economic growth between London and the rest of the country. By facilitating travel into London, growth in London is promoted. By facilitating travel into Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool, growth in those cities is promoted. Residents of the latter cities have a perception that London always gets to cut the budgetary cake and then pick the best slice for itself. That might be true, and it might even be justifiable because of the importance of London to the national economy.

However, that doesn't really matter. The point is that residents of non-London cities feel that their local economies have been allowed to stagnate in favour of that of London. From that perspective, that the southern WCML is rammed isn't really relevant. The view here is that London should be forced to make do with its' existing infrastructure for a while whilst other cities get the infrastructure development they feel that they need. The effect of this, it is hoped, would be improved growth in the economies of cities other than London, and a reduction in the relative importance of London to the British economy.

Transpennine improvements are only part of this. Even accounting for the greater size of London, the suburban rail networks around other cities fall far short of the same standard. None has a rapid transit system that can really be compared to the London Underground. These are the sorts of shortcomings that the North-first opponents of HS2 want to see rectified.

I'm very much a supporter of HS2, though not without reservations about some of the detailed choices. But at the same time, I think it's hard to argue against the idea that non-London cities are deserving of decent infrastructure, entirely independently of the ease of travelling between them. An easy win, politically, would be to commit to full electrification of the suburban rail networks operated by each of the Passenger Transport Executives in the same timeframe as HS2.

It other issue to throw in is globalisation and increasing centralisation in all countries, this won't be a popular opinion with many commentators though.

We probably need to think externally and not just internally. Trying to focus away from London is possibly fighting economic forces that want centralisation to create larger talent pools globally. The post war attempts to defocus from Central London employment up until the 1980s (by stopping significant office redevelopments in the centre and forcing movement out to Croydon etc. to discourage driving into central London) might actually have done quite a lot to damage long term growth.

The question isn't necessarily about London vs Birmingham but London vs Berlin with no Birmingham vs Berlin option on the table unless Birmingham is far better linked to London.

To play on the global jobs creation markets the UK need to be better integrated as a whole as the several cities laying claim to the second city status will struggle to compete on their own.

 

[RLBH]

If you want better transport for, say, around Manchester you make it so that it's HS2 which has to fund that improvement without them realising that's what they're doing.

Except it isn't seen this way in (to use your example) Manchester. It's seen as London getting a fancy new train to solve its' problems. They get the scraps from London's table - if London didn't need/want a fancy new train, then Manchester wouldn't get the improvements no matter how badly they were needed.

Of course, that's not the reality. But by advocating for HS2 as solving problems around London, it's automatically got an uphill struggle in Manchester. If there was a proposal to build Manchester to Crewe at the same time as London to Lichfield, and on similar justification, I suspect that HS2 would be perceived very differently in the North-West. The later addition of Phase 2a to join up the two high speed bypasses would only be logical.

This would still annoy the people who believe that London thinks that Manchester is equivalent to the entirety of Northern England, and the related view that Scotland is a mid-sized county just past Carlisle. But it would at least be a show of willing. It would be expensive, which is why it won't happen, but the political angle would look much better.

The post war attempts to defocus from Central London employment up until the 1980s (by stopping significant office redevelopments in the centre and forcing movement out to Croydon etc. to discourage driving into central London) might actually have done quite a lot to damage long term growth.

And yet it's those very efforts that many of those wanting to promote non-London cities over London actively support. The assumption you make is that globalisation and its' effects are beneficial, which is a view rejected by a lot of people in cities where traditional employment has been lost due to globalisation. This is the segment of the population that voted for Brexit and for Donald Trump. They see globalisation and the centralisation of economic and political power as things to be avoided, and HS2 is a symbol of that.

Insisting that that attitude is incorrect will not help, no matter how strong the evidence. It's not an evidence-based argument, it's one based on emotion and notions of socioeconomic equity. Ignoring it will only reinforce the attitude that the metropolitan elites are only interested in enriching themselves at the expense of The Provinces. The beliefs that lie behind it need to be engaged with, and an honest attempt made at resolving the problems being experienced outside of the London area.

 

[hwl]

And yet it's those very efforts that many of those wanting to promote non-London cities over London actively support. The assumption you make is that globalisation and its' effects are beneficial, which is a view rejected by a lot of people in cities where traditional employment has been lost due to globalisation. This is the segment of the population that voted for Brexit and for Donald Trump. They see globalisation and the centralisation of economic and political power as things to be avoided, and HS2 is a symbol of that.

Insisting that that attitude is incorrect will not help, no matter how strong the evidence. It's not an evidence-based argument, it's one based on emotion and notions of socioeconomic equity. Ignoring it will only reinforce the attitude that the metropolitan elites are only interested in enriching themselves at the expense of The Provinces. The beliefs that lie behind it need to be engaged with, and an honest attempt made at resolving the problems being experienced outside of the London area.

Agree on the emotiveness and potential lack of acceptance of evidence.
Trying to avoid it may make things worse for areas in the medium / long run though. As an example productivity per worker in the global steel industry has increased over 1,000 fold since WW1 but global production has only risen ~15fold. Global employment in steel production is now less than a quarter of what it was 100 years ago despite massive increases in production.
Where are the large secretarial/typing pools in offices now?
The same was happening with the collapse in Lancashire textile workers wages just over 200 years ago that ended up with Peterloo.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree - investment is needed all over the country. The fact missed by many is that the investment need is different in each place as is the level of money required. What is needed is targeted investment required to fix local problems. London is still going to get the vast majority of investment because of size and numbers involved ( and that wont change despite the "build it and they will come" fantasies of many here) but that does not mean Leeds and Manchester and Newcastle should not get more money.

However, that money has to be fixed to a defined return and benefit not just spaffed away on fantasy ideas which is what many here seem to want. Otherwise it may as well all go on London where there will be a return!

Then let the Government cough up some dosh on those projects that have a positive BCR ratio.

Except it isn't seen this way in (to use your example) Manchester. It's seen as London getting a fancy new train to solve its' problems. They get the scraps from London's table - if London didn't need/want a fancy new train, then Manchester wouldn't get the improvements no matter how badly they were needed.

Of course, that's not the reality. But by advocating for HS2 as solving problems around London, it's automatically got an uphill struggle in Manchester. If there was a proposal to build Manchester to Crewe at the same time as London to Lichfield, and on similar justification, I suspect that HS2 would be perceived very differently in the North-West. The later addition of Phase 2a to join up the two high speed bypasses would only be logical.

This would still annoy the people who believe that London thinks that Manchester is equivalent to the entirety of Northern England, and the related view that Scotland is a mid-sized county just past Carlisle. But it would at least be a show of willing. It would be expensive, which is why it won't happen, but the political angle would look much better.

And yet it's those very efforts that many of those wanting to promote non-London cities over London actively support. The assumption you make is that globalisation and its' effects are beneficial, which is a view rejected by a lot of people in cities where traditional employment has been lost due to globalisation. This is the segment of the population that voted for Brexit and for Donald Trump. They see globalisation and the centralisation of economic and political power as things to be avoided, and HS2 is a symbol of that.

Insisting that that attitude is incorrect will not help, no matter how strong the evidence. It's not an evidence-based argument, it's one based on emotion and notions of socioeconomic equity. Ignoring it will only reinforce the attitude that the metropolitan elites are only interested in enriching themselves at the expense of The Provinces. The beliefs that lie behind it need to be engaged with, and an honest attempt made at resolving the problems being experienced outside of the London area.

If a resident of a Northern city has seen their traditional employment moved away because of globalisation, and has not received any of the dividend, (in terms of an improved standard of living), then being against globalisation is a rational response to the evidence that they experience, rather than based on 'emotion'.

This is the problem that the managerial class across the Western World has. It needs to demonstrate improvements in living standards across the board. A more global economy may be more efficient, but if residents don't share the benefit of that efficiency, it will be of no value to them.

In terms of HS2 specifically, there is a further schism.

A railway professional might be forgiven for thinking "why should we spend billions on areas where fewer people travel, when we could be improving capacity on our trunk routes".

Most non-railway people will think "why are they spending billions on routes which already have excellent train services when my line only has five trains a day", or "no trains at all".

 

[tbtc]

I wonder what direction this thread would have taken had the title been, "Why are people so evangelical with their support for HS2?"

As I've said before, I do admire your commitment to trolling, the way you come along and stir the pot, get everyone agitated by your blunt refusal to debate with facts (just some vague "don't spend any money anywhere near London" stuff) - it's quite a skill.

However, I will "bite" here, at your mention of people being "evangelical".

For me, HS2 threads are like the IEP threads - you have some people on one side saying something along the lines of "it's not perfect but it seems a reasonable compromise, given the circumstances and the balance between getting everything I want and getting something practical"... and some people on the other side denouncing the whole project whilst refusing to come up with serious alternatives (e.g. it was easy to criticise the cost of IEP or the need to lug diesel fuel tanks all over the electrified lines but none of the people properly against IEP wanted to go into detail about what their alternative actually was - e.g. the complications of regular "drags" or splitting long established services at the electrification boundaries).

Much like Brexit, you could say - easy to criticise our relationship with the EU but the people unhappy with it never wanted to give specifics about what *their* favourite scenario was.

I'm not aware of anyone on this thread "evangelical" about HS2 - instead there are a lot of people who understand the problems that it is trying to solve and accept that it is a tool that can be used to improve things. I don't think any multi-billion pound Government project ever will be "perfect" - I'm not that naïve - but you are giving "the north" a bad reputation on here with your chippy attitude to London, perpetuating the attitude that we are blinkered.

Starting HS2 in the North would mean there would be nowhere for the trains to go on the classic network south of Birmingham, a little pointless no?

I was thinking it'd be like that Hale & Pace "Yorkshire Airways" advert (where they flew from Leeds Bradford Airport to Leeds Bradford Airport, just with the "if it's not in Yorkshire" tagline replaced with "if it's not oop North").

A railway professional might be forgiven for thinking "why should we spend billions on areas where fewer people travel, when we could be improving capacity on our trunk routes".

Most non-railway people will think "why are they spending billions on routes which already have excellent train services when my line only has five trains a day", or "no trains at all"

As you may be aware, I'm a big fan of the "using the blunt instrument of heavy rail as a tool best suited to the busiest routes most suited to mass transportation" rather than indiscriminately sprinkling trains around the country as if they were Doctors Surgeries or Post Boxes. You might as well as "why did they spend billions of pounds on motorways linking large cities rather than from Wick to Ullapool".

We have plenty of spare capacity on quiet branch lines already - like the idea that we should spend huge money on Blackburn/Clitheroe - Hellifield (when there's no infrastructure problems preventing a regular service on that line already). Same goes with Okehampton - we could be running regular services to Exeter every day if we wanted - we don't need HS2-levels of investment for that.

If the argument is that we should improve public transport in the kind of small towns or rural villages that you often talk about then that's another story, but there's no reason that has to be heavy rail.

 

[PR1Berske]

As I've said before, I do admire your commitment to trolling

I take exception to this.

Trolls do not answer questions. I do.
Trolls flame and agitate. I only speak when spoken to or about.
Trolls would flood threads about the same subject. I try to contain mentions of HS2 to this thread.

I can be many things, and I concede that not all of the labels you could attach would be positive. But I'm a very old internet veteran, I've witnessed the definition of "troll" alter and adapt over the years, and I do not fit any of the definitions that I can think of. Now maybe "you would say that wouldn't you". I can't change your labelling of me.

My skills are touch typing and facts about Eurovision. I'm not clever enough, or on line enough, to be a troll.

 

[Peter Kelford]

As the title says.

I am a supporter of high speed rail in general, but I believe that the current plans for HS2 are far from perfect. Nevertheless I am a (reluctant) supporter of HS2. However, many people are opposed to HS2. Why is this?
Reasons I can think of include:

• Causes fairly significant environmental damage (although significantly less than a motorway!)
• Is built for speeds twice as fast as what we currently have
• Isn't a rebuild of an existing alignment
• Exists entirely so that businessmen and well paid bankers and executives can get to London quicker

Is there anything I haven't thought of? Replies from both sides of the debate are welcome.

I could not a agree more. The only difference is that I'm ever so slightly less enthusiastic, making me tipped in the 'opposite' direction if it was a case (as it is) of one or the other.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I take exception to this.

Trolls do not answer questions. I do.
Trolls flame and agitate. I only speak when spoken to or about.
Trolls would flood threads about the same subject. I try to contain mentions of HS2 to this thread.

I can be many things, and I concede that not all of the labels you could attach would be positive. But I'm a very old internet veteran, I've witnessed the definition of "troll" alter and adapt over the years, and I do not fit any of the definitions that I can think of. Now maybe "you would say that wouldn't you". I can't change your labelling of me.

My skills are touch typing and facts about Eurovision. I'm not clever enough, or on line enough, to be a troll.

I was once accused of trolling on another forum. I can sympathise.

Most importantly: Trolls gain pleasure from other's displeasure.

 

[The Ham]

Trolls do not answer questions. I do.

I must have missed your response to this post:

OK, like some evidence like this:
View media item 3340
Looking at the numbers on the table between London and the West Midlands/North West there's now about 10 million (as the figures are in thousands) extra trips being made every year.

That's about 27,000 extra a day, filling an extra 39 trains (assuming 100% seat occupancy) with 429 coaches between them.

That doesn't even allow for Scotland or North Wales, which although have seen smaller and are split over more than one route would only add to those problems.

Based on that can you start to understand why adding a few extra coaches and a few extra trains here and there isn't going to cut it when trying to provide the capacity needed.

It's why those who have looked at the information are more and more thinking, "you know what we do need HS2, or at least something very much like it".

HS2 is far from perfect, but what other option is there? Even if there is one it's probably too late to start design work on it to be able to deliver it within the timeframe.

 

[yorksrob]

As I've said before, I do admire your commitment to trolling, the way you come along and stir the pot, get everyone agitated by your blunt refusal to debate with facts (just some vague "don't spend any money anywhere near London" stuff) - it's quite a skill.

However, I will "bite" here, at your mention of people being "evangelical".

For me, HS2 threads are like the IEP threads - you have some people on one side saying something along the lines of "it's not perfect but it seems a reasonable compromise, given the circumstances and the balance between getting everything I want and getting something practical"... and some people on the other side denouncing the whole project whilst refusing to come up with serious alternatives (e.g. it was easy to criticise the cost of IEP or the need to lug diesel fuel tanks all over the electrified lines but none of the people properly against IEP wanted to go into detail about what their alternative actually was - e.g. the complications of regular "drags" or splitting long established services at the electrification boundaries).

Much like Brexit, you could say - easy to criticise our relationship with the EU but the people unhappy with it never wanted to give specifics about what *their* favourite scenario was.

I'm not aware of anyone on this thread "evangelical" about HS2 - instead there are a lot of people who understand the problems that it is trying to solve and accept that it is a tool that can be used to improve things. I don't think any multi-billion pound Government project ever will be "perfect" - I'm not that naïve - but you are giving "the north" a bad reputation on here with your chippy attitude to London, perpetuating the attitude that we are blinkered.



I was thinking it'd be like that Hale & Pace "Yorkshire Airways" advert (where they flew from Leeds Bradford Airport to Leeds Bradford Airport, just with the "if it's not in Yorkshire" tagline replaced with "if it's not oop North").



As you may be aware, I'm a big fan of the "using the blunt instrument of heavy rail as a tool best suited to the busiest routes most suited to mass transportation" rather than indiscriminately sprinkling trains around the country as if they were Doctors Surgeries or Post Boxes. You might as well as "why did they spend billions of pounds on motorways linking large cities rather than from Wick to Ullapool".

We have plenty of spare capacity on quiet branch lines already - like the idea that we should spend huge money on Blackburn/Clitheroe - Hellifield (when there's no infrastructure problems preventing a regular service on that line already). Same goes with Okehampton - we could be running regular services to Exeter every day if we wanted - we don't need HS2-levels of investment for that.

If the argument is that we should improve public transport in the kind of small towns or rural villages that you often talk about then that's another story, but there's no reason that has to be heavy rail.

Your two cases referenced are Okehampton and Blackburn - Clitheroe.

I agree that they don't need HS2 levels of investment. The Government should get on with it and reinstate them.

 

[PR1Berske]

Quote @TheHam "HS2 fris farom perfect, but what other option is there?"

I've suggested numerous things, often, and you've dismissed all of them. What answer would you like me to give?