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

[Ianno87]

If the wider socio-economic benefits justify the expenditure, why not subsidise these services in perpetuity ?

It's laughable that people purport to 'support the railway' because they support HS2, whilst espousing sub-Beeching nonsense.

"If" being the operative word there.

 

[hwl]

To finish off, I will answer The Ham's question: Install cab signalling, give the current line a top speed of 140mph (which the Pendolinos are capable of) and add a few extra tracks. It's cheaper than HS2 and has a similar effect. To finish off, HS2 will end up being £60 billion+. What choice do we have but to cancel it?

The "failed"* west coast upgrade 15-20 years ago suggests that you cost optimism for upgrades isn't justified.
*non completed is probably better description for the later works.

140mph will in a lot of places involve realigning the tracks to straighten out bends and a lot of housing demolition.

The length of track where 140mph would be possible with just re-signalling is comparatively small.

 

[hwl]

I'm afraid that it was just before. However, the remaining 9-car sets could be upgraded.

Unfortunately Alstom can't build any more as the crash regs have changed and the 9-11car conversion order was the last opportunity.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Please provide evidence that your plan will be cheaper than HS2.

So we’re going to build these extra 140mph tracks, but to add extra capacity Euston will need to be rebuilt and more platforms added. Then let’s look at the alignment. There are 1000s of houses right next to the WCML which would be very difficult to demolish, so why not build the fast lines on a different shorter alignment, especially if we want the 140mph capability everywhere, and these fast trains won’t be stopping. Hmmm... looks a lot like a 140mph HS2 to me...

The "failed" west coast upgrade 15-20 years ago suggests that you cost optimism for upgrades isn't justified.

140mph will in a lot of places involve realigning the tracks to straighten out bends and a lot of housing demolition.

We will only need to pay people a modest amount of money as it's mainly back gardens that are affected.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Unfortunately Alstom can't build any more as the crash regs have changed and the 9-11car conversion order was the last opportunity.

I'm sure the government can change the crash regs again if they wish to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure the government can change the crash regs again if they wish to.

And it would be possible to split existing sets to lengthen others to 11 coaches, though because it requires an extra transformer you could only use 4 coaches out of a 9 or 6 out of an 11 to do so. There would then have to be an order for something new to get the number of sets back up.

 

[anme]

We will only need to pay people a modest amount of money as it's mainly back gardens that are affected.

I always appreciate good satire.

 

[RLBH]

I'm sure the government can change the crash regs again if they wish to.

Nobody is ever going to agree to reduce safety regulations, whether justified or not, because if there is ever so much as a single person moderately injured who wouldn't have been had the regulations not been relaxed, it will be seen as their fault.

 

[hwl]

I'm sure the government can change the crash regs again if they wish to.

They have singed up to the EU crash regs along time ago and have signed up to sticking with them.
Alstom have also stopped making the Pendolino family product as was supplied to the UK and they currently don't have UK tilt product off the shelf. A modified Bombardier-Hitachi v300 is the closest to usable in the UK at the moment.

We will only need to pay people a modest amount of money as it's mainly back gardens that are affected.

A lot more than back gardens.

 

[hwl]

I always appreciate good satire.

You can't beat traditional British humour!

 

[hwl]

And it would be possible to split existing sets to lengthen others to 11 coaches, though because it requires an extra transformer you could only use 4 coaches out of a 9 or 6 out of an 11 to do so. There would then have to be an order for something new to get the number of sets back up.

The transformers are still "available"

 

[Peter Kelford]

So we’re going to build these extra 140mph tracks, but to add extra capacity Euston will need to be rebuilt and more platforms added. Then let’s look at the alignment. There are 1000s of houses right next to the WCML which would be very difficult to demolish, so why not build the fast lines on a different shorter alignment, especially if we want the 140mph capability everywhere, and these fast trains won’t be stopping. Hmmm... looks a lot like a 140mph HS2 to me...

Please provide evidence that your plan will be cheaper than HS2.

Or maybe we could use something called common sense. We could figure out that, for a £75b railway, we would need 1 billion £75 tickets sold just to meet construction costs before operating costs. Consider that French TGVs got 1 billion people in 2003, a whole 20 years after the first line. The 2 billion passenger mark came 15 years later, in 2017. This goes to show that the 1 billion+ in passengers required to turn a profit will only come after 2050, by which point other transport may well reign supreme and leave HS2 with not enough passengers.

Maybe we could also exploit the Chiltern line a bit better. We could upgrade it, possible even to 4-track over some of it.

We could also stop HSTs from going off-lease by giving them secondary expresses. The 140mph expresses would be run by 390s, with 221s and HSTs running the 125mph expresses.

 

[LM93]

Furthermore, the next generation of travel threatens to render HS2 useless. The next generation could be faster air travel with innovative security, it could be autonomous road vehicles, the hyperloop or anything else. At the same time, ticket prices on HS2 will be prohibitive, whilst it will be possible to do most things on the internet. Most travellers in the near future will be happy to take an extra 40 minutes on their journey in order to save £50.

To finish off, I will answer The Ham's question: Install cab signalling, give the current line a top speed of 140mph (which the Pendolinos are capable of) and add a few extra tracks. It's cheaper than HS2 and has a similar effect. To finish off, HS2 will end up being £60 billion+. What choice do we have but to cancel it?

Hyperloop is a fantasy, requires much more infrastructure and energy than high speed rail. Autonomous vehicles might be on their way, but they will still clog up the same roads!

Regards to in-cab signalling:

"34. In respect of rail, Figures 5 and 6, derived from the Department’s Network Modelling Framework, illustrate current and forecast 2025 network loading levels in the morning peak period. These maps show that the West Coast main line, between London and the West Midlands, already by far the most intensively used inter-city line in the country, is likely to reach its absolute capacity limit by the mid-2020s – even after the £8.8bn upgrade just completed and implementation of plans for longer trains and in-cab signalling."

 

[Esker-pades]

To finish off, I will answer The Ham's question: Install cab signalling, give the current line a top speed of 140mph (which the Pendolinos are capable of) and add a few extra tracks. It's cheaper than HS2 and has a similar effect. To finish off, HS2 will end up being £60 billion+. What choice do we have but to cancel it?

That's incorrect. That would reduce capacity on the WCML. That's the opposite effect of HS2.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Or maybe we could use something called common sense. We could figure out that, for a £75b railway, we would need 1 billion £75 tickets sold just to meet construction costs before operating costs.

£75bn? Where do you get that figure from? £55bn is the current estimated cost of HS2.

Consider that French TGVs got 1 billion people in 2003, a whole 20 years after the first line. The 2 billion passenger mark came 15 years later, in 2017. This goes to show that the 1 billion+ in passengers required to turn a profit will only come after 2050

So you're not interested in environmental benefits of getting people out of cars and aeroplanes into trains? Or reduced greenhouse emissions? Or wider benefits to the economy from greater mobility? Or even the social benefits of greater mobility? You're only interested in raw financial ticket sales, right? And your comparison with TGVs is flawed by the way because you're not taking any account of relative frequency (much higher for HS2 than French TGVs so will probably carry many more passengers), or of the benefits in terms of capacity freed up by HS2 on the classic lines in the UK.

, by which point other transport may well reign supreme and leave HS2 with not enough passengers.

That is incredibly speculative. Your imagination must be impressive! You're thinking that in the space of just 30 years, some technology will come along that will render our rail network obsolete? And within those 30 years it'll also be technologically and economically feasibly to apply this imaginary technology across the UK? And you're willing to risk massive overcrowding and our rail network being unable to cope with passenger numbers in order to gamble on this outlandish fantasy? WOW!

Maybe we could also exploit the Chiltern line a bit better. We could upgrade it, possible even to 4-track over some of it.

Please explain how upgrading the Chiltern line can ease capacity on the East Coast Main Line, speed up the slow journeys between - for example - Birmingham and Leeds, provide extra capacity on the overcrowded Manchester-Stockport corridor, or provide a new commuter link from Sheffield to Leeds? (These are amongst the many benefits of HS2)

(By the way I don't disagree that the Chiltern line does need upgrading. But that's a whole separate discussion from HS2).

 

[hwl]

Hyperloop is a fantasy, requires much more infrastructure and energy than high speed rail. Autonomous vehicles might be on their way, but they will still clog up the same roads!

Regards to in-cab signalling:

"34. In respect of rail, Figures 5 and 6, derived from the Department’s Network Modelling Framework, illustrate current and forecast 2025 network loading levels in the morning peak period. These maps show that the West Coast main line, between London and the West Midlands, already by far the most intensively used inter-city line in the country, is likely to reach its absolute capacity limit by the mid-2020s – even after the £8.8bn upgrade just completed and implementation of plans for longer trains and in-cab signalling."

View attachment 62949

Also worth noting it shows Chiltern and ECML to Peterborough in yellow too...

 

[The Ham]

Was 2013 before or after the extra Pendolinos were added and quite a few of the existing ones were extended from 9 to 11 carriages?

I'm afraid that it was just before. However, the remaining 9-car sets could be upgraded.

From the document I linked to:

The Secretary of State said that it was important the statistics were "placed in right context." He said the Department for Transport's contract with Virgin Trains in 2012 added four 11-carriage Pendolino trains and lengthened 31 existing trains from 9 to 11 carriages[179]. This increased the total number of seats over a day from 61,641 in 2012 to 74,070 in 2013. Without this increase, the load to capacity ratio in 2013 would have been 70 per cent for the morning three hour peak and 59 per cent for the evening three hour peak. [180]

That would imply that the lengthening was pre 2013, unless there's a source which provides evidence to the contrary.

 

[The Ham]

No-one has to answer impossible to answer questions. Trolls tend to get dehumanised. Don't dehumanise someone who's done nothing wrong.

Either way, HS2 is, in a pure socio-economic context, a good first step. However, there's a good reason we don't have already have a couple of high speed lines. One such thing is called an anti-rail protest groups, which are able to command a larger minority than in other countries. Two, the costs of HSR in the UK are perhaps 10x higher than other developed countries. Three, the politicians guide the process rather than politicians who are guided by the professionals.

Furthermore, the next generation of travel threatens to render HS2 useless. The next generation could be faster air travel with innovative security, it could be autonomous road vehicles, the hyperloop or anything else. At the same time, ticket prices on HS2 will be prohibitive, whilst it will be possible to do most things on the internet. Most travellers in the near future will be happy to take an extra 40 minutes on their journey in order to save £50.

To finish off, I will answer The Ham's question: Install cab signalling, give the current line a top speed of 140mph (which the Pendolinos are capable of) and add a few extra tracks. It's cheaper than HS2 and has a similar effect. To finish off, HS2 will end up being £60 billion+. What choice do we have but to cancel it?

How much extra capacity does that provide?

The places where more tracks are most needed tend to be through stations, to provide more platform space that requires changes to a LOT more than a few back gardens, especially at locations like New Street.

 

[PR1Berske]

Please provide evidence that your plan will be cheaper than HS2.

To be fair to Peter, he doesn't have to prove anything, but as the upper budget of HS2 is still unknown and unconfirmed, and as supporters of HS2 rarely answer me when I ask them "how much is too much?", it could be validly argued that any scheme which offers an alternative to HS2 is demonstrably cheaper than it.

 

[LM93]

To be fair to Peter, he doesn't have to prove anything, but as the upper budget of HS2 is still unknown and unconfirmed, and as supporters of HS2 rarely answer me when I ask them "how much is too much?", it could be validly argued that any scheme which offers an alternative to HS2 is demonstrably cheaper than it.

We've been told the budget for HS2 is £55bn and that is the only budget, there is no upper budget.

Is there a scheme that validly offers the same benefits as HS2 for a comparative cost? I've certainly not seen one.

 

[anme]

To be fair to Peter, he doesn't have to prove anything, but as the upper budget of HS2 is still unknown and unconfirmed, and as supporters of HS2 rarely answer me when I ask them "how much is too much?", it could be validly argued that any scheme which offers an alternative to HS2 is demonstrably cheaper than it.

That's a truly absurd argument. To repeat myself - I am personally sceptical about HS2 but the thing that convinces me the most that we need it is the abysmal, idiotic, insane arguments used by people who oppose it.

I have an alternative to HS2. Let's buy every potential customer of HS2 a helicoptor, and build them a helipad if they don't already have one. And permanently employ a pilot for each helicoptor. Actually, several pilots so one is always available. They can then make the journey by air whenever they like.

According to you, that is demonstrably cheaper than HS2. So please demonstrate it.

 

[Polarbear]

No-one has to answer impossible to answer questions. Trolls tend to get dehumanised. Don't dehumanise someone who's done nothing wrong.

Either way, HS2 is, in a pure socio-economic context, a good first step. However, there's a good reason we don't have already have a couple of high speed lines. One such thing is called an anti-rail protest groups, which are able to command a larger minority than in other countries. Two, the costs of HSR in the UK are perhaps 10x higher than other developed countries. Three, the politicians guide the process rather than politicians who are guided by the professionals.

Furthermore, the next generation of travel threatens to render HS2 useless. The next generation could be faster air travel with innovative security, it could be autonomous road vehicles, the hyperloop or anything else. At the same time, ticket prices on HS2 will be prohibitive, whilst it will be possible to do most things on the internet. Most travellers in the near future will be happy to take an extra 40 minutes on their journey in order to save £50.

To finish off, I will answer The Ham's question: Install cab signalling, give the current line a top speed of 140mph (which the Pendolinos are capable of) and add a few extra tracks. It's cheaper than HS2 and has a similar effect. To finish off, HS2 will end up being £60 billion+. What choice do we have but to cancel it?

To respond to your comments;

• In cab signalling was originally specified for the original WCML upgrade. It could not be made to work on a mixed traffic railway and was dropped. I can't think of anywhere that uses in-cab signalling on a mixed traffic railway with the density of traffic that the WCML deals with currently.
• 140mph could only be used in conjunction with such an upgrade, and then only on limited short sections of the exiting route (mainly the Trent Valley as I recall).
• Adding a "few extra tracks" won't solve any of the capacity problems at Birmingham New Street, Manchester Piccadilly or several other stations on the route.
• Adding those extra tracks would not be a quick, easy or cheap option. Following existing alignments was explored and rejected for good reason.
• There is no evidence that fares on HS2 will be prohibitive. This is just scaremongering with basis of fact & would be pointless in any case - why drive off demand with high fares when you are creating so much additional capacity?
• SOME travellers are content to take longer to save money now - I'm one of them on occasion. It doesn't then follow that everyone will want to interchange price & speed as it very much depends on the circumstances. There are many people who do not use rail currently, but may well do so with reduced journey times in the future.
• Hyperloop is not a proven technology & arguably, would be equally as expensive and/or destructive as HS2 is painted to be.
• Autonomous road vehicles have been "just around the corner" for at least 20 years. Whilst it's true the technology is improving, I think it's reasonable to say that any large scale rollout of automated road vehicles is still some way into the future.

 

[PR1Berske]

That's a truly absurd argument.

I have an alternative to HS2. Let's buy every potential customer of HS2 a helicoptor, and build them a helipad if they don't already have one. And permanently employ a pilot for each helicoptor. Actually, several pilots so one is always available. They can then make the journey by air whenever they like.

According to you, that is demonstrably cheaper than HS2. So please demonstrate it.

If we're now at the point of reductio ad absurdum we might be worth stepping back from this conversational cul-de-sac.

There is no upper limit to the current budget. You know that. You know that the current budget could be breached because no ceiling has been put in place.

 

[PR1Berske]

There is no evidence that fares on HS2 will be prohibitive.

There is no proof that they won't be eye-watering, either.

Remember that HS2 will have to recoup its cost pretty damn quick. It will have to be expensive to do so. There are no intermediate stations between Birmingham and Euston so that's a captive audience with deep pockets.

We know from this thread that HS2 is not designed for the ordinary passenger, because that's why the classic lines are being left to rot with slower stoppers.

Going off current intercity prices, current rates of inflation, current season ticket prices, HS2 could cost £200 return, maybe £300, possibly higher. Season tickets must be beyond £1,500.

Cheaper and it wouldn't recoup or justify its budget. Cheaper and it wouldn't win against internal flights. Cheaper and it would lose to the existing classic line stoppers.

 

[DarloRich]

We know from this thread that HS2 is not designed for the ordinary passenger, because that's why the classic lines are being left to rot with slower stoppers.

Misrepresentation once again.

Going off current intercity prices, current rates of inflation, current season ticket prices, HS2 could cost £200 return, maybe £300, possibly higher. Season tickets must be beyond £1,500.

pure conjecture designed to support your willful misrepresentation

 

[DarloRich]

No-one has to answer impossible to answer questions. Trolls tend to get dehumanised. Don't dehumanise someone who's done nothing wrong.

Either way, HS2 is, in a pure socio-economic context, a good first step. However, there's a good reason we don't have already have a couple of high speed lines. One such thing is called an anti-rail protest groups, which are able to command a larger minority than in other countries. Two, the costs of HSR in the UK are perhaps 10x higher than other developed countries. Three, the politicians guide the process rather than politicians who are guided by the professionals.

Furthermore, the next generation of travel threatens to render HS2 useless. The next generation could be faster air travel with innovative security, it could be autonomous road vehicles, the hyperloop or anything else. At the same time, ticket prices on HS2 will be prohibitive, whilst it will be possible to do most things on the internet. Most travellers in the near future will be happy to take an extra 40 minutes on their journey in order to save £50.

To finish off, I will answer The Ham's question: Install cab signalling, give the current line a top speed of 140mph (which the Pendolinos are capable of) and add a few extra tracks. It's cheaper than HS2 and has a similar effect. To finish off, HS2 will end up being £60 billion+. What choice do we have but to cancel it?

I'm afraid that it was just before. However, the remaining 9-car sets could be upgraded.

We will only need to pay people a modest amount of money as it's mainly back gardens that are affected.

I'm sure the government can change the crash regs again if they wish to.

Or maybe we could use something called common sense. We could figure out that, for a £75b railway, we would need 1 billion £75 tickets sold just to meet construction costs before operating costs. Consider that French TGVs got 1 billion people in 2003, a whole 20 years after the first line. The 2 billion passenger mark came 15 years later, in 2017. This goes to show that the 1 billion+ in passengers required to turn a profit will only come after 2050, by which point other transport may well reign supreme and leave HS2 with not enough passengers.

Maybe we could also exploit the Chiltern line a bit better. We could upgrade it, possible even to 4-track over some of it.

We could also stop HSTs from going off-lease by giving them secondary expresses. The 140mph expresses would be run by 390s, with 221s and HSTs running the 125mph expresses.

this is complete fantasy island stuff which is so wrong as to surely be a parody.

 

[anme]

If we're now at the point of reductio ad absurdum we might be worth stepping back from this conversational cul-de-sac.

What happens now is not that we step back. What happens now is that you agree you are wrong.

There is no upper limit to the current budget. You know that. You know that the current budget could be breached because no ceiling has been put in place.

1. How do you know what I know?
2. As has no doubt been explained to you many many times, any project may exceed its budget. Most do. If mankind had never undertaken a project that might exceed its budget, we would still be living in caves. Would you prefer that? Cavemen and women didn't build many railways.
3. To quote myself: "I am personally sceptical about HS2 but the thing that convinces me the most that we need it is the abysmal, idiotic, insane arguments used by people who oppose it."

 

[jfowkes]

Has any rail infrastructure scheme ever "paid for itself" purely through fares? If not, then requiring that of HS2 seems unfair.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There is no proof that they won't be eye-watering, either.

But the laws of basic economics says they almost certainly won't be eye-watering. Why? Because HS2 will deliver a huge upgrade in supply of seats along its length, and the laws of supply and demand - as evidenced throughout history - tells us that in increase in supply almost always leads to a reduction in price. If you ignore that, then you are ignoring not only the overwhelming evidence of history but the professional knowledge of economists the world over.

Remember that HS2 will have to recoup its cost pretty damn quick. It will have to be expensive to do so. There are no intermediate stations between Birmingham and Euston so that's a captive audience with deep pockets.

I'm afraid you are displaying a complete lack of understanding of business and finance here. Once HS2 is built, the costs of it are sunk cost. Sunk costs are generally never considered by sensible businesses when setting a pricing strategy because they are ... well.... sunk. They are history and nothing can be done to change that. The strategy of any sensible business is invariably to maximise its profits going forward. For HS2, with a huge number of seats available, and at least some continuing competition from the classic lines, from the car and the plane - that strategy will be best served by charging reasonable prices in order to maximise usage.

We know from this thread that HS2 is not designed for the ordinary passenger, because that's why the classic lines are being left to rot with slower stoppers.

What? This is utter tosh and complete falsehood! Do you have no regard for accuracy at all? HS2 is perfectly designed for ordinary passengers who wish to travel between the destinations that it serves. And the problem with the classic lines that will be relieved by HS2 isn't so much slower stoppers.... it's the opposite: It's the fact that it's impossible to serve most of the intermediate stations on them adequately because those classic lines are full of non-stop long-distance trains that really ought to be on their own separate tracks (in other words, on something like HS2).

 

[Esker-pades]

There is no proof that they won't be eye-watering, either.

My emphasis.
And thus you have accepted that there isn't any proof for your assertion.

Remember that HS2 will have to recoup its cost pretty damn quick.

Will it? And how are you measuring this? (See my response to @jfowkes ' comment at the bottom for more detail.)

It will have to be expensive to do so.

There is no evidence for this.

There are no intermediate stations between Birmingham and Euston so that's a captive audience with deep pockets.

Except they could use the slower services via the WCML. Or the Chiltern Main Line. Or from Paddington with a change at Reading.

We know from this thread that HS2 is not designed for the ordinary passenger...

What is the "ordinary passenger"? Do ordinary passengers not need to travel distances greater than 50 miles? What a load of drivel.

...because that's why the classic lines are being left to rot with slower stoppers.

More trains. More frequent services. It is not being left to rot. Good grief.

Going off current intercity prices, current rates of inflation, current season ticket prices, HS2 could cost £200 return, maybe £300, possibly higher. Season tickets must be beyond £1,500.

"I'm against HS2 because it will cost the same as the trains which already exist." Oh dear.

Cheaper and it wouldn't recoup or justify its budget.

Again, see my response to @jfowkes ' comment below.

Cheaper and it wouldn't win against internal flights.

Literally the opposite. If the train is cheaper than the plane, people choose the train.

Cheaper and it would lose to the existing classic line stoppers.

Again, literally the opposite.

PS: @DynamicSpirit has done a much better job than me at discussing the points raised.

Has any rail infrastructure scheme ever "paid for itself" purely through fares? If not, then requiring that of HS2 seems unfair.

There's also the direct and indirect benefits to other areas of the economy that being able to travel faster and further will provide.