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

[The Ham]

Bald Rick more or less confirms that Liverpool gets a slower service, or at least nothing which improves on what they have now.

The phrasing of your first question isn't clear, sorry, if you could rephrase it I'll try my best.

Is the line to Liverpool going to see the linespeed reduced or is it remaining as it is?

If it is seeing a linespeed reduction, which will slow down the services as they come off HS2, how much would this need to be by to mean that the overall journey time is slower than at present.

What about any of the questions I asked?

 

[The Ham]

Because I know the truth about HS2. You only have PR and spin.

So what's the truth, what will happen to the services to Liverpool in a post HS2 world?

 

[Aictos]

Bald Rick more or less confirms that Liverpool gets a slower service, or at least nothing which improves on what they have now.

The phrasing of your first question isn't clear, sorry, if you could rephrase it I'll try my best.

I fail to see the difficulty in the question, it was simply asked of you to confirm if after HS2 starts if the existing line to Liverpool will see the line speed kept or reduced?

Nothing difficult in the question nor the way it was asked.

Because I know the truth about HS2. You only have PR and spin.

Really? If anything, the opposite actually applies because you constantly post nothing but untruths and negative spin even when faced with the actual truth which consists of real and verified facts not makeup spin.

 

[Alex McKenna]

I think it has been established logically that Liverpool will get faster services thanks to HS2. End of. Some people here are like a broken 78rpm record - stuck in the same groove, and it's becoming quite a bore..

 

[Tetchytyke]

Unless you have any evidence which shows that the predictions on HS2 passenger numbers are way off target

Both the Channel Tunnel and HS1 were justified on passenger numbers that haven't got anywhere near to fruition. HS1 barely achieves 2/3 of what was predicted, and that's after Kent commuters were effectively forced off the classic lines. Hence we sold a line that cost us £6bn to build for only £2bn to a private consortium. Apparently this was a "good deal for the taxpayer".

I've not seen anything to suggest a) that DfT modelling has improved or b) that HS2 will generate *additional* passenger journeys to anywhere near the magnitude predicted.

I also think the supposed financial benefits are flimsy- Liverpool came up as HS2 were claiming that London firms could move to Liverpool, save some wages, and this is a benefit attributable to HS2- and that's even before we consider that HS2 projected budgets are likely to be exceeded by 300%+.

Others have mentioned Folkestone, Dover, etc. Do they benefit? The "high speed" trains are barely any faster to London than the classic expresses they replaced, and they've had 15 years of above-inflation fare rises to pay for them.

I see the same thing happening with HS2.

 

[Aictos]

I think it has been established logically that Liverpool will get faster services thanks to HS2. End of. Some people here are like a broken 78rpm record - stuck in the same groove, and it's becoming quite a bore..

Indeed, they’re like citizens 400 or so years ago who on being told the world isn’t flat refuse to believe it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Also interesting that those that compain that Birmingham Curzon Street is too far from New Street (even though its not), simultaneously complain about HS2 trains serving the existing Lime Street station as being "not HS2"

Who complains about Curzon Street?

If HS2 stopped at, say, Allerton I wouldn't be having this conversation. The last couple of miles don't need to be high speed. But it doesn't go within 40 miles of Liverpool. At best it's Crewe, at worst it's Lichfield.

On the subject of Euston and OOC, I still think HS2 should have terminated at OOC. OOC is London. It would have saved a lot of money and, with Crossrail, OOC is better linked to the centre of London than Euston is.

 

[yorkie]

Because I know the truth about HS2. You only have PR and spin.

Do you have a source for what you claim to be "the truth"?

 

[si404]

From the same crew that brings the argument "HS2 should be reduced in speed to save money".

So...the speed gets reduced* as per your wishes and....that then becomes the anti-argument? Doesn't make sense much sense, does it?

Makes perfect sense if you are dogmatically against HS2...

Demand one thing then demand another in a game of whack-a-mole!

 

[si404]

Indeed, they’re like citizens 400 or so years ago who on being told the world isn’t flat refuse to believe it.

While 400 years ago the anti-authority approach to facts started to exist, it would be another 200 years until the ancient knowledge of the round earth wasn't just assumed by everyone: flat-earthism is modern (and especially post-modern) belligerent contrarism.

However, it's a decent analogy for a certain type of anti-HS2er (which leaked out into those complaining about traffic due to construction, their houses being demolished, etc) - facts are treated as conspiracy and declared untrue.

 

[Aictos]

Who complains about Curzon Street?

If HS2 stopped at, say, Allerton I wouldn't be having this conversation. The last couple of miles don't need to be high speed. But it doesn't go within 40 miles of Liverpool. At best it's Crewe, at worst it's Lichfield.

On the subject of Euston and OOC, I still think HS2 should have terminated at OOC. OOC is London. It would have saved a lot of money and, with Crossrail, OOC is better linked to the centre of London than Euston is.

Really? So Old Oak Common is better connected to the centre of London then Euston?

Old Oak Common has the following services:

Elizabeth line, Chiltern Railways and Great Western Railway.

London Euston has the following services:

Northern Line (Via Charing Cross and Bank)
Hammersmith and City Line
Circle Line
Met Line
Victoria Line
London Overground

So how is Old Oak Common better connected to central London then a terminus and it’s connections in Central London itself?

 

[Aictos]

Do you have a source for what you claim to be "the truth"?

Thank you as I have yet to see any verified sources to say why HS2 shouldn’t go ahead yet constantly see verified sources that explain why HS2 is needed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So Old Oak Common is better connected to the centre of London then Euston?

Yes. Because of Crossrail it's quicker to get off at OOC for Oxford Street, the City, Docklands, Heathrow, Stratford and the Olympic Park.

And you'd save £5bn in the process.

Even the chair of HS2 suggested it. One of the few sensible suggestions he made.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. Because of Crossrail it's quicker to get off at OOC for Oxford Street, the City, Docklands, Heathrow, Stratford and the Olympic Park.

And you'd save £5bn in the process.

Even the chair of HS2 suggested it. One of the few sensible suggestions he made.

You are completely disregarding the fact that not everyone in London takes the train/Tube to precisely where they are going. Many prefer to use a terminus and walk or cycle to their destination rather than cram onto some nasty overcrowded slow suburban railway (which is what Crossrail will be by the time it gets there).

It's nuts. If it isn't going into Euston in some form (even if that involves running it onto the existing lines somewhere, thus making it a bit more like a Swiss Neubaustrecke), can it entirely. Sticking your Hauptbahnhof in a rat-infested suburb is what developing countries who prefer the car do, not a modern western European one that is rapidly learning that public transport is the thing.

 

[Aictos]

Yes. Because of Crossrail it's quicker to get off at OOC for Oxford Street, the City, Docklands, Heathrow, Stratford and the Olympic Park.

And you'd save £5bn in the process.

Even the chair of HS2 suggested it. One of the few sensible suggestions he made.

I disagree because as well as the services I mentioned, you also have frequent buses from Euston as well as two other terminals within a 15 minute walk.

As to saving £5bn, that does nothing for those wanting Liverpool, Birmingham etc as they still need to get to Old Oak Common then get a HS2 service when it would be faster just getting to Euston and boarding there.

Plus it also does nothing for the increase of services serving intermediate stations on the WCML that HS2 will be able to provide.

So yes you might think you’ve saved £5bn but you’ve got nothing to show for it.

 

[yorkie]

It's a ridiculous idea. Any Old Oak stop should be in addition to Euston.

Yes the Old Oak connections will be useful to many people, but that does not replace all of the usefulness of going to a central London terminal that is within easy reach by walking, cycling, taxis and buses for many people, who would otherwise have to add an extra mode to transfer at Old Oak Common.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However, it's a decent analogy for a certain type of anti-HS2er (which leaked out into those complaining about traffic due to construction, their houses being demolished, etc) - facts are treated as conspiracy and declared untrue.

What "facts" are these then?

That HS2 will be faster to Birmingham is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether there is this vast untapped market of people clamouring to get to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker and willing to pay a premium for it. Given that the biggest driver of West Midlands traffic growth has been Chiltern- who compete on price not time- I remain sceptical.

Same with Liverpool. Assuming the avoiding line for Curzon St is built, it will be faster, but a reversal at Curzon St will eat most of that up. But again, is there vast untapped demand? If there was, Virgin wouldn't have stuck with 1tph and you'd get more than the all-shacks WMR service to the West Midlands.

My view is that the cost is vastly understated- I note Bechtel were suing as they thought the winning tenders were too low- and the benefits are vastly overstated. This ties in with other major projects, including CTRL- which we sold to a pension fund at a £4bn loss.

The "facts" about the benefits are thin on the ground. It's all "could" and "might".

 

[Tetchytyke]

As to saving £5bn, that does nothing for those wanting Liverpool, Birmingham etc as they still need to get to Old Oak Common then get a HS2 service when it would be faster just getting to Euston and boarding there.

As I've just said, it's quicker to OOC from most of London than it is to Euston. Unless you're going to/from a small part of Camden, anyway.

Plus it also does nothing for the increase of services serving intermediate stations on the WCML that HS2 will be able to provide.

You've lost me here. Classic trains will still go to Euston? So the intermediate stations won't be affected by HS2 at all.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Passengers will be on an HS2 service going from London to Liverpool, around 40 minutes quicker than today. That is a fact.

Bald Rick more or less confirms that Liverpool gets a slower service, or at least nothing which improves on what they have now.

Looking at that exchange, you have to wonder about @PR1Berske 's grasp of the English language! @Bald Rick says something. @PR1Berske then claims that @Bald Rick says the opposite of what he actually said.

*sigh*

 

[Aictos]

As I've just said, it's quicker to OOC from most of London than it is to Euston. Unless you're going to/from a small part of Camden, anyway.



You've lost me here. Classic trains will still go to Euston? So the intermediate stations won't be affected by HS2 at all.

Le sign...

By running HS2 from Euston, it frees up a number of platforms that can now be used for ICWC services serving more intermediate stations on the route then currently happens.

This cannot happen without HS2 so to claim that intermediate stations won’t be affected is a rather good way of pushing more anti HS2 lies.

 

[si404]

with Crossrail, OOC is better linked to the centre of London than Euston is.

As if one Crossrail is a better link than Euston's 4 tube lines. Even assuming people would just take rail, there's a single point of failure with OOC. Euston has 2 lines to the West End and 2 to The City already - which gives redundancy in case of failure, and more capacity than Crossrail gives. The only things OOC has going for it over Euston are direct-to-Docklands and terminating Elizabeth line services meaning a guarantee OOC passengers will have space on trains.

But there's more than just trains!

The Central London Rail Terminal Report has the following modal shares for Euston in 2011:
Underground 53%, Walk 20%, Rail 12%, Bus 8%, Taxi 3%, Cycle 3%.

And distances travelled from the termini: 1st quartile 2.1km, 2nd quartile (median) 3.6km, 3rd quartile 8.6km.

As a proxy for OOC, I'll use Paddington. But Paddington is better connected (SSLs and Bakerloo, as well as more bus routes) and about 3km closer to the centre (so walking would be higher!).

Modal share: Underground 62%, Walk 12%, Bus 7%, Rail 6%, Cycle 4%, Taxi 4%
Quartile distances: 1st 3km, 2nd (median) 4.6km, 3rd 7.2km.

Now coming in and taking rail back out to a suburb (or airport in the case of Paddington) is at play at both termini, screwing up that top quartile, but it's clear that Euston is not only tubeable to the centre, but closer to the action and walkable in quite a lot of cases - unlike OOC!

OOC and Euston compliment each other well - but Euston will take 60%+ of HS2 passengers for a reason.

Yes. Because of Crossrail it's quicker to get off at OOC for Oxford Street, the City, Docklands, Heathrow, Stratford and the Olympic Park.

Docklands, Heathrow, Stratford and the Olympic Park yes. However none of them are "the centre of London", which was your earlier point.

So let's look at "the centre of London". Journey times from OOC (taking a minute off Acton ML times) vs Euston to:
Bond Street/Oxford Circus: 8min vs 2min
Tottenham Court Road: 10min vs 4min
Farringdon: 13min vs 6mins
Moorgate/Liverpool Street: 16min vs 8mins

So Euston is 6-8 minutes less on TfL-run services, but that's going to work out a little bit slower when you factor in the change time and the OOC-Euston time.

But we've done the places with direct access from OOC. We've not done Theatreland, the Royal Parks, Victoria, Waterloo, the southern City, London Bridge - all of which are central and all of which have direct trains from Euston, but not OOC.

Lets look at something a change from both: South Kensington (museums, Albert Hall). It's not really the "centre of London" but it's a popular destination for out of towners and your claims of where OOC is better for keep changing anyway.
From Euston: 14 minutes (change at Victoria)
From OOC: 24 minutes (change at Paddington and I'm additionally cutting the wait time for a Circle line train down so it's a 5 minute change at Paddington, not a 9 minute change)

OK, crow-flies distance from OOC is 3.7 miles, while Euston is just 2.9 miles away from South Ken. But Euston's 78% of the distance takes just 58% of the time because Euston is better connected. Adding the change points to the crow-flies make it 4.5 and 3.6: An additional 0.8 and 0.7 miles, and so it's not like the journey from OOC is particularly convoluted - its that it doesn't connect to the fast N-S lines with a single change.

As I've just said, it's quicker to OOC from most of London than it is to Euston.

point being made changed yet again!

Unless you're going to/from a small part of Camden, anyway.

Or Lambeth, Southwark, the rest of Camden, the south of the city of Westminster, etc, the south of the City of London, North London, South London....

 

[coral reef]

The Eurostar services did not have those paths, and had to very slowly weave between numerous high-intensity and frequency SE Metro services.

Actually eurostar did have proper paths. Their journey times from Waterloo to the Channel Tunnel was basically as fast as the eurostar could go, adhering to speed limits. There was no regulation for pathing through other local train paths, except for a couple of peaks trains diverted via Maidstone. The main reason the average speed was appalling was the Waterloo - Petts Wood Jc section. Had the terminus been London Bridge it would have saved 15 minutes.

The local paths were adapted around the Eurostar, and amazingly when it went to plan the whole thing fit together quite well.

 

[Ianno87]

Who complains about Curzon Street?



.

Numerous posts on this very forum. By the usual culprites.

Yes. Because of Crossrail it's quicker to get off at OOC for Oxford Street, the City, Docklands, Heathrow, Stratford and the Olympic Park.

And you'd save £5bn in the process.

Even the chair of HS2 suggested it. One of the few sensible suggestions he made.

Perhaps as a short term measure.

Long term, 18 x 400m trains per hour dumping passengers onto 24 x 200m trains per hour (already full of passengers from Heathrow, Slough, Southall, etc) ain't gonna be too clever is it?

 

[HowardGWR]

Sticking your Hauptbahnhof in a rat-infested suburb is what developing countries who prefer the car do, not a modern western European one that is rapidly learning that public transport is the thing.

May I take it there are no rats in the Euston area?
There is an awful lot of hyperbole in this thread.

 

[The Ham]

Both the Channel Tunnel and HS1 were justified on passenger numbers that haven't got anywhere near to fruition. HS1 barely achieves 2/3 of what was predicted, and that's after Kent commuters were effectively forced off the classic lines. Hence we sold a line that cost us £6bn to build for only £2bn to a private consortium. Apparently this was a "good deal for the taxpayer".

I've not seen anything to suggest a) that DfT modelling has improved or b) that HS2 will generate *additional* passenger journeys to anywhere near the magnitude predicted.

I also think the supposed financial benefits are flimsy- Liverpool came up as HS2 were claiming that London firms could move to Liverpool, save some wages, and this is a benefit attributable to HS2- and that's even before we consider that HS2 projected budgets are likely to be exceeded by 300%+.

Others have mentioned Folkestone, Dover, etc. Do they benefit? The "high speed" trains are barely any faster to London than the classic expresses they replaced, and they've had 15 years of above-inflation fare rises to pay for them.

I see the same thing happening with HS2.

I fully accept that the growth for HS1 was off and was too low, however a lot of people are aware (including a lot of those opposed to HS2) that the numbers being predicted are using a different model to the one used for HS1.

We've had 9 years of passenger numbers, here they are:

View media item 3340
The modelling is fairly easy to see, it's based on 2.5% growth per year. It will see 95% growth by the full opening of HS2 (circa 25 years after the announcement).

Are we on trend for growth or not? You have the data which shows the level of growth seen so far (something which wasn't possible with HS1). What does that data show?

The fact that HS1 was way under makes little difference, others could cite other schemes where passenger numbers have been way over. What does the currently available data suggest is likely to be the outcome?

 

[krus_aragon]

Looking at that exchange, you have to wonder about @PR1Berske 's grasp of the English language! @Bald Rick says something. @PR1Berske then claims that @Bald Rick says the opposite of what he actually said.

*sigh*

I'm clutching at straws here, but @PR1Berske might be trying to make the point that a 40min speed-up for Liverpool is less than what Machester will see (60min), and proportionally less than Birmingham (as it's a similar time-saving, but a longer journey). Thus Liverpool loses out relative to Manchester and Birmingham, but all three are sped-up overall.

If so, they certainly didn't phrase it in the best way.

I can't help but compare it to the situation for Chester and North Wales, who have not been listed for classic-compatible services, so will presumably be continuing down the WCML with the new-build stock that will replace the Voyagers. These haven't been confirmed to be tilting trains, and there's talk of reducting the speed limit on the WCML south to 110mph to increase capacity. (Oh, and there might be additional stops south of Chester on these services too.)

I don't want to turn this into a four-Yorkshireman sketch, but I'm tempted to paraphrase @PR1Berske and say: "That more or less confirms that Chester and North Wales get a slower service, or at least nothing which improves on what they have now. Liverpool's far better off by comparison!"

I'll get off my soap-box now.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So Euston is 6-8 minutes less on TfL-run services, but that's going to work out a little bit slower when you factor in the change time and the OOC-Euston time.

Bingo. You'll get there in the end

 

[Ianno87]

Bingo. You'll get there in the end

1) The change time needs to be factored in equally for *both* Euston and Old Oak Common

2) The examples given are Crossrail destinations showing that it's swings and roundabouts between Euston/OOC journey time wise for these locations only.

For non-Crossrail locations (e.g. Waterloo, London Bridge etc) the journey time advantage will be very much in Euston's favour.

And still doesn't counter my point about the capacity of Crossrail trains at OOC being insufficient to accommodate the entirety of the HS2 passenger load. I assume you don't have one.

You'll get there in the end.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Long term, 18 x 400m trains per hour dumping passengers onto 24 x 200m trains per hour (already full of passengers from Heathrow, Slough, Southall, etc) ain't gonna be too clever is it?

Euston tube is already full, as anyone who uses it in the morning and queues for the Northern Line knows. So dumping 18x400m trains on Euston- in addition to the existing passenger numbers- will have exactly the same effect. Unless and until Crossrail 2 is built, anyway.

So what is your point again?

 

[jfowkes]

Bingo. You'll get there in the end

That's a bit of selective quoting there. Some end-to-end journeys will be slower from Euston than OOC, but the point is that by providing both, people can pick which is best for them. If you remove Euston, you remove all the faster journeys that you left out of @si404's post.