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

[sprunt]

You keep saying this, but don't forget to add on (a) time to change, and (b) when connecting onto HS2 time to kill because ticketing will almost certainly be fully train specific and compulsory reservation.

Whereas there are many places from which you can walk to Euston and use a walk-up ticket so no waiting around.

I don't understand this? Are you saying that there will be walk-up tickets available for HS2 from Euston, but not OOC? If not, then it can't possibly make a difference where the service starts.

There are plenty of places within walking distance of Euston, certainly, but I'd be surprised if more than 10% of HS2 journeys had an origin/final destination at one of them.

 

[krus_aragon]

Crewe to OOC will be 48 minutes.

Next Rhyl to Euston train is 1300, change at Chester and Crewe (1418), arriving into Euston at 1606

At 1430 from Crewe would be in OOC at 1510, 54 minutes earlier.

I consider OOC and Euston to be equidistant from Euston.

OOC will be 6 minutes from Bond Street, 20 minutes from Canary Wharf, 15 minutes from Heathrow

I wouldn't agree that OOC is equivalent to Euston, though I accept it will suit some travellers better.

Your comparison uses a conventional rail journey that involves a change at Crewe (as well as Chester). If our traveller chose to take the direct 13:56 service instead (which is 26m quicker than the example you selected), then they wouldn't need a 10 minute connection time to change trains at Crewe. That, plus the OOC-Euston time, eats into your 54 minute time saving a fair bit.

I did forget to consider the time for WCML south stops on the current service, which aren't included in the HS2-Crewe time savings.

Perhaps half an hour's time saved compared to today (with a change to HS2 at Crewe) is a fairer estimate.

N Wales simply doesn't generate the passenger volume to justify diverting resource from the northern powerhouse cities at this stage, the economic benefits of HS into Holyhead would struggle against future expansion to the northeast for example.

I'm certainly not clammering for a high-speed line to Holyhead, but I do regret that the lack of electrification means that classic-compatible services aren't going to be on the drawing board either, meaning that any direct services will have to stay on the WCML throughout.

To return to my original point, I think it's fairer to say that North Wales will be a minor beneficiary from HS2, like Sheffield and Leeds (which @miami listed as "slightly affected" by HS2), rather than a major one.

 

[Meole]

I wouldn't agree that OOC is equivalent to Euston, though I accept it will suit some travellers better.

Your comparison uses a conventional rail journey that involves a change at Crewe (as well as Chester). If our traveller chose to take the direct 13:56 service instead (which is 26m quicker than the example you selected), then they wouldn't need a 10 minute connection time to change trains at Crewe. That, plus the OOC-Euston time, eats into your 54 minute time saving a fair bit.

I did forget to consider the time for WCML south stops on the current service, which aren't included in the HS2-Crewe time savings.

Perhaps half an hour's time saved compared to today (with a change to HS2 at Crewe) is a fairer estimate.



I'm certainly not clammering for a high-speed line to Holyhead, but I do regret that the lack of electrification means that classic-compatible services aren't going to be on the drawing board either, meaning that any direct services will have to stay on the WCML throughout.

To return to my original point, I think it's fairer to say that North Wales will be a minor beneficiary from HS2, like Sheffield and Leeds (which @miami listed as "slightly affected" by HS2), rather than a major one.

The Welsh perspective is negative according to this BBC analysis https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51460737

 

[krus_aragon]

The Welsh perspective is negative according to this BBC analysis https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51460737

Yes, certainly at a political level.

The negativity alluded to in that report is all based on Barnett Consequentials, and funding for the Welsh Assembly.

There's a certain ratio used for calculating what share of net UK spending should be spent in each of the four nations, known as the Barnett Formula. When the UK Government spent X million on Crossrail, it also gave a certain percentage of that price tag (on top) to Wales, because they were spending all that money in England. (Likewise Scotland and NI.)

With HS2, Westminster has decided that it's a national project that is of benefit to Wales as well as England, so they don't need to give any extra money to the Welsh Assembly (for equivalent infrastructure projects in Wales).

NI's getting a Barnett consequential as it obviously isn't benefiting from HS2's construction, and I think Scotland's getting some element (though I'm open to corrections). Wales's position has been ping-ponging for years; take these two conflicting announcement from 2015 as an example.

I think it's a bit hard to argue that there should be no consequential at all, given the paucity of references to Wales in HS2 Ltd's published analysis and materials. But I'm sure that politicians on either side will continue to argue their case for several years more...

 

[Muenchener]

To all those NIMBY's out there I say it's time to take down your "No to HS2" signs and choose another campaign...

 

[ExRes]

To all those NIMBY's out there I say it's time to take down your "No to HS2" signs and choose another campaign...

The use of that idiotic term NIMBY always makes me laugh, I assume that people aren't allowed an opinion when it comes to their local environment?perhaps those that have spoken so loudly for HS2 would be happy to accept a major infrastructure project next to their home without a word of complaint

 

[nidave]

The use of that idiotic term NIMBY always makes me laugh, I assume that people aren't allowed an opinion when it comes to their local environment?perhaps those that have spoken so loudly for HS2 would be happy to accept a major infrastructure project next to their home without a word of complaint

If they were honest about that being the reason rather than the"oh, won't someone please think of the children, nhs, some trees"

Pretending any other scheme would be better "for the good of the nation" when in reality its pure selishness on thier part.

Where were the complaints from these people on HS1 and any other infrastructure projects from them?
They make out to be altruistic when in reality they are out to get more money or it may mean they have railway a few miles from
the back window.

 

[ExRes]

If they were honest about that being the reason rather than the"oh, won't someone please think of the children, nhs, some trees"

Pretending any other scheme would be better "for the good of the nation" when in reality its pure selishness on thier part.

Where were the complaints from these people on HS1 and any other infrastructure projects from them?
They make out to be altruistic when in reality they are out to get more money or it may mean they have railway a few miles from
the back window.

Not eveybody fits into your rather wide description, you can be against an infrastructure project without being a 'selfish' ecological warrior, not much point in continuing though as my previous post seems to have been deleted

 

[sikejsudjek]

Oh well I suppose I can enjoy more crosscountry trains without enough carriages, air con not working, overcrowded and over priced for years to come. But then again I'm not a banker travelling into London so I don't count. After all the £37 million the DofT turned down to upgrade the Voyager fleet years ago is obviously far too much to spend on anyone outside the blessed capital city...

 

[Nagora]

If they were honest about that being the reason rather than the"oh, won't someone please think of the children, nhs, some trees"

Pretending any other scheme would be better "for the good of the nation" when in reality its pure selishness on thier part.

Where were the complaints from these people on HS1 and any other infrastructure projects from them?
They make out to be altruistic when in reality they are out to get more money or it may mean they have railway a few miles from the back window.

While I have been persuaded on this site that HS2 is not as bad as it seems, it is still the case that some of its supporters seem to want a blank cheque and feel that any amount of money - and we are talking about a HUGE amount of money here, and rising - should be rubber stamped and that any damage done to the environment, local or national, is worth paying for undefined (and undefinable) advantages that will accrue in 50 or more years (i.e., just after completion of the work - bit of satire there). I don't find that terribly convincing, even if we pretend that it's an argument.

How much money is too much for you? How many acres of lost woodland or habitat is too much for you? How much is this project going to cost you in terms of planning blight or lost amenities? It's very easy to sit in your ivory tower and criticise other people whose pain is caused by something that will make your life (very slightly) easier.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Several HS2 interviews on Radio 4 PM today.

Caroline Lucas (Green MP) reiterated her opposition to HS2, but moderated her position quite a bit.
She supports High Speed Rail in principle, but not this particular scheme as she thinks it does not generate sufficient modal shift from car/air to rail.
Then there's the "needless destruction of habitat".
But it wasn't the bonkers "high speed rail is bad" message we've been hearing lately.
I also thought she was resigned to the fact that it would be built (so was Bill Cash, a long-term opponent, who was arguing local changes to Phase 2a in Stone).
Both of them want to see better integration with local networks, which does look more likely now.
Cash wants the Handsacre junction built near Lichfield, so HS2 trains can serve Stafford and Stoke.
We'll have to see if that survives, as it's a possible cost saving.

Andrew Adonis has also been on and embarrassingly got entirely the wrong end of the stick geographically.
They had just had a protester from Cubbington (near Leamington) arguing about HS2 woodland destruction.
But Adonis thought she meant Cublington (near Aylesbury), and made the point that in the 1970s this was earmarked for London's third airport, so the locals would only have to cope with a 2-track railway rather than a massive airport obliterating the village.
Oops!

 

[The Ham]

While I have been persuaded on this site that HS2 is not as bad as it seems, it is still the case that some of its supporters seem to want a blank cheque and feel that any amount of money - and we are talking about a HUGE amount of money here, and rising - should be rubber stamped and that any damage done to the environment, local or national, is worth paying for undefined (and undefinable) advantages that will accrue in 50 or more years (i.e., just after completion of the work - bit of satire there). I don't find that terribly convincing, even if we pretend that it's an argument.

How much money is too much for you? How many acres of lost woodland or habitat is too much for you? How much is this project going to cost you in terms of planning blight or lost amenities? It's very easy to sit in your ivory tower and criticise other people whose pain is caused by something that will make your life (very slightly) easier.

Whilst £100 billion is an unimaginable amount of money is not all that much for the government.

The UK government spends £840 billion a year.

Therefore it would be like someone on £25,000 a year spending £3,000.

However that's only part of it, in that it's going to be spread over 15 years, so like someone spending £200 a year.

 

[camflyer]

Quite a few of MPs on TV and radio are using the "it doesn't stop in my constituency so I'm against it" argument.

 

[Master29]

Go for it. About time imo and about time Boris got one thing right even if it isn't his idea. It`ll make money after a few years so why all the fuss.

 

[Ianno87]

Oh well I suppose I can enjoy more crosscountry trains without enough carriages, air con not working, overcrowded and over priced for years to come. But then again I'm not a banker travelling into London so I don't count. After all the £37 million the DofT turned down to upgrade the Voyager fleet years ago is obviously far too much to spend on anyone outside the blessed capital city...

HS2 will be absolutely transformational to current XC journeys from Birmingham to Manchester, Leeds and York/Newcastle.

 

[ExRes]

Whilst £100 billion is an unimaginable amount of money is not all that much for the government.

The UK government spends £840 billion a year.

Therefore it would be like someone on £25,000 a year spending £3,000.

However that's only part of it, in that it's going to be spread over 15 years, so like someone spending £200 a year.

The problem being, of course, that the UK hasn't got £840bn, it just increases debt

Therefore it would be like someone on £25k putting £3k on their credit card

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem being, of course, that the UK hasn't got £840bn, it just increases debt

Therefore it would be like someone on £25k putting £3k on their credit card

That would be a correct analysis if HS2 was current spending. But it isn't, it's investment spending on a rail link that is likely to be insanely directly profitable once it's running, as well as indirectly allowing the country to become more prosperous because of the greater connectivity. A better (albeit still imperfect) analogy would be someone on £25K borrowing £3K to improve their house, which will then allow them to either rent out a room or get a better price when they sell it.

 

[bastien]

Opposition comes from those who do not travel, never view the crowding and delays.

Yes - and also people who think pointing at things and saying 'we can't afford that' makes them sound somehow wise and prudent.

 

[158756]

That would be a correct analysis if HS2 was current spending. But it isn't, it's investment spending on a rail link that is likely to be insanely directly profitable once it's running, as well as indirectly allowing the country to become more prosperous because of the greater connectivity. A better (albeit still imperfect) analogy would be someone on £25K borrowing £3K to improve their house, which will then allow them to either rent out a room or get a better price when they sell it.

How many high speed lines in the world is that an accurate description of? It is my understanding that almost all the French network is reliant on ongoing subsidies.

 

[ExRes]

That would be a correct analysis if HS2 was current spending. But it isn't, it's investment spending on a rail link that is likely to be insanely directly profitable once it's running, as well as indirectly allowing the country to become more prosperous because of the greater connectivity. A better (albeit still imperfect) analogy would be someone on £25K borrowing £3K to improve their house, which will then allow them to either rent out a room or get a better price when they sell it.

I very much hope you're right with your belief that the line will be profitable, hopefully investment can then be made in parts of the country that need it, although the cynic in me says that those profits will find their way elsewhere, share a thought though for people like Ron and Anne Ryall being thrown out of a house that has been in his family for 100 years, would you be so pro HS2 if that was your home?

 

[ExRes]

Yes - and also people who think pointing at things and saying 'we can't afford that' makes them sound somehow wise and prudent.

What very wide brushes some of you have, I guess that makes it easier to generalise and sound much wiser than those you happen not to agree with

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite a few of MPs on TV and radio are using the "it doesn't stop in my constituency so I'm against it" argument.

I was flummoxed to note one of the anti-LNR Tweeters being vehemently against it, and unwilling to be told what it's actually for.

 

[6Gman]

I very much hope you're right with your belief that the line will be profitable, hopefully investment can then be made in parts of the country that need it, although the cynic in me says that those profits will find their way elsewhere, share a thought though for people like Ron and Anne Ryall being thrown out of a house that has been in his family for 100 years, would you be so pro HS2 if that was your home?

Thousands of people have been subject to Compulsory Purchase Orders over the years - unless you're suggesting that CPOs should not be allowed how do Mr & Mrs Ryall differ from other examples ?

 

[Ianno87]

I very much hope you're right with your belief that the line will be profitable, hopefully investment can then be made in parts of the country that need it, although the cynic in me says that those profits will find their way elsewhere, share a thought though for people like Ron and Anne Ryall being thrown out of a house that has been in his family for 100 years, would you be so pro HS2 if that was your home?

If I was fairly financially compensated for it, given adequate time and good notice to plan the purchase of an alternative home and support with moving expenses, then yes I would.

 

[duffield]

Also, there's the issue that MPs on the route but with no station on HS2 *never* concede that in some cases their constituents may get less crowded, more frequent or even new commuter services on the *non-HS* lines as a result of HS2 taking the limited stop traffic away...
Anyhow, as far as phase 1 (and phase 2a to Crewe, which apparently is getting folded into phase 1 soon) is concerned, the 'stop HS2' types should be redirecting all their efforts into minor mitigations and the best compensation. Anything else is a waste of time and money.

 

[6Gman]

I very much hope you're right with your belief that the line will be profitable, hopefully investment can then be made in parts of the country that need it, although the cynic in me says that those profits will find their way elsewhere, share a thought though for people like Ron and Anne Ryall being thrown out of a house that has been in his family for 100 years, would you be so pro HS2 if that was your home?

According to a report in The Guardian Mr Ryall's grandparents moved to the area (not the house) in 1924. In 1962 his uncle moved into the property which Mr Ryall purchased in 2004 from the council, the previous owners. So not quite "a house that has been in his family for 100 years" if the report is accurate.

 

[The Joker]

Oh well I suppose I can enjoy more crosscountry trains without enough carriages, air con not working, overcrowded and over priced for years to come. But then again I'm not a banker travelling into London so I don't count. After all the £37 million the DofT turned down to upgrade the Voyager fleet years ago is obviously far too much to spend on anyone outside the blessed capital city...

I cannot agree more

 

[camflyer]

How many high speed lines in the world is that an accurate description of? It is my understanding that almost all the French network is reliant on ongoing subsidies.

Does a railway line have to be profitable in its own right? Nobody asks whether the M25 has been "profitable".

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't understand this? Are you saying that there will be walk-up tickets available for HS2 from Euston, but not OOC? If not, then it can't possibly make a difference where the service starts.

No, what I'm suggesting is that the combination of a likely compulsory reservation, train-specific ticketing policy on HS2 but not on classic services, plus the fact that you'll need to faff around changing from HS2 to the Elizabeth Line, means that in practice it won't take 6 minutes more, it'll more likely be at least 16 or even 26 minutes, killing the advantage.

Don't forget the huge number of people who take taxis from Euston.

 

[HSTEd]

How many high speed lines in the world is that an accurate description of? It is my understanding that almost all the French network is reliant on ongoing subsidies.

The Tokaido Shinkansen and LGV Sud-Est spring to mind.

Therefore it would be like someone on £25k putting £3k on their credit card

If this is a credit card that requires interest below inflation such that 2/3rds of the debt's real value will just vanish into the aether... yes

In this analogy that £3k will cost something like £90/yr to pay off.