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

[Ianno87]

Two or three weeks ago the rail industry was waiting on the government review of HS2 which carried with it a risk the project might be cancelled. In the event it wasn’t cancelled but anyone who believes the project has become so indelibly cast in stone in the intervening period that common sense could not prevail and it could be rerouted via Heathrow is being rather naive in my view. The challenge, as I’ve said, is for the government to have the political will to decide to do the right thing and deliver a properly integrated transport network rather than pander to the blinkered rail lobby that is only interested in the upside for rail.

Common sense dictates that the optimal route us very much *not* via Heathrow. Slowing down the majority of passengers to benefit the minority is very much not common sense.

Changing at Old Oak Common for a direct rail service to your terminal is no different to alighting at a "Heathrow" station and boarding a shuttle to your actual terminal.

 

[MarkyT]

Common sense dictates that the optimal route us very much *not* via Heathrow. Slowing down the majority of passengers to benefit the minority is very much not common sense.

Changing at Old Oak Common for a direct rail service to your terminal is no different to alighting at a "Heathrow" station and boarding a shuttle to your actual terminal.

Indeed, and also directing much car-based non-airport traffic from west London and the wider Thames Valley into the airport area and its busy road network for access to HS2 could be counter-productive from both airport access and emissions perspectives. OOC is the correct compromise.

 

[Skymonster]

Common sense dictates that the optimal route us very much *not* via Heathrow. Slowing down the majority of passengers to benefit the minority is very much not common sense.

Changing at Old Oak Common for a direct rail service to your terminal is no different to alighting at a "Heathrow" station and boarding a shuttle to your actual terminal.

Today’s issues regarding Heathrow expansion have arisen due to concern over emissions. It makes absolute sense to do everything possible to manage air travel growth through modal shift of domestic traffic from aviation to rail. HS2 at OOC does not deliver that, whereas HS2 at Heathrow along with protected connections and baggage transfer would. Those who believe the environment is a priority are delivering an illogical argument if they campaign for flight constraints and then ignore the potential for mode-shift.

 

[Skymonster]

Indeed, and also directing much car-based non-airport traffic from west London and the wider Thames Valley into the airport area and its busy road network for access to HS2 could be counter-productive from both airport access and emissions perspectives. OOC is the correct compromise.

Very few people are going to drive to Old Oak Common to get a HS2 train, and likewise very few would drive to Heathrow to get a train either. The argument is flawed and equally balanced whether the station was at OOC or LHR.

 

[MarkyT]

Very few people are going to drive to Old Oak Common to get a HS2 train, and likewise very few would drive to Heathrow to get a train either. The argument is flawed and equally balanced whether the station was at OOC or LHR.

OOC will also become a major bus hub and also offer London Overground orbital connections. It is much better connected than Heathrow can ever be. Heathrow will be about 15 minutes away on a fast train every 15 minutes. I don't believe that will be a major disincentive to people using the hub to access the airport from the north via HS2. You evidently think it will. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Peter Kelford]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...speed-rail-before-leeds-hs2-minister-suggests
This all but confirms my concerns.


I recall Councils in Yorkshire arguing years ago that the two legs had to be delivered simultaneously not to give the NW cities an early huge connectivity advantage which could draw their trade away and be difficult for them to ever catch up that trade again even after the eastern leg is delivered; they pointed out that the NW benefits from Ph1 (and now also Ph2A) many years before Yorks / NE sees any benefit at all from HS2 (i.e. from Ph2B). Clearly building Ph2B West before Ph2B East is going to increase the relative delay in those benefits years further.

That said, I do wonder if the rather subdued championing of the project of late from the Eastern side promoters, and outright hostility to it from a growing number of MPs and Local Authorities in those areas blighted along the Eastern Leg but without their own station (e.g. Rotherham Council motion of opposition "unless route moves back to Meadowhall" - unanimously passed, Doncaster - same, Wakefield Council - long opposed to scheme, etc), means that the 'Integration Review' taking place until December might consider a complete scrapping of the Eastern Leg, or a complete rework and re-consultation of its route with more of it being part of a Yorks NPR network?

As I've said for the past 3 years, Sheffield will get absolutely NOTHING from either HS2 or HS3/NPR.

I think that one should long have realised that HS2 is not about connectivity but about vanity projects.

OOC will also become a major bus hub and also offer London Overground orbital connections. It is much better connected than Heathrow can ever be. Heathrow will be about 15 minutes away on a fast train every 15 minutes. I don't believe that will be a major disincentive to people using the hub to access the airport from the north via HS2. You evidently think it will. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Still, it would have been better to build a station in Heathrow than at a convoluted mid-way point.

 

[Ianno87]

Today’s issues regarding Heathrow expansion have arisen due to concern over emissions. It makes absolute sense to do everything possible to manage air travel growth through modal shift of domestic traffic from aviation to rail. HS2 at OOC does not deliver that, whereas HS2 at Heathrow along with protected connections and baggage transfer would. Those who believe the environment is a priority are delivering an illogical argument if they campaign for flight constraints and then ignore the potential for mode-shift.

HS2 at Old Oak Common will probably deliver about 90% of what HS2 via Heathrow would in terms of modal shift from air.

Sending HS2 via Heathrow will be perverse in the sense of diminishing the majority of the benefit / modal shift to gain a minority niche market instead.

All moot anyway of course seeing as the Phase 1 route is now enshrined in law, and attempting to go back defers any carbon benefits of HS2 by best part of a decade.

 

[Ianno87]

I think that one should long have realised that HS2 is not about connectivity but about vanity projects.

Still, it would have been better to build a station in Heathrow than at a convoluted mid-way point.

In what sense of any definition is Old Oak a "convoluted mid way point"? It will be no different to Stratford or East Croydon in terms of strategic connections.

 

[Skymonster]

HS2 at Old Oak Common will probably deliver about 90% of what HS2 via Heathrow would in terms of modal shift from air.

Sending HS2 via Heathrow will be perverse in the sense of diminishing the majority of the benefit / modal shift to gain a minority niche market instead.

All moot anyway of course seeing as the Phase 1 route is now enshrined in law, and attempting to go back defers any carbon benefits of HS2 by best part of a decade.

All sorts of things are enshrined in law, and then the law changes. OOC as a connection to Heathrow completely ignores the benefits a true integrated air-rail connection could deliver, especially now the additional runway at Heathrow is at risk. But of course, the railway’s vanity project and the completely illogical quest to ensure a few minutes aren’t added to journey times between London and Birmingham have unfortunately prevailed over the bigger and more reasoned picture so far.

 

[The Ham]

I think that one should long have realised that HS2 is not about connectivity but about vanity projects.

Still, it would have been better to build a station in Heathrow than at a convoluted mid-way point.

First question, what makes HS2 a vanity project?

Even by Stophs2's briefing document is going to generate about 100,000 new passengers a day (30 million passenger movements a year). That's a significant number of passengers, that's before you consider all the existing passengers (on HS2 and not on HS2) which would benefit from HS2.

Second question, where at Heathrow so you build the HS2 station? As wherever you build it you would still need to charge trains to go elsewhere.

 

[Ianno87]

All sorts of things are enshrined in law, and then the law changes. OOC as a connection to Heathrow completely ignores the benefits a true integrated air-rail connection could deliver, especially now the additional runway at Heathrow is at risk. But of course, the railway’s vanity project and the completely illogical quest to ensure a few minutes aren’t added to journey times between London and Birmingham have unfortunately prevailed over the bigger and more reasoned picture so far.

"A few minutes aren't added to journey times between London and Birmingham"

Anyone else want to take debunking this yet again from here? Can't be bothered personally.....

 

[Esker-pades]

All sorts of things are enshrined in law, and then the law changes. OOC as a connection to Heathrow completely ignores the benefits a true integrated air-rail connection could deliver, especially now the additional runway at Heathrow is at risk. But of course, the railway’s vanity project and the completely illogical quest to ensure a few minutes aren’t added to journey times between London and Birmingham have unfortunately prevailed over the bigger and more reasoned picture so far.

• What would the law change to?
• Are there any full plans about what route HS2 would take from Central London to Heathrow to Birmingham Interchange?
  • If not, how long would this take?
• Given 2b, what delay would that represent on the overall project?
• Where would HS2 Heathrow station go?
  • Even more to the point, how can there be from any Heathrow terminal "shortish walk/travelator to a single HS2 station at Heathrow [from the terminal" (you, post #5570)

 

[duffield]

• What would the law change to?
• Are there any full plans about what route HS2 would take from Central London to Heathrow to Birmingham Interchange?
  • If not, how long would this take?
• Given 2b, what delay would that represent on the overall project?
• Where would HS2 Heathrow station go?
  • Even more to the point, how can there be from any Heathrow terminal "shortish walk/travelator to a single HS2 station at Heathrow [from the terminal" (you, post #5570)

As I've been saying previously, major alterations to the phase 1 route *at this stage* would *effectively* amount to a near-cancellation of the entire scheme. Answering these questions would mean putting the whole thing on hold indefinitely, and I think the loss of momentum would probably be fatal to not only this scheme but to any future high-speed rail schemes in this country for the foreseeable future. Governments, no matter how favourable to such schemes would think that it just wasn't worth trying anymore.
I'm hoping that the contracts for at least phase 1 and phase 2a (Crewe) will be awarded in the next two years which will lock at least this much in.

And no, I don't necessarily think that the current route is perfect and wonderful. I just think that if anymore changes are made or re-planning done for phase 1, the whole thing will fail and we will never have anything.

Edit: Just to make clear I'm not having a go at you in any way; I'm agreeing with you in a roundabout way! It's just easier to reply to someone who seems to be on the same page as you rather than get into some argument with someone who you disagree with!

 

[Esker-pades]

As I've been saying previously, major alterations to the phase 1 route *at this stage* would *effectively* amount to a near-cancellation of the entire scheme. Answering these questions would mean putting the whole thing on hold indefinitely, and I think the loss of momentum would probably be fatal to not only this scheme but to any future high-speed rail schemes in this country for the foreseeable future. Governments, no matter how favourable to such schemes would think that it just wasn't worth trying anymore.
I'm hoping that the contracts for at least phase 1 and phase 2a (Crewe) will be awarded in the next two years which will lock at least this much in.

And no, I don't necessarily think that the current route is perfect and wonderful. I just think that if anymore changes are made or re-planning done for phase 1, the whole thing will fail and we will never have anything.

I agree entirely. I ask these questions mainly to expose a lack of detail in the anti-HS2 'lobby'. (They're also genuine; if it can suddenly happen despite what all the experts etc. think, then that will be excellent.)

 

[duffield]

I agree entirely. I ask these questions mainly to expose a lack of detail in the anti-HS2 'lobby'. (They're also genuine; if it can suddenly happen despite what all the experts etc. think, then that will be excellent.)

Thanks, please also see my clarified edited post!

 

[Haydn1971]

My key supporting argument several years back for a Heathrow Spur was to dilute the number of HS2 trains going into Euston, not because of accommodation at Euston, more a case of where do you take the passengers from there without major upgrades to the underground and provision of Crossrail 2. I’d kinda liked the idea of HS2 units terminating at Old Oak, Heathrow, Euston and Stratford via a HS2-HS1 link. Clearly all this isn’t going to happen, the frequency of HS2 is reducing significantly from the 21 TPH that were planned at one point IIRC, plus, there’s nothing preventing further improvements years down the line, such as a Heathrow spur or HS1 link. Right here, right now, the Crossrail link at Old Oak to Heathrow seems the right solution to me, a compromise yes, but a sensible compromise at that

 

[The Ham]

Today’s issues regarding Heathrow expansion have arisen due to concern over emissions. It makes absolute sense to do everything possible to manage air travel growth through modal shift of domestic traffic from aviation to rail. HS2 at OOC does not deliver that, whereas HS2 at Heathrow along with protected connections and baggage transfer would. Those who believe the environment is a priority are delivering an illogical argument if they campaign for flight constraints and then ignore the potential for mode-shift.

Why does going via Heathrow make it more likely that people will shift from air travel?

Providing an easy too use rail service from (say) Reading to Manchester would likely attract a lot more people to rail than getting them between Heathrow and the rest of the UK.

Domestic air travel accounts for ~30 million passenger movements a year Virgin Trains accounted (on its own) for ~40 million passenger movements.

Now many of those air movements are between the mainland and islands and Northern Ireland. Therefore HS2 could easily be a game changer in terms of how people travel within the mainland (there's always going to be those who'll fly from North of the Central Belt to elsewhere just due to the distances involved) as it would put rail on a more equal footing.

Especially given that you get money back with MUCH smaller delays on the train compared to flying.

Domestic flights will likely be hit hard by HS2, as it wouldn't take much of a shift for the number of flights each day to drop, this in turn would make flying less attractive. This would then make the train more attractive, resulting in more flights being cut.

If this repeats too much then routes become unstainable to keep running (even if there's some who would rather fly).

Take Manchester as an example most people do by train as it's 2 hours, cut this to 1 hour and the number of flights will drop significantly (not that there's that many anyway).

Central Belt to London being sub 4 hours will start to erode the number of fights, even more so than what's already been happening.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future it was found that the airline industry knew of the risk of this happening because of HS2 and so were supportive of those who were opposed to HS2. (Note I'm not suggesting that they have and certainly not saying that any individual or organisation has, rather if they have and it came to light it wouldn't be a surprise).

 

[Peter Kelford]

In what sense of any definition is Old Oak a "convoluted mid way point"? It will be no different to Stratford or East Croydon in terms of strategic connections.

It might not be too bad when one travels with a backpack only, but what about luggage-laden travellers. Changing trains is a huge deterrent when baggage-laden.

 

[nidave]

Besides, just think of what could be done to sort out and improve the existing network (capacity improvements, lime speed improvements, electrification, flood defences, signalling enhancements) if we weren’t misguidedly spending so much money on the folly known as HS2.

How many times. (repeat after me) the money for Hs2 is separate to other improvement works on the railway. Keep repeating this until you get it. You seem to deliberately ignore the fact your misinformation has been debunked many times.

 

[Aictos]

It might not be too bad when one travels with a backpack only, but what about luggage-laden travellers. Changing trains is a huge deterrent when baggage-laden.

Not really, people change at Luton Airport Parkway and Gatwick every day for the airports and they’re don’t seem to find it a deterrent even when laden with luggage.

It’s not as bad as you seem to think!

 

[miami]

It might not be too bad when one travels with a backpack only, but what about luggage-laden travellers. Changing trains is a huge deterrent when baggage-laden.

You seem to be ignoring the fact a single station can't serve terminal 2/3, 4 and 5 at the same time, let alone a future t6 or t7

Majority of people don't check large amounts of luggage either, especially from heathrow.

Those that do probably drive to the airport, and struggle to get on busses from the carpark to the airport.

 

[Bald Rick]

It might not be too bad when one travels with a backpack only, but what about luggage-laden travellers. Changing trains is a huge deterrent when baggage-laden.

It is for some people, but not many. Changing trains with luggage is no different from getting from a tube to a train, or a train to an airport via a shuttle or bus link with heavy luggage, and that is done by an awful lot of people every day.

What I would say is that using public transport at all is a deterrent to some people if heavily laden with bags; changing trains or modes is a relatively minor consideration.

 

[Skymonster]

In what sense of any definition is Old Oak a "convoluted mid way point"? It will be no different to Stratford or East Croydon in terms of strategic connections.

OOC is useless because the plans clearly show there will be no cross-platform connections between HS2 from/to the north and Heathrow. Passengers won't want to faff about lugging bags around a large station, on one train and onto another, up and down escalators. through ticket gates. Equally, there needs to be opportunities to drop baggage at HS2 stations for it to be transferred without customers having to handle it at OOC, and connections between train and plane (and vice versa) would need to be protected so that if the train ran late passengers would have an automatic right to get on the next plane (this bit is not OOC specific). Sadly none of this is on the agenda at the moment. The inconvenience of a few extra minutes between London and Birmingham would be more than offset by building a true intermodal station at Heathrow, not a station-for-a-stations-sake at OOC which no one really wants to visit.

 

[Bald Rick]

OOC is useless because the plans clearly show there will be no cross-platform connections between HS2 from/to the north and Heathrow. Passengers won't want to faff about lugging bags around a large station, on one train and onto another, up and down escalators. through ticket gates. Equally, there needs to be opportunities to drop baggage at HS2 stations for it to be transferred without customers having to handle it at OOC, and connections between train and plane (and vice versa) would need to be protected so that if the train ran late passengers would have an automatic right to get on the next plane (this bit is not OOC specific). Sadly none of this is on the agenda at the moment. The inconvenience of a few extra minutes between London and Birmingham would be more than offset by building a true intermodal station at Heathrow, not a station-for-a-stations-sake at OOC which no one really wants to visit.

You are missing the point, again, that all of what you describe would also apply if the station was at Heathrow. If the station was at the CTA then you would have to do exactly what you describe to get to T4 or T5, or vice versa.

And studies have shown, repeatedly, that the inconvenience of ‘a few extra minutes’ is not more than offset by the convenience gain for the relatively free Heathrow passengers who would use it, compared to the many, many more passengers who will use OOC to get to other destinations. Including, it must be said, the substantial development underway at OOC itself.

 

[quantinghome]

OOC is useless because the plans clearly show there will be no cross-platform connections between HS2 from/to the north and Heathrow. Passengers won't want to faff about lugging bags around a large station, on one train and onto another, up and down escalators. through ticket gates.

Do you suppose the designers of OOC might have heard of lifts? And staff to assist those passengers who need help?

​

The 'lugging luggage' problem is making a mountain out of a molehill. You would already have to do that at the airport and originating station. OOC will be a massive improvement on current public transport options to Heathrow from the Midlands and North.

Equally, there needs to be opportunities to drop baggage at HS2 stations for it to be transferred without customers having to handle it at OOC, and connections between train and plane (and vice versa) would need to be protected so that if the train ran late passengers would have an automatic right to get on the next plane (this bit is not OOC specific). Sadly none of this is on the agenda at the moment. The inconvenience of a few extra minutes between London and Birmingham would be more than offset by building a true intermodal station at Heathrow, not a station-for-a-stations-sake at OOC which no one really wants to visit.

Baggage drop used to be an option at Paddington, but it was removed several years ago. If it can't be made to work for a simple shuttle service I can't see how it could possibly work for a high speed network.

Alternatives to OOC are:

1. A spur connection from HS2 to Heathrow. This won't be able to provide a convenient frequency of trains to destinations in the Midlands and North and will be a really inefficient use of slots on HS2. This was why it was dropped after much consideration.

2. Divert HS2 so it goes right through Heathrow. Massive increase in costs. Where would the route go? If you are going to make that investment simply to minimise lugging luggage you'd need to site the station somewhere central at Heathrow, otherwise what's the point? But where could it go? This option would also remove the direct connection between HS2 and the Great Western which OOC provides, unless you want to divert the GWML via Heathrow as well...

So what's your favoured option? Show me on a map what you want to build.

 

[ABB125]

If there was a luggage check in facility at OOC, it might be more attractive to the people who think taking your luggage in too difficult. Then all you need to do is hop on the next train from OOC to your Heathrow terminal with any hand luggage.
How the checked in luggage would get from IOC to Heathrow I'm not sure about, but it can't be that difficult.

 

[quantinghome]

If there was a luggage check in facility at OOC, it might be more attractive to the people who think taking your luggage in too difficult. Then all you need to do is hop on the next train from OOC to your Heathrow terminal with any hand luggage.
How the checked in luggage would get from IOC to Heathrow I'm not sure about, but it can't be that difficult.

To repeat, a luggage check in facility was opened at Paddington when HEX was first established. It shut four years later due to lack of use. Lessons right here.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jul/07/1

 

[popeter45]

To repeat, a luggage check in facility was opened at Paddington when HEX was first established. It shut four years later due to lack of use. Lessons right here.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jul/07/1

Speaking of HEX wonder if they could add OOC as a stopping point to take advantage of HS2 connections?

 

[Bald Rick]

Speaking of HEX wonder if they could add OOC as a stopping point to take advantage of HS2 connections?

If fast line platforms are built, they’ll have to. It will be all stopping or nothing stopping.
Note the first word though.

Edit. I forgot where I was. Delete ‘fast’, insert ‘main’.

 

[hwl]

To repeat, a luggage check in facility was opened at Paddington when HEX was first established. It shut four years later due to lack of use. Lessons right here.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jul/07/1

And some security issues as well. (ditto the Gatwick one at Victoria)