Why is HS2 treated so differently by some Enthusiasts?

[D365]

My own view of HS2 is it should have been built 30 years ago but I think there are still strong enough arguments to build it today, but I do think HS2 need to work more on showing some of the other benefits to HS2 not just the improved journey time on the HS2 route.

A lot of railway investment that is happening today should have been completed 20-30 years ago.

 

[The Ham]

A lot of railway investment that is happening today should have been completed 20-30 years ago.

You mean like Thameslink 2000?!?

 

[D365]

You mean like Thameslink 2000?!?

That's only one such example.

 

[The Ham]

I think the idea of some enthusiasts or restoring old lines is basically to restore it something like a preserved rail line but used on a regular basis, I guess the restored Waverley was something of a disappointment for many in that respect

In my view many parts of the railways are still in the dark ages and a bit of a joke and if they are to become a much more important part of the transport system in this country they need massive transformation not only with HS2 but also the non HS2 network.

My own view of HS2 is it should have been built 30 years ago but I think there are still strong enough arguments to build it today, but I do think HS2 need to work more on showing some of the other benefits to HS2 not just the improved journey time on the HS2 route.

The comment about driverless cars is interesting, its not going to help congestion in cities or many of the motorway routes only make it worse, but it could make some bus and rail routes redundant in more rural areas.

There are times when reopening is sensible whilst other times a new line is better.

Now there are times, like with HS2, Crossrail 2 and the Southern Approach to Heathrow, where I think that a new line is the way to go.

However, there are times, like with East West Rail and the reopening of the line through Okehampton, where I think that reopenings are better.

With driverless cars, assuming that they are most likely to be electric so they can become self fueling, it is possible that that will lead to more rail use for longer journeys.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well if you're confessing to being the person responsible for the "choices" made in where to build to and not to build to, then there are a number of people in Liverpool who would very much like to ask you a lot of questions.

Perhaps I could put you in touch?

I'm not 'confessing' anything. I'm saying that I was one of many people who examined broad corridors for a high speed line to 'the north' before HS2 was conceived. I happened to draw some lines on a map. I didn't take any decisions. The lines were pretty wide. None of us involved were politicians. The principle was to connect the largest populaiton with as short a route as practical. The top 3 could be connected with one line. No.4 and another 2 of the top ten by another branch. A further 3 benefit significantly with existing connections, including Merseyside.

It is also worth noting that there is nothing to stop an HS2 branch to Merseyside as a later phase. The French have taken 28 years to extend one of their high speed lines to one of their biggest cities (Bordeaux) and it will be another decade (if ever) before it gets to the 4th largest city (Toulouse). But Toulouse still benefits from the Bordeaux line.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are times when reopening is sensible whilst other times a new line is better.

In terms of construction, unless your 'reopening' is an existing railway, there is very little difference in the consents and cash required between an all new line, or a line on a former alignment.

 

[Camden]

I'm not 'confessing' anything. I'm saying that I was one of many people who examined broad corridors for a high speed line to 'the north' before HS2 was conceived. I happened to draw some lines on a map. I didn't take any decisions. The lines were pretty wide. None of us involved were politicians. The principle was to connect the largest populaiton with as short a route as practical. The top 3 could be connected with one line. No.4 and another 2 of the top ten by another branch. A further 3 benefit significantly with existing connections, including Merseyside.

I can only assume by "No. 4" you mean Leeds, which is far from being the country's 4th largest population centre, including its straggly bits being an entire city of just 700,000 or so people.

As I say, there are people in Liverpool (or as you call it "Merseyside") who would dearly love to be able to ask you a lot of questions.

 

[NSEFAN]

In terms of construction, unless your 'reopening' is an existing railway, there is very little difference in the consents and cash required between an all new line, or a line on a former alignment.

In the context of HS2, reopening usually refers to reopening the former GCR route as it was, although this often ignores the slight problem of the London-end of the route being saturated with Metropolitan Line and Chiltern commuter services...

I can only assume by "No. 4" you mean Leeds, which is far from being the country's 4th largest population centre, including its straggly bits being an entire city of just 700,000 or so people.

As I say, there are people in Liverpool (or as you call it "Merseyside") who would dearly love to be able to ask you a lot of questions.

By building a branch to Leeds, services can be extended beyond along the east side of the peak district. Liverpool on the other hand is relatively close to the Manchester branch, so can have services from that side. It's not as if everyone in Liverpool will be Pacer'd to Crewe in order to get to London, there will still be direct services using HS2 for the majority of the journey.

 

[Camden]

Liverpool on the other hand is relatively close to the Manchester branch

Which only makes the choices made even more, not less, questionable.

 

[NSEFAN]

Which only makes the choices made even more, not less, questionable.

How so?

 

[The Planner]

So Liverpool does not benefit from HS2 at all then?

 

[Voglitz]

In the context of HS2, reopening usually refers to reopening the former GCR route as it was, although this often ignores the slight problem of the London-end of the route being saturated with Metropolitan Line and Chiltern commuter services...

Not seen any evidence that the London-end of the route is 'saturated with Metropolitan Line and Chiltern commuter services'. Metropolitan doesn't even run through South Ruislip.

 

[Camden]

How so?

That the country's real 4th largest city didn't warrant a short stretch of direct line, the major regeneration benefits of a station development and more services especially given the obvious need to renew its railway lines...

For starters.

I know there are people in Liverpool who would have a host of searching questions for those with direct hands on input.

 

[NSEFAN]

Not seen any evidence that the London-end of the route is 'saturated with Metropolitan Line and Chiltern commuter services'. Metropolitan doesn't even run through South Ruislip.

Would Chiltern and the Metropolitan be able to run at the frequencies that they do if they had to share with multiple express trains per hour from Marylebone to Aylesbury? I doubt it, especially in the peaks, and certainly not at any useful service frequency.

 

[Jordeh]

I know there are people in Liverpool who would have a host of searching questions for those with direct hands on input.

No doubt there are people in Norwich, Cardiff and Exeter etc with a hosting of searching questions too but it doesn't mean they are right.

Liverpool benefits from High Speed 2.

 

[Voglitz]

Would Chiltern and the Metropolitan be able to run at the frequencies that they do if they had to share with multiple express trains per hour from Marylebone to Aylesbury? I doubt it, especially in the peaks, and certainly not at any useful service frequency.

Why would anyone choose to route express trains via Aylesbury, or into Marylebone?

 

[NSEFAN]

That the country's real 4th largest city didn't warrant a short stretch of direct line, the major regeneration benefits of a station development and more services especially given the obvious need to renew its railway lines...

For starters.

I know there are people in Liverpool who would have a host of searching questions for those with direct hands on input.

City size alone isn't the only factor for deciding which bits have dedicated high speed lines and which don't. Take a look at the route map of HS2; one leg of phase 2 from Birmingham goes towards Manchester and Liverpool (existing WCML), the other goes towards Leeds and Sheffield (towards MML/ECML territory). If the new railway is to relieve the intercity corridors from north to south, it has to follow a route similar to the one it takes. The leg towards Leeds will need to be high speed if it is to relieve the MML and ECML routes towards the North East and Scotland, in order to be competitive on journey time so as to remove passengers from the existing MML/ECML routes. On the other hand, the section to Liverpool is comparatively short and can be done with running on the existing railway (since there is spare capacity, for now). As others have said, a dedicated high speed route can be built later (and may well need to as demand goes up, time will tell).

 

[NSEFAN]

Why would anyone choose to route express trains via Aylesbury, or into Marylebone?

This was my whole point. Some have argued that re-opening the former GCR is a viable alternative to HS2, but it clearly couldn't be a straight-up like-for-like reopening because of the capacity problems that have developed since the GCR services were withdrawn in the 1960s. Some enthusiasts have crayonistic tendencies, insisting that former trackbeds always be re-used when a line is re-opened, even when it's not necessary/appropriate.

 

[The Planner]

Why would anyone choose to route express trains via Aylesbury, or into Marylebone?

If using the context of the oft used alternative of using the GCR route, they would not be using at least Ashendon Jn to South Ruislip? What is ypur suggestion?

 

[swt_passenger]

I may have missed this, but I suspect much anti-HS2 rhetoric is based on the assumption that there's some pot of money sitting there labelled "HS2 or existing rail"and if it isn't to be spent on HS2 then it will automatically upgrade the national train set...

 

[Voglitz]

If using the context of the oft used alternative of using the GCR route, they would not be using at least Ashendon Jn to South Ruislip? What is ypur suggestion?

If they would be using Ashendon Jn to South Ruislip, Metropolitan line "saturation" wouldn't be a factor, would it?

 

[furnessvale]

With driverless cars, assuming that they are most likely to be electric so they can become self fueling, it is possible that that will lead to more rail use for longer journeys.

I am sure driverless cars WILL increase rail use as the roads clog up with cars being driven safely at the correct speed and distance apart, as opposed to the present mayhem where safety is sacrificed with cars doing 80-90mph a few feet apart just to increase capacity.

 

[Busaholic]

Being probably one of the few on here who would not count themselves as a rail enthusiast, although I have an interest in railways just as I have in dozens of other things, and still feeling agnostic about HS2, my gnawing doubts are about the growing possibility that a considerable amount of time and, from now on, money may be spent on a project that may never see a train run on it. We don't do long term in this country, only short term. This is a good thing in one sense in that a dictatorial government doesn't hold sway and bulldoze whole communities, like in China, to achieve their 'grand projet', but a terrible thing in the other sense that a change of policy can see all that planning, blood, sweat,tears etc be in vain. You know the thing 'better to have wasted the £5 billion now than to commit to tens more billions which would still not achieve the desired effect' (would they'd adopted that line with the Millennium Dome). I'm afraid the GWR electrification fiasco will only have increased this point of view amongst both politicians and voters.

 

[Trog]

If they would be using Ashendon Jn to South Ruislip, Metropolitan line "saturation" wouldn't be a factor, would it?

Would probably need the GC & GW joint quadrifying so you were not following the Chiltern all stations Birmingham to London stopper all the way from Ashendon to South Ruislip. Presumably there would then have to be a new line in a tunnel from there to a terminal station in central London. Would probably cost as much or more than a new line for that section but only be half as good.

Another problem is that the demand for travel is towards Birmingham and the GC turns right at Rugby.

 

[NSEFAN]

Being probably one of the few on here who would not count themselves as a rail enthusiast, although I have an interest in railways just as I have in dozens of other things, and still feeling agnostic about HS2, my gnawing doubts are about the growing possibility that a considerable amount of time and, from now on, money may be spent on a project that may never see a train run on it. We don't do long term in this country, only short term. This is a good thing in one sense in that a dictatorial government doesn't hold sway and bulldoze whole communities, like in China, to achieve their 'grand projet', but a terrible thing in the other sense that a change of policy can see all that planning, blood, sweat,tears etc be in vain. You know the thing 'better to have wasted the £5 billion now than to commit to tens more billions which would still not achieve the desired effect' (would they'd adopted that line with the Millennium Dome). I'm afraid the GWR electrification fiasco will only have increased this point of view amongst both politicians and voters.

In some ways, the GWML fiasco is precisely because of short-termism in politics. The entire list of rail infrastructure upgrades looks to have been set with fairly arbitrary dates, chosen for political reasons and with little consideration given to practical aspects, such as if it's even possible with the number of engineers. But being owned by the government, NR has little choice than to smile and nod at whatever it's told to do. If the GWML upgrade had been allowed to progress at a more realistic rate, with work done in more logical order (such as getting all the signalling sorted before doing electrification and trains not ordered so quickly by the DfT), it would probably be going more smoothly than it is.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I may have missed this, but I suspect much anti-HS2 rhetoric is based on the assumption that there's some pot of money sitting there labelled "HS2 or existing rail"and if it isn't to be spent on HS2 then it will automatically upgrade the national train set...

Throughout the HS2 parliamentary phase, the DfT has indeed said that its funding would not detract from that for the existing network.
I'm not so sure now, with NR being cash-strapped and trying to limit its CP6 commitments.
Meanwhile HS2 will suck up £x billions once the shovels go in.

I still remember Portillo and Parky saying there was no rail money for "the regions" because pots of it were being spent on the Channel Tunnel route upgrades (North Pole, Waterloo International, resignalling in Kent, flyovers and electrification etc).
We'll know when the CP6 settlement is announced.

 

[The Planner]

If they would be using Ashendon Jn to South Ruislip, Metropolitan line "saturation" wouldn't be a factor, would it?

So what is your suggestion if they do use Ashendon to South Ruislip and how do you keep the current level of service into Marylebone?

 

[yorksrob]

Throughout the HS2 parliamentary phase, the DfT has indeed said that its funding would not detract from that for the existing network.
I'm not so sure now, with NR being cash-strapped and trying to limit its CP6 commitments.
Meanwhile HS2 will suck up £x billions once the shovels go in.

I still remember Portillo and Parky saying there was no rail money for "the regions" because pots of it were being spent on the Channel Tunnel route upgrades (North Pole, Waterloo International, resignalling in Kent, flyovers and electrification etc).
We'll know when the CP6 settlement is announced.

This is true. We are not party to private discussions within the DfT, treasury or indeed around the cabinet table. There is simply no way for us to tell whether investment in the rest of the railway will be squeezed in favour of HS2.

We only have the Governments word for it (and even that doesn't bind successor governments throughout the construction phase).

 

[Clansman]

For clarification, as the one who started the "NHS/HS2 thread", I'm not a spotter or enthusiast. I take basic interest in the railway infrastructure since I travel on them weekly all over the country, so I'm a bit nosey when it comes to whats going on here and there, as I like the idea of improvement and change.

I didn't intend to create the discussion based on one or the other, as the OP highlighted "NHS VS HS2", which wasn't the case. Nor was it a thread solely dedicated to wanting HS2 cancelled. I created it with the intention to see where everyone's priorities sit, and how they see the current situation both railway related and public services - hence why it was a pole - which I voted "Yes to HS2" in. I wanted to also see the differentiation between the "yes" and "no" sides, which evidently showed the divide between spotters/enthusiasts and others. It got out of proportion a little bit and deviated from the main point, and instead became a thread of sub-topics of bias, which was probably one of the reasons it was locked by mods.

I think HS2 should go ahead because our network can't handle future capacity and I think we need faster means of competing with air travel, in the same way the French and Japenese do. I think it's time to make our mark that we are prepared for the 21st century and realise that it's a time where we need to think again in terms of ticket pricing, journey times etc, and look to other alternatives as to how to cope with it.

Although I've nothing against strong enthusiasts or spotters, I do think nostalgic thinking grinds some of our gears a little bit. The majority of spotters and enthusiasts come from the days of loco hauled and steam services, so don't like the idea of the last of these trains becoming the minority to more modern and efficient trains like the IEPs.

I agree 100% with the OP on this issue. I too, don't understand why some of the comments some people highlighted in terms of; good ol' days or of pure nostalgia, are bold arguments for cancelling a project we all need in order to prepare our transport industry for the future, for the benefit of the public. It's a very interesting discussion indeed. Hopefully this, unlike the NHS/HS2 one, doesn't become plagued with sub-topics of nostalgia and mediocre reasons why HS2 shouldn't go ahead.

 

[The Ham]

No doubt there are people in Norwich, Cardiff and Exeter etc with a hosting of searching questions too but it doesn't mean they are right.

Liverpool benefits from High Speed 2.

It is known that Liverpool will have services that run from London direct to Liverpool using HS2 which will have a shorter journey time. Therefore at the very least capacity and speed improve, if that is not enough of an improvement then what is?


There will be lots of other places, such as Cardiff and Exeter that could still see journey time improvements by using the Phase 2 track.