tbtc
Veteran Member
Why is HS2 treated so differently by some Enthusiasts (compared to conventional infrastructure schemes)?
On the recent NHS or HS2 thread, Ive seen a few interesting comments about HS2.
yet none of these reasons come up when someone suggests increasing capacity on existing routes or re-opening some long-abandoned branchline somewhere else in the UK.
Im yet to see Skype used as a justification why we shouldnt improve capacity between Liverpool and Manchester.
Ive not noticed anyone use 3d printers as a reason why we shouldnt reinstate some Beeching cut in rural Wales.
Nobody seems to have a problem with the fact that the Borders line didnt directly benefit the people of Yeovil.
The idea of "businesspeople getting somewhere faster" would be see as A Good Thing on the Forum if that businessperson were shaving a few minutes off their journey due to improved linespeeds in Cornwall or the Highlands.
Driverless cars arent cited as a reason not to extend the Uckfield line.
Most people see projects like grade separating junctions or building additional platforms as positive moves even if they only directly affect 1% of the total journeys in the UK.
The fact that the majority of heavy rail infrastructure projects take too much time or too much money isnt used as a reason not to do other heavy rail schemes (although rail enthusiasts seem to damn the prospects of any more guided busways or tram routes after the experience in Cambridgeshire and Edinburgh despite both being popular and efficient once actually in operation).
So why does HS2 attract those kind of comments?
Is it because we can perceive the next ten years being broadly similar to the previous ten years, but the minute we hit the 2030s (when HS2 will be properly running) sci-fi becomes real and there are no such thing as rush hours because well all work from home and print off anything we need (and presumably be holidaying on the moon)?
Is it because HS2 doesnt directly follow an alignment that was closed in the 1960s? Ive long suspected that itd be a lot more popular with enthusiasts if only there had been a LTMR (London Toton & Meadowhall Railway) into which Victorian speculators sunk their fortunes, only to be closed under a British Rail rationalisation. The same people who go misty-eyed at the idea of one day running direct services from Waterloo to Plymouth via Okehampton (or from St Pancras up the S&C to Glasgow) would be demanding that the Government built HS2 (so we could get one over old Dr Beeching).
Threads demand that we have direct London services for Huddersfield/ Blackpool/ Cleethorpes etc for the prosperity of these places and the unquantifiable economic benefits that a service to the capital will bring, but improving connections from Birmingham/ Manchester etc to London via HS2 is A Bad Thing because itll suck jobs out of those cities?
The people who complain that HS2 will make the countryside noisy or cut through farms seem perfectly happy to build other railways through rural Britain (as long as they follow some Victorian alignment).
Any other reason? Is it because HS2 is too big for people to support, and we only like niche projects that have a simpler case? Is it because HS2 wouldnt be built by Network Rail and people dont like a project thats taking place outside of the conventional railway industry? A case of Not Invented Here (or Not Invented By Victorians)?
Is it because people buy into the argument that these trains (up to four hundred metres long) will only be used by businesspeople, so will be of no use to regular passengers since nobody paying for their own tickets will be able to afford HS2? That argument seems to be a popular one (even though HS2 will be operationally simpler/cheaper to run on a seat by seat basis one driver and one guard for a train twice as long as current ones). No other new line has tried to recoup sunken infrastructure costs over the first few years e.g. we didnt see crazy prices on Airdrie Bathgate, nobody suggests that the Ordsall Chord needs to recoup all of its infrastructure costs in the first ten years of operation, nobody proposing a line through the Peak District assumes that the costs of doing so would wholly fall on the passengers using it.
Some of the complaints about HS2 I can understand. Its such a big sum of money that I can appreciate why some people can think of other schemes that it could be spent on instead. It could be better integrated with other existing stations (albeit at a cost). Its a lot of money. It doesnt tick every box. In an ideal world wed see more things in scope (link to HS1 in London, link to the Bristol lines at Birmingham etc, though I can understand why they have tried to control the budget by limiting the project creep). Like IEP, HS2 is a least bad plan rather than a perfect one. Im well aware of the negatives to this project. I just dont always understand why people raise complaints about it that never get mentioned in threads about other schemes.
(this isnt intended to be yet another HS2 Good Or Bad thread weve had plenty of those - Im interested in why your attitude to HS2 is different to conventional infrastructure projects, or why you feel other people have different attitudes to HS2 so that they bring up obstacles that arent raised as objections to conventional infrastructure projects)
On the recent NHS or HS2 thread, Ive seen a few interesting comments about HS2.
- We dont need it because passenger numbers are reaching their peak (so no additional capacity required to deal with future demand).
- We dont need it because in the future well all be working from home (so nobody will need to commute to work).
- We dont need it because one day well never have to leave the house to shop, we can just create things with 3d printers, so no need to go to a physical shop to buy physical things.
- We dont need it because it doesnt matter if a businessman can get somewhere half an hour faster (always a man we need to smash the patriarchy
).
- We dont need it because it doesnt benefit Yeovil, Sunderland, Dundee and Norwich.
- We dont need it because the new-fangled internet means we can just email each other, we can Skype each other, we never need to meet up with other human beings.
- We dont need it because Government projects can go over-budget or get delayed.
- Ive also seen (on other threads) the point that HS2 isnt a great idea because itll only directly affect a low percentage of overall UK journeys (i.e. the number of people currently travelling from central Manchester and central Birmingham to central London).
- Theres even been mention that we dont need HS2 because of driverless cars.
yet none of these reasons come up when someone suggests increasing capacity on existing routes or re-opening some long-abandoned branchline somewhere else in the UK.
Im yet to see Skype used as a justification why we shouldnt improve capacity between Liverpool and Manchester.
Ive not noticed anyone use 3d printers as a reason why we shouldnt reinstate some Beeching cut in rural Wales.
Nobody seems to have a problem with the fact that the Borders line didnt directly benefit the people of Yeovil.
The idea of "businesspeople getting somewhere faster" would be see as A Good Thing on the Forum if that businessperson were shaving a few minutes off their journey due to improved linespeeds in Cornwall or the Highlands.
Driverless cars arent cited as a reason not to extend the Uckfield line.
Most people see projects like grade separating junctions or building additional platforms as positive moves even if they only directly affect 1% of the total journeys in the UK.
The fact that the majority of heavy rail infrastructure projects take too much time or too much money isnt used as a reason not to do other heavy rail schemes (although rail enthusiasts seem to damn the prospects of any more guided busways or tram routes after the experience in Cambridgeshire and Edinburgh despite both being popular and efficient once actually in operation).
So why does HS2 attract those kind of comments?
Is it because we can perceive the next ten years being broadly similar to the previous ten years, but the minute we hit the 2030s (when HS2 will be properly running) sci-fi becomes real and there are no such thing as rush hours because well all work from home and print off anything we need (and presumably be holidaying on the moon)?
Is it because HS2 doesnt directly follow an alignment that was closed in the 1960s? Ive long suspected that itd be a lot more popular with enthusiasts if only there had been a LTMR (London Toton & Meadowhall Railway) into which Victorian speculators sunk their fortunes, only to be closed under a British Rail rationalisation. The same people who go misty-eyed at the idea of one day running direct services from Waterloo to Plymouth via Okehampton (or from St Pancras up the S&C to Glasgow) would be demanding that the Government built HS2 (so we could get one over old Dr Beeching).
Threads demand that we have direct London services for Huddersfield/ Blackpool/ Cleethorpes etc for the prosperity of these places and the unquantifiable economic benefits that a service to the capital will bring, but improving connections from Birmingham/ Manchester etc to London via HS2 is A Bad Thing because itll suck jobs out of those cities?
The people who complain that HS2 will make the countryside noisy or cut through farms seem perfectly happy to build other railways through rural Britain (as long as they follow some Victorian alignment).
Any other reason? Is it because HS2 is too big for people to support, and we only like niche projects that have a simpler case? Is it because HS2 wouldnt be built by Network Rail and people dont like a project thats taking place outside of the conventional railway industry? A case of Not Invented Here (or Not Invented By Victorians)?
Is it because people buy into the argument that these trains (up to four hundred metres long) will only be used by businesspeople, so will be of no use to regular passengers since nobody paying for their own tickets will be able to afford HS2? That argument seems to be a popular one (even though HS2 will be operationally simpler/cheaper to run on a seat by seat basis one driver and one guard for a train twice as long as current ones). No other new line has tried to recoup sunken infrastructure costs over the first few years e.g. we didnt see crazy prices on Airdrie Bathgate, nobody suggests that the Ordsall Chord needs to recoup all of its infrastructure costs in the first ten years of operation, nobody proposing a line through the Peak District assumes that the costs of doing so would wholly fall on the passengers using it.
Some of the complaints about HS2 I can understand. Its such a big sum of money that I can appreciate why some people can think of other schemes that it could be spent on instead. It could be better integrated with other existing stations (albeit at a cost). Its a lot of money. It doesnt tick every box. In an ideal world wed see more things in scope (link to HS1 in London, link to the Bristol lines at Birmingham etc, though I can understand why they have tried to control the budget by limiting the project creep). Like IEP, HS2 is a least bad plan rather than a perfect one. Im well aware of the negatives to this project. I just dont always understand why people raise complaints about it that never get mentioned in threads about other schemes.
(this isnt intended to be yet another HS2 Good Or Bad thread weve had plenty of those - Im interested in why your attitude to HS2 is different to conventional infrastructure projects, or why you feel other people have different attitudes to HS2 so that they bring up obstacles that arent raised as objections to conventional infrastructure projects)