The 'Stop Hs2' campaign's dirty tricks.

[Philip Elliott]

Why didn't they just call it "Extra Capacity 1"? It would have saved a lot of squabbling.

Indeed and it might have been called that had that been it's original purpose. All this "HS2 is about capacity" is latter day revisionism. Does anyone remember the adverts on buses in Manchester with the slogan "Their lawns or our jobs" ? A lot of the initial reason and support around HS2 was based on "closing the north/south economic divide" and as an environmental project to reduce carbon emissions by reducing domestic aviation. Had the primary purpose from day 1 been capacity, we would have ended up with something very different.

 

[HSTEd]

Only if Coventry, Wakefield & Stoke have their services decimated:roll:

Going from two services per hour to one is hardly decimation (Wakefield would still have an hourly train and the Stoke route would receive the hourly Manchester train, leaving Wilmslow with no ICWC service).

And if the wolverhampton demand can support an expansion to two trains per hour (and with the Mini Pendolino order we are not going to be short of rolling stock) then it is entirely possible Coventry would only loose one train per hour.

Not great but hardly a "decimation" as the term is understood today.

We keep being told that HS2 will allow the intermediate stations to be better served yet the suggestions are always for less services. For the stations to receive a service that is no worse for frequency (ie not any better either) then 8 out of the 9 current off peak EPS125 trains need to run. Only the Liverpool can transfer (the Glasgow is needed as the HS trains won't stop in the lake district and post phase 2 at Warrington/Wigan) and you would still lose the handful or direct trains from stations further south to/from Liverpool.

By the way, TRUST has the times for the improved LM Trent Valley services

There is no point in running high speed classic compatible trains to Glasgow via the West Coast Main Line after Phase 2, that is just some spin to keep people on side with benefits to the rest of the UK or whatever.
By the time you account for the fact you are limited to 110mph north of Manchester (since no active tilt 320+kph trains exist that have the tilt level required) and the time necessary to crawl back to the WCML via Bolton, you don't gain anything.

On the east coast there is a similar issue on getting to York via the Leeds-York line in order to head north, you arrive about the same time the normal ECML train to York does, so you don't really gain anything from that point on.

It is highly likely that the saved paths would be used for increased service to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle, places that will not in any meaningful way get connected to HS2b.
And yes, and probably that second train per hour to Liverpool people are always moaning about.

People always go on about "more freight paths" and paths for "more local trains" as a result of HS2 which can't possibly happen unless the timetable is rather heavily pruned.

If HS2 is approved I would expect there to be no follow on order for IEPs to displace the IC225 sets, since they can be displaced by cascaded ICWC Pendos rendered surplus to requirements.

If we get an extension to Newcastle then HS2 starts to erode the London-scotland market, until then the Classic Compatible sets are a purely political decision.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Going from two services per hour to one is hardly decimation (Wakefield would still have an hourly train and the Stoke route would receive the hourly Manchester train, leaving Wilmslow with no ICWC service).

The difference between a 30 minute interval and a 60 minute interval is very significant and a backwards step. £33bn for a poorer service, I'm sure the users will be absolutely delighted.

There is no point in running high speed classic compatible trains to Glasgow via the West Coast Main Line after Phase 2, that is just some spin to keep people on side with benefits to the rest of the UK or whatever.

The need is for 390s to run to Glasgow via the WCML to mop up the stations not served by HS services, not sure why you are bringing "classic compatible" trains into the equation (and there aren't enough paths on the phase 1 line to run the service)

People always go on about "more freight paths" and paths for "more local trains" as a result of HS2 which can't possibly happen unless the timetable is rather heavily pruned.

That is the one thing your are spot on about - any additional paths for freight (or these mythical 'local' trains) can only be created by slashing other services - or in other words, re-distributing capacity not utilising 'freed' capacity.

 

[Geezertronic]

The difference between a 30 minute interval and a 60 minute interval is very significant and a backwards step. £33bn for a poorer service, I'm sure the users will be absolutely delighted.

One could say £33bn for a better service for other areas, depends on where you live I suppose

 

[Philip Elliott]

The point is that £33bn should be able to allow most areas to receive a better service not the 'lucky few' - and it is easily possible if the DFT stop obsessing over speed between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds.

 

[Donny Dave]

Going from two services per hour to one is hardly decimation (Wakefield would still have an hourly train and the Stoke route would receive the hourly Manchester train, leaving Wilmslow with no ICWC service).

Going from 2tph to 1tph is a big regressive step. Doncaster lost out a bit in the Eureka timetable, and if, as you suggest, 1tph from Leeds - Kings Cross is cut from the timetable once HS2 is up and running, it will lose out even more.

Between Leeds and Doncaster, you would be reduced to 1 express an hour and 1 all shacks service. It's also 1 of the quicker service from Doncaster - London that gets cut.....

Anyway, moving on from that.

Mr Bigland, I don't doubt the facts that you post on Twitter and Facebook, but I don't see how they are linked to HS2.

For instance. "2,222 deaths on UK roads in 2009. Since 1981 French High-Speed TGVs have carried 2.1 billion pax without a fatality. We need #hs2"

"Rail freight produces less than a tenth of the nitrogen oxide and fine particulates of road haulage per tonne. We need #hs2"

"Between 1999 to 2008 there were 117,000 accidents involving HGVs which resulted in 4,972 fatalities. We need #hs2"

I asked you last time I posted some tweets similar to those, and I'll ask again. How does HS2 reduce polution from road frieght and reduce road fatalities?

If HS2 is to provide extra capacity while maintaining present service levels, then it doesn't!

I'm sticking to my opinion that HS2 in it's current form, IE, from London - Birmingham/Manchester (and possibly Leeds) is the wrong scheme at the wrong time, and that it will end up as a massive white elephant.

However, if the proposal for HS2 was something along the lines of London - Birmingham - Manchester - Preston - Scotland or London - Leicester - Sheffield - Leeds - Newcastle - Scotland, then I would be in favour as it will be adding a lot of capacity to either the WCML or ECML and increasing journey options, as well as providing a highly viable alternative route between England and Scotland.

 

[tbtc]

The difference between a 30 minute interval and a 60 minute interval is very significant and a backwards step

It's not "decimated" though, is it.

 

[HSTEd]

The difference between a 30 minute interval and a 60 minute interval is very significant and a backwards step. £33bn for a poorer service, I'm sure the users will be absolutely delighted.

How many people use trains between Wakefield and London compared to the number who use the line between Leeds and London and between Doncaster and London (which would not be affected really apart from having trains labelled 'Newcastle' instead of 'Leeds')?

By this argument we should never make any changes to the timetable ever that affect anywhere negatively?

The need is for 390s to run to Glasgow via the WCML to mop up the stations not served by HS services, not sure why you are bringing "classic compatible" trains into the equation (and there aren't enough paths on the phase 1 line to run the service)

Because you are going on about needing Glasgow 390s on service patterns different from today's and then mention HS services to Glasgow not stopping in the lakes.

There will be no high speed services to Glasgow under Phase 2, they just don't make any sense.
Glasgow trains would likely remain as they are, perhaps gaining a handful more trains if it is appropriate.

That is the one thing your are spot on about - any additional paths for freight (or these mythical 'local' trains) can only be created by slashing other services - or in other words, re-distributing capacity not utilising 'freed' capacity.

But it is freed capacity, unless you are proposing we run Pendolinos merely to give the people of Wilmslow or Wakefield access to faster trains to London that have no other significant loads.

Going from 2tph to 1tph is a big regressive step. Doncaster lost out a bit in the Eureka timetable, and if, as you suggest, 1tph from Leeds - Kings Cross is cut from the timetable once HS2 is up and running, it will lose out even more.

Between Leeds and Doncaster, you would be reduced to 1 express an hour and 1 all shacks service. It's also 1 of the quicker service from Doncaster - London that gets cut.....

Anyway, moving on from that.

The London-Doncaster train would certainly not be axed, but simply diverted to run to Newcastle instead of Leeds, and I am sure the WYPTE would be willing to run additional train between Leeds and Doncaster to make up for the loss, which would overall benefit more passengers thanks to all those that can use it at all the intermediate stations that would recieve an extra train.

However, if the proposal for HS2 was something along the lines of London - Birmingham - Manchester - Preston - Scotland or London - Leicester - Sheffield - Leeds - Newcastle - Scotland, then I would be in favour as it will be adding a lot of capacity to either the WCML or ECML and increasing journey options, as well as providing a highly viable alternative route between England and Scotland.

So you would not build half the line now because you can't build the other half immediately?
That seems awfully short sighted.

As to the rail freight argument, WCML will be at least two EPS paths an hour up, probably more, which would allow at least one LM train onto the fasts that otherwise could not be there, which gets them off the slow lines and makes room for a local train or a freight train.

One or two paths an hour for freight more is a major advance.

 

[Wath Yard]

So you would not build half the line now because you can't build the other half immediately?
That seems awfully short sighted.

I think only extreme optimists think HS2 is the start of a high speed network of railways in this country. There are very few significant regional centres in this country, and London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds are 4 of them. There aren't that many places to go after that.

 

[gordonthemoron]

It's not "decimated" though, is it.

/pedant mode

decimated means losing 10%, 50% is rather worse

pedant/

 

[Philip Elliott]

It's not "decimated" though, is it.

If Coventry went from 3tph to hourly it would go from 49 to 18 services per day. That is 'decimated'. Other places wouldn't be as affected but still very significant. It would nice tbtc that for just once you could make a positive contribution to a thread rather than just snipe at other's posts.

How many people use trains between Wakefield and London compared to the number who use the line between Leeds and London and between Doncaster and London (which would not be affected really apart from having trains labelled 'Newcastle' instead of 'Leeds')?

I can't comment on Wakefield but Birmingham - London is less than half of the traffic arriving into Euston on the 'EBW' services. Or in other words, the 'others' are in the majority.

HS2 is due to have 2tph to Newcastle so there won't be additional services from Doncaster to Newcastle.

By this argument we should never make any changes to the timetable ever that affect anywhere negatively?

Clearly it is impossible to never negatively impact anywhere however we should always try to keep to a minimum. Spending £33bn to create such a situation is a disgrace. You are advocating an elistist approach to transport planning.

Because you are going on about needing Glasgow 390s on service patterns different from today's and then mention HS services to Glasgow not stopping in the lakes.

There will be no high speed services to Glasgow under Phase 2, they just don't make any sense.
Glasgow trains would likely remain as they are, perhaps gaining a handful more trains if it is appropriate

The OFFICIAL plan as of earlier this year for phase 2 is for hourly HS trains to Glasgow and hourly to Edinburgh via Carlisle (stopping "Manchester interchange", Preston & Carlisle only). 390s via Weedon would call at other stations. It might not make sense in your head but don't present your ("interesting") opinions as in anyway factual.

But it is freed capacity, unless you are proposing we run Pendolinos merely to give the people of Wilmslow or Wakefield access to faster trains to London that have no other significant loads.

The Wilmslow services form the second fast train for Crewe and for Stockport also. HS2 is due to have 1tph from Crewe. Having higher frequencies is about attracting people to the service - we don't "need" 2tph on the core of XC for capacity purposes but it is there to encourage growth.

 

[Metrailway]

It's not "decimated" though, is it.

Coventry already has its problems. With HS2 bypassing the city and the cut of services to the capital it is likely that England's 9th biggest city will become a glorified suburb of Birmingham. The city council have been fighting plans for the amalgamation of Coventry and Birmingham for decades. Andrew McNaughton, the chief engineer of HS2, said that a new city should be built in the Meriden Gap as a result of HS2. This would make Coventry a part of a 'Greater Birmingham'. I would call that a decimation of a historic city.

 

[gordonthemoron]

why do people constantly misuse decimated?

 

[Metrailway]

why do people constantly misuse decimated?

Oxford Dictionaries definition:

verb
[with object]

1. kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of:
   the inhabitants of the country had been decimated
   drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something):
   public transport has been decimated
   
2. historical kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group:
   the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers

 

[HSTEd]

I
I can't comment on Wakefield but Birmingham - London is less than half of the traffic arriving into Euston on the 'EBW' services. Or in other words, the 'others' are in the majority.

Well in all my years of going up and down the ECML I don't think I have ever seen more than about two dozen people get off or on at Wakefield, compared to dozens to hundreds at Leeds and dozens at Doncaster.
And if HS2 includes a south leeds station for parkway purposes as it probably will, people using it as a railhead in the peaks will be able to use HS2 instead for the same purpose without having to go all the way into Leeds.

As I assume that Wolverhampton would be retaining the majority of its trains in the form of this current hourly off peak service (maybe including some peak extras), the remaining places served by the Birmingham trains with the exception of Coventry would continue to be served by the residual ICWC conventional services to a similar extent to normal.

Only Coventry really loses out significantly.

Watford Junction would also lose ICWC service to save Rugby, but that has so many trains serving it I don't think it is a major hardship, especially with OOC Interchange opening to provide service from North London to Birmingham.

HS2 is due to have 2tph to Newcastle so there won't be additional services from Doncaster to Newcastle.

As far as I understand it, there are no actual plans with regards to an actual service plan, we have nothing on that point yet, all we have are various specimens provided to help work out how many trainsets of each type would be required.

2tph to Newcastle without making the journey significantly quicker makes no real sense at all. Especially as they will supposedly be 250m sets, which means that 2 half paths are wasted for no good reason at all.
These are primarily meant to make everyone support the project and provide fat to be trimmed in future "value engineering" exercises.

Clearly it is impossible to never negatively impact anywhere however we should always try to keep to a minimum. Spending £33bn to create such a situation is a disgrace. You are advocating an elistist approach to transport planning.

I am advocating connecting the major cities, which are where people live, and I don't really see what the elitism comment is about, since shippign people on a high speed line will actually be cheaper per passenger thanks to all the economies of scale from large trains and a brand new infrastructure with only one signalling centre with about four staff in it and a lack of trackside signal infrastructure to maintain.
(Especially if ERTMS Level 3 gets implemented in time)

The OFFICIAL plan as of earlier this year for phase 2 is for hourly HS trains to Glasgow and hourly to Edinburgh via Carlisle (stopping "Manchester interchange", Preston & Carlisle only). 390s via Weedon would call at other stations. It might not make sense in your head but don't present your ("interesting") opinions as in anyway factual.

Like I said, there is no "Official" plan as yet, and that plan clearly makes no sense at all since you can't save any time at all without positing the existing of rolling stock that does not and probably will never exist. (The highest speed tilting trains that are adaptable for the UK practically do 155mph).

The Wilmslow services form the second fast train for Crewe and for Stockport also. HS2 is due to have 1tph from Crewe. Having higher frequencies is about attracting people to the service - we don't "need" 2tph on the core of XC for capacity purposes but it is there to encourage growth.

The second fast train for Crewe could just as easily be a second train to Liverpool instead of another Manchester train.
Once again, we have no real idea what services will be provided by HS2, which is still in the phase of promising to be all things to all people.

Yes, but we can't afford to run nine or eleven coach Pendolinos twice an hour via Stockport if you remove the Manchester passengers onto HS2, which would reduce costs and travel time for them. (We could flood the market with so many cheap advances as to crush coach travel in the Manchester-London corridor).
So in essence to keep a second path for Stockport you want to sacrifice the benefits that will accrue to the people of Manchester Leeds and Birmingham.

 

[Trog]

It's not "decimated" though, is it.

No its five times worse.

 

[tbtc]

Coventry already has its problems. With HS2 bypassing the city and the cut of services to the capital it is likely that England's 9th biggest city will become a glorified suburb of Birmingham. The city council have been fighting plans for the amalgamation of Coventry and Birmingham for decades. Andrew McNaughton, the chief engineer of HS2, said that a new city should be built in the Meriden Gap as a result of HS2. This would make Coventry a part of a 'Greater Birmingham'. I would call that a decimation of a historic city.

I appreciate the problems of one city living in the shadow of another (in the way that Bradford is becoming a suburb of Leeds etc).

However has having two or three fast trains an hour to London over the last decade or two stopped Coventry's decline? I'm sceptical about the supposed powers of direct London trains (my other half is from Sunderland but you'd struggle to find any genuine economic benefit to having direct trains to London).

The truth is that the London trains being discussed in this thread are a good source of seats for commuters between Coventry and Birmingham/ between Wakefield and Leeds (etc) - that's not the same as saying that Coventry/ Wakefield (etc) are justifying the current level of London service that they enjoy. Something else would provide that local capacity after HS2.

The problem we have is that some people approach HS2 as an attempt at a pareto optimal railway - it can't be - there will be "winners" but there are bound to be places which lose some of their current service level.

Look at Thameslink - a huge amount of improvements, but some links will inevitably be lost (e.g. Wimbledon and Sutton losing their direct link to north London). Crossrail will presumably see some places in west London lose their direct services to Reading and the Thames Valley. HS1 saw some Kentish links downgraded. Nothing is ever "all good".

 

[Philip Elliott]

Once again, we have no real idea what services will be provided by HS2, which is still in the phase of promising to be all things to all people

Yes we do have a rough idea what will be provided - a base service spec has to be provided to form the basis of economic modelling.

I am advocating connecting the major cities, which are where people live,

Populations:

London - 8 million
Birmingham - 1 million
Manchester - 550,000
Leeds - 700,000
Uk - 61 million

You do know that there over 1 million people living in London that have never left the city? Just because two places are well populated doesn't necessarily mean people want to travel between them. Most people living in Manchester, work in errr...Manchester.

What exactly do you consider to be a "major city"? Coventry & Leicester are both bigger than Nottingham & Newcastle which are both considered as regional "capitals". Bristol is a major city yet we never see people campaigning for a HS line to it.

 

[andykn]

Just because two places are well populated doesn't necessarily mean people want to travel between them.

But the West Coast Main Line is pretty full, which rather suggests people do.

Most people living in Manchester, work in errr...Manchester.

But lots of people from Manchester (and many other places across the UK) work in London.

What exactly do you consider to be a "major city"? Coventry & Leicester are both bigger than Nottingham & Newcastle which are both considered as regional "capitals". Bristol is a major city yet we never see people campaigning for a HS line to it.

It's had one since 1974

 

[Geezertronic]

As usual, there seems to be a lot of emotive wording used on this thread, just like there is on most threads of high discussion. It doesn't really make the opinion for or against any more important or valid though, most of the time it just has the reverse effect...

 

[HSTEd]

Yes we do have a rough idea what will be provided - a base service spec has to be provided to form the basis of economic modelling.

Yes, but just look at the number of changes made to the service spec for TPE North electrification in just the last few months, while this spec provides a basis for basic economic modelling it is highly unlikely that it is anything like what we will actually get in the end.
And I would like to know who actually thinks 250m sets for a HS railway built for 400m sets are a good idea, this seems to imply they want to withdraw the conventional service to newcastle without reducing capacity using the same number of paths as are used now.
Which is clearly impractical.

Populations:

London - 8 million
Birmingham - 1 million
Manchester - 550,000
Leeds - 700,000
Uk - 61 million

Those figures are highly disingenuous, you include the entirety of greater London and yet only include a small fraction of the Greater Manchester area, which has similar extent in terms relative to the size of the conurbation. A more reasonable figure would be 2.65m people for Manchester.

Likewise with Leeds.

You do know that there over 1 million people living in London that have never left the city? Just because two places are well populated doesn't necessarily mean people want to travel between them. Most people living in Manchester, work in errr...Manchester.

Yes, they do that now, because it is not possible to commute to London.
If you can do it cheaply in 1hr20 (thanks to the almost absurd capacity available to us using UIC standards and ERTMS) then the economics change considerably.
This argument could have been used against the WCRM or even the electrification project and its attendant service timing improvements.

What exactly do you consider to be a "major city"? Coventry & Leicester are both bigger than Nottingham & Newcastle which are both considered as regional "capitals". Bristol is a major city yet we never see people campaigning for a HS line to it.

The population figures for Nottingham are heavily skewed by its extremely tightly drawn boundaries, you can be inside what any reasonable person would conclude was Nottingham and not be in the city. A more reasonable figure is 675,000, this easily beats Coventry.

As for Bristol... it will be receiving ~1hr travel times under that enormously expensive Great Western Route Modernisation project, I don't hear people complaining about that project's expense very often (apart from the IEPs themselves).
A high speed line at the present time is not a major concern. But I imagine it would recieve one eventually if this project goes ahead, perhaps going via Oxford with a station on the east side to compete with the Oxford tube.

 

[Philip Elliott]

But the West Coast Main Line is pretty full, which rather suggests people do.

No, it's "pretty full" with people travelling from Harrow, Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes etc.

Those figures are highly disingenuous, you include the entirety of greater London and yet only include a small fraction of the Greater Manchester area, which has similar extent in terms relative to the size of the conurbation. A more reasonable figure would be 2.65m people for Manchester

The 2.65m figure for Manchester is highly disingenous - the figures I provided are the official ONS 2011 census figures (rounded). That figure of 2.65m includes Wigan, Rochdale, Bury etc. The ~2.5m that gets bandied about for the "West Midlands" includes Coventry - you'd be hard pressed to convince a Godivan that a station in Birmingham leaves them connected to London (or the airport for that matter)

The population figures for Nottingham are heavily skewed by its extremely tightly drawn boundaries, you can be inside what any reasonable person would conclude was Nottingham and not be in the city. A more reasonable figure is 675,000, this easily beats Coventry

The 675,000 figure includes Long Eaton....in Derbyshire! Use the same radius from Coventry and you can include Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Bedworth, Nuneaton and Hinckley for good measure...550,000 at least.

If you can do it cheaply in 1hr20 (thanks to the almost absurd capacity available to us using UIC standards and ERTMS) then the economics change considerably.

How long will it take to get to the station from the likes of Leigh? Long distance commuting would only be viable if you had a car to get you to te station (which would increase congestion). One of the key points of HS2 is to bring jobs to the north not the south. Long distance commuting is bad for the environment and bad for the health - you are still looking at a total of at least 4hrs travelling a day 'door to door'

under that enormously expensive Great Western Route Modernisation project, I don't hear people complaining about that project's expense very often

For all the calls that upgrading the WCML would be too expensive or disruptive, no-one bats an eyelid to all the other big projects happening.

Just out of interest HSTed, where do you live and work?

 

[andykn]

No, it's "pretty full" with people travelling from Harrow, Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes etc.

No, it's also pretty full of end to end high speed trains, severely limiting intermediate express services between the large towns on it.

 

[tbtc]

Out of interest, how far a radius around London do you need to cover the eight million people quoted?

 

[SS4]

Perhaps it's time this thread was merged into the generic HS2 thread since it's drifted to the project itself?

AIUI the operators of Birmingham International Airport want an extra runway which iirc goes into the Meriden Gap. Coventry may become a suburb of Birmingham (and I can see it happening if Meriden is built on) yet Birmingham may yet become a de facto suburb of London if it only takes 45 minutes to travel.
But then we seem to be forgotten by the government, anything happening North of Watford must be in Manchester!

 

[steamybrian]

I have just seen this debate so can I put my views.
I wonder how many of those "NIMBYs" protesting in the Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire area protested when HS1 was built slicing right through Kent.? Or travel on HS1 without giving a thought to whose land it travelled over or the need for it?
Initially when the Channel Tunnel was opened "Eurostars" travelled over the domestic South Eastern lines until HS1 was built. In the past I was delayed many times on a SE train whilst a "Eurostar" was given preference over us. With HS1 it has provided not only capacity for the Eurostars and South Eastern High Speed Javelin service but for additional domestic SE trains particularly on the London-Tunbridge Wells service and increased inner suburban services.
With HS2 it will provide additional capacity for High Speed trains thus providing additional capacity for slower domestic service. Theoretically - For example the London-Glasgow fast trains or London- Manchester fast train every 20 minutes service could be diverted to HS2 thus providing capacity for stopping or semi-fast trains.

 

[Wath Yard]

As far as I'm concerned anybody who uses the term NIMBY has lost the argument before they even start. There are unsurprisingly a number of people who don't want a high speed rail line passing their house, but there are also people and organisations who don't live anywhere near the proposed line who aren't convinced by the arguments for HS2.

Obviously if you build a new railway capacity is increased, however one of the main arguments for HS2 is that it will spread the wealth around the country and reduce the north/south divide. This has not been proven by any means and from polls I’ve seen northerners are as sceptical as those living in the Cotswolds.

 

[DXMachina]

Whereas I think people who start making up poll results on behalf of others automatically lose the argument

 

[Wath Yard]

Err, there have been polls. The results have also have been split by geographical region.

 

[Geezertronic]

As far as I'm concerned anybody who uses the term NIMBY has lost the argument before they even start. There are unsurprisingly a number of people who don't want a high speed rail line passing their house, but there are also people and organisations who don't live anywhere near the proposed line who aren't convinced by the arguments for HS2.

Having read most of the "news" on the Stop HS2 website, they have already lost the argument with very little of the "information" on there being of any contructive use and it being a point of view only