Anti-HS2 animation narrated by John Bishop

[northwichcat]

Not sure if this has been posted before. A Thomas The Tank Engine style animation with reference to HS2:

[youtube]dfRN-ZFaxh4[/youtube]

 

[YorkshireBear]

Its horrific....

 

[TheKnightWho]

So, a bunch of random speculation with no facts?

Wasn't it apparently £80bn before? Why's it now £73bn?

 

[455driver]

So, a bunch of random speculation with no facts?

Wasn't it apparently £80bn before? Why's it now £73bn?

maybe we should open a book on how much they say it will cost next week?

I will open with £78bn.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

maybe we should open a book on how much they say it will cost next week?

I will open with £78bn.

Is spread betting allowed...

 

[table38]

Coincidentally, John Bishop just happens to live somewhere which will see a lot of disruption during the construction of HS2, but little benefit once built.

 

[455driver]

Is spread betting allowed...

yeah why not, with some of the figures they are using we will probably be miles off otherwise!

 

[SS4]

Coincidentally, John Bishop just happens to live somewhere which will see a lot of disruption during the construction of HS2, but little benefit once built.

What are the odds of that? :roll:

 

[Tobbes]

On the bright side, if that's the best that the HS2 Action Alliance (urgh!) can do, then HS2's prospects are looking up. Especially if the vote goes through tonight.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On the bright side, if that's the best that the HS2 Action Alliance (urgh!) can do, then HS2's prospects are looking up. Especially if the vote goes through tonight.

The vote, as expected, rejected the idea of scrapping the project by 451 votes to 50, a majority of 401.

 

[northwichcat]

Coincidentally, John Bishop just happens to live somewhere which will see a lot of disruption during the construction of HS2, but little benefit once built.

The video makes reference to HS2 taking a fairly direct route except through Cheshire where it's been routed via Winsford and Lostock Gralam opposed to via Chelford and Alderley Edge.

 

[meridian2]

I think 'Thomas the Tank' is a rather apt choice and sums up the collective IQ of the anti-HS2 brigade quite well, not to mention the choice of John Bishop...

Nevertheless, it is quite a funny video.

 

[The Decapod]

All three main political parties with MPs back HS2, whereas the majority of the population are against it. Where's the democracy in that?

If HS2 was cancelled now, the money could be spent on improving our sea defences and flood management.

 

[Simon11]

HS2 is a take the project that happens or doesn't. The money won't be reallocated elsewhere.

The biggest lie that hasn't been mentioned is that £8 billion will be cut from existing rail services. The investment in HS2, will hugely benefit the whole rail network with additional capacity and additional revenue.

 

[northwichcat]

the collective IQ of the anti-HS2 brigade quite well, not to mention the choice of John Bishop...

The John Bishop who has a degree from Manchester Met University and was a company director before he got bored of doing that?

 

[Emyr]

All three main political parties with MPs back HS2, whereas the majority of the population are against it. Where's the democracy in that?

You voted in the most recent MP election for your constituency, didn't you?

If HS2 was cancelled now, the money could be spent on improving our sea defences and flood management.

We could stop being so sentimental about settlements created in stupid places: floodplains, beaches, chalk cliffs, confluences of rivers...

And stop using farming methods that maximise yield but reduce absorption in topsoil.

 

[samxool]

HS2 is a take the project that happens or doesn't. The money won't be reallocated elsewhere.

The biggest lie that hasn't been mentioned is that £8 billion will be cut from existing rail services. The investment in HS2, will hugely benefit the whole rail network with additional capacity and additional revenue.

Absolute drivel. By canning Hs2, £50bn saved is £50bn that can be spent elsewhere.
Like for example, spending that money on our existing rail network, or new schools or hospitals for example.
That money if not spent on Hs2 won't simply vanish into thin air. That defies all logic and common sense.

If they really want to benefit the country, spend that £50bn on rail projects all around the country, and not just on one line who the sole benefactor is central London

 

[northwichcat]

The investment in HS2, will hugely benefit the whole rail network with additional capacity and additional revenue.

That's what the public get told whenever HS2 gets mentioned. However, HS2 is not the only solution to that problem e.g. congestion on the Manchester branch of the WCML can be cut by extending the Manchester Airport spur to allow through trains to serve the Airport without any reversals.

 

[The Decapod]

We could stop being so sentimental about settlements created in stupid places: floodplains, beaches, chalk cliffs, confluences of rivers...

And stop using farming methods that maximise yield but reduce absorption in topsoil.

And build a railway that might well be obsolete by the time it opens instead? HS2 won't be competing against today's short-haul aircraft, it will be competing against ones that haven't even been designed yet.

 

[NotATrainspott]

All three main political parties with MPs back HS2, whereas the majority of the population are against it. Where's the democracy in that?

If HS2 was cancelled now, the money could be spent on improving our sea defences and flood management.

The United Kingdom is a Parliamentary democracy where the population elects MPs to vote on these issues on their behalf. The case for HS2 is complicated and it has much wider reaching effects than most other decision being made in this Parliament. There are groups within society that are vehemently opposed to HS2 because it personally affects them, which is a perfectly reasonable justification for opposing it. However, in order to amplify their message they have resorted to broadcasting mistruths, misunderstandings and flat out lies about HS2 which have filtered into the public consciousness and the opinion polls reflect this.

Because all the parties of 'the establishment' support HS2, and because at this point all three have spectacularly low public approval, the public's view of the relative merits of HS2 is distorted. This is then not helped by the amount of coverage given to the anti campaign by the media; partly this is because the anti folk tend to be the sort of people who are over-represented in the London media circles and again partly because the media's duty is to criticise the plans and actions of government. In a seeming quest for 'balance', the media do not criticise the anti campaigns, thus resulting in most of their claims being reported verbatim despite being completely ridiculous. Probably one of the worst examples of this is the continued idea that reopening the Great Central and Woodhead is all that would be required to solve the capacity issues and be the best overall result. Anyone who actually knows anything about the railways knows that this option will not work in any way, shape or form. The media overwhelming know absolutely nothing about the railways, and so when a supposed 'expert' on the railways puts forward that suggestion they take it on face value. The case against the idea, and many other 'alternatives' to HS2, is so weak that it would be a complete waste of money for the government or Network Rail to release detailed studies on them as the answer is self-evident. The effect of such a report would however be devastating to the idea - it is now common knowledge in the media that the real alternative to HS2 involves 14 years of weekend engineering works and the Leeds-London journey time doubling.

Members of Parliament are meant to read into the real reasons for a bill and make a voting decision based upon the real hard facts. Apart from a small number of specific wide-reaching issues, such as a nation's constitutional future, referenda will always have the problem that the majority of people in society do not have the time or the effort to make a completely facts-based decision and are thus easily swayed by shallow emotion by either side. Even the Swiss, with their wonderful love of referenda, have seen what is possible with their recent vote to reintroduce immigration quotas from the EU. It is not actually within their interest to do so, as it invalidates their entire EU freedom of movement treaty and will thus introduce unnecessary restrictions upon their own citizens for no real gain on their part. The idea of an in-out UK EU referendum will also have this issue: the reasons to vote against the EU are not as factually strong as the reasons to vote to stay, but with shallow media manipulation a perverse result can be obtained despite it being worse overall for the country.

 

[Emyr]

And build a railway that might well be obsolete by the time it opens instead? HS2 won't be competing against today's short-haul aircraft, it will be competing against ones that haven't even been designed yet.

You'll be needing Boris Island then.

 

[The Decapod]

I'm not totally against High Speed Rail, I just think there are more important things to spend the money on at the moment - including more on the existing rail network, reopening lines and new stations and bringing forward the next phase of electrification - and those flood defences I mentioned above - not least a new main line route a few miles long in Devon avoiding the Dawlish sea wall (Which would remain as a local line). When all that is done, then maybe HS2, HS3, HS4 even.

 

[Muzer]

But many of those things won't ever be done. Upgrades, for example, are/should be a rolling programme to match increasing demand. It'll only be done when demand stops increasing, and who knows when that will happen?

 

[HSTEd]

And build a railway that might well be obsolete by the time it opens instead? HS2 won't be competing against today's short-haul aircraft, it will be competing against ones that haven't even been designed yet.

The speed of short haul aircraft has not increased significantly since the introduction of turbofan powered jets in place of the older turboprops.

That was quite a long time ago.

This 'it might be obsolete' argument can be used to argue against everything.

 

[The Decapod]

You'll be needing Boris Island then.

Not personally, I would be unlikely to need it, but it seems like a good idea - and it's not a new idea either.

 

[thealexweb]

Is the £8bn figure about money being taken from the existing rail budget true? If yes HS2 should be scrapped immediately with the £40bn+ spent modernising the existing network which will offer much greater value.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm not totally against High Speed Rail, I just think there are more important things to spend the money on at the moment - including more on the existing rail network, reopening lines and new stations and bringing forward the next phase of electrification - and those flood defences I mentioned above - not least a new main line route a few miles long in Devon avoiding the Dawlish sea wall, which would remain as a local line. When all that is done, then maybe HS2, HS3, HS4 even.

By 2030/2033 there won't be a great deal left to electrify. Once there are the staff and equipment to do what is currently planned they might as well keep them employed and get them to do the rest of the network. The high output electrification train being used on the GWML would make light work of any long and reasonably uncomplicated route (anything that runs in open countryside, effectively) and since all new and rebuilt bridges and tunnels are done for electrification clearance the number of obstacles in electrification's way will reduce more and more as well. Therefore, reopened railway lines can be electrified very quickly indeed, even once they have opened with diesel stock.

I would put a near 100% certainty that the Okehampton route will be reopened, even just as a diversionary route. Doing so would also help NR strengthen more of the Dawlish sea wall because it would allow them to have longer possessions. Both the Dawlish and Okehampton works would also be conducive for future electrification, with the advantage again being that with a diversionary route the electrification could happen more quickly, more efficiently and more cost-effectively.

 

[meridian2]

I'm not totally against High Speed Rail, I just think there are more important things to spend the money on at the moment - including more on the existing rail network, reopening lines and new stations and bringing forward the next phase of electrification - and those flood defences I mentioned above - not least a new main line route a few miles long in Devon avoiding the Dawlish sea wall (Which would remain as a local line). When all that is done, then maybe HS2, HS3, HS4 even.

In the context of everything else, the money allocated to HS2 isn't that much, and whilst I agree spending on an avoiding line in Devon might appease those that think short-term, it misses the whole point of the raison de'tre for HS2; to relieve capacity and free up freight paths (at least that's what I believe IMO).
You can't quantify things like this as 'important/not-important', as circumstances change all the time and what'll be vital in the short-term now might not be necessarily vital in the same period tomorrow much less long-term. At least with the promise of HS2, we have some sort of assurance/s that the long-term problems necessitating it's construction will be addressed.
I bet you can't make the same case for a 'Dawlish avoiding line'.

 

[The Decapod]

The speed of short haul aircraft has not increased significantly since the introduction of turbofan powered jets in place of the older turboprops.

That was quite a long time ago.

This 'it might be obsolete' argument can be used to argue against everything.

Planes might not be much faster by then, but check-in times etc. might be much quicker and airport links much better. HS2 is 'future proofed' for 250 mph line speed, although it's likely trains won't reach that speed in service. As with short-haul aircraft, train speeds, with the latest in high speed rail, of 200-220 mph, probably won't increase much - even though test trains in France have done well over 300 mph. And we don't know yet if the Japanese Maglev train will bring the big breakthrough in guided high-speed transport that Transrapid demonstrated but couldn't maintain the commercial momentum on.

 

[starrymarkb]

Planes might not be much faster by then, but check-in times etc. might be much quicker and airport links much better. HS2 is 'future proofed' for 250 mph line speed, although it's likely trains won't reach that speed in service. As with short-haul aircraft, train speeds, with the latest in high speed rail, of 200-220 mph, probably won't increase much - even though test trains in France have done well over 300 mph. And we don't know yet if the Japanese Maglev train will bring the big breakthrough in guided high-speed transport that Transrapid didn't quite sustain.

Most of the R&D in commercial aviation is going into fuel efficiency rather then top speeds. The most recent innovation seems to be the introduction of larger geared turbofans*, which promise to reduce fuel burn by 20%.

*The Geared Turbofan was originally fitted to the British Aerospace 146 - but that was probably more because it's engines were originally designed to power Helicopters!