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

[6Gman]

Sorry! I didn't know Virgin still ran Voyagers...seemed kind of strange that there are diesel trains running under wires for such a large distance. My first reaction to finding out this fact is they should get Virgin some bi-modes and transfer the 221's to Cross Country (They really need the capacity )

Bit tricky running to Chester and North Wales with Pendolinos. They did try it for a while, dragged by 57s, but it really wasn't satisfactory.

In the present structure of our railway building a few bi-modes for VTWC and moving the 221s to XC would be a hugely complex process involving all sorts of franchise negotiations.

Which is why, on balance, I support renationalisation.

 

[The Ham]

Bit tricky running to Chester and North Wales with Pendolinos. They did try it for a while, dragged by 57s, but it really wasn't satisfactory.

In the present structure of our railway building a few bi-modes for VTWC and moving the 221s to XC would be a hugely complex process involving all sorts of franchise negotiations.

Which is why, on balance, I support renationalisation.

Would it be tricky? As I understand it the Voyagers are now beyond their initial lease agreement, as such there should be less problems than the would have been. As no-one has a franchise and so is unlikely that they are tied into a long lease.

If the DfT accepted that Virgin were going to get new trains they would, as part of the extension to the franchise for XC, talk with XC about improving the number of trains available for them.

Under a nationalised system, assuming that we had sectors, one sector wouldn't be willing to give the trains they had paid for to another sector. The other sector may then feel the price for the trains may be too high. As such you could still find it hard to move rolling stock around.

 

[sprinterguy]

On the subject of rolling stock, what is known about the proposals for the trains running on HS2?

I heard one company is going with a double decker proposal! Maybe a derivative of the new French TGV's as they're supposed to be both relatively cheap, as well as efficient as well as looking really good! (A two floor bar sound good to anyone? )

Is there any high speed wheeled rolling stock that runs at or is capable of running at 225mph?

All of the bids I am aware of have specified single deck stock. As far as I'm aware, the train order for HS2 Phase 1 is intended to be one homogenous fleet of 54 trains, given the high number of services that will run onto the classic network the number of 'captive' double-deck sets that could be built would surely be quite small.

More detail on the HS2 rolling stock requirements and proposed bids can be found at this link:
https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/five-compete-for-2-75bn-hs2-fleet-order

There are five bidders for the HS2 rolling stock contract, to supply at least 54 trainsets capable of 360km/h for Phase 1 of HS2;

Hitachi Rail/Bombardier Traction joint bid
Siemens
Alstom
Talgo
CAF

As far as I am aware Hitachi/Bombardier are focusing their efforts on the AT-400 "British Bullet Train", featuring between 10 and 12 single deck 25 metre carriages:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...veils-at400-british-bullet-train-concept.html

Siemens have said that they will offer HS2 a variant of their new Velaro Novo high-speed train, which premiered at InnoTrans 2018:
https://new.siemens.com/global/en/p...h-speed-and-intercity-trains/velaro-novo.html

Alstom have already provided their 220mph (360km/h) distributed traction AGV to Italian open access operator NTV, and I suspect they would offer something similar for HS2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGV_(train)

A double deck "AGV Duplex" is in the works that might be capable of 250mph (400km/h), and while Alstom did previously moot such a double-deck design for HS2, with separate power cars, back in 2016 it won't happen for Phase 1:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/acela-influences-alstoms-hs2-concept-train.html

Talgo have previously produced the Talgo 350, which operates at up to 220mph, and since 2009 have been developing the Talgo "AVRIL" capable of up to 240mph, which won its first production contract in November 2016. Talgo are developing an Avril UK variant for HS2 use, which will retain Talgo's method of articulation but will feature distributed traction rather than separate power cars. The computer generated renders for Talgo HS2 stock appear to show a more traditional streamlined aesthetic than the "duck billed" frontage found on the Talgo 350 and "AVRIL". Talgo have plans to build a train assembly plant at Longannet in Scotland should they bid successfully.

Fellow Spanish manufacturers CAF were latecomers to the party, only being added to the HS2 rolling stock shortlist, originally announced in November 2017, in June 2018, subsequently resulting in Talgo launching a legal bid against HS2 for mishandling the procurement programme. Were CAF successful, they have stated that they would build the trains at their newly opened factory in Newport, Wales. CAF intend to offer something derived from their Oaris family of high speed trains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAF_Oaris

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

On the subject of rolling stock, what is known about the proposals for the trains running on HS2?
I heard one company is going with a double decker proposal! Maybe a derivative of the new French TGV's as they're supposed to be both relatively cheap, as well as efficient as well as looking really good! (A two floor bar sound good to anyone? )
Is there any high speed wheeled rolling stock that runs at or is capable of running at 225mph?

No double deck, at least for Phase 1 and 2a.
They will all be classic-compatible so they can run onto the classic network, which dictates a single-deck design.
Phase 2b (HS2 to Manchester and Leeds as well as Birmingham) might restart the debate, but that's a decade away.
The train procurement hasn't started in earnest yet, and in any case the design criteria are not yet settled.

 

[sprinterguy]

The train procurement hasn't started in earnest yet, and in any case the design criteria are not yet settled.

The Invitiation to Tender commenced in July 2018, and the Train Technical Specification was released at that time. That seems like a definitive set of design criteria to me, and the contract is expected to be awarded at the end of this year:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-rolling-stock-procurement

 

[quantinghome]

No double deck, at least for Phase 1 and 2a.
They will all be classic-compatible so they can run onto the classic network, which dictates a single-deck design.
Phase 2b (HS2 to Manchester and Leeds as well as Birmingham) might restart the debate, but that's a decade away.
The train procurement hasn't started in earnest yet, and in any case the design criteria are not yet settled.

Sounds about right to me. The number of captive units possible for Phase 1 and 2a is pretty small so it makes sense to have a single order of single-deck trains. However, Phase 2b gives the opportunity for a significant order of double-deck, with single-deck redeployed from Birmingham and Manchester to Scotland and North-East services.

 

[The Ham]

There's been an update to the regional passenger numbers to include 2017/18, if anyone would like to use them to explain why we should scrap HS2:

http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/browsereports/15

Although I feel that no-one will be doing so...

 

[Sceptre]

There's been an update to the regional passenger numbers to include 2017/18, if anyone would like to use them to explain why we should scrap HS2:

http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/browsereports/15

Although I feel that no-one will be doing so...

Someone's gonna point at the 0.4% drop in passenger numbers in London (due entirely to intra-city traffic in East London falling) and point that to a reason why rail passenger numbers have peaked, and besides, global warming ended in 1998 and the Tories/Labour are gonna win a majority at the next election because the latest YouGov poll has them four points ahead.

 

[The Ham]

Someone's gonna point at the 0.4% drop in passenger numbers in London (due entirely to intra-city traffic in East London falling) and point that to a reason why rail passenger numbers have peaked, and besides, global warming ended in 1998 and the Tories are gonna win a majority at the next election because the latest YouGov poll has them four points ahead.

In which case others may point out the 12% growth in passengers between London and Scotland along with the 8% growth between the West Midlands and Scotland.

 

[Sceptre]

In which case others may point out the 12% growth in passengers between London and Scotland along with the 8% growth between the West Midlands and Scotland.

Hence my joke about other infamous bad stats. :P

 

[The Ham]

Hence my joke about other infamous bad stats. :P

I realised (although I'm not sure that some who are opposed to HS2 who are on Twitter give the impression that they believe such "data"), it was mostly to point out why those opposed to HS2 would have a tough job to use the data to justify cancelling the project.

 

[The Ham]

For those who say "electrify the Chiltern line and lengthen trains" if we assume 3 extra coaches on each of the 3tph which Chiltern run that's 42% increase in length for 7 coach trains.

However if we assume that there's currently 7*3 on Chiltern and 3*9 on Virgin that's currently 48 coaches, so the extra 9 coaches gains 19% capacity.

Compare that to the 70% increase between London and the West Midlands between 2009 and 2018 and although it will help, that's not going to gain overly much.

In fact I would have been inclined to have argued that it should be happening anyway in CP6 to help with ensuring there's sufficient capacity before HS2 starts, other than CP6 upgrades have been set already.

 

[keithboddey]

It is now about "capacity issues" on the West coast mainline.
Before spending Millions you would have thought that these "capacity issues" could be scrutinised.
Load levels are confidential..and held secret by Virgin trains.

How ridiculous is that !!

 

[6Gman]

It is now about "capacity issues" on the West coast mainline.
Before spending Millions you would have thought that these "capacity issues" could be scrutinised.
Load levels are confidential..and held secret by Virgin trains.

How ridiculous is that !!

It's not just about load levels.

It's not just about Virgin.

 

[Bald Rick]

It is now about "capacity issues" on the West coast mainline.
Before spending Millions you would have thought that these "capacity issues" could be scrutinised.
Load levels are confidential..and held secret by Virgin trains.

How ridiculous is that !!

It's not just about load levels.

It's not just about Virgin.

And the load levels on services (to a very fine level of detail) are available to those who are responsible for planning capacity increases.

 

[The Ham]

It is now about "capacity issues" on the West coast mainline.
Before spending Millions you would have thought that these "capacity issues" could be scrutinised.
Load levels are confidential..and held secret by Virgin trains.

How ridiculous is that !!

As an example, let's look at those trains from 2011 which in the PM peak were much was made about them being 52% full in the 3 hour peak.

If we apply the standard growth between London and the West Midlands between 2011 and 2018 (47%) then that average loading goes up to 76%.

However that's between 4pm and 7pm and I'd expect that there's going to be some which are more lightly loaded than that which will mean that others would be higher.

75% means 1 in 4 seats are available, however if there's another 30% growth from now we're going to hit 100% full (average).

That's fine if we take 30 years to get there, however if we take 7 years (bearing in mind that we've done 47% in the last 7 years) then we'd need HS2 to be on time so that we don't end up with zero growth capacity.

There could be ways of getting a little more capacity here and there, however it's possible that we're going to need that just to cope with demand until the opening of Phase 1.

 

[si404]

And we need to think long long term - like its predecessors, it will be around for about 170-200 years before ceasing to become the main Intercity rail service on it's route. If it isn't full-to-bursting (like the Elizabeth line will be) by the end of year 1, and even still has space by year 30, that's fine, because it's sticking around.

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder this thread is to discuss reasons why people are opposed to HS2.

Please post any speculative ideas in the correct forum, thanks.

 

[MarkyT]

The Green Party continues to oppose HS2. Here is their most recent statement on the matter:
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2019/02/11/greens-time-to-put-hs2-out-of-its-misery/

Greens: Time to put HS2 out of its misery
11 February 2019
The Green Party has responded to news the Government is considering scrapping HS2, ahead of a broadcast of Channel 4’s Dispatches tonight. [1]
Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, said:
“Ministers are right to doubt HS2 – this vanity project is a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money and it’s time they put it out of its misery. HS2 is already inflicting environmental vandalism on our countryside and woodlands as the cost of the project continues to spiral. Ditching this project would save billions and allow thousands of jobs to be created by investing in desperately needed upgrades to local rail networks.”
Notes: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cost-of-hs2-never-properly-analysed-warns-rail-expert-gb92c79c5

I can understand UKIP opposing the project. I suspect with their Neo-Thatcherism (and other isms) they have links to shady think tanks and pressure groups that seek to oppose passenger rail in all its applications. Certain elements in the Tory party seem to be leaning that way today too with Rees Mogg and Johnson coming out strongly against HS2. The same surely cannot be the case with the Greens though, so I don't understand their position because improved high speed rail surely has a seriously good chance of significantly reducing domestic air use, as has occurred verifiably in other countries that have built out such networks. I suspect it's a deliberate populist stance to try and swing support from the Tories in areas like the Chilterns. The statement seems weak and amateurish, once again repeating the hackneyed phrase 'vanity project' while giving no detail on what they find problematic with the business case. All development in rural areas is bound to affect some natural features of the landscape to an extent and the Greens clearly can't believe realistically in no development at all, with no new facilties, no roads, no houses, anything for the benefit of humankind affecting a field or wooded area. HS2 is not even excessively destructive in this respect, with many mitigations being proposed, and it is a railway (ffs), not a motorway or airport, whose express purpose is to shift passengers from other modes and increase the total capacity of the national railway network on its busiest routes. Despite being very ecologically minded myself, I find the Green position on HS2 utterly ridiculous, so apart from a good candidate in local council elections, they wouldn't get my vote (not that that would likely change anything in a GE!).

 

[Sceptre]

If I was being cynical, I would suggest that the Greens’ opposition to HS2 is due to the fact that policy was decided when their (former) leader lived in Somers Town.

 

[jfowkes]

In principle, Green Party policy is decided by the members at conference. In practise, I have no idea if it actually happens. And it seems nice and democratic, but it means that:

a) Policy is shifted towards the views of kind of person who can be bothered to join the green party and go to conference. Which will tend to shift that policy away from the rest of the electrorate
b) The leaders can blame everything on the membership: "we didn't decide this, our members did".
c) If you criticise a policy, you get told "join up and change our minds", which translates to "dedicate your life to a years-long of internal campaigning where everyone will hate you".

With specific respect to HS2, their high-speed rail policy is "TR244 The Green Party believes that long-distance service provision should not concentrate on high speeds where this will affect local service provision or take up an excessive amount of limited resources. The Green Party supports the principle of a new north-south high speed line which would reduce the number of short-haul flights within the UK.", not a million miles from the "it's fine but does it need to be 400km/h" that some people have suggested.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Green Party continues to oppose HS2. Here is their most recent statement on the matter:
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2019/02/11/greens-time-to-put-hs2-out-of-its-misery/

I can understand UKIP opposing the project. I suspect with their Neo-Thatcherism (and other isms) they have links to shady think tanks and pressure groups that seek to oppose passenger rail in all its applications. Certain elements in the Tory party seem to be leaning that way today too with Rees Mogg and Johnson coming out strongly against HS2. The same surely cannot be the case with the Greens though, so I don't understand their position because improved high speed rail surely has a seriously good chance of significantly reducing domestic air use, as has occurred verifiably in other countries that have built out such networks. I suspect it's a deliberate populist stance to try and swing support from the Tories in areas like the Chilterns. The statement seems weak and amateurish, once again repeating the hackneyed phrase 'vanity project' while giving no detail on what they find problematic with the business case. All development in rural areas is bound to affect some natural features of the landscape to an extent and the Greens clearly can't believe realistically in no development at all, with no new facilties, no roads, no houses, anything for the benefit of humankind affecting a field or wooded area. HS2 is not even excessively destructive in this respect, with many mitigations being proposed, and it is a railway (ffs), not a motorway or airport, whose express purpose is to shift passengers from other modes and increase the total capacity of the national railway network on its busiest routes. Despite being very ecologically minded myself, I find the Green position on HS2 utterly ridiculous, so apart from a good candidate in local council elections, they wouldn't get my vote (not that that would likely change anything in a GE!).

A quick look at the Green's transport policy shows that their very first objective is

To reduce the total distance travelled by reducing journey lengths, particularly by encouraging the development and retention of local facilities

Given that objective, I guess they're not going to be particularly favourable to anything that facilitates more long distance journeys.

Personally I too find the Green's stance unrealistic (but that wouldn't be the first time by a long way). I suspect there's an element of, when your policy is determined by membership votes, then expert advice tends to get drowned out and you end up with lots of populist but not very sensible policies. I would also hazard a guess that a lot of the opposition to HS2 is based on 'It's called high speed. High speed is bad for the environment. Therefor HS2 is bad.' If they'd named the line something like 'Grand Central 2' but designed exactly the same thing, I'd bet a lot of people (including the Green Party) who are opposed to it would have been enthusiastically supporting it.

 

[quantinghome]

The Green Party continues to oppose HS2. Here is their most recent statement on the matter:
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2019/02/11/greens-time-to-put-hs2-out-of-its-misery/

I can understand UKIP opposing the project. I suspect with their Neo-Thatcherism (and other isms) they have links to shady think tanks and pressure groups that seek to oppose passenger rail in all its applications. Certain elements in the Tory party seem to be leaning that way today too with Rees Mogg and Johnson coming out strongly against HS2. The same surely cannot be the case with the Greens though, so I don't understand their position because improved high speed rail surely has a seriously good chance of significantly reducing domestic air use, as has occurred verifiably in other countries that have built out such networks. I suspect it's a deliberate populist stance to try and swing support from the Tories in areas like the Chilterns. The statement seems weak and amateurish, once again repeating the hackneyed phrase 'vanity project' while giving no detail on what they find problematic with the business case. All development in rural areas is bound to affect some natural features of the landscape to an extent and the Greens clearly can't believe realistically in no development at all, with no new facilties, no roads, no houses, anything for the benefit of humankind affecting a field or wooded area. HS2 is not even excessively destructive in this respect, with many mitigations being proposed, and it is a railway (ffs), not a motorway or airport, whose express purpose is to shift passengers from other modes and increase the total capacity of the national railway network on its busiest routes. Despite being very ecologically minded myself, I find the Green position on HS2 utterly ridiculous, so apart from a good candidate in local council elections, they wouldn't get my vote (not that that would likely change anything in a GE!).

In favour of a policy in theory, but opposing its practical application. It's a classic oppositionist minor party mindset.

 

[camflyer]

Surely a policy of "To reduce the total distance travelled by reducing journey lengths, particularly by encouraging the development and retention of local facilities" would just encourage more and more centralisation in London. Businesses aren't going to want to have lots of local offices. That may reduce journey lengths but could increase journey times, more overcrowding and more pollution.

 

[si404]

Despite being very ecologically minded myself, I find the Green position on HS2 utterly ridiculous

The Green Party (and other green groups) and ecology don't always go hand-in-hand, because they end up equating ecology with certain political positions and then caring more about sticking to the political principles rather than protecting the planet.

I guess the problem the Greens have with HS2 - if there's any ecological principle in their position - is 'miles' - most normally seen in 'food miles'. Frivolous and wasteful long-distance travel shouldn't be encouraged - everything should be local. I remember them being EU-skeptic about 10-15 years ago due to the political principles steering them (cf Benn, Corbyn, etc against the EU's 'Neoliberalism'), but they spun it as Green on the basis that stuff shouldn't be shipped 100s of miles, burning nasty fossil fuels - we should buy local (which, of course, is a trendy middle-class thing, especially with food).

 

[The Ham]

Surely a policy of "To reduce the total distance travelled by reducing journey lengths, particularly by encouraging the development and retention of local facilities" would just encourage more and more centralisation in London. Businesses aren't going to want to have lots of local offices. That may reduce journey lengths but could increase journey times, more overcrowding and more pollution.

Alternatively by building HS2 we create space on the existing network for more local services, in doing so HS2 could be argued to be in accordance with this policy.

Especially if it results in less internal flights, which in turn could lead to the closing of regional airports due to the lack of flights from the airport, further reducing the number of flights.

 

[tasky]

Interestingly, the Green Party manifesto in 2010 said they supported "in principle" what was then "the new north south high-speed line" under development by the Labour government. That changed by 2015 when the specifics were announced.

I find their stance pretty incomprehensible, to be honest. It's not just a weird policy, it seems to be their most visible policy - opposing a massive public transport investment.

 

[Three-Nine]

I don't know what UKIPs stance on HS2 is now (though last I saw they were against it), or even what their transport policy in general is, but in the past they once stated that they would build three high speed lines, not long after the initial announcement of HS2. Mind you, they also once said that they would paint all trains green again... its difficult to avoid the suspicion that UKIPs transport policy is based solely on what they think their core membership is reacting to on twitter at any given moment.

 

[camflyer]

Interestingly, the Green Party manifesto in 2010 said they supported "in principle" what was then "the new north south high-speed line" under development by the Labour government. That changed by 2015 when the specifics were announced.

I find their stance pretty incomprehensible, to be honest. It's not just a weird policy, it seems to be their most visible policy - opposing a massive public transport investment.

I'm sure that if there was a proposal for a new high speed (or even a regular speed) line to Brighton, the Green's only MP would be fully supportive of it as being against it would not do her re-election chances much good.

 

[Jozhua]

I used to be opposed to the idea of HS2, however our Mainline routes were built often more than 100 years ago (some nearly 150 years ago!) and Technology has changed considerably since then.

I Also keep seeing articles comparing the issues with UK high speed rail to those in California, despite California having some of the worst traffic problems in the world and urban planning that would give those of us on this side of the Atlantic an aneurysm! (Mimimum parking lots for every store sound good for getting people out their cars? Much of this reporting is the same as those who suggested ripping out the tracks of the New York subway and replacing them with hover boards and electric scooters!
(Not kidding: https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/562472/)