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

[PR1Berske]

What solution(s) have you offered?

*Extra lines and signalling modernising on the WCML
*Focused funding in regional hotspots
*Reflect actual passenger numbers in timetabling to make traffic flow more responsive to actual need (of you like, make timetabling smarter)
*Use alternative destinations than Euston
*Invest in high-speed internet
*Accept that building new railways aren't always the solution
*Accept that London has enough investment and should get not one penny more

 

[Sceptre]

Ah, so you're one of those people who thinks that Skype will reduce demand in the railways, despite the fact that the wide penetration of 4G hasn't stopped growth in railway demand.

"Teleconferencing will reduce the need to commute" is right up there with "biomass will reduce the need for electrification" in the list of lies the Darling-era DfT spouted to justify not spending on the railways, and I'm surprised it still has traction in 2019.

 

[Taunton]

Another solution I can offer is just to buy some more rolling stock. It is ludicrous that the only place where there seem to be an adequate number of adequate length trains is the old Southern Region routes southwards from London. And end a policy where each order is unique and incompatible with what went before, and bought in penny packets which can't be increased later.

 

[Esker-pades]

*Extra lines and signalling modernising on the WCML

Extra lines on the WCML is literally HS2.

*Focused funding in regional hotspots

That doesn't mean anything....
What regions? Hotspots of what? What would you hope to achieve? How would this be any different to HS2?

*Reflect actual passenger numbers in timetabling to make traffic flow more responsive to actual need (of you like, make timetabling smarter)

What does that mean?
More trains at the peak times? There isn't the capacity.
Longer trains at peak times? There isn't the rolling stock. Even if there was, it would only patch things up for a couple of years.

*Use alternative destinations than Euston

What alternative destinations? What other London terminals can accomodate the additional trains? (I'll answer: none.)
Outside of London? Where? Doesn't that go against the "actual passenger numbers in timetabling to make traffic flow more responsive to actual need" that is your "smart timetable"?

*Invest in high-speed internet

See @Sceptre 's response in post #1742.

*Accept that building new railways aren't always the solution

It's quite a good solution to the problem "too many people using the train".

*Accept that London has enough investment and should get not one penny more

HS2 is not just about London.

Spoiler

10 of 15

Another solution I can offer is just to buy some more rolling stock. It is ludicrous that the only place where there seem to be an adequate number of adequate length trains is the old Southern Region routes southwards from London.

We've already established that there is a lack of space for additional trains on the WCML. So, one can only really add 4 coaches here and there. That won't increase the capacity to meet with projected demand.

 

[Aictos]

Isn't this unfair of you? It may well be that there's no problem, that HS2 is a solution looking for a problem, and it simply shouldn't be built without any alternative instead.

Every solution we offer in place of HS2 you dismiss anyway, we can't really win!

Maybe because every "solution" that you have come up with isn't really a viable solution and does absolutely nothing for the country other then waste time.

Example so called smart timetabling, don't you think if it was really that simple that the guys who do it for a living would have brought it in a long time ago!

 

[Meerkat]

Assuming there really is a problem to be solved how expensive are you willing for HS2 to get before it stops being a viable solution?

 

[Ianno87]

*Extra lines and signalling modernising on the WCML
*Focused funding in regional hotspots
*Reflect actual passenger numbers in timetabling to make traffic flow more responsive to actual need (of you like, make timetabling smarter)
*Use alternative destinations than Euston
*Invest in high-speed internet
*Accept that building new railways aren't always the solution
*Accept that London has enough investment and should get not one penny more

Do we *really* have to do this again? I refer to multiple repeated previous answers to these exact same things.

 

[The Ham]

Assuming there really is a problem to be solved how expensive are you willing for HS2 to get before it stops being a viable solution?

Average loadings of ALL trains into Euston of ~60%. With growth of 25% expected for ICWC services by 2026 that could reach 73%, bearing in mind that includes trains leaving against the peak flow there's likely to be a lot of services which are a lot busier than that.

Given we've seen rail growth of ~70% since 2009 when from then until 2026 it was expected to be ~50% (which was the justification for phase 1).

Given that passenger numbers are already higher than predicted, there's scope for cost over runs without the return being reduced.

In fact travel between London and the North West would currently (assuming they ask pay off peak return ticket prices of £68) would over a 60 year period cover half the costs of HS2.

If passenger numbers grow by 25%, that would allow (based on just the London to North West passengers) cost over runs of £6bn (not including the current extra growth) and it not impact on the viability of the business case of HS2.

Add in a further £5bn (1/2 of the current 13 million people traveling between London and the West Midlands traveling on a £25 return) and you've covered something like 60% of the costs of the whole project. That's before you start to look at Leeds/York/Scotland to London or any of the non London flows or any of the extra passengers on the new services which are created by the capacity by removing trains to the HS2 network.

Anyway if you don't build anything because it may go over budget then you're never going to do anything.

 

[The Ham]

Another solution I can offer is just to buy some more rolling stock. It is ludicrous that the only place where there seem to be an adequate number of adequate length trains is the old Southern Region routes southwards from London. And end a policy where each order is unique and incompatible with what went before, and bought in penny packets which can't be increased later.

I can assure you that there's not sufficient rolling stock within the Southern Region either. It's not uncommon to be on a train in the middle of the afternoon which is four coaches and has people standing on it. Before you suggest that it could be longer, no it can't because it wouldn't return to London in time to be of use in the evening peak, nor is it due to advanced tickets as it's run by a TOC which doesn't offer them very much and almost never on the services in question.

Likewise there's stations which are 35 minutes from London which have trains in the peaks which are full and standing in both peak directions which are 12 coaches long and run at a frequency of 4tph. Before you say that's due to stations way beyond that, those stations are better served by other services (which are also full and standing). There's no scope for more frequent services because everywhere is like that.

Even if there was scope to increase the frequency by 50% it probably wouldn't take long for those services to be fairly busy as the trains going the wrong way in the peaks are also fairly busy, with many full and standing.

 

[anme]

*Accept that London has enough investment and should get not one penny more

London needs independence.

 

[PR1Berske]

Do we *really* have to do this again? I refer to multiple repeated previous answers to these exact same things.

I was asked what my solutions would be. I answered. I'm accused of never answering questions. I just have. Again.

 

[PR1Berske]

Anyway if you don't build anything because it may go over budget then you're never going to do anything.

How high over budget would HS2 have to go before even you had to admit "enough is enough"?

 

[Ianno87]

I was asked what my solutions would be. I answered. I'm accused of never answering questions. I just have. Again.

No you haven't - their either vague/inspecific ("investment in hotspots") or have been discredited (use other termini / smart timetabling).

 

[The Ham]

*Extra lines and signalling modernising on the WCML

What about the ECML, and to a lesser extent the MML, which also benefits from HS2?

*Focused funding in regional hotspots

What do you mean? Things like the Trans Pennies Upgrade, which is already committed? Or like NPR which is rumoured to be given the go ahead? Both of which are in addition to HS2.

*Reflect actual passenger numbers in timetabling to make traffic flow more responsive to actual need (of you like, make timetabling smarter)

You mean like cater for the circa 4,000 passengers an hour in each direction which use ICWC services, which is due to rise to 5,000 within 10 years.

*Use alternative destinations than Euston

Like where? Kings Cross, in need of more capacity, relieved by HS2. Waterloo, in need of more capacity relieved by Crossrail 2. Paddington, in need of more capacity, relieved by Crossrail. Liverpool Street, in need of more capacity, relieved by both Crossrails. Marylebone, has some extra capacity for longer trains by converting from loco hauling coaches, but not a lot. At Pancreas, in need of more capacity, due to get longer trains, again not gaining much.

Where else could London bound services go?

*Invest in high-speed internet

Current average broadband speeds are ~50mb/s with some reports suggesting that this could nearly double to 90mb/s if everyone opted for the fastest available speeds that they could. However even at 50mb/s that's more than fast enough for most office environments. The problem is not everyone have jobs which are suitable to be able to work from home and even those which are there's often reasons why they wouldn't find it practical (such as no work space, family, etc.). It also doesn't stop people from going and visiting family.

Even with the increase in speeds of broadband (2009 was ~5mb/s) the demand for rail has grown not gone down. How much faster does it need to go before we're going to see rail travel drop off?

Anyway, even if it does least to less travel wouldn't it be better too significantly cut the amount of road travel which people do before putting limiting factors in the way of people going by rail?

*Accept that building new railways aren't always the solution

I accept this already, there's no way that building a railway line between two towns of 10,000 is going to be viable, even a town of 10,000 and a small city of 150,000 (with no intermediate stations) would be viable

*Accept that London has enough investment and should get not one penny more

As I've pointed out above (previous post) the trains into London and many out in the morning peaks are full, the roads are full, that basically leaves flying as the only viable option for significant option of we are not going to invest more money (and even that's not going to work very well if you can't get to/from the London airports.

The thing is that HS2 also massively improves links between Birmingham and Leeds, York and Manchester. As well as provides extra capacity for local services to/from those stations. If you are going to stick by your promise of never using HS2 I think that you should also commit to not using services which are created or are lengthened by the creation of HS2 (good luck with that, in that it's likely there's going to be a lot which are).

P.S. I'm not the first to explain why your solutions don't work, but feel free to come back on anything I've said.

 

[Bald Rick]

Smart timetabling, n, a concept in timetabling that is sufficiently complex such that if you need a detailed explanation you obviously aren’t smart enough to be able to understand it*, and therefore no explanation will be given.

*Even if you’ve been working with timetables most of your career, and have never heard of the phrase.

 

[MarkyT]

Smart timetabling, n, a concept in timetabling that is sufficiently complex such that if you need a detailed explanation you obviously aren’t smart enough to be able to understand it

Sounds to me like some kind of quantum phenomenon. Maybe the capacity it creates both exists and doesn't simultaneously, and only the act of observation can collapse the wave function.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Or rather than putting people on the streets by way of such a thing, we could just introduce strict controls and heavy taxation on the ownership of property that is not your primary home. Much of the London price issue (as distinct from the issue in the wider UK) is due to investors.

I'm dubious that would help. Living in London, it's very obvious to me that the housing problem is caused by one thing alone: Many more people want/need to live in London than there are houses available. Hence why so many houses in London end up rented out to flatshares with one person/a couple in each room: It's the only way you can get even remotely near housing all the people who want to live in London.

If through 2nd-home taxation you discouraged people buying to let, you'd probably reduce headline house prices, but you might well actually make homelessness worse, not better. Consider for example a house that has 4 rooms each rented out separately. That's 4 single/couple households housed, albeit not very comfortably. Because of heavy not-primary-residence taxation, the owner sells up. The house is bought by one household who, not being landlords, decide they want to enjoy the house for themselves. A house that used to house 4 households now houses 1 household, and you have 3 households having to find somewhere else to live. Up goes homelessness

But in practice, you'll always have landlords as long as you have people willing to rent. In reality, it's just as likely that the cost of any heavy taxation you propose would simply be passed on to tenants, and typical rent levels would rise dramatically across the country.

In the end, there is one way and only one way to sort out our housing crisis: Build enough houses!

 

[Esker-pades]

I was asked what my solutions would be. I answered. I'm accused of never answering questions. I just have. Again.

They're not solutions if they don't solve things. @The Ham and I have explained why none of the "solutions" you have offered work.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I was asked what my solutions would be. I answered. I'm accused of never answering questions. I just have. Again.

I think the subtle nuance you may be missing is that people want to know what realistic or plausible or not-discredited solutions you might be able to offer instead of HS2.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sounds to me like some kind of quantum phenomenon. Maybe the capacity it creates both exists and doesn't simultaneously, and only the act of observation can collapse the wave function.

Schrödinger’s capacity, perhaps. As observed at Waterloo every morning.

 

[The Ham]

They're not solutions if they don't solve things. @The Ham and I have explained why none of the "solutions" you have offered work.

Indeed, although if there's anything that I've said in my response which is incorrect which would explain why the suggestions may work please feel free to enlighten us.

Although I wrote suggest that if there was something wrong in what I said then others would have highlighted it. (That's an open invite to anyone to comment on what I've said).

 

[gazzaa2]

Since 2009 rail growth had gone up by ~70% and there's a need to reduce the need for flying and car usage so as to not to destroy the planet through CO2 emissions creating global warming. Add in the extra population growth which the UK is likely to see and there needs to be something.
View media item 3340
If HS2 was such a bad solution then it should be easy to produce an alternative. The problem is that unless we build a new line there's little else which could be done. If your building a new line the extra to make it high speed is low, especially given that you'd want to improve things on both the WCML and ECML, which without making it a HS line would require two lines (pushing the costs up).

It's not just me though, whenever it suggested that improved timetabling is suggested many (including those whose job it is) suggest that suggestions of what may help are provided, yet nothing had been forthcoming.

There is very little said which is critical of the comments I make about the alternitves to HS2 or the facts about the growth seen.

Show that there's not a need for something, or provide an alternitve or discredit what I say and I will listen.

Decentralising the economy would be a start. The current imbalance is down to 40 years of prioritising London and the south east to the detriment of nearly everywhere else.

Far too many people live and work in London while so many cities and towns have even seen a drop in population and employment numbers.

Building a fast line to London from the Midlands might ease the bottleneck for a generation but it's another symptom of the same problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Decentralising the economy would be a start. The current imbalance is down to 40 years of prioritising London and the south east to the detriment of nearly everywhere else.

I reckon there will be a shift but the effect (increased house prices) may not be what people in provincial locations want. Increasingly professional roles can be done with a high proportion of remote working, which means things like living somewhere really nice but cheap and going to London on the train once a week is viable.

 

[underbank]

As I've pointed out above (previous post) the trains into London and many out in the morning peaks are full, the roads are full, that basically leaves flying as the only viable option for significant option of we are not going to invest more money (and even that's not going to work very well if you can't get to/from the London airports.

What about all the journeys made via London where people don't actually "need" to go via London which not only increase travellers on the trains around London, but also the Underground. The Rail system is London-Centric. If I want to go from the NW to most South Coast or other locations south of London, I have to travel via London. Why are there no "hubs" around London so people can by-pass the most congested train services? It makes no sense.

 

[underbank]

In the end, there is one way and only one way to sort out our housing crisis: Build enough houses!

Not just one way at all. Another option would be to incentivise businesses to operate outside the Capital and/or penalise those who operate within the Capital so that employment starts to be spread more evenly across the country again. Something like reduced employers NIC for businesses outside the M25/increased employers NIC for businesses inside the M25 - i.e. additional employment cost for operating in London. Or more grants and capital allowances for businesses setting up outside London. Review of business rates so that London businesses pay more and non-London businesses pay less. Lots of ways to start to force businesses to think about options outside London. Such changes could be phased in over say 10 years to lessen the immediate impact. Or a massive expansion in incentives such as Enterprise zones to bring life back to run down towns and cities across the country. Complete madness that there are areas with cheap or empty housing. We've had decades of London-centric thinking, so it's time to reverse that as it's simply not sustainable.

 

[al78]

In the end, there is one way and only one way to sort out our housing crisis: Build enough houses!

At the same time make better use of the vertical dimension and build more flats. Land is expensive in the UK, and is needed for more than building houses on. We also need, as a society, to regard things like housing and transport to be finite limited resources, and be treated as such, so a shift toward fewer single people living in four bedroom houses which is a horribly inefficient use of limited space.

Another option, if possible, is to encourage/persuade companies to set up in cities away from London. It is illogical to try and cram much of the employment opportunities into one small pocket of the country, then complain that the services and utilities required to serve the people who move and live there because of the employment opportunity, are bursting at the seams.

 

[The Ham]

What about all the journeys made via London where people don't actually "need" to go via London which not only increase travellers on the trains around London, but also the Underground. The Rail system is London-Centric. If I want to go from the NW to most South Coast or other locations south of London, I have to travel via London. Why are there no "hubs" around London so people can by-pass the most congested train services? It makes no sense.

Reading acts as a fairly good hub, but due to constraints (including at Birmingham) can't have more than 2tph running North South.

OOC, more so if the Southern Approach to Heathrow is built with through trains from Basingstoke and Guildford, could also act as a hub for a large sections of areas like Berkshire, Hampshire, Surrey & Dorset heading north (see previous comments previously about comparable journey times using existing services from Southampton to Paddington to get to OOC to then use HS2 to get to Birmingham compared with the direct XC services, which then reduces journey times for locations, such as Leeds, York & Manchester, North of there)

 

[al78]

Reading acts as a fairly good hub, but due to constraints (including at Birmingham) can't have more than 2tph running North South.

OOC, more so if the Southern Approach to Heathrow is built with through trains from Basingstoke and Guildford, could also act as a hub for a large sections of areas like Berkshire, Hampshire, Surrey & Dorset heading north (see previous comments previously about comparable journey times using existing services from Southampton to Paddington to get to OOC to then use HS2 to get to Birmingham compared with the direct XC services, which then reduces journey times for locations, such as Leeds, York & Manchester, North of there)

I used to be able to get from Horsham to Manchester by changing at Clapham Junction and Watford Junction, which bypassed the London termini, but now that journey is not possible, presumably due to some timetable changes made in the past.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In the end, there is one way and only one way to sort out our housing crisis: Build enough houses!

Not just one way at all. Another option would be to incentivise businesses to operate outside the Capital and/or penalise those who operate within the Capital so that employment starts to be spread more evenly across the country again.

But that doesn't actually provide more houses. It just spreads the housing shortage around the country a bit more. And businesses already face considerable financial dis-incentives to operate in London. Just compare rent levels in London and most of the provinces. Yet for some reason, vast numbers of businesses continue to feel that, despite the extraordinarily high rents that they pay in London, they are better off operating there. If you want more businesses to operate in the provinces, then you need to carefully consider why that is the case: It's probably not something you can solve by making it a bit more expensive to work in the capital because if that approach was going to work, London would already be a business-desert.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I used to be able to get from Horsham to Manchester by changing at Clapham Junction and Watford Junction, which bypassed the London termini, but now that journey is not possible, presumably due to some timetable changes made in the past.

Today you could do that journey with just one single change - at Peterborough! (Although if you're at all concerned about a quick journey time, it'd probably make more sense to change to LUL at Farringdon and walk from Euston Square to Euston, which still means you only have to deal with one London terminus).

The most obvious reason changing at Clapham and Watford is not possible now is that Euston-Manchester trains don't stop at Watford Junction. It seems very plausible (although not certain) that with HS2, that direct Watford-Manchester link could be restored though.

As an aside though: Does anyone think that people travelling through London who don't want to go to anywhere in London is a big enough problem by itself to warrant much intervention? Yes, it would make journeys somewhat more pleasant if people can avoid travelling on the underground between London termini, but I'd imagine that, as a proportion of people using the London termini, the proportion of people doing such journeys is going to be small. And HS2 will of course help that to some extent by providing the interchange at OOC.