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

[HSTEd]

Wait, when did HS2 reduce it's planning speed to 300km/h?
I thought at worst we would drop to 320km/h.

Design for higher speeds was always silly really......

 

[al78]

People like you seem to miss the whole point of a protest. It's to garner coverage and support for a cause. Most people don't bat two eyelids when the Hong Kong protesters damage stuff because they are trying to draw attention to a cause. Extinction Rebellion are trying to get the message out. How a particular council chooses to remove slogans from them is not their issue.
While I am in favour of HS2, I can completely see E.R.'s point of view on this and in fact most of their stuff.
Disruption is bad, but it's also newsworthy, that's why they do it. The supposed environmental benefit of shutting down heathrow unexpectedly for two hours isn't the point, it would be the new coverage that matters to them.

Nice to see someone has got it.

If people had listened to scientists and their warnings/predictions over the last 50 years and acted accordingly, there would be no need for Extinction Rebellion and its disruptive protests.

 

[Speed43125]

Nice to see someone has got it.

If people had listened to scientists and their warnings/predictions over the last 50 years and acted accordingly, there would be no need for Extinction Rebellion and its disruptive protests.

Indeed. Unfortunately, we're still a a way off most people taking action.
The feeling of dread I felt when I saw the notification someone had quoted my post says a lot...

 

[Ianno87]

Extinction Rebellion aren't that bright. After their protest in Leeds city centre I watched them cleaning up what they'd written on the road with a pressure washer powered by a 2-stroke petrol engine. Now there's something that's "hugely environmentally destructive".

A house near me is bedecked with XR posters in its windows....with a 4x4 sat on the drive.

Wait, when did HS2 reduce it's planning speed to 300km/h?
I thought at worst we would drop to 320km/h.

Pretty sure it hasn't...it's just an option floated in the apparent leak of the Oakervee review?

 

[Aictos]

A house near me is bedecked with XR posters in its windows....with a 4x4 sat on the drive.

A case of do what I say and not what I do then? They’re all hyper-critics!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A case of do what I say and not what I do then? They’re all hyper-critics!

It wasn't a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV was it?

 

[The Nomad]

People like you seem to miss the whole point of a protest. It's to garner coverage and support for a cause. Most people don't bat two eyelids when the Hong Kong protesters damage stuff because they are trying to draw attention to a cause. Extinction Rebellion are trying to get the message out. How a particular council chooses to remove slogans from them is not their issue.
While I am in favour of HS2, I can completely see E.R.'s point of view on this and in fact most of their stuff.
Disruption is bad, but it's also newsworthy, that's why they do it. The supposed environmental benefit of shutting down heathrow unexpectedly for two hours isn't the point, it would be the new coverage that matters to them.

No. Extinction Rebellion used the pressure washer to clean up, not the council. If they'd cared so much it should have been a bucket of water from the canal they were over and a brush.

And no, you're wrong on drawing attention at whatever cost. What it did was draw attention to how mindless their protest is. Blocking a major bus route in Leeds just caused more congestion. Their justification? Guaranteed disruption now instead of possible disruption at some nebulous point in the future. As said, mindless.

 

[Aictos]

It wasn't a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV was it?

When you have founders of XR flying thousands of miles to rediscover themselves and certain people flying 5000 miles just to protest in London when they could have not produced all that CO2 in the first place by protesting locally you can understand why I think they are all hyper critics.

Yes I know we should do more for the environment but flying thousands of miles is exactly what shouldn’t be done!

 

[jfowkes]

I've been "discussing" HS2 on twitter (always a worthwhile experience that). Someone pointed out two things that I hadn't heard before.

1. A review found that there was a danger of damage to the infrastructure at high speeds, and a potential derailment risk (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/hs2-defends-itself-against-derailment-claims). It's claimed that HS2 essentially dismissed this review, even though they themselves commissioned it.

2. An article in the FT with a senior source at HS2 saying HS2 will not work without Crossrail 2 at Euston (https://amp.ft.com/content/b4af0eea-9ee3-11e7-9a86-4d5a475ba4c5)

I'd appreciate thoughts on the above.

 

[Ianno87]

I've been "discussing" HS2 on twitter (always a worthwhile experience that). Someone pointed out two things that I hadn't heard before.

1. A review found that there was a danger of damage to the infrastructure at high speeds, and a potential derailment risk (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/hs2-defends-itself-against-derailment-claims). It's claimed that HS2 essentially dismissed this review, even though they themselves commissioned it.

I think (1) can be summarised as "trains will derail if the track is not designed properly, so the track will, obviously, be designed properly."

The phrase, "No ****, Sherlock" comes to mind...

 

[swt_passenger]

I've been "discussing" HS2 on twitter (always a worthwhile experience that). Someone pointed out two things that I hadn't heard before.

1. A review found that there was a danger of damage to the infrastructure at high speeds, and a potential derailment risk (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/hs2-defends-itself-against-derailment-claims). It's claimed that HS2 essentially dismissed this review, even though they themselves commissioned it.

I'd appreciate thoughts on the above.

I expect as it’s a 3 1/2 yr old article it’s water under the bridge... I wonder if we had a discussion about that at the time?
Here we are, from 2016:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hs2-in-the-press.97563/page-21#post-2496858
... and here we are, one from 2012:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/high-speed-two-hs2-discussion.55179/page-29#post-989712

“secret report” revealed by Gilligoon, twice...

 

[PartyOperator]

I expect as it’s a 3 1/2 yr old article it’s water under the bridge... I wonder if we had a discussion about that at the time?

Quite likely... It seems to be a bit of a non-story.

From the article:

the 225mph speed limit proposed for HS2 risks creating track and embankment instability and causing rapid deterioration of the track, ballast and sub-ballast that may lead to derailment and track failure.

It's almost as if there was some reasoning behind HS2's apparent preference for slab track... If they spec if for a lower speed and frequency then ballast will be fine, if they go for the higher speed and frequency then there's an off-the-shelf technology that avoids ballast-related issues by not having ballast. Seems straightforward enough - identify the risks for a given mode of operation, identify the solutions, consider the options and move on with the project.

 

[The Ham]

I've been "discussing" HS2 on twitter (always a worthwhile experience that). Someone pointed out two things that I hadn't heard before.

1. A review found that there was a danger of damage to the infrastructure at high speeds, and a potential derailment risk (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/hs2-defends-itself-against-derailment-claims). It's claimed that HS2 essentially dismissed this review, even though they themselves commissioned it.

2. An article in the FT with a senior source at HS2 saying HS2 will not work without Crossrail 2 at Euston (https://amp.ft.com/content/b4af0eea-9ee3-11e7-9a86-4d5a475ba4c5)

I'd appreciate thoughts on the above.

In Crossrail 2, is something which is likely to be needed/justified of HS2 isn't built.

Just look at the case of train services in the middle of the afternoon which are heading out of London and are full with some standing as they leave Woking. Now admittedly is only a 4 coach train (presumably it can't be longer as it wouldn't be anywhere near London during the rush hour), but it shows that extra capacity is likely to be fairly well used.

 

[jfowkes]

I expect as it’s a 3 1/2 yr old article it’s water under the bridge... I wonder if we had a discussion about that at the time?
Here we are, from 2016:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hs2-in-the-press.97563/page-21#post-2496858
... and here we are, one from 2012:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/high-speed-two-hs2-discussion.55179/page-29#post-989712

“secret report” revealed by Gilligoon, twice...

Thanks, I suspected there was discussion at the time but didn't search for specific enough things.

The answers there were pretty much what I guessed (that it's bad reporting on normal engineering).

 

[Meerkat]

Just look at the case of train services in the middle of the afternoon which are heading out of London and are full with some standing as they leave Woking. Now admittedly is only a 4 coach train (presumably it can't be longer as it wouldn't be anywhere near London during the rush hour), but it shows that extra capacity is likely to be fairly well used.

I don’t believe that is anything other than cost cutting by SWT/SWR. The trains are kept short at weekends too - absolute farce that you get crush loaded trains on a Saturday morning!

 

[squizzler]

Because I know the truth about HS2. You only have PR and spin.

ROFL!!!

I rarely look in this thread these days, but am glad I did so on this occasion. Thanks for brightening up my day.

 

[jfowkes]

Pretty sure it hasn't...it's just an option floated in the apparent leak of the Oakervee review?

If the design speed was reduced, would the route change at all? Some people claim that it would have to go around the ancient woodland it currently goes through. I've seem one claim that a lower speed would mean that HS2 would be forced to redesign to avoid the Chilterns AONB entirely (which I presume would cost a lot and would set back the scheme for years if not stop it altogether).

 

[The Ham]

If the design speed was reduced, would the route change at all? Some people claim that it would have to go around the ancient woodland it currently goes through. I've seem one claim that a lower speed would mean that HS2 would be forced to redesign to avoid the Chilterns AONB entirely (which I presume would cost a lot and would set back the scheme for years if not stop it altogether).

Bypassing the Chilterns AONB or the Ancient Woodlands isn't likely to be able to be done and still be ready to open phase 1 in the mid to late 2020's.

Given that a lot of the land for the route had been purchased if you rerouted you'd have to buy another whole load of land for the new route.

That would leave you with the land from the old route, now whilst some will be glad to be able to buy their land back they're not likely to pay what they were paid and it would incur a load of extra costs (such as the legal costs in doing so).

It could make a good place to plant some extra trees and create High Speed Tree a new woodland which creates a wildlife corridor through the Chilterns AONB.

With regards to speed the cost savings have to be balanced against the need for extra rolling stock and staff.

 

[Ianno87]

If the design speed was reduced, would the route change at all? Some people claim that it would have to go around the ancient woodland it currently goes through. I've seem one claim that a lower speed would mean that HS2 would be forced to redesign to avoid the Chilterns AONB entirely (which I presume would cost a lot and would set back the scheme for years if not stop it altogether).

The thing that's overlooked is that a *reasonably* unimpactful route has still been identified, even when designed to a 360kph design speed.

A 300kph route would still be fairly heftily constrained by the minimum curve radii required, and in reality is going to be little different in what it impacts on. Moving the route to avoid such and such a woodland in all likelihood comes at the cost of impacting 3 or 4 other things over the course of several kilometres either side instead. It's pretty inevitably going to impact something, somewhere - the identifed route is probably about as good as you're going to get anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the design speed was reduced, would the route change at all? Some people claim that it would have to go around the ancient woodland it currently goes through. I've seem one claim that a lower speed would mean that HS2 would be forced to redesign to avoid the Chilterns AONB entirely (which I presume would cost a lot and would set back the scheme for years if not stop it altogether).

Zero chance.

It’s taken 9 years of planning, development, design, parliamentary process, and now land purchase etc to get to where the project is now.

The route is confirmed, and will be built as per the enabling act.

 

[Grumpy Git]

A house near me is bedecked with XR posters in its windows....with a 4x4 sat on the drive.

.........

I always remember watching a TV documentary about farmers in Lincolnshire demonstrating during the September 2000 fuel protests.

They all rocked-up in new or nearly new Range Rovers complaining about the cost of diesel

 

[MarkyT]

While the trains, permanent way, OHLE and signalling might be specced for a lower speed initially for all sorts of practical reasons, it still makes sense to design the basic alignment for a higher speed for future proofing. The underlying infrastructure is going to exist for decades if not centuries to come, and there will be many opportunities at future fleet and systems renewals to exploit this. Brunel could probably have got away with half mile radius curves on his GWR main line back in the 1840s, taking into account performance capabilities of the time. Most people are very glad he had vision for the future instead. HS2 is no different in this respect.

 

[DerekC]

They will reduced the speed to 300 km/h but leave the alignment as-is, for all the reasons given. The pity is that it was designed to the increased speed in the first place, purely as a politician's whim.

 

[Bald Rick]

They will reduced the speed to 300 km/h but leave the alignment as-is, for all the reasons given. The pity is that it was designed to the increased speed in the first place, purely as a politician's whim.

I’m not sure ‘they’ will reduce the speed to 300. All the infrastructure is already designed for 400 (where the linespeed profile requires it, which is actually only a little over half the route), and would cost money to redesign for a lower speed. I’d be surprised if there was much change a tthis late stage.

What may well happen is that the trains might only operate at 350/320 etc to save energy.

 

[Domeyhead]

I've been "discussing" HS2 on twitter (always a worthwhile experience that). Someone pointed out two things that I hadn't heard before.

1. A review found that there was a danger of damage to the infrastructure at high speeds, and a potential derailment risk (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/hs2-defends-itself-against-derailment-claims). It's claimed that HS2 essentially dismissed this review, even though they themselves commissioned it.

2. An article in the FT with a senior source at HS2 saying HS2 will not work without Crossrail 2 at Euston (https://amp.ft.com/content/b4af0eea-9ee3-11e7-9a86-4d5a475ba4c5)

I'd appreciate thoughts on the above.

Ian087 has covered the first point, and nothing more to say on the matter. Regarding the second, I think this arose from a "Cost Cutting" idea to terminate HS2 at Old Oak Common rather than Euston. This of course means that OOC would become a massive interchange with all HS2 passengers decamping onto the ELizabeth Line station at Acton Main Line for the last few miles into town. Crossrail's load planning has not been designed for this new load projection hence the dependency. So the sentence is slightly misphrased in that HS2 needs to run into Euston as all interlinking transport modes are in place to disperse and concentrate the HS2 traffic, whereas Old Oak Common is nowhere. Terminating HS2 in the suburbs is a nonsensical idea and hundreds of pages of planning and analysis will testify to this, so expect to see it announced in the very near future.

 

[Bald Rick]

With the election result meaning the Governement has to deliver for the North and Midlands, and with a rather significant shovel ready project ready to go....

... expect an announcement in the next few weeks.

 

[squizzler]

Indeed. As I said in another thread, it’s time to Co-opt Boris’ slogan and “get HS2 done”.

Unlike “get brexit done”, we know what we would be getting, more or less how much it would cost and what the benefits are. We would see something - quite literally - concrete.

This is not to drag the thread off topic but when the likely much more expensive ‘brexit’ is decided on largely emotional, intangible grounds, why should HS2 be required to justify itself on purely cost benefit analysis and not also include such things as national prestige?

Note - when I type HS2 on my iPhone a little bullet train emotion is offered (won’t display on forum, sorry) Brexit: not a sausage. Perhaps Apple decided the obvious visual metaphors to be inappropriate?

 

[Aictos]

With the election result meaning the Governement has to deliver for the North and Midlands, and with a rather significant shovel ready project ready to go....

... expect an announcement in the next few weeks.

The sooner the better!

 

[Grumpy Git]

The sooner the better!

I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Note - when I type HS2 on my iPhone a little bullet train emotion is offered (won’t display on forum, sorry) Brexit: not a sausage. Perhaps Apple decided the obvious visual metaphors to be inappropriate?

Auto correct uses a program that memories words that you use together so that's why the 0 Series Shinkansen shows up.