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

[MarkyT]

The freight benefit is also dubious because, even if we assume the paths can be created, intermodal traffic is roughly flat rather than the rapid growth expected by the planners*, while the rest of the freight sector continues to shrink. The creation of paths for freight doesn't really benefit anyone if there is no demand for any freight to actually run in those paths.

*HS2's strategic case references Network Rail's 2013 freight market study - which forecast intermodal traffic nearly trebling between 2011 and 2023, from 6.4bn tonne-km to 18.1bn (I have to question whoever thought that was ever a credible forecast) - by 2018/19 it had actually only reached 6.8bn, whilst all freight combined is now less than 18bn tonne-km.

The rail freight industry must concentrate on gaining much more of this type of traffic in the future if it is to prosper after the collapse of coal and some other heavy commodities, and high quality, reliable and fast long-distance paths are the key to doing this, just the sort that HS2 will help to deliver on the existing mainline network. Kickstarting grants and other incentives for mode-shift will also be also required of course.

 

[Ianno87]

The freight benefit is also dubious because, even if we assume the paths can be created, intermodal traffic is roughly flat rather than the rapid growth expected by the planners*, while the rest of the freight sector continues to shrink. The creation of paths for freight doesn't really benefit anyone if there is no demand for any freight to actually run in those paths.

*HS2's strategic case references Network Rail's 2013 freight market study - which forecast intermodal traffic nearly trebling between 2011 and 2023, from 6.4bn tonne-km to 18.1bn (I have to question whoever thought that was ever a credible forecast) - by 2018/19 it had actually only reached 6.8bn, whilst all freight combined is now less than 18bn tonne-km.

I'm slightly surprised this demand being well short of forecasts doesn't seem to be used by HS2's more vocal critics.

Part of the problem is that current growth is inherently hamstrung by the lack of rail capacity to accommodate this growth.

The Freight Market Study is based on 'unconstrained' growth, i.e. assuming that rail network capacity is not a constraint on achieving the growth it forecasts.

 

[158756]

The rail freight industry must concentrate on gaining much more of this type of traffic in the future if it is to prosper after the collapse of coal and some other heavy commodities, and high quality, reliable and fast long-distance paths are the key to doing this, just the sort that HS2 will help to deliver on the existing mainline network. Kickstarting grants and other incentives for mode-shift will also be also required of course.

They can only carry the traffic that exists though. Rail model share on long distance flows from Southampton and Felixstowe is already relatively high. Those Network Rail forecasts expected massive growth in domestic intermodal traffic, but that doesn't necessarily follow the same routes as port traffic, and if it isn't economic without massive subsidies spending £100bn to create more space for it won't generate a great return. You also have to question the need for more paths when there are paths already in the system going unused both on the WCML and via Ely.

 

[BigCj34]

There is no planned track connection whatsoever between HS2 and any other railway in the London area. It will be completely segregated to the buffer stops at that end. I don't think the levels are even compatible with an emergency/engineering connection in the Euston throat. Just to be clear, I don't think this is a bad thing.

Presumably it's possible to run a continuous train from HS1 to the WCML or ECML, considering North of London services were mooted but cancelled? Could be handy if Scotland (for instance) wanted to run a through sleeper service to the continent without stopping in London, as high-speed timings wouldn't be as necessary, though whether it could be run continuously with an OHLE locomotive I have no idea. If an independent Scotland joined Schengen then the train would have to be sealed going through England!

Anyway I am speculating on something away from HS2 now so I'll stop!

 

[MarkyT]

They can only carry the traffic that exists though. Rail model share on long distance flows from Southampton and Felixstowe is already relatively high. Those Network Rail forecasts expected massive growth in domestic intermodal traffic, but that doesn't necessarily follow the same routes as port traffic, and if it isn't economic without massive subsidies spending £100bn to create more space for it won't generate a great return. You also have to question the need for more paths when there are paths already in the system going unused both on the WCML and via Ely.

Three things. Firstly, there's no reliable indication that it will be £100m. Secondly, whatever HS2 costs, it's not being spent purely to gain those freight paths; that's only one item in its total benefit sum. Thirdly, one of the reasons some of the path segments cannot be used realistically today is the presence of constraints elsewhere at particular times, preventing them from being joined up to make longer viable paths. You do seem to be questioning the very viability or even the desirability of rail freight growth at all, even in the niches it is most suitable for.

 

[MarkyT]

Presumably it's possible to run a continuous train from HS1 to the WCML or ECML, considering North of London services were mooted but cancelled? Could be handy if Scotland (for instance) wanted to run a through sleeper service to the continent without stopping in London, as high-speed timings wouldn't be as necessary, though whether it could be run continuously with an OHLE locomotive I have no idea. If an independent Scotland joined Schengen then the train would have to be sealed going through England!

Anyway I am speculating on something away from HS2 now so I'll stop!

I'll just clear up your questions though. Direct from HS1 to WCML via Primrose Hill is possible today under electric. HS1 to ECML or MML requires a reversal in St Pancras International. The ECML link is fully electrified I think but that to MML is not, and I think there's still a gap in the signalling to MML as well so the siding connection can only be used under possession for engineering movements and similar. Reversal at St. P would be an opportunity to change engines anyway (if loco hauled, as planned for Nightstar). Trains from Europe to WCML could also go into St. P for reversal if desired via the west leg of the triangular junction. These were the routes provided for the proposed, but abortive, North of London Eurostar and Nightstar services.

 

[Aictos]

Pardon me for asking but why should freight be routed onto HS2?

Do our European friends run freight on the HS lines in Europe?

 

[jfowkes]

Pardon me for asking but why should freight be routed onto HS2?

The original post/question was about running freight that's too big to fit on the classic network, e.g. roll-on-roll-off lorry trains like Le Shuttle.

 

[The Planner]

Why are freight trains likely to break down more than passenger ones? Surely the same congestion in the event of a breakdown occurs during the day with passenger trains on HS2? With HS2 being a 2-track railway, how will a failed train be recovered as there are no sidings / connections as I understand it between London and Birmingham - I may be wrong here!

It will be bi-directional, there are other crossovers knocking about along the route.

How can concrete timetables be created for something which isn’t concrete?

As to how new timetables might look, lots of work on modelling has occurred. Here’s a report I posted earlier in the thread which covers both passengers and freight.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...s2-released-capacity-study-summary-report.pdf

I wouldn't take a massive amount of notice of that document, it was pretty much out of date as soon as published. Still lots of work going on behind the scenes.

An indicative timetable would help in the short term for PR purposes - so people can see they'll be ablt to get the 07:41 rather than the 07:03 and still get in for 09:00 or whatever

In 15 years time you might get grumbles when the actual timetable is slightly different, but it would be better for the average person on the coventry omnibus rather than "tph"

We don't even know what the December 2020 timetable looks like yet. You cannot fix something that far out as previously mentioned by others.

How many freight trains, assuming they entered HS2 from the NLL (assuming for a second that an appropriate route was added to the system) two minutes after the last northbound passenger train, could clear the line as far as Birmingham before they get caught by the first northbound trian the next day?

The last train north might leave london at 0030 or something, and the first train northbound could easily be expected at or before 0600.
The trains would all have to be electric hauled, so that is a discouragement to freight operators.
(Diesel hauled would cause problems in the tunnel also it will have even longer transit times).

A freight route also constrains the planners because High speed passenger sets laugh at gradients like the Lickey, but low power freight trains obviously do not.

The maintenance white period is 0000 to 0500 from what I have heard and they would want both lines. Even if you could do it, it is only useful for freights going to/from Crewe and you would still have to assume Class 4 speeds of 75mph until we get to the giddy heights of 90mph.

 

[Bald Rick]

Exactly, typical British (i.e.poor) compromise.

I read the cost estimate of £100B+ is more than 10x the cost of the most recent French high speed line per km, not sure how accurate that is though.

Not accurate at all. LGV SEA (Tours - Bordeaux) was £23m/km for construction (not including costs for the planning stages), in actual costs, ie a mid point of 2014. This is for 300km of line in open country, with little in the way of construction in urban areas, and notably no stations.

By way of comparison, HS1, Phase 1, was £24m/km in 2002 prices, including lots of tunnels, viaducts, and rebuilding Ashford. This is the equivalent of £35m/km in 2014 prices.

HS2, Phase 1 & Ph2a, the parts that will get the ‘start constructing’ decision, is as near as makes no difference the same distance as Tours - Bordeaux. The cost is roughly 4 times as high per km, but does include all the planning and prep costs, four new stations and an awful lot of tunnelling, plus all the things other posters have mentioned (rolling stock, much more engineering because of there being a denser population, etc).

.... so there's likely to be more bridges needed (each costing at least £2 million each, which if there's an average of 1 per mile here vs 1 every other mile there that's another £1 million per mile lower)

You don’t get a footbridge for £2m. A typical road over rail bridge is north of £10m for a simple road in open country; rail over road is twice that. Anything near buildings multiplies quickly.

 

[158756]

Three things. Firstly, there's no reliable indication that it will be £100m. Secondly, whatever HS2 costs, it's not being spent purely to gain those freight paths; that's only one item in its total benefit sum. Thirdly, one of the reasons some of the path segments cannot be used realistically today is the presence of constraints elsewhere at particular times, preventing them from being joined up to make longer viable paths. You do seem to be questioning the very viability or even the desirability of rail freight growth at all, even in the niches it is most suitable for.

I am not opposed to rail freight providing it operates without subsidy (or more than it currently gets anyway) and without causing great disruption to passenger service...(cough). The viability however is surely questioned by the facts that freight moved in terms of tonne-km is down 23% in the last five years, and by weight has nearly halved since the 1980s.

In terms of intermodal traffic to ports this is something rail does well, but modal share is already quite high, and there are limits to how much further it can go so long as rail transport of containers is only viable over long distances. Development of alternative ports (e.g Liverpool) isn't good for rail, and in the long run the demand for cheap imported stuff is likely to come under pressure for it's environmental impact. The most recent rate of intermodal growth is at least positive, but only just, not the much higher rates seen in the past, not demanding oodles of new paths on the network.

Domestic intermodal evidently isn't a niche rail is suitable for, given it barely exists other than for one extremely large customer. Expecting it to grow sixfold in a decade, as the market study did, is not realistic. Until something changes to make rail cheaper than road, that isn't likely to change. The other expected big growth area was freight through the Channel Tunnel, but it's been open over 20 years now, the distances are big, in theory it looks like freight should work, but it's been tried and it just doesn't.

 

[The Ham]

The viability however is surely questioned by the facts that freight moved in terms of tonne-km is down 23% in the last five years, and by weight has nearly halved since the 1980s.

That's mostly down to the massive drop in coal usage, it wasn't that long ago that 30% of our electricity was generated by coal, now it's fallen to 5%.

By not long ago I mean between 2014 and 2018, so in just 4 years! That's not really long enough for old paths to be sure that they're not needed, not new paths to be evaluated and for new markets to develop.

Especially if you consider that passenger train routes are easier to start up and with the significant amount of rail passenger growth in the same timeframe it wouldn't be surprising that passenger trains had taken the space.

 

[Noddy]

I am not opposed to rail freight providing it operates without subsidy (or more than it currently gets anyway) and without causing great disruption to passenger service...(cough). The viability however is surely questioned by the facts that freight moved in terms of tonne-km is down 23% in the last five years, and by weight has nearly halved since the 1980s.

In terms of intermodal traffic to ports this is something rail does well, but modal share is already quite high, and there are limits to how much further it can go so long as rail transport of containers is only viable over long distances. Development of alternative ports (e.g Liverpool) isn't good for rail, and in the long run the demand for cheap imported stuff is likely to come under pressure for it's environmental impact. The most recent rate of intermodal growth is at least positive, but only just, not the much higher rates seen in the past, not demanding oodles of new paths on the network.

Domestic intermodal evidently isn't a niche rail is suitable for, given it barely exists other than for one extremely large customer. Expecting it to grow sixfold in a decade, as the market study did, is not realistic. Until something changes to make rail cheaper than road, that isn't likely to change. The other expected big growth area was freight through the Channel Tunnel, but it's been open over 20 years now, the distances are big, in theory it looks like freight should work, but it's been tried and it just doesn't.

You haven’t actually responded to any of the three points that MarkyT raised, the first two of which relate directly to HS2. All you done is make some reference to rail freight being subsidised (I’d argue that road freight is also subsidised given that there is no effective per km tax on road freight that goes towards the maintenance of the roads-but that’s a different debate), and then compare rail freight levels (weight and tonne-km) to the 80s when everyone knows there’s been a huge drop because of coal and to a lesser degree other industrial products such as steel. We are now living in a service economy and the goods we are moving weigh less.

HS2 will free up paths on various routes (not just WCML) for both passengers and freight. Fact. And if there is absolutely no demand for additional freight paths once HS2 is running then that means there will be even more for passengers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

"Major construction firm sometimes wins construction contracts". What a headline.

Has he? I can only see one which is a joint venture with Bouygues Volker Fitzpatrick for the Colne Valley viaduct and Chiltern tunnels. That comes to less than 10% of the total let so far.

Doesn't mean it's improper.

No, they just donate money to the Tories and lobby for HS2 because of their overwhelming desire for social justice

 

[Tetchytyke]

Firstly, there's no reliable indication that it will be £100m

The bloke who wrote the Government guidelines on estimating construction costs says it'll be £110bn. HS2 themselves say it'll be £90bn.

But no, there's no indication this trainset is going to be very, very, very expensive

 

[Ianno87]

No, they just donate money to the Tories and lobby for HS2 because of their overwhelming desire for social justice

Given that the ultimate benefit of HS2 is enjoyed by the population of the entire UK, I think you're right. And if the contractor makes a bit of money along the way, so what....?

Would you complain if the contractor building a hospital or a school made a profit from it? No, you wouldn't.

 

[Tetchytyke]

HS2 will free up paths on various routes (not just WCML) for both passengers and freight.

Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't, it depends what you do with the "classic" expresses.

The railfreight market has fallen through the floor, heavy load freight has pretty much gone and the logistics industry don't use rail. Even Royal Mail- the one logistics company with rail-connected depots- don't use rail in any meaningful way. Other than containers to Felixstowe and Immingham, what rail freight is there left?

As for increased passenger paths, HS2 won't increase paths elsewhere. It might result in the existing "classic" expresses making more station calls at places like MK or Huntingdon, (after all, slowing the "classic" expresses is the way to "persuade" people on to HS2) but that really isn't the same thing at all.

 

[miami]

We don't even know what the December 2020 timetable looks like yet. You cannot fix something that far out as previously mentioned by others.

Nobody's talking about fixing timetables

But no, there's no indication this trainset is going to be very, very, very expensive

To be fair he said it wouldn't cost £100m, I think everyone agrees it will be way more than £100m, and that £100m would be a bargain.



Guardian are quoting how HS2 is essential for NPR, with Winsford as an example
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...powerhouse-rail-backers-say-hs2-vital-success

Looking at the trains going through Winsford between 7 and 8
Passengers: 3 non stop each way -
BM-Scotland, London-Liverpool, London-Scotland
Liverpool-London, Scotland-London, Lancaster-Birmingham

The rest are freight paths.

Two of those passenger services can be diverted once 2B is built, one will be replaced with presumably a fast Warrington-Crewe-HS2 service, freeing up just one slot in either direction.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would you complain if the contractor building a hospital or a school made a profit from it?

I direct you towards the PFI scandal, where construction and finance companies paid huge "donations" in order to persuade successive governments to go down the PFI route.

No doubt you think the cost of PFI is worth it to get a shiny new toy too?

 

[quantinghome]

I direct you towards the PFI scandal, where construction and finance companies paid huge "donations" in order to persuade successive governments to go down the PFI route.

No doubt you think the cost of PFI is worth it to get a shiny new toy too?

Presumably you have evidence to back all this up?

PFI was largely an invention of the treasury to remove items from the nation's balance sheet. Arguably it was the product of voters wanting good infrastructure, schools and hospitals but unwilling to pony up the taxes to pay for it. PFI was very much a double edged sword for construction companies as they carried the risk for any cost overruns. They also profited if they manage to save money on construction, but guess which was more common?

Anyway, this is completely irrelevant as far as HS2 goes; it's not being funded by PFI.

 

[quantinghome]

As for increased passenger paths, HS2 won't increase paths elsewhere. It might result in the existing "classic" expresses making more station calls at places like MK or Huntingdon, (after all, slowing the "classic" expresses is the way to "persuade" people on to HS2) but that really isn't the same thing at all.

It totally is the same thing...

The existing express services are a compromise between speed and connectivity, but speed usually wins out. Witness the reduction in stops on Leeds to London services - due to get worse in the 2021 timetable recast. Once HS2 is built that compromise is no longer necessary and you can run a service on the existing line which provides much better connectivity between stations. Long distance passengers get a faster service via HS2, passengers on the existing line get a more frequent service which doesn't skip as many stations. Everyone benefits.

The other benefit to having more stops is that the speed difference between the fastest and slowest services on the classic lines are reduced, so you can run more trains closer together. That's where the increase in paths comes from. e.g. Leeds-Doncaster and Leeds-Sheffield have poor local services at present, about one an hour. Once HS2 takes over the intercity services the existing line can start running a metro service. Repeat elsewhere on the network.

 

[HSTEd]

If we look at the example of the Woodsmith Tunnel.

It's only a conveyer belt, but given its 20+ miles long the ~2 year construction period is still quite impressive.

Even if rail tunnels take double or treble the time to build, we still save decades in theplanning process
Noone really cares if a tunnel goes under their feet.

Noone will fight an act of parliament vesting the land below a certain depth in the hands of a state body.

 

[The Planner]

No, they just donate money to the Tories and lobby for HS2 because of their overwhelming desire for social justice

And no one did that when Labour were in power? Doesn't alter the fact that clearly McAlpine must be annoyed as all this money he has given to the Tories has only got him one contract.

 

[Dr Hoo]

[QUOTE="Tetchytyke, post: 4420334, member: 22061]The railfreight market has fallen through the floor, heavy load freight has pretty much gone and the logistics industry don't use rail. Even Royal Mail- the one logistics company with rail-connected depots- don't use rail in any meaningful way. Other than containers to Felixstowe and Immingham, what rail freight is there?[/QUOTE]
How many more times does this inaccurate story get trotted out?
Notwithstanding the collapse of coal movement (which in terms of the routes that it used latterly was hardly of relevance to the main lines used by services that will be reshaped under HS2) construction traffic has more than doubled in the past 20 years and intermodal traffic has almost doubled.
Purely as one illustration, Yorkshire now has five container terminals. On a typical day last week Leeds had six trains, Wakefield had three, Rotherham had four, Doncaster Europort had four and Doncaster iPort (which only opened about a year ago) had five. These 22 arrivals (and balancing departures) were used by many logistics companies. The trains in part all used sections of route that will be relieved by the eastern arm of HS2 Phase 2b.
This record level of intermodal traffic is set to grow further as projects such as Tilbury2, increased capacity on the bottleneck infested Ipswich-Peterborough axis, gauge clearance across the Pennines and development of a new rail container terminal at Immingham come on stream.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, they just donate money to the Tories and lobby for HS2 because of their overwhelming desire for social justice

So what you're claiming is that, in order to benefit themselves with HS2 contracts, these construction companies cleverly donated money to the only one of the three main political parties that was expressing a possible desire to cancel HS2 - and then proceeded to lobby that party to adopt the same support for HS2 that both the other parties were already committed to? Yes? As opposed to just donating money to a party that was wholeheartedly supporting HS2.

Yeah, clever strategy, that!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As for increased passenger paths, HS2 won't increase paths elsewhere. It might result in the existing "classic" expresses making more station calls at places like MK or Huntingdon, (after all, slowing the "classic" expresses is the way to "persuade" people on to HS2) but that really isn't the same thing at all.

So, since you seem to be arguing that providing more services to places like Milton Keynes and Huntingdon is a bad thing, I'm guessing you don't live in either place, right?

 

[Aictos]

Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't, it depends what you do with the "classic" expresses.

The railfreight market has fallen through the floor, heavy load freight has pretty much gone and the logistics industry don't use rail. Even Royal Mail- the one logistics company with rail-connected depots- don't use rail in any meaningful way. Other than containers to Felixstowe and Immingham, what rail freight is there left?

As for increased passenger paths, HS2 won't increase paths elsewhere. It might result in the existing "classic" expresses making more station calls at places like MK or Huntingdon, (after all, slowing the "classic" expresses is the way to "persuade" people on to HS2) but that really isn't the same thing at all.

Can you confirm though actual facts your theory on the rail freight market is more or less dead in your words?

 

[hwl]

So, since you seem to be arguing that providing more services to places like Milton Keynes and Huntingdon is a bad thing, I'm guessing you don't live in either place, right?

Adding 1 or 2 stops to some services (like MK) actually increases potential usable fast line paths

 

[jon0844]

Given that the ultimate benefit of HS2 is enjoyed by the population of the entire UK, I think you're right. And if the contractor makes a bit of money along the way, so what....?

Would you complain if the contractor building a hospital or a school made a profit from it? No, you wouldn't.

I also think people don't realise that a contractor is boosting the economy. Not all the money is profit. It goes to pay all the workers, who then spend that money (hopefully). Those earnings are also taxed.

Infrastructure investment is a good thing.

 

[Ianno87]

I direct you towards the PFI scandal, where construction and finance companies paid huge "donations" in order to persuade successive governments to go down the PFI route.

No doubt you think the cost of PFI is worth it to get a shiny new toy too?

If by "new toy", you mean "a brand new railway line providing the only credible long term capacity boost to the UK rail network and driving economic growth and social inclusion for decades to come", then absolutely.