Do we still need HS2?

[L Brightwell]

High Speed 2 has, for years, been a controversial new railway to be installed connecting London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds and other large cities between. Running years behind schedule, most of us have seen the dramatic fall in passenger numbers as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Even when we return to a normal world, I doubt there will be as many people as there was prior to the pandemic. Commuters and urban travellers and everyone who uses, what was, our very busy railways, have adapted quite well and settled into working more regularly from home. With coronavirus having changed society in many ways, will we still have the demand for High Speed 2 and how busy will it be once it opens in years to come?

 

[furnessvale]

Yes, we need the freight capacity.

 

[yorkie]

If anything there will be more longer distance journeys and more leisure travel, so yes absolutely it is needed.

 

[class26]

Short answer -

Yes.

Remember, this is for a century at least and my crystal ball cannot see that far ahead. Good that the Victorians, if asked the same question didn`t stop and pause otherwise we might not now have the ECML or WCML

 

[Irascible]

High Speed 2 has, for years, been a controversial new railway to be installed connecting London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds and other large cities between. Running years behind schedule, most of us have seen the dramatic fall in passenger numbers as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Even when we return to a normal world, I doubt there will be as many people as there was prior to the pandemic. Commuters and urban travellers and everyone who uses, what was, our very busy railways, have adapted quite well and settled into working more regularly from home. With coronavirus having changed society in many ways, will we still have the demand for High Speed 2 and how busy will it be once it opens in years to come?

In addition to the points above, we're also trying to reduce air travel. While I don't think HS2 on it's own will do anything ( does anyone still fly between London/Bham/Manchester? ) the overall reduction in times might kill off domestic flights to/from Scotland ( other than from the Westcounty who're not going to get anything out of it ) and possibly eat into travel to Europe.

 

[Welly]

Yes but does it have to be so bloody expensive?

 

[class26]

In addition to the points above, we're also trying to reduce air travel. While I don't think HS2 on it's own will do anything ( does anyone still fly between London/Bham/Manchester? ) the overall reduction in times might kill off domestic flights to/from Scotland ( other than from the Westcounty who're not going to get anything out of it ) and possibly eat into travel to Europe.

No one flies between Brum and London, the air route went about 20 years ago. As for London - Manch the number of flights have decreased a lot since the 3 per hour timetable was introduced

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I think we do not need it. Travelling is travail, trouble, it should not be made easier, more attractive.

Making train travel more attractive is not the same thing as discouraging flying + driving.

 

[HarryL]

Personally I'm of the opinion that the idea that more people will choose to work from home from now on and thus all capacity issues on infrastructure has been automatically solved is a bit short sighted. Personally a lot of the people I know are tiring of working from home and now want to return to the office asap, the work/home balance is wearing thin, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for a lot of people too.

In the short term for a couple of years we might see less people travelling on trains, etc, but HS2 is only intended to open its first stage at the end of the decade, by then the pandemic will (hopefully) be a distant memory and the capacity issues it's intended to solve will have long since returned.

 

[gingerheid]

Of course we do. We needed it 40 years ago or more!

It is our collective madness as a country that not only are we congenitally incapable of building desperately needed railway infrastructure, but we are also seemingly blind to our inadequacy.

 

[Irascible]

Personally I'm of the opinion that the idea that more people will choose to work from home from now on and thus all capacity issues on infrastructure has been automatically solved is a bit short sighted. Personally a lot of the people I know are tiring of working from home and now want to return to the office asap, the work/home balance is wearing thin, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for a lot of people too.

In the short term for a couple of years we might see less people travelling on trains, etc, but HS2 is only intended to open its first stage at the end of the decade, by then the pandemic will (hopefully) be a distant memory and the capacity issues it's intended to solve will have long since returned.

I spent years ( quite a long time ago - about when telecommuting started, in fact ) doing a mix of WfH and going to the office, I found it far more pleasant than trying to put up with a commute every single morning. Given the choice between a daily grind and an occasional grind, I suspect *part* WfH will become fairly popular for people who're happy with their home, at least. Complete remote working is probably only gonig to be reserved for teams where each member can own their domain ( much software development & IT management is already like this anyway ).

 

[Ianno87]

Yes but does it have to be so bloody expensive?

Because that's how much it costs to build a new railway.

 

[NSEFAN]

Because that's how much it costs to build a new railway.

Especially when there has been so much legal wrangling over it. Lawyers are not cheap!

 

[L Brightwell]

Yes, we need the freight capacity.

I know the WCML might be busy but I don't see why £100bn+ is really sacrificed for a high speed railway instead of spending the money on upgrading the current railway and removing all the bottlenecks etc. That's just my opinion though, but I am glad that they're trying to make the new rail line as eco-friendly as possible

 

[cle]

It will be there for 100+ years, so yes. Is it needed in 2022? Doubtful. But the society and behaviours will continue to change, as population does.

There isn't much scope for growth without it, especially across the South Midlands.

 

[Ianno87]

I know the WCML might be busy but I don't see why £100bn+ is really sacrificed for a high speed railway instead of spending the money on upgrading the current railway and removing all the bottlenecks etc. That's just my opinion though, but I am glad that they're trying to make the new rail line as eco-friendly as possible

HS2 is an upgrade of the existing railway*, and removes the main WCML bottlenecks.

*In that it is an entirely new pair of Fast Lines the whole way from Crewe to Euston, but freed of the constraint and faff off having to follow the existing existing route.

 

[Starmill]

I know the WCML might be busy but I don't see why £100bn+ is really sacrificed for a high speed railway instead of spending the money on upgrading the current railway and removing all the bottlenecks etc. That's just my opinion though, but I am glad that they're trying to make the new rail line as eco-friendly as possible

£100billion in capital public spending spread over more than a decade and we receive a public asset in return which will last for 120 plus years.

A completely different proposition to say spending £100billion on current expenditure in just one fiscal year.

 

[Gostav]

Especially when there has been so much legal wrangling over it. Lawyers are not cheap!

And maybe too many consultancies in there.

 

[Hadders]

Not this again! A new railway line is built for 100+ years, not what might happen this year or next year.

It's all very well to say upgrade the existing line but we've already done that. It was built over 150 years ago and it cannot realistically be upgraded any further.

 

[21C101]

HS2 is an upgrade of the existing railway*, and removes the main WCML bottlenecks.

*In that it is an entirely new pair of Fast Lines the whole way from Crewe to Euston, but freed of the constraint and faff off having to follow the existing existing route.

Exactly. If you have to widen from 4 to 6 tracks then build it offline to modern standards.

Basically it is the result of someone deciding to build three huge new towns between London and Rugby and the line between Rugby and Brum being a stopping train infested unquadrupled goat track.

The eastern leg a.k.a Great Central 2.0 is more questionable and serves the cities on its route poorly (whoever thought it a good idea to repeat the East Midlands Parkway flop at Toton and ceiebrate the Great Central Chesterfield loop by doing the same with Sheffield?) but London to Crewe is evolution not revolution.

I suspect the eastern leg will get overtaken by the trans pennne high speed route with trains reaching leeds via Manchester with only a spur from Birmingham International HS2 to Trent Junction ever seeing the light of day.

 

[NoRoute]

Nobody knows whether we need it, it's really just speculation or informed extrapolation at best.

Personally I think the COVID related restrictions on travel and their impacts will subside over the next year or two, but a lot will hinge on the long term impact of almost universal uptake and adoption of video conferencing coupled with uptake of home working. I think there will be a permanent reduction in commuting, probably unlikely to see many working exclusively from home, but if the average working week becomes 3 days in the office with 2 at home, then compared to 5 days a week, that's still a huge 40% reduction, that's massive, any business cases get blown out of the water.

The interesting one will be the periodic business meeting, where previously travelling was a must because the teleconferencing facilities were poor. Now with good teleconferencing you can have productive meetings just as efficiently, in fact when factoring in travel time and cost, teleconferencing is more efficient. I reckon this will result some permanent reduction in business travel, how much is hard to assess but I reckon 20+% isn't unrealistic.

I also think the question possibly misses the issue because HS2 is probably unavoidably going ahead, so if capacity remains underutilized and unviable the question will be which bits on the conventional network would be closed once HS2 is completed?

 

[Ianno87]

Nobody knows whether we need it, it's really just speculation or informed extrapolation at best.

Based on all available evidence, we are considerably more likely to need it than not need it.

I also think the question possibly misses the issue because HS2 is probably unavoidably going ahead, so if capacity remains underutilized and unviable the question will be which bits on the conventional network would be closed once HS2 is completed?

None, presuming that it is politically unacceptable to leave any major town/city on the current railway unnerved (notwithstanding the need to retain the network for freight services anyway)

The only possible exception I might put forward would be the direct route between Colwich and Stone (via Hixon) which has very little use once HS2 is fully open.

 

[HST43257]

The only possible exception I might put forward would be the direct route between Colwich and Stone (via Hixon) which has very little use once HS2 is fully open.

Would only be for an extension of the 2nd tph to Lichfield (TV Stopper), which could then go via Stoke to Crewe. Even then, going via Stafford wouldn’t be so bad for those on the Trent Valley who didn’t have a faster service to Stoke. Close it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I spent years ( quite a long time ago - about when telecommuting started, in fact ) doing a mix of WfH and going to the office, I found it far more pleasant than trying to put up with a commute every single morning. Given the choice between a daily grind and an occasional grind, I suspect *part* WfH will become fairly popular for people who're happy with their home, at least. Complete remote working is probably only gonig to be reserved for teams where each member can own their domain ( much software development & IT management is already like this anyway ).

Part WFH is a good case for it as it will cause an increase, not a decrease, in longer distance travel.

 

[Purple Orange]

This question can be rephrased: Do we need the use of more capacity in to Euston, St. Pancras, King’s Cross, New Street, Piccadilly and Leeds? Do we need to encourage people out of the car and on to the train? Do we need the railway to be more competitive with Scotland to London flights?

If the answer to any one of those is yes, then we need HS2.

 

[The Planner]

Would only be for an extension of the 2nd tph to Lichfield (TV Stopper), which could then go via Stoke to Crewe. Even then, going via Stafford wouldn’t be so bad for those on the Trent Valley who didn’t have a faster service to Stoke. Close it.

Already been looked at once, didnt get far.

 

[HST43257]

Already been looked at once, didnt get far.

Closure, 2nd service or 2nd service extension?

 

[gingerheid]

For people who think we don't "need" it, what are your criteria for "need"?

Cos I guess that, in a way, no railway anywhere in the world is "necessary", if you want to go down that line of argument.

 

[class26]

I know the WCML might be busy but I don't see why £100bn+ is really sacrificed for a high speed railway instead of spending the money on upgrading the current railway and removing all the bottlenecks etc. That's just my opinion though, but I am glad that they're trying to make the new rail line as eco-friendly as possible

Surely the argument of upgrading existing lines versus a new line has been done to death and proven to destruction that very little will be gained by upgrading existing lines? I would say spend 100 b on patch and mend and see where you get , to say nothing of the years if not decades of disruption The WCML "upgrade" being a shining example.

For once this country, renown for short termism is taking the long term view.

 

[NoRoute]

None, presuming that it is politically unacceptable to leave any major town/city on the current railway unnerved (notwithstanding the need to retain the network for freight services anyway)

The only possible exception I might put forward would be the direct route between Colwich and Stone (via Hixon) which has very little use once HS2 is fully open.

Well if passenger numbers remain considerably reduced and if rail industry finances don't recover then I'd have thought sooner or later someone will ask why we need three mainlines between London and Birmingham, is the Chiltern line in it's current form still necessary.