High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[brianthegiant]

Problem is the No and NIMBY brigade don't help themselves with some of the crap they spurt out. To constantly go on about CO2 etc.. and that HS2 will have a drastic effect on the flood plains is just ridiculous along with the argument that HS2 will be a "concrete bomb" etc... is just emotive nonsense at best.

I think this a good point to make in any letters to editors/MPS etc in favour of HS2.
Basically that Anti HS2 campaigners have to resort to spreading misinformation because they dont have courage in their convictions.

Its basically a myth busting exercise, a few examples:
Myth:
"HS1 was recently sold for 2.1 Billion (despite costing ~6Billion to build)
Fact:
HS1 was leased for 30 years after which it becomes a national asset again and can at that point return to public owenrship or be re-leased.
Myth
"More cost effective to make capacity improvements to classic lines"
Fact:
Classic line upgrades are happening in addition to HS2, but there are limitations on what can be achieved on victorian alignments in built up areas and major upgrades have poor cost-benefit due to difficulty of operating a contruction site on a working railway
(fairly well documented on this forum already)

and so it goes on, you get the picture

 

[YesToHS2]

You forgot

Myth:
it will cost £34bn and we can't afford it
Fact:
Construction isn't due to start until 2017 by this time the current round of cutbacks will be finished and the economy hopefully on the right track.
The section of line up for debate and that is currently being planned i.e. the Euston Birmingham section is projected to cost £17bn including rolling stock and relevant bias loadings with risk.
The £34 figure was just put out there as an estimate of how much it would cost to build a HSR network from London to Glasgow.

People simply don't realise the engineering challenges faced by engineers building in London, that section alone will eat up a huge amount of the budget, almost 2 thirds of a billion £ have also been set aside for Euston alone.

 

[j0hn0]

One also must point out that it is always the opponents that are vociferous.

I applaud YestoHS2 because he appears to be the first vocal proponent of the scheme. People who are happy for it to go ahead dont say anything, because it IS happening.

To say that MPs are just voicing the majority of opinions in their constituency is just plain bollocks.

NON NIMBYS just get on with their life, NIMBY's are either retired, unemployed or are stay at home mothers.

Basically, people with nothing better to do than to register their "OUTRAGE" at the destruction of an area of outstanding natural beauty.

OK, so it is designated "outstanding", but this is the Chilterns, hills that were remorselessly carved open to build a new motorway which gives much more noise and blight than any railway ever could.

Have a look at the area which the Germans built Frankfurt - Cologne through, all WAAAAAAYYY prettier than the Chilterns. The dutch built a high speed line through holland, YES HOLLAND!!

NIMBYS will continue to show their myopia as none of their arguments stack up to scrutiny.

Long live railways

 

[gordonthemoron]

The Germans also built the Ingolstadt-Nürnberg HS line through an area way prettier than the Chilterns, what did the locals do? Lobbied to have stations so that RE trains could run services for them.

The Nürnberg-Erfurt-Leipzig HS line will also run through a very pretty area.

Mind, DB have run a lot of these lines in tunnels

 

[Geezertronic]

Also, every time the line alignment is amended or a section replaced with a tunnel, the cost will invariably go up. So by the actions of the Anti brigade, they are inflating the cost themselves.

Plus the method to create the tunnels will be interesting especially if they use cut and shut which would be the cheapest solution but cause the same damage they complain about in the first place.

And I do applaud Lizzy Williams for walking the entire HS2 route, I wish I could have the time off work to do that

http://www.stophs2.org/ is always good for a laugh, especially http://stophs2.org/news/231-prepare-your-ark

 

[YesToHS2]

Latest article from YesToHS2.

It doesn't suggest that HS2 will serve the whole of the UK directly but it aims to dispel the myth that HS2 is simply a railway from London to Birmingham.
High speed rail coming to a town near you

 

[Philip Elliott]

The £34 figure was just put out there as an estimate of how much it would cost to build a HSR network from London to Glasgow.

No, that is the cost to Manchester & Leeds. To Scotland is in the region of £40-60 bn. For someone claiming to dispel the myths by quoting facts, you don't half make up some rubbish. Why do I get the feeling that you're a minor?

 

[j0hn0]

No, that is the cost to Manchester & Leeds. To Scotland is in the region of £40-60 bn. For someone claiming to dispel the myths by quoting facts, you don't half make up some rubbish. Why do I get the feeling that you're a minor?

no need for insults

I dont think that anyone has a right to argue costs in the end. No-one really knows, that's it.

The only comparison for costs that can be used is HS1 v WCML Upgrade

Even then, we probably don't know the true figures

 

[YesToHS2]

If the critics can use figures to scare the public it only fair that those in support should be able to state figures from the same batch of documents. £34 was quoted as far back as 2008 as being the total cost for a London to Scotland HSR. Since the original Network rail report not much more has been done on that route. The latest figure put the London, Manchester and Leeds Y shape core at around £30bn. The section up for debate though is planned the London to Birmingham section with classic compatible services north, which has been projected to cost £17bn. Whether this is final cost is no the issue, my problem is that the critics or trying to make their case sound stronger by quoting old figures that are not related to the current set of plans.

 

[rb311]

OK, so it is designated "outstanding", but this is the Chilterns, hills that were remorselessly carved open to build a new motorway which gives much more noise and blight than any railway ever could.

Have a look at the area which the Germans built Frankfurt - Cologne through, all WAAAAAAYYY prettier than the Chilterns. The dutch built a high speed line through holland, YES HOLLAND!!

NIMBYS will continue to show their myopia as none of their arguments stack up to scrutiny.

I can't believe someone can write/think the above. Firstly, history, if it teaches us anything, tells us to learn by our mistakes. I don't think anyone is proud of the Stokenchurch cutting, that's why people don't want it to happen again...

As to "my countryside is better than your countryside", well that's just plain stupid. No more needs to be said.

And I think someone who is about to see the view from their back garden ruined, their peace shattered and their house price tumble has a pretty well-stacked argument actually.

As to the hoary old chestnut that High speed lines free up capacity on traditional routes. Can someone tell me how positively the Javelin service as affected the other routes into London from Kent please?

 

[MCR247]

Well HS1 must have opened more paths on the route E* used before..

 

[Greenback]

I can't believe someone can write/think the above. Firstly, history, if it teaches us anything, tells us to learn by our mistakes. I don't think anyone is proud of the Stokenchurch cutting, that's why people don't want it to happen again...

As to "my countryside is better than your countryside", well that's just plain stupid. No more needs to be said.

And I think someone who is about to see the view from their back garden ruined, their peace shattered and their house price tumble has a pretty well-stacked argument actually.

As to the hoary old chestnut that High speed lines free up capacity on traditional routes. Can someone tell me how positively the Javelin service as affected the other routes into London from Kent please?

It's the HS1 services that made me question the wisdom of HS2 in the first place. The fares are a complete mess, services over the traditional routes have been made less attractive, and whether there is actually a benefit to an individual seems to depend on several factors such as where they actually want to get to and from.

suspect that journeys such as London to Bimringham and the North West may be accessible only to the well off, with everyone else, including those living in intermediate towns and cities could be faced with a slower, less frequent and no less expensive service than they enjoy now. I hope I;m wrong, but that is my major concern now!

 

[The Planner]

I can't believe someone can write/think the above. Firstly, history, if it teaches us anything, tells us to learn by our mistakes. I don't think anyone is proud of the Stokenchurch cutting, that's why people don't want it to happen again...

It did though with Twyford Down on the M3. I think Stokenchurch was a good and clever piece of engineering, you cant see it until you are literally about to enter it. From a distance it is well hidden due to its curvature.

 

[Metroland]

It's the HS1 services that made me question the wisdom of HS2 in the first place. The fares are a complete mess, services over the traditional routes have been made less attractive, and whether there is actually a benefit to an individual seems to depend on several factors such as where they actually want to get to and from.

suspect that journeys such as London to Bimringham and the North West may be accessible only to the well off, with everyone else, including those living in intermediate towns and cities could be faced with a slower, less frequent and no less expensive service than they enjoy now. I hope I;m wrong, but that is my major concern now!

It's all a good point, and I think assurances must be gained about services on classic routes and fares.

Having said that, with WCML modernisation meant that towns like Nuneaton and Rugby arguably ended up with worse services. This was offset against the better services to larger centres, which proves that there may be winners and losers whatever you 'improve'.

It's rather like technology and development in general, it's rarely universally 'good' and the critics will always find straw man arguments.

 

[tbtc]

It's all a good point, and I think assurances must be gained about services on classic routes and fares.

Having said that, with WCML modernisation meant that towns like Nuneaton and Rugby arguably ended up with worse services. This was offset against the better services to larger centres, which proves that there may be winners and losers whatever you 'improve'.

It's rather like technology and development in general, it's rarely universally 'good' and the critics will always find straw man arguments.

Correct.

WCML upgrade meant most journeys were a lot easier, faster and more straightforward. But there's always the "what about someone trying to get from Rugeley to Lockerbie" argument.

Similarly I've heard the doubling of many Cross Country services dismissed with "what about someone trying to get from Arbroath to Brighton" or whatever.

Can't please everyone.

 

[Greenback]

You certainly can't please everyone, and there will always be some that lose out, but my argument would be that HS2 should not be used as an excuse to downgrade the WCML, MML or ECML. We still need fast, limited stop services to cater for flows such as Milton Keynes - Manchester, Rugby - Liverpool or Peterborough - Leeds.

I hope that there will be sufficient extra capacity to allow this, rather than make every train stop at Grantham, Retford and Doncaster (for example). Assurances on this would be very welcome!

 

[tbtc]

You certainly can't please everyone, and there will always be some that lose out, but my argument would be that HS2 should not be used as an excuse to downgrade the WCML, MML or ECML. We still need fast, limited stop services to cater for flows such as Milton Keynes - Manchester, Rugby - Liverpool or Peterborough - Leeds.

I hope that there will be sufficient extra capacity to allow this, rather than make every train stop at Grantham, Retford and Doncaster (for example). Assurances on this would be very welcome!

My argument is that HS2 would allow the ECML to offer London - Peterborough - Newark - Lincoln and Stansted - Peterborough - Doncaster - Leeds

 

[Greenback]

People will still want fast services from smaller places to the bigger, more important centres served by HS2. But I like the idea of those types of routes too!

 

[vtiman]

I have heard that in next years timetable there won't be as many trains stopping in either stevenage or peterborough which as a resident of welwyn gc would lengthen journey times.

if hs2 provides congestion relief to the ecml like some well known flu remedies then perhaps more stopping or at least semi fast services can be introduced. for example it is no use on the exisitng ecml to go for say an under 4 hour flagship service that doesn't stop anywhere on route !

at least I can get to stevenage or peterborough on an fcc connecting train but what if the first stop is newark or york !! would I have to go into london and back ?

if there were more stevenage stops on the ecml as a result of hs2 then if I were going to say edinburgh then once (and if !) hs2 went from leeds to edinburgh I could change onto hs2 there. or the train (iep by then = hs2 and 150mph capable ???) could merely continue northwards on hs2

oh and the answer to the question is yes of course we need hs2 with the caveat that if train speeds have to be lowered in order to build the line (s) then so be it ! but this might reduce the take from air or road although at 150 mph london edinburgh in about 3 hrs with one or two stops (stevenage and peterborough of course !) might be doable and still be quicker than air. but the full 400 kph/250 mph would be good !

 

[YesToHS2]

I think it's about time the government stopped giving so much time to protesters just to appease and then listened to supporters who have some good ideas as to how HS2 could be used to it's full potential. It's not a case of if HS2 will go ahead but what form it will take. HS2 can't go ahead at the cost of Local services or even semi fast conventional rail services.

 

[jon0844]

It's the HS1 services that made me question the wisdom of HS2 in the first place. The fares are a complete mess, services over the traditional routes have been made less attractive, and whether there is actually a benefit to an individual seems to depend on several factors such as where they actually want to get to and from.

Fares will be an issue. HS1 has proven that this is a risk if safeguards are not put in place.

 

[rb311]

So, if I may take the opportunity to summarize the recent contributions to this thread...

1. The cost of the project is around £35,000,000,000 and it is debatable what benefits that amount of money will bring.

For example :

You certainly can't please everyone, and there will always be some that lose out, but my argument would be that HS2 should not be used as an excuse to downgrade the WCML, MML or ECML. We still need fast, limited stop services to cater for flows such as Milton Keynes - Manchester, Rugby - Liverpool or Peterborough - Leeds.

I hope that there will be sufficient extra capacity to allow this, rather than make every train stop at Grantham, Retford and Doncaster (for example). Assurances on this would be very welcome!

2. The benefits of losing great swathes of countryside along with many homes and businesses cannot be sufficiently justified, other than stating that this project is for the greater good. See 1

3. The example of HS1 has not provided a strong argument to back up this investment.

It's the HS1 services that made me question the wisdom of HS2 in the first place. The fares are a complete mess, services over the traditional routes have been made less attractive, and whether there is actually a benefit to an individual seems to depend on several factors such as where they actually want to get to and from.

 

[The Planner]

2. The benefits of losing great swathes of countryside along with many homes and businesses cannot be sufficiently justified, other than stating that this project is for the greater good. See 1

Great swathes is a bit of a mis-nomer, whats the actual footprint of the line and if you consider the entire length of the line, how much "countryside" is actually lost ?? Id ask the same about homes and businesses, what has to be compulsary purchased and knocked down ?? are there any figures for that ??

 

[jon0844]

And why do we care so much about the countryside and then allow towns to be totally overdeveloped with buildings about one foot away from the next, with barely any green space and everyone living on top of one another.

In other countries, people spread out more and build homes with land - and you don't see people complaining. In my opinion it's much nicer than having a small plot of land where a developer works out the absolute maximum number of shoe boxes that can be squeezed in.

We might be a small island, but we really don't make the best use of the land we have. People would also enjoy a better quality of life if we spread things out a bit more (and, that doesn't mean simply building more shoe boxes in the country!).

 

[Geezertronic]

1. The cost of the project is around £35,000,000,000 and it is debatable what benefits that amount of money will bring.

That is the supposed costs for the London-Scotland complete HS2 line rather than the London-Birmingham line with initial extensions to Manchester and Leeds.

A common tactic of the No brigade seems to be to exaggerate the costs based on this figure rather than the published figures for the initial section and also to suggest it will be a lump sum rather than distributed over the years

 

[CosherB]

Motorways have a far far worse environmental impact than a railway. They are much wider, the noise never stops, day and night, and they produce massive amounts of exhaust fumes and C02. Yet the M40 got built through the Chilterns.

I know which I'd rather have built near my house!

 

[YesToHS2]

That is the supposed costs for the London-Scotland complete HS2 line rather than the London-Birmingham line with initial extensions to Manchester and Leeds.

A common tactic of the No brigade seems to be to exaggerate the costs based on this figure rather than the published figures for the initial section and also to suggest it will be a lump sum rather than distributed over the years

The cost for the initial phase (London to Birmingham) will be around £17bn, and it was suggested but not confirmed that extension to Manchester and Leeds would be £30bn. A price was given by network rail some 2 years ago stating a full network from London to Scotland MIGHT cost £34bn, it seems a bit of a coincidence that the critics seem to be quoting £34bn as the cost of HS2. To reiterate the network costing £34 wasn't even called HS2 back then. The protesters really should get their facts right, it may end up haring their campaign if they continue to mislead to much.

 

[brianthegiant]

just saw this poster template at:
http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/11/free-poster-for-every-eye-reader.html

Original file at:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZIki7YXUW...B6E/jI5wS6vyB8Y/s1600/Yes+to+HS2+postcard.jpg

Nice work whoever came up with this! feel free to circulate far and wide!

 

[YesToHS2]

I would like to point out that the YesToHS2 campaign does not use the world nimby and makes and effort not to attack localist protesters. The YesToHS2 campaign was set up to dispel some common misleading statements put forward by critics and to redress the balance in favour of support for HS2. this poster is welcomed but was not created by or for the YesToHS2 campaign.

 

[vtiman]

yestohs2 is absolutely correct to state that the notohs2's are as entitled to their views and opinion as are those of us who support it like I do and I am totally open about that.

the only way hs2 will go ahead is if the reasoned factual arguments win through and if those opposed to hs2 have their views listened to also and as much as affordable is done to help reduce the impact on those affected by any visual or noise pollution the new line may bring.

the problems with the factual arguments are that those opposed just say the figures are wrong or use a whole lot of zeros instead of just stating that the cost is billions as we know ! so I think we need a bit of passion behind the pro argument too, not just cold facts or empirical evidence.

it is also hard to tried to use reasoned argument when emotive words like white elephant (or boondoggle !) are used or statements like the high speed line will plough through swathes of countryside or that thousands of people will be effected or that thousands of homes and businesses will be destroyed etc etc. I even have read a blog about how childrens health will suffer as there is a school near the proposed route.

Nevertheless some people do have these feelings or thoughts and you cant just dismiss those out of hand.

finally though I would like to end for now (good you say!) by saying to those opposed that there is a cost to not doing anything in terms of more roads or runways having to be built if hs2 doesnt go ahead. also there seems to be an idea that upgrading the existing network is somehow not disruptive also and that the word upgrade means new physical lines and infrastructure ! also it is possible that many more houses and businesses could be lost through this approach ! What we spent on the wcml upgrade might have paid for the line to Birmingham which we could now be using !!!