High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Dave1987]

We're never going to agree. I'm not going to blow out or strop or flounce, but clearly nothing good will come from an anti-HS2 arguing with a cheerleader. You're looking at my answers and choosing to keep storming through with your own blinkered opinions - wonder what that's called?

I have asked you some very specific questions to see whether in your opposition to HS2 you have a genuine realistic alternative to the project that will provide the necessary capacity improvements. You have failed to do this and in the process have demonstrated you really don't understand the problem and even less the solution for you are proposing. If you had a credible alternative I might being willing to change my views but you clearly don't.

 

[PR1Berske]

I have asked you some very specific questions to see whether in your opposition to HS2 you have a genuine realistic alternative to the project that will provide the necessary capacity improvements. You have failed to do this and in the process have demonstrated you really don't understand the problem and even less the solution for you are proposing. If you had a credible alternative I might being willing to change my views but you clearly don't.

I have put my alternatives in a number of posts.

As an anti-HS2 person, I don't believe there's a problem to be fixed, so obviously I'm not going to fill the gaps you allege exist.

 

[jon0844]

As an anti-HS2 person, I don't believe there's a problem to be fixed, so obviously I'm not going to fill the gaps you allege exist.

So why bother saying to upgrade the WCML then? You're obviously happier to spend next to nothing at all and leave things as they are - being in denial that in 20-30 years, we're going to have serious congestion problems unless everyone does begin to work from home and only meet friends and family online.

Hey, you might be proved correct but God help us if you're not.

It does sound rather worrying how you seem to now claim to be a 'anti-HS2' person as if this is some sort of new religion. But that does perhaps explain why the same things get repeated over and over, almost, well, religiously.

 

[Dave1987]

I have put my alternatives in a number of posts.

As an anti-HS2 person, I don't believe there's a problem to be fixed, so obviously I'm not going to fill the gaps you allege exist.

Well by stating that you think you could build 5 new stations for £10m clearly shows you have little idea about what you are taking about, which explains why you don't believe there is a problem. There is a problem and a very big one. That problem is that arguably the most important rail line in the country, the WCML is close to being overwhelmed. "Upgrading" the current line would provide some benefit but it would be very expensive and would provide a fraction of the capacity benefits that HS2 would provide. Also it would cause a huge amount of disruption to the travelling public.

 

[PR1Berske]

So why bother saying to upgrade the WCML then? You're obviously happier to spend next to nothing at all and leave things as they are - being in denial that in 20-30 years, we're going to have serious congestion problems unless everyone does begin to work from home and only meet friends and family online.

Hey, you might be proved correct but God help us if you're not.

It does sound rather worrying how you seem to now claim to be a 'anti-HS2' person as if this is some sort of new religion. But that does perhaps explain why the same things get repeated over and over, almost, well, religiously.

I've just watched HS2, with interviews with people living in a small Buckinghamshire village. They are all against it. They want to know why a line has to carve through their village for no great need - they've only heard slogans and corporate speak, they've not heard reasons or justifications. And neither have I.

I hope I'm proved right. HS2 is a multi-million pound gamble, nothing has been proven or justified. I can get on a train in Preston and arrive at London in around 2/2-and-a-half hours. It's under 2 hours from Wakefield. Given that commuters (the only justification for HS2) can already use email/Excel/Skype/etc on trains, imagine what they can do in 30 years? Why bother with HS2 when there's ALREADY advances in technology making its claims weaker and weaker?

 

[Geezertronic]

So £20m+ for 40 minutes? Or £20m+ to improve, say, lines into and out-of Birmingham ?

You are obsessed with Birmingham. As a resident of Birmingham I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

What about the journey times to Scotland that HS2 Phase 1 will improve? What about the capacity that will release alone on the WCML (especially WCML South)?

You can say it as many times as you like but HS2 Phase 1 is not specifically about journey times from London to Birmingham. Why would they create a link at Lichfield if it was? Then when Phase 2 comes along.... you do know there is a phase 2 don't you?

 

[swt_passenger]

Given that commuters (the only justification for HS2) can already use email/Excel/Skype/etc on trains, imagine what they can do in 30 years? Why bother with HS2 when there's ALREADY advances in technology making its claims weaker and weaker?

Are you seriously assuming here that ALL commuters work in offices?

What about people in manufacturing, schools, the NHS, shops, etc? Leisure travellers, family get togethers, etc - are they all going to use Skype as well?

 

[Dave1987]

I've just watched HS2, with interviews with people living in a small Buckinghamshire village. They are all against it. They want to know why a line has to carve through their village for no great need - they've only heard slogans and corporate speak, they've not heard reasons or justifications. And neither have I.

I hope I'm proved right. HS2 is a multi-million pound gamble, nothing has been proven or justified. I can get on a train in Preston and arrive at London in around 2/2-and-a-half hours. It's under 2 hours from Wakefield. Given that commuters (the only justification for HS2) can already use email/Excel/Skype/etc on trains, imagine what they can do in 30 years? Why bother with HS2 when there's ALREADY advances in technology making its claims weaker and weaker?

Like other people have said you are not listening, you don't understand the problem and you have even admitted that. There is just no point.

Before the M25 was built there was massive local opposition, now they couldn't live without it.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The suits? You mean people who work in offices.

I'm from Yorkshire. I can't find a decent job round here so I have one in London. I'm prepared to travel there and then come back and spend much of my money locally. Most people in my situation just leave and don't come back, meaning many of the skills disappear.

In all fairness many choose to stay in the South East because they perceive it to be a more attractive place. I include my wife and I in this bracket; I was born in Derbyshire and my wife in Lancashire but we have no intention of ever moving back up north. I know this sounds harsh but the South offers a better quality of life.

 

[si404]

We are a small country, with a high population, and population densities and distributions

Which is why SCNF told the Commons select committee that we have ideal geography for successful High Speed Rail. They were envious as there are few corridors with anything remotely approaching such optimal conditions in France.

And why California HSR promoters used the UK and Japan as examples of perfect geography for profitable HSR... They did lament that the distances between South California and the North is close to the limit of the HSR vs plane debate, unlike the UK or Japan.

that are not ideal for high speed rail.

oh wait, you were treating this good things as problems...

...part of the problem is the idea that it's about speed, and our default examples being at the Franco-Spanish model of hub and long spokes that cross the great void at high speed before reaching the provincial cities.

As SCNF, they haven't found that the best geography for HSR - the speed is epoch-changing (it wouldn't really be in the UK), but you struggle to fill the massive capacity, which wouldn't be the case in the UK.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Clapped out stock? Now or then?

390s aren't clapped out. By then they may well have been replaced anyway.

I concur but it would be interesting to see what replaces them. 110 mph EMU''s will only play into the Anti's hands.

 

[PR1Berske]

Like other people have said you are not listening, you don't understand the problem and you have even admitted that. There is just no point.

Before the M25 was built there was massive local opposition, now they couldn't live without it.

To get the M25 built, multitudes of extra junctions had to be built to placate the locals. And now it's STILL a carpark.

I am listening. I just disagree with almost everything you're saying.

 

[Class83]

I suspect Alistair Darling's view on HS2 may have more to do with his current job than his previous one. HS2 is a substantial chunk of the UK transport Capex budget (£2-3 billion/year) as it is at best going to take 25 years to get to Manchester it's a pretty hard sell in Scotland at the moment, and taking out the 10% Barnett Consequentials that Crossrail at least generated then he doesn't like the sound of Alex Salmond spending the next year going on about spending on transport infrastructure in the South. (and if you're in Scotland, Manchester is still pretty far South)

The fundamental justification (though not always the given one) is that there is a need for more commuter capacity into London, the WCML fast lines could easily cope with the demand from Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. If we're going to have a High Speed Line then it should be built to Edinburgh/Glasgow as Parallel phases. If we're going to build a commuter line it should have Barnett consequentials and probably something similar for the North of England. High Speed Rail between Edinburgh/Glasgow and London is actually about the optimum length to drive modal shift from air to rail. The journey time reduction with only half the line high speed isn't enough to do this. The HS2 website suggests 3'08" from Glasgow, but that's only with stops at Carstairs (why) and OOC. I'd expect Carlisle and Preston in addition which will probably add another 10 mins.

 

[jon0844]

The M25 was a mish mash of old and new roads joined together, making some sections hard to upgrade later and taking some rather odd routes.

Rather like the WCML being upgraded rather than building an all new road from day one.

 

[Dave1987]

To get the M25 built, multitudes of extra junctions had to be built to placate the locals. And now it's STILL a carpark.

I am listening. I just disagree with almost everything you're saying.

Without the M25 it would arguably be 100 times harder to get around London than it already is.

You were challenged on your views of upgrading what we already have as you were proven wrong and demonstrated that you have a very poor understanding of what is involved. You have now said you are against it basically out of principle and have now started to say that the problem doesn't even exist and wont exist. You still have not put any solution forward to where the extra freight traffic from Felixstowe is going to go??

Are you also advocating more regional air travel because that is what is and will happen. More and more short haul flights and more pollution.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The M25 was a mish mash of old and new roads joined together, making some sections hard to upgrade later and taking some rather odd routes.

Rather like the WCML being upgraded rather than building an all new road from day one.

But in all fairness at least the M25 serves a lot of different towns. Although I'm a supporter of HS2 for 40m quid a lot of towns and city's are ignored. Stoke is in a desperate state but will see no benefit. In my view HS2 needs to be more flexible in order to win more people over.

 

[PR1Berske]

But in all fairness at least the M25 serves a lot of different towns. Although I'm a supporter of HS2 for 40m quid a lot of towns and city's are ignored. Stoke is in a desperate state but will see no benefit. In my view HS2 needs to be more flexible in order to win more people over.

I've repeatedly said that the HS2 problem which nobody seems to acknowledge is how it misses so many towns and cities with so many hundreds of thousands of passengers.

By putting a fraction of the HS2 cost into the lines which run through those towns, you get far better, far quicker returns for your investment.

 

[Dave1987]

I've repeatedly said that the HS2 problem which nobody seems to acknowledge is how it misses so many towns and cities with so many hundreds of thousands of passengers.

By putting a fraction of the HS2 cost into the lines which run through those towns, you get far better, far quicker returns for your investment.

Sorry but you are making comments again on things you clearly don't understand! Please show me clear proof that pumping more and more money into the WCML will provide better, quicker returns with less disruption for passengers than what building HS2 would do.

By building HS2 you release the fast lines to enable more stopping service to the Watford gap.

 

[jon0844]

But in all fairness at least the M25 serves a lot of different towns. Although I'm a supporter of HS2 for 40m quid a lot of towns and city's are ignored. Stoke is in a desperate state but will see no benefit. In my view HS2 needs to be more flexible in order to win more people over.

I am not saying the M25 was a bad thing, but it seems to have been built on the cheap - although later on, it seems they did begin to plan for expansion by having wider bridges. If only they'd thought of that when doing the tunnel at Waltham Cross.

The M25 has now been mostly widened throughout, and I've not been stuck in a serious jam for ages. Maybe I've been lucky, or the SatNav now takes me away from problems, but it's not really a car park any longer - unless there's an accident or the road crumbles (as it did when I last hit problems on a really hot Sunday last month).

 

[PR1Berske]

Sorry but you are making comments again on things you clearly don't understand! Please show me clear proof that pumping more and more money into the WCML will provide better, quicker returns with less disruption for passengers than what building HS2 would do.

By building HS2 you release the fast lines to enable more stopping service to the Watford gap.

No, I want you to justify something for once.

Why should, say, Stoke or Liverpool go without? Why should people in Buckinghamshire watch a high speed train running past them without any chance of them ever catching it?

All HS2 provides is a commuter expressway into London, and that don't justify the price-tag, however measured.

 

[AndyLandy]

By building HS2 you release the fast lines to enable more stopping service to the Watford gap.

This is the fundamental reason why HS2 is a good idea. The WCML is (or soon will be) at capacity. It's easy to make wild, spurious claims that we can just 'upgrade it some more', but without a clear idea of what those upgrades would entail, how much they'd cost, and what the likely levels of disruption would be, it's impossible to make a fair comparison.

So, the best way to upgrade the WCML is to make the Intercity services go away. That way, the WCML can far better accommodate all those places between Crewe/Birmingham and London, and HS2 can accommodate all the places further North.

 

[tbtc]

If HS2 is scrapped then this country is doomed pretty much. It will show that we can't do big infrastructure projects as the antis will just get in the way all the time. The same thing is happening for power at the moment. People don't want wind turbines ("blot on the landscape"), dont want nuclear ("scared of it"), dont want fracking ("causes earthquakes and damage to water supply") so how are we supposed to feed our insatiable desire for electricity? Same is happening with rail. We are the laughing stock of the world with our transport network. And the main heart of our rail network, the WCML is near bursting point

Totally agreed

Actually, it's not. The latest Treasury estimate is that HS2 will cost £73bn.

That's £73bn in 2033 - by which time a Mars Bar will cost £1.50 and a pint of beer will be close to £10 - quoting 2033 prices is meaningless!

It's always been a bit nonsensical to me (at least since I swapped sides to being pro-HS2). The plan is, unless something's changed, that once Crossrail wraps up around 2018/19 that the £2bn per year we're spending on that will be switched to funding HS2. So it isn't actually going to cost anymore than we're already spending we just have to continue to sustain the present £2bn per year that we've been spending for a while now

Agreed - and it's pretty naive to assume that these billions of money for national infrastructure can easily be siphoned off into other rail projects - can't see the railway able to get a blank cheque for "£80bn" to spend on other things instead!

I would spend small and focused. So £10m on five new stations, and then a controlled budget thereafter on focused areas across the network

£10m? That'd buy you maybe a six coach EMU in 2013 prices (or a three coach one in 2033 prices!) - maybe you could repaint a station for that money, but nothing like the cost of a new station.

Sorting out the existing Reading station is scheduled to cost £850 MILLION to put things in context. Your "£10m" reminds me of Doctor Evil from Austin Powers!

I would spend money on new rolling stock

You know that the HS2 costs include rolling stock?

Oh please, having HS2 or not is not going to make us the laughing stock, having a £40bn version of Ciudad Real, will make us a laughing stock. We are a small country, with a high population, and population densities and distributions that are not ideal for high speed rail

Basically we are the size of Japan with roughly the same population as Japan.

Do High Speed railways work in Japan?

I totally agree with more lines to go east and west. Isn't there one already in the works from MK to Cambridge - effectively creating a link that spans most, if not all, of the mainlines

Also upgrading/ electrifying the Liverpool - Newcastle line, amongst other improvements

Can you explain why Liverpool should suffer from having clapped out stock running on old lines just because London wants 15 minutes shaved off its commuter times at £20m+?

Clapped out trains? The 390s? Recently extended by a couple of carriages?

Or the Classic Compatible trains that will be used to give Liverpool a service to London via the HS2 line?

Please tell me that Liverpool gets clapped out stock with a straight face?

Why not - as I have suggested - put investment into east/west lines? Liverpool to Lincolnshire?

You're just listing random places.

Liverpool to Lincolnshire? Blackpool to Sunderland? Or London to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds? Which is most important?

clearly nothing good will come from an anti-HS2 arguing with a cheerleader

There are plenty of dissenting voices on here - I've stated before that I disagree with some of the aspects of HS2.

Posters like RichmondCommuter have made plenty of intelligent arguments against HS2 (in its current form). But claiming that "it's going to cost £80bn for a busway that won't get north of Birmingham" adds nothing to the debate...

 

[AndyLandy]

Why should, say, Stoke or Liverpool go without?

Because you have to send the services somewhere. Anywhere north of Birmingham will benefit from HS2 speed increases, since you can change at the end of the HS line.

Why should people in Buckinghamshire watch a high speed train running past them without any chance of them ever catching it

For the same reason that people in Watford don't need a high-speed line into London. There's no benefit whatsoever. The trains probably won't even get up to speed before they'd have to slow down again for their first station call. HS railways only make sense if there are large distances between station calls.

 

[Dave1987]

No, I want you to justify something for once.

Why should, say, Stoke or Liverpool go without? Why should people in Buckinghamshire watch a high speed train running past them without any chance of them ever catching it?

All HS2 provides is a commuter expressway into London, and that don't justify the price-tag, however measured.

Because Buckinghamshire are having their lines upgraded. The chiltern line is by no means at full capacity so upgrades can be made to it and show a decent performance increase. Stoke has good links into Birmingham and wolves. Why do people at Kelvedon on GEML have to watch the London - Norwich intercity trains go barreling through with no prospect of catching them? Why doesn't the Virgin service to Glasgow stop at every single station it goes through?

I still want you to prove you claim that pumping more and more money into the WCML will provide a better return than building HS2.

I'm sure all the pro people like me on here would love to have a decent debate on this with you and would accept you arguments if they stacked up, but the point is they don't. And that the point, if people opposed to HS2 could bring a realistic alternative to HS2 that would provide the same benefits for less cost most pros would be willing to accept that.

 

[jon0844]

Why should people in Buckinghamshire watch a high speed train running past them without any chance of them ever catching it?

Why should I have to stand at Hatfield and watch East Coast trains fly through at 100mph on their way to Scotland without stopping? How dare this line not serve me!!!

 

[PR1Berske]

Because you have to send the services somewhere. Anywhere north of Birmingham will benefit from HS2 speed increases, since you can change at the end of the HS line.



For the same reason that people in Watford don't need a high-speed line into London. There's no benefit whatsoever. The trains probably won't even get up to speed before they'd have to slow down again for their first station call. HS railways only make sense if there are large distances between station calls.

Then why bother? Why bother putting in a HS system which will only "get going" half way up the country?!

I just don't get it. I genuinely and completely don't get it. You're celebrating the fact that, say, Stoke on Trent will have to pay for a service it won't ever see? You're happy that Liverpool won't get access to a service whilst Manchester has millions spent on a new station extension?

I just don't get it. Not a clue. It's complete madness.

When you're spending £20m+ on just the first few stages of HS2 - without any stations or platforms or ways for passengers to get on - what about the rest of the country? Why can't they see the same amount of money spent on their lines rather than office managers in central London?

I'm baffled. Completely baffled.

 

[tbtc]

Why should people in Buckinghamshire watch a high speed train running past them without any chance of them ever catching it?

People in Buckinghamshire can already watch hundreds of fast trains running through their county without stopping every day - most of the 125mph trains from London to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Liverpool/ Glasgow speed through without stopping.

This means that there's no space to increase the number of trains stopping at Milton Keynes. Or to stop more trains at Bletchley to connect with EW when built.

Best way to increase space for extra trains at MK? By taking the non-stop services away onto a separate line? Call it HS2?

Why should, say, Stoke or Liverpool go without?

How is Liverpool going without?

I take it you didn't both reading my previous post?

This is the fundamental reason why HS2 is a good idea. The WCML is (or soon will be) at capacity. It's easy to make wild, spurious claims that we can just 'upgrade it some more', but without a clear idea of what those upgrades would entail, how much they'd cost, and what the likely levels of disruption would be, it's impossible to make a fair comparison.

So, the best way to upgrade the WCML is to make the Intercity services go away. That way, the WCML can far better accommodate all those places between Crewe/Birmingham and London, and HS2 can accommodate all the places further North.

Totally agreed.

Best way to increase capacity on any line is to either take away the fastest or slowest services to smooth out the service pattern. At the southern end of the WCML, that means the 125mph Pendolini that run non-stop through Watford/ Milton Keynes etc.

Suddenly you have a lot of spare capacity to serve these towns.

 

[Dave1987]

Then why bother? Why bother putting in a HS system which will only "get going" half way up the country?!

I just don't get it. I genuinely and completely don't get it. You're celebrating the fact that, say, Stoke on Trent will have to pay for a service it won't ever see? You're happy that Liverpool won't get access to a service whilst Manchester has millions spent on a new station extension?

I just don't get it. Not a clue. It's complete madness.

When you're spending £20m+ on just the first few stages of HS2 - without any stations or platforms or ways for passengers to get on - what about the rest of the country? Why can't they see the same amount of money spent on their lines rather than office managers in central London?

I'm baffled. Completely baffled.

But the same could be said about the money spent on IEP while Northern passengers still travel on Pacers. Why the GWML is being upgraded while GEML has to wait until 2019. You can't build something that benefits absolutely everyone. If you read a lot of the points on this thread you will see a lot of points both good and bad about HS2. It might enlighten you then you can make an informed decision about HS2.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Then why bother? Why bother putting in a HS system which will only "get going" half way up the country?!

I just don't get it. I genuinely and completely don't get it. You're celebrating the fact that, say, Stoke on Trent will have to pay for a service it won't ever see? You're happy that Liverpool won't get access to a service whilst Manchester has millions spent on a new station extension?

I just don't get it. Not a clue. It's complete madness.

When you're spending £20m+ on just the first few stages of HS2 - without any stations or platforms or ways for passengers to get on - what about the rest of the country? Why can't they see the same amount of money spent on their lines rather than office managers in central London?

I'm baffled. Completely baffled.

How many times do people have to spell it out to you Liverpool will get two high speed trains per hour via Crewe and HS2

 

[si404]

You're happy that Liverpool won't get access to a service

Ah ha - it's the Liverpool isn't being served fallacy. And the classic Scouse 'waah, Manchester is having money' nonsense.

Apart from doubling (and probably quadrupling with Liverpool-Birmingham-London classic services) the frequency from Liverpool to London, HS2 won't benefit that city at all. :roll:

Stoke on Trent currently has two very fast (are both non-stop?) services to London. Not to mention decent services to Birmingham and Manchester. But Stoke still has a poor economy and a relative lack of rail passengers - an HS2 station wouldn't provide much benefit in a city that hasn't been able to capitalise on having a decent rail service. Crewe made a better case and the line can't serve both Stoke and Crewe.