High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[jon0844]

Will the trains be particularly noisy? And will trains be particularly visible?

With the excavated materials from the tunnels and other work, I'd have expected the line to be mostly cut out with large banks to hide the trains and reduce the noise.

 

[Bonemaster]

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

Do High Speed railways work in Japan?

Please dont let the truth get in the way of your argument, Japan is nearly 50% larger than the United Kingdom. Add into that the fact that High Speed rail even in the country with the highest usage still requires huge subsidies. I'm sure you also know that within Japanese high speed rail, the lines average a station every 30km or so, not even close to the HS2 proposals

Also the dreaded 51M group who are wasting vast amounts of public money on this court action in a deliberate attempt to drive up the costs higher and higher. Some of the things that they have claimed the govt should have done is ridiculous. If it was just about compensation for the inconvenience in their lives then that would be fair enough but that's not what they are claiming in the courts.

It is ridiculous to say that elected representatives should not represent the interests and the views of the electorate. I assume you will never have any call to contact your MP, MEP or local councillors and ask them to represent your interests.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You do not own the view from your house. This comes up time and again in planning applications, and will never, ever, ever be grounds for planning permission to be blocked.

I've never said that you do so perhaps you should stop trying to put words into my mouth???? However plenty of people buy a property (including myself) because of the view.

 

[CalderRail]

I've never said that you do so perhaps you should stop trying to put words into my mouth???? However plenty of people buy a property (including myself) becuase of the view.

And the point I am making is that plenty of people find themselves upset and try to block development on the grounds of the view from their house and it never works.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Will the trains be particularly noisy? And will trains be particularly visible?

With the excavated materials from the tunnels and other work, I'd have expected the line to be mostly cut out with large banks to hide the trains and reduce the noise.

Without viewing detailed plans I don't suppose any of us know the answer to this question. I guess viaducts are going to be the biggest issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And the point I am making is that plenty of people find themselves upset and try to block development on the grounds of the view from their house and it never works.

But surely you can understand why they become upset at the prospect of having their much sought after view ruined?

 

[Dave1987]

Please dont let the truth get in the way of your argument, Japan is nearly 50% larger than the United Kingdom. Add into that the fact that High Speed rail even in the country with the highest usage still requires huge subsidies. I'm sure you also know that within Japanese high speed rail, the lines average a station every 30km or so, not even close to the HS2 proposals



It is ridiculous to say that elected representatives should not represent the interests and the views of the electorate. I assume you will never have any call to contact your MP, MEP or local councillors and ask them to represent your interests.

I have a great deal if problem with councils using public money in such a blasé manner. They went to court lost they should leave it at that not try and deliberately drive the costs higher and higher with tax money.

 

[CalderRail]

But surely you can understand why they become upset at the prospect of having their much sought after view ruined?

Yes. It's because they don't understand the planning system and laws around it, and think they have ownership over the view from their house when they really don't.

The only way you can own the view is if you own all the land that you can see.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes. It's because they don't understand the planning system and laws around it, and think they have ownership over the view from their house when they really don't.

The only way you can own the view is if you own all the land that you can see.

No one with a sound mind ever believes that they own a particular view so stop making up scenarios. People who bought a house in Bucks 15 years a go would have had no idea that their view would be ruined by an unplanned railway line.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Just watched Maria Eagle on News Night talking about HS2and capacity issues on the WCML and pointing out that those who oppose HS2 (including Darling) never have a viable alternative. Must say she has gone up in my estimation Just hope Miliband and Balls can show some backbone and stand up to the old guard of the Labour Party.

 

[tbtc]

Are you happy with HS2 not just missing towns and cities, but cutting through them? Is that a good use of public money?

How would you manage to upgrade all of these railway lines that you want to spend money on (like the Blackpool to Sunderland one) without disruptive construction traffic and ensuring that services stop in every conurbation that they pass through?

But surely if you owned a house in Bucks with a nice view (i.e. something that you had paid a lot of money for) I dare say you would be pretty annoyed with the prospect of having it ruined. This is why I have sympathy with those living close to the route.

True (although the Buckinghamshire house that you live in was probably green fields in the middle of someone else's "unspoilt view" before it was built)

Whilst there's a lot of tunnels in HS2, it's going to be impossible to have any kind of capacity upgrade without disrupting people (even if you're just trying to widen the existing routes).

 

[Bonemaster]

I have a great deal if problem with councils using public money in such a blasé manner. They went to court lost they should leave it at that not try and deliberately drive the costs higher and higher with tax money.

The bit you dont get is that its there job to do. The amount of money spent by councils is peanuts, to give one example of Warwickshire street lighting, the cost to the local tax payer of the legal challenge £100k, savings from street lighting every single year £500k. I could find many more blasé ways my local authority spends money than on a legal challenge to national infrastructure.

 

[CalderRail]

No one with a sound mind ever believes that they own a particular view so stop making up scenarios. People who bought a house in Bucks 15 years a go would have had no idea that their view would be ruined by an unplanned railway line.

You obviously don't work in local government. You have no idea how often I've heard "it'll ruin my view" as an objection. Never works.

If you buy a house anywhere and then a development alters the view, then you are just SOL. That's a legal fact.

 

[HSTEd]

How do you quantify serious damage? No 125 mph running, no tilt and stopping everywhere between Stoke and Birmingham International.

Well my earlier proposal went from the current 2tph with one stopping at MKC only and the other non stop to half of 1tph with the split occuring at MKC, again the only stop.

So you add 5 minutes for the split and then ~6 minutes for running at 110mph instead of 125mph.
So only 10-11 minutes slower probably.

Which is hardly catastrophic, considering this does not include the change-at-Birmingham Int. for HS2 route.

That sounds pretty serious to me if there is only one train per hour between Manchester and London. And even then we don't know the distance between the classic and HS2 platforms at Birmingham International..

Probably two, one via the Wilmslow route as well.
It is unlikely that those trains would run via the Birmingham Loop line, people attempting to travel to Birmingham Int from Manchester/Stoke would be better served loading onto the existing XC services in that corridor.

With all due respect I didn't mention these towns / city's. However it doesn't look too good if you want to travel from Liverpool to Milton Keynes et al.

Is that a catastrophic loss?
Having to change at Crewe to get a train to Milton Keynes?
Is this really a major flow?
And I wasn't aware Liverpool trains even stopped there.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You obviously don't work in local government. You have no idea how often I've heard "it'll ruin my view" as an objection. Never works.

If you buy a house anywhere and then a development alters the view, then you are just SOL. That's a legal fact.

No I don't work in local government. "It'll ruin my view" does not suggest that the owner believes that they own the view from their house. However it will affect their view and the value of their property. You can hardly blame them for kicking up a fuss.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

True (although the Buckinghamshire house that you live in was probably green fields in the middle of someone else's "unspoilt view" before it was built)

Whilst there's a lot of tunnels in HS2, it's going to be impossible to have any kind of capacity upgrade without disrupting people (even if you're just trying to widen the existing routes).

Oh look I completely agree but as a property owner with a decent view I have a lot of sympathy for those who will be affected. I suspect that a lot of posters who mock those affected don't have properties of their own. When you buy a house you are buying far more than just bricks and mortar.

 

[Dave1987]

The bit you dont get is that its there job to do. The amount of money spent by councils is peanuts, to give one example of Warwickshire street lighting, the cost to the local tax payer of the legal challenge £100k, savings from street lighting every single year £500k. I could find many more blasé ways my local authority spends money than on a legal challenge to national infrastructure.

Well I find the fact of them spending £100k supporting 51M then claiming the council is broke very very hypocritical.

As an anti can you please tell me your solution to the problem of the WCML being over whelmed soon.

 

[jon0844]

You can be upset about losing a view but ultimately you can't do sod all about it. You'd be stupid to waste money fighting to protect the view, if you didn't have any other good reasons.

Many objections are down to a loss of view, or perhaps losing property value, and I'm sure people are told they've got no chance - so they go off to find other reasons. It will cause pollution, be noisy, increase crime or whatever things might be taken more seriously.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh look I completely agree but as a property owner with a decent view I have a lot of sympathy for those who will be affected. I suspect that a lot of posters who mock those affected don't have properties of their own. When you buy a house you are buying far more than just bricks and mortar.

Though of course there is a very reasonable compensation scheme in operation so if they really can't abide their view being ruined (or any other complaint) they could always sell up and find a house in a better location.

Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but they're not being trapped in a now valueless home it's just unfortunate that they had to have the bad luck to buy one near the route of HS2.

 

[CalderRail]

When you buy a house you are buying far more than just bricks and mortar.

Common misconception.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also it's been mentioned several times that 'we can't afford it'. In which case how can we afford Crossrail? The same funding stream that's currently procuring Crossrail will be used to fund HS2 once Crossrail is complete.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Common misconception.

So are you suggesting that the view from a property doesn't have any bearing on its value?

 

[ainsworth74]

So are you suggesting that the view from a property doesn't have any bearing on its value?

Of course it does but again those affected (I believe the official term being used is 'blighted') do have a generous compensation scheme in place to compensate them should they decide to sell up.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Though of course there is a very reasonable compensation scheme in operation so if they really can't abide their view being ruined (or any other complaint) they could always sell up and find a house in a better location.

The point is if you've fallen in love with a particular view it's not so easy to up sticks and try to find something better. It would be interesting to know how the compensation schemes have been calculated.

Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but they're not being trapped in a now valueless home it's just unfortunate that they had to have the bad luck to buy one near the route of HS2.

However it's worth reiterating that they were there before HS2!

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Are the houses with a view of the Ribblehead Viaduct "blighted" by such an horrendous sight?
Do the occupants close to the Tay Bridge bemoan their luck every time they pull back the curtains?
I type this in a room with a view overlooking the M62; and I am old enough to have "suffered" thousands of lorries passing our house during its construction. I very rarely use that stretch of motorway myself, but I am bloody glad it's there. A hell of a lot of it's traffic would have to go past my house if it wasn't.

 

[ainsworth74]

The point is if you've fallen in love with a particular view it's not so easy to up sticks and try to find something better. It would be interesting to know how the compensation schemes have been calculated.

Quite and wouldn't try to suggest anything different. I believe this is still broadly the plan though the recent judicial review decision may end up changing things a bit (probably in favour of those affected). Anyone else got some information on the compensation scheme?

However it's worth reiterating that they were there before HS2!

Indeed and a bit of a change around to the normal complaint on here that the railway was there first so people should stop moaning about the trains! But I'm sorry to say that I don't think it's quite reason enough not to build a piece of national infrastructure.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Are the houses with a view of the Ribblehead Viaduct "blighted" by such an horrendous sight?
Do the occupants close to the Tay Bridge bemoan their luck every time they pull back the curtains?
I type this in a room with a view overlooking the M62; and I am old enough to have "suffered" thousands of lorries passing our house during its construction. I very rarely use that stretch of motorway myself, but I am bloody glad it's there. A hell of a lot of it's traffic would have to go past my house if it wasn't.

You might appreciate a view across the M62 but I dare say there are plenty of others who wouldn't. As for the properties with a view of Ribblehead Viaduct, well in all fairness it’s hardly a recent development which is the whole point regarding the construction of HS2.

 

[CalderRail]

So are you suggesting that the view from a property doesn't have any bearing on its value?

Far from it. I'm replying to your assertion that;

When you buy a house you are buying far more than just bricks and mortar.

Because you see, you're not. You don't own the view. You own the bricks, the mortar, and the ground the property stands on. That's it.

That's why I said;

Common misconception.

Because you, like so many people, seem to think that something that isn't true. You don't own the view.

If you buy your house for the view, and a development takes it away, you have no grounds to prevent it.

In exactly the same way, if you buy a house for a convenient direct rail link to London, and your railway station was then closed as uneconomical, that's just tough.

If you want to own the view, then buy all the land that you can see. There's no other way.

Of course it does but again those affected (I believe the official term being used is 'blighted') do have a generous compensation scheme in place to compensate them should they decide to sell up.

I think that's one of the stupidest things any government has ever done, because it's applied so unevenly, and (as above) there's no provision for all cases where attendant value of local circumstances changes.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Far from it. I'm replying to your assertion that;



Because you see, you're not. You don't own the view. You own the bricks, the mortar, and the ground the property stands on. That's it.

That's why I said;



Because you, like so many people, seem to think that something that isn't true. You don't own the view.

If you buy your house for the view, and a development takes it away, you have no grounds to prevent it.

In exactly the same way, if you buy a house for a convenient direct rail link to London, and your railway station was then closed as uneconomical, that's just tough.

If you want to own the view, then buy all the land that you can see. There's no other way.

I've never suggested that buying a house entitles you to claim ownership of a view ie the surrounding land. However the view from a particular property has a bearing on its value. This has nothing to do with planning regulations and everything to do with market forces!

 

[CalderRail]

I've never suggested that buying a house entitles you to claim ownership of a view ie the surrounding land. However the view from a particular property has a bearing on its value. This has nothing to do with planning regulations and everything to do with market forces!

You started this entire conversation off saying exactly that;

But surely if you owned a house in Bucks with a nice view (i.e. something that you had paid a lot of money for)

Not easy to accept if you've spent a lot of money and energy on a house with fantastic views.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You started this entire conversation off saying exactly that;

No, I said that when you buy a property you take into account the view that the property offers. At no time did I suggest that you are also buying the view or the land that surrounds the property. The price of a property will always reflect its view amongst other things. Other wise two identical properties in terms of dimension would have the same price regardless of their view.

 

[HSTEd]

No, I said that when you buy a property you take into account the view that the property offers. At no time did I suggest that you are also buying the view or the land that surrounds the property. The price of a property will always reflect its view amongst other things. Other wise two identical properties in terms of dimension would have the same price regardless of their view.

So people are demanding that they should be compensated because they bought a property they freely bought at an inflated value based on a characteristic that could change at any time (and they knew could change at any time and probably would eventually) which then fell in value as a result of a change to that characteristic?

People forget that the price of housing can go down a well as up and they can't rely on their house as the sole provider of retirement income.

But you can't tell people that.