High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

What matters is not where the energy *can* theoretically be got from but where the energy *will* be got from. I've done some googling but haven't been able to find a definitive source that indicates how electricity is currently generated for the railways or what plans there are in that regard. Do you have any reason to believe that the energy to power HS2 will come mostly from renewable sources?

It will come from non-emitting sources if the government choses to support an energy policy involving said non-emitting sources.
Otherwise I could arbitrarily say that electricity for HS2 will be bought from France and will thus be almost entirely nuclear, perhaps by HS2 Ltd paying for an upgrade of the appropriate interconnector.

I fear there are quite a few unfounded assumptions and inaccuracies in that.

1. House prices vary across the country. It's much more complex than a North-South gradient. Prices are mouthwateringly high in parts of London and nearby, but there are also very expensive places in the North and relatively cheap areas near London. Overall the reason for high average prices is simple: There aren't enough houses.

The very expensive places outside the South East tend not to be as expensive as those in London, and the relatively cheap areas inside London tend not to be as cheap as those outside London.
High Speed Rail will remove the inherent positional advantage of London/South east and therefore should cause average house prices, on a large distance scale, to flatten out significantly, although parts of Cheshire will obviously remain far more expensive than less desirable areas near Manchester or Merseyside.

The only way that is going to change is if more houses are built. Allowing people to travel faster may make prices go up or down in individual areas but will not change the basic problem that there are not enough houses. I don't therefore think that is a sensible argument for HS2.

Well a significant national high speed network would allow the tens of thousands of second homes in the UK to join the commuter belt.... which will probably lead to large numbers of them becoming the primary home of the owner.
Why maintain a home closer to London when your home in the country is now in the commuter belt?

2. Further, you don't have to look hard to find places where house prices vary by as much as a factor of 2 in places that are less than an hour's travel apart, or where areas of affluence are situated well under an hour's travel from very deprived places (say: Kensington to parts of Newham?) That appears to prove that providing fast transport links does not necessarily remove the kinds of inequalities you're alluding to.

Yes, but if you travel to the most expensive areas in Cheshire, they will not be as expensive as Kensington, with High Speed Rail the desirable areas in the North or the West will be comparable in commuting terms to the desirable areas of London.

To push that point further, today it's possible to travel from London to most of the North of England far more conveniently (and although I'm guessing, I suspect vastly more cheaply compared to average wages) than was the case 100 years ago.

While you can travel to the North of England far more conveniently and more cheaply than before, we have not yet reached the tipping point where people can live in Manchester and practically commute to London and back every day, or to areas even further north than that.

Doesn't seem to have reduced economic differences between those areas though. I'd suggest this whole idea that providing faster travel automatically causes economic integration etc. is little more than wishful thinking.

The obvious counterexample is the M25 and the rest of the motorway network, which has produced economic integration on a cross-London scale that no-one could have dreamed of before they were built. You would never have been able to live in Watford and work in the southern suburbs of London before, but you can now.
It is reasonable to expect something like that to occur on a larger scale when the market is flooded with rapid, cheap transportation on a scale that dwarfs even the motorway revolution of the 60s-80s.

3. Liquid fuels account for a relatively small part of our balance of payments deficit. Besides you haven't yet demonstrated that building HS2 is likely to substantially reduce fuel consumption.

Light fuel net importation is over 200,000bbl a day, or 73m bbl a year.
That is roughly £5bn/yr.
Once you include domestic fuel production (it still counts towards the BoP deficit since it would be exported if it wasn't used here) the figure grows even more rapidly.

And the transference of large numbers of people from liquid fuel powered transport to electric transport is expected thanks to a national high Speed rail network (domestic air dies, car journeys fall more precipitously and so on).

The transfer of commuters north provides an opportunity to build a commuting dormitory town that can use public transport heavily in a way that we missed the chance to pull off before.

I think that's a little unfair, especially as 'environmentalists' isn't really a single cohesive group.

Almost the entire 'environmentalist' movement is against nuclear power, and is against increasing fossil fuel consumption.
If they aren't deliberately attempting to force a reversion to an agrarian society then they simply haven't considered what would be required to make those renewable systems they design work.

Sounds like that would be a rather an unpleasant place to live to me.

As would a world where it is impractical for people to travel long distances regularly and they must remain close to home.
That breeds parochial attitudes that are not going to help Britain remain economically competitive in the new era in which we live.

I thought I recall reading somewhere that air resistance is largely along the length of a train - if true that would imply your v-squared term remains important.

The frictional term along the flanks of the vehicles becomes important only at very long train lengths, under normal circumstances it can be ignored as insignificant compared to the cross-sectional area related term, which obviously does not scale with length.

Also remember that a Pendolino has equipment that a dedicated High Speed trainset does not need, which increases the train-weight dependent frictional loss term.
I believe a TGV Duplex comes out similar to a Pendolino per seat-km.

 

[The Ham]

I fear there are quite a few unfounded assumptions and inaccuracies in that.

1. House prices vary across the country. It's much more complex than a North-South gradient. Prices are mouthwateringly high in parts of London and nearby, but there are also very expensive places in the North and relatively cheap areas near London. Overall the reason for high average prices is simple: There aren't enough houses. The only way that is going to change is if more houses are built. Allowing people to travel faster may make prices go up or down in individual areas but will not change the basic problem that there are not enough houses. I don't therefore think that is a sensible argument for HS2.

If travel is difficult, then everyone wants to live near to their job, make travel easier and people will travel longer distances to work if there are advantages to living further away. Therefore if travel is difficult most people will try and live in/around London, whilst if it is easy to travel people will live much more spead out. In doing so they spread the demand on other infrastrusture around as well as their spending. This then makes it easer for other people to find jobs not in/around London and makes it easier to build enough houses as they do not all need to be in the south east.

2. Further, you don't have to look hard to find places where house prices vary by as much as a factor of 2 in places that are less than an hour's travel apart, or where areas of affluence are situated well under an hour's travel from very deprived places (say: Kensington to parts of Newham?) That appears to prove that providing fast transport links does not necessarily remove the kinds of inequalities you're alluding to. To push that point further, today it's possible to travel from London to most of the North of England far more conveniently (and although I'm guessing, I suspect vastly more cheaply compared to average wages) than was the case 100 years ago. Doesn't seem to have reduced economic differences between those areas though. I'd suggest this whole idea that providing faster travel automatically causes economic integration etc. is little more than wishful thinking.

100 years ago there were a lot more local jobs in the north (industry, mining, etc.), so there was less need to travel for work, which has meant that the economic differance have dramaticly increased over that time. However this has nothing to do with the increase in speed of travel. In fact if speed of travel had not increased then it could well be argueed that the differance would be all the greater now.

3. Liquid fuels account for a relatively small part of our balance of payments deficit. Besides you haven't yet demonstrated that building HS2 is likely to substantially reduce fuel consumption.

There is little proof that HS2 (on its own) would reduce fuel consumption, however it is very easy to prove that a new rail line (where there is enough demand for a comercially viable service) would reduce fuel constuption. There is also evidance that increased journey speeds by train services increase passenger demand. As the more people who swith from driving in a car on their own to taking an electricly powered train increases the less fuel that is used.

As not only are all trains (per seat) more fuel efficiant (per seat) than the provate motor car, but also electric trains preduce less CO2 than diesel trains. Therefore the more people who use rail over cars the less fuel is being used and therefore any increase in rail capacity combined with reduced rail journey times will result in less fuel consupmtion.

Road usage in the UK has risen and dropped, so that the number of miles driven on the UK roads is broadly the same as that in 2002 with a corrilating drop in fuel useage. Whilst, although the number of people traveling by train has shoot up over the same time frame, the total number of trains has not increased by anywhere need as much.

This is shown in the amount of energy used by each mode of transport. For instance the rise in road fuel usage since 1990 is 2%, whilst rail has seen a fall since 1990 of 10%.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...25-factsheet-transport-energy-consumption.pdf

This is on a backdrop of passenger milage rising from about 20bn miles to over 30bn miles over the same timeframe.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/rail/110805_Rail_Factsheet.pdf

This means that rail is now moving a lot more passengers for significatly less fuel.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The current Euston station is a disaster.

It is poorly laid out, poorly dimensioned and the architecture has not aged well.

The cheap solution for the new platforms would be not to have a trainshed at all but have small shelters on each individual platform.
Are you proposing that?

Oh don't be so ridiculous! What’s wrong with separate shelters that cover each individual platform? It’s a damn sight cheaper than building a trainshed, not withstanding the fact that a fancy 'show piece' station is not a priority.

With the train frequency that is being suggested customers will be spending very little time at the station, let alone the fact that no one changes trains at Euston!

 

[HSTEd]

Oh don't be so ridiculous! What’s wrong with separate shelters that cover each individual platform? It’s a damn sight cheaper than building a trainshed, not withstanding the fact that a fancy 'show piece' station is not a priority.

There are health and safety issues relating to wet/icy platforms, there are issues relating to damage to the roofs from Vandalism (you can't damage a trainshed that you can't get within 30 feet of), there are operational concerns with regards to sight lines for dispatch (platforms with individual shelters tend to be far more cluttered) and movement of the huge numbers of passengers we are talking about for the same reasons.
(Trying to detrain the enormous number of passengers we are talking about on both platform faces at once would be a nightmare if there are supports for shelters and other stuff all over the place).

An overall roof avoids all these problems, and a lightweight hooped structure using ETFE is not going to be that expensive. (Essentially a giant plastic tent supported by lightweight masts).

For reference, a 100m wide, 500m long ETFE sheet (sufficient for an arched roof at Euston) weighs something like 17.5t..... so almost nothing.

With the train frequency that is being suggested customers will be spending very little time at the station, let alone the fact that no one changes trains at Euston!

A train to Manchester is of no use whatsoever if you are trying to catch the Classic Compatible set to Aberdeen.

So we have no information as to the waiting times some customers will be subjected to.

 

[NSEFAN]

There are health and safety issues relating to wet/icy platforms, there are issues relating to damage to the roofs from Vandalism (you can't damage a trainshed that you can't get within 30 feet of), there are operational concerns with regards to sight lines for dispatch (platforms with individual shelters tend to be far more cluttered) and movement of the huge numbers of passengers we are talking about for the same reasons.
(Trying to detrain the enormous number of passengers we are talking about on both platform faces at once would be a nightmare if there are supports for shelters and other stuff all over the place).

An overall roof avoids all these problems, and a lightweight hooped structure using ETFE is not going to be that expensive. (Essentially a giant plastic tent supported by lightweight masts).

For reference, a 100m wide, 500m long ETFE sheet (sufficient for an arched roof at Euston) weighs something like 17.5t..... so almost nothing.

Given that huge numbers of people are expected to be using the trains, surely some kind of crowd control is needed regardless of the roof structure. Afterall, you can't dispatch a train until everyone has got on board and the platforms are clear.

Passengers can wait on the main concourse until their train has been announced, which should only happen after the majority of the pax from the previous service have left the platform. Maybe taking the train off the departure boards 2 minutes beforehand would also help by reducing the number of last-minute sprinters.

 

[edwin_m]

An overall roof also allows over-site development. The original Euston was designed to be developed over but it never happened for some reason. However the HS2 terminal would be a prime development site and selling off the "air rights" could make a substantial contribution to the cost of building it.

Just hope it doesn't end up like New Street...

 

[brianthegiant]

Almost the entire 'environmentalist' movement is against nuclear power, and is against increasing fossil fuel consumption.

I have already disputed this theory, since you continue to peddle this line I would challenge you to back it up with some data. Numbers of people actively campaigning against nuclear in recent years is small fry compared to those campaigning against fossil fuels, you only have to look at number of signatures on petitions or attendees at demonstrations. I think even George Monbiot now accepts Nuclear is a necessary evil compared to Climate Change impact of fossil fuel consumption.

If they aren't deliberately attempting to force a reversion to an agrarian society then they simply haven't considered what would be required to make those renewable systems they design work.

I think many of your technical points are quite good, but if you try to ridicule/caricature your philosophical opponents like this it does start to sound like you've run out of rational arguments?

 

[HSTEd]

I have already disputed this theory, since you continue to peddle this line I would challenge you to back it up with some data. Numbers of people actively campaigning against nuclear in recent years is small fry compared to those campaigning against fossil fuels, you only have to look at number of signatures on petitions or attendees at demonstrations.

Number of protestors is largely irrelevent, the nuclear protestors have become extremely adept at disrupting planning and regulatory consent for nuclear installations and the like.

The "fossil fuel" protestors are largely amateurs. (And certainly aren't the same people for the most part)

I think even George Monbiot now accepts Nuclear is a necessary evil compared to Climate Change impact of fossil fuel consumption.

And yet George Monbiot has been pilloried by a large portion of the environmentalist movement, including as I said, attacked as having "lost the plot" by the Right Honourable Caroline Lucas.

I think many of your technical points are quite good, but if you try to ridicule/caricature your philosophical opponents like this it does start to sound like you've run out of rational arguments?

My opponents do not listen to rational arguments and never have, they have manipulated data and run shoddy analyses in an attempt to generate data to justify absurd positions, then accuse me of being a shill for "big nuclear" when I note how ridiculous they are being (leaivng aside that Greenpeace now has a larger turnover than any major Western Reactor vendor).
The only tool that might work is to undermine them through ridicule.

 

[Philip Elliott]

My opponents do not listen to rational arguments and never have, they have manipulated data and run shoddy analyses in an attempt to generate data to justify absurd positions,

The irony meter has just gone into meltdown

 

[HSTEd]

The irony meter has just gone into meltdown

I don't manipulate data deliberately, I just point out that many options many people consider to be "ridiculous" aren't actually that ridiculous.

And I always note in my calculations that there are likely other factors I have not accounted for.

 

[RichmondCommu]

There are health and safety issues relating to wet/icy platforms, there are issues relating to damage to the roofs from Vandalism (you can't damage a trainshed that you can't get within 30 feet of), there are operational concerns with regards to sight lines for dispatch (platforms with individual shelters tend to be far more cluttered) and movement of the huge numbers of passengers we are talking about for the same reasons.
(Trying to detrain the enormous number of passengers we are talking about on both platform faces at once would be a nightmare if there are supports for shelters and other stuff all over the place).

Well wet / icy platforms don't appear to have closed down Derby, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, London Bridge, Southampton, Sheffield …………….

In my experience platforms with individual shelters have no more clutter than stations with train sheds. Not only that but the rebuild at Euston will mean that the platforms will be wider. And all of this makes no difference when you get to the ticket barriers. And with modern technology the supports will be spaced much further apart.

How many station roofs have you seen damaged by vandals? Feel free to give examples.

In terms of dispatch Paddington is built on a curve and yet trains seem to be dispatched with no fuss what so ever.

An overall roof avoids all these problems, and a lightweight hooped structure using ETFE is not going to be that expensive. (Essentially a giant plastic tent supported by lightweight masts).

For reference, a 100m wide, 500m long ETFE sheet (sufficient for an arched roof at Euston) weighs something like 17.5t..... so almost nothing.

Just remind me how long these trains are going to be?

A train to Manchester is of no use whatsoever if you are trying to catch the Classic Compatible set to Aberdeen.

So we have no information as to the waiting times some customers will be subjected to.

But why would people travelling to Aberdeen be waiting on the platform, as opposed to waiting on the concourse? And I have no doubt that the concourse will be much improved so this is completely irrelevant. And even then no one is likely to arrive much earlier than they need to.

Kings Cross station is not full of people on the platforms waiting for the Aberdeen East Coast service so why will Euston be any different?

 

[HSTEd]

Well wet / icy platforms don't appear to have closed down Derby, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, London Bridge, Southampton, Sheffield …………….

And yet St Pancras recieved a brand new overall roof during its reconstruction, despite the architectural focus being on the original trainshed. (Most International passengers never go under the new roof while boarding)
This would seem to indicate that the trainshed had some operational role.

All (except London Bridge) those stations tend to be fairly lightly used per platform face per hour, and London Bridge currently has an overall trainshed over significant portions of the station.

In my experience platforms with individual shelters have no more clutter than stations with train sheds. Not only that but the rebuild at Euston will mean that the platforms will be wider. And all of this makes no difference when you get to the ticket barriers. And with modern technology the supports will be spaced much further apart.

There needn't be any significant clutter for the largest part of the length of the Platform at a station with an overall trainshed, leaving room on the platforms for things that actually improve passenger loading, such as pair of moving walkways (which would be set to the correct direction depending on whether the train on the relevent platform face has just arrived or is preparing for departure) which would spread passengers out along the 400m platform more rapidly.

How many station roofs have you seen damaged by vandals? Feel free to give examples.

The roof's themselves are not the issue, the issue is the supports and walls on shelters (as shelters at platform level almost always need some form of vertical component or they are rendered near useless) which can be daubed with paint, or if they are made of glass simply attacked with a nail or any else that the villain has to hand. (Some of the glass sided waiting shelters at Leeds City have been attacked in this fashion).

In terms of dispatch Paddington is built on a curve and yet trains seem to be dispatched with no fuss what so ever.

As I recall Paddington has an overall trainshed with almost no clutter on platforms at all, giving excellent sight lines (the only things that block lines of sight are the trains).

Just remind me how long these trains are going to be?

400m, but passenger circulation benefits from a large arched roof (as it reduces the need for clutter between the concourse and the platforms, further improving circulation and sight lines) mean that as much of the station as possible should be put under it.

But why would people travelling to Aberdeen be waiting on the platform, as opposed to waiting on the concourse? And I have no doubt that the concourse will be much improved so this is completely irrelevant. And even then no one is likely to arrive much earlier than they need to.

Kings Cross station is not full of people on the platforms waiting for the Aberdeen East Coast service so why will Euston be any different?

The Concourse at King's Cross is sufficient for the numbers of passengers using that station now.
The number of passengers using this new Euston super-station will be approaching an order of magnitude greater.
The concourse size rapidly grows insane, which means that dispersing passengers onto platforms may become neccessary (for an example of a place where this happens at a Terminus, see Manchester Piccadilly).
Additionally since some people will be forced to walk 400m to the end of the train, it may be a good idea to allow people to pre-position along the platform to increase loading speeds.

And this is the era of Advanced Purchase fares, where business passengers may be able to swallow the cost of an open ticket, most ordinary people will not, and I know of people going to the station more than an hour in advance of their departure simply to avoid missing the train because they can't afford another ticket.

 

[LE Greys]

Let's not forget that the whole of HS2 is supposed to be a showpiece for British industry as well. Surely, that must justify an overall roof, to prevent the new Euston being 'upstaged' by St Pancras down the road. Producing a 'cheapskate' station will generate considerable negative publicity, and is likely to be a target for mockery from the newspapers.

 

[Chris125]

I think an overall roof is virtually guaranteed for Euston, but like the one built over the current station (and more recently Dalston Jct/Shoreditch High St) i suspect it will be more motivated by oversite development.

Chris

 

[ChiefPlanner]

An overall roof also allows over-site development. The original Euston was designed to be developed over but it never happened for some reason. However the HS2 terminal would be a prime development site and selling off the "air rights" could make a substantial contribution to the cost of building it.

Just hope it doesn't end up like New Street...

At the time of Euston redevelopment , there was some stress on "what gets planning permission" - there were moves to de-congest London (the Location of Offices Bureau encouraged migration to places like Croydon and Reading) , plus maybe "vested interests" .....or "interested parties" - whilst locating an employment centre on top of a rail / tube station would have been sensible for forward planning , the view was instead to grant other developments - not all of which were succesful. For some of the machinations in the Euston area - read "The Battle for Tolmers Square" - how a local (if run down area) was trashed for comprehensive redevelopment.

 

[jon0844]

It's funny how things change. Building over a station makes a lot of sense (well, until you need to expand in years to come) but if you look at King's Cross, the station is now a lot more open - and the old 'temporary' building has made way for a large open square.

I wonder if there were ever plans drawn up to do 'more' with the space, even if it was to the detriment of the passenger?

 

[edwin_m]

There was the plan in the 60s to demolish St Pancras.

I guess if Euston had been built over in the 60s it would have ended up like some of the grot in Croydon and Reading! I'd like to think we do things better these days - the real architectural gems like the whole of St Pancras, the original trainshed and KX and the northern side of Liverpool Street are preserved. But what will people think of the oversite at Victoria or Charing Cross in a few decades time?

 

[swt_passenger]

The new London Bridge was going to have an air rights development, but it was cancelled in favour of the current design at a fairly late stage. Perhaps NR have decided it won't be as common in the future as might have once been expected - eg in the days of Railtrack...

 

[Harlesden]

I confess I know very little about HS2 but I would like to know if there were ever any plans to remain above ground in the area between Old Oak Common and Northolt?
I ask because the local Labour Party are claiming a "major victory" in their campaign to have the line in this area built underground.
A leaflet distributed door to door suggests that the success of this "campaign" has saved the area from the threat of "years of traffic disruption".

 

[snowball]

Until about a week ago HS2 was going to run above ground on this section, replacing the two Network Rail tracks that run alongside the north side of the LU Central Line. Now it will be in tunnel instead.

 

[HSTEd]

Which means there are effectively no longer any capacity concerns at Marylebone... since if worst comes to worst, traffic can be redirected to Paddington to use the platforms there that are being freed up by Crossrail.

Although that probably triggers an argument over whether Crossrail trains should take over the Aylesbury route.

 

[corfield]

How would the WCML slows be connected to Crossrail ?

A tunnel portal near Willesden Jn I assume, as the closest the WCML/ GWML cone to each other ?

 

[edwin_m]

The Modern Railways article mentioned either using part of the Dudding Hill line, presumably connecting in the Willesden area, or part of the line towards Ruislip and then tunneling towards the WCML. These would potentially also allow the diverted WCML trains to call at OOC.

 

[The Decapod]

Why HS2 might never be built:

I've said before that I think HS2 is partly a 'sacrificial project', i.e. one that can be cancelled when it suits the government, to appear to save money, instead of making hard cuts to existing public services.

Now a political scenario for the cancellation of HS2 is developing. UKIP is opposed to HS2. Nigel Farage is talking about doing electoral deals with the Tories. If cancellation of HS2 is made a condition of a deal with the Tories, nobody loses anything. I'm neither a UKIP nor a Tory supporter, by the way.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Why HS2 might never be built:

I've said before that I think HS2 is partly a 'sacrificial project', i.e. one that can be cancelled when it suits the government, to appear to save money, instead of making hard cuts to existing public services.

Now a political scenario for the cancellation of HS2 is developing. UKIP is opposed to HS2. Nigel Farage is talking about doing electoral deals with the Tories. If cancellation of HS2 is made a condition of a deal with the Tories, nobody loses anything. I'm neither a UKIP nor a Tory supporter, by the way.

That's assuming that they suddenly go from having no MP's to becoming a large enough party to form a coalition government with in 2015. They may have done well as a protest party in the local elections and will probably do very well in the European elections next year but I doubt they will win enough seats in a general election to form a coalition with the Tories over Labour and the Liberals (epically with the retention of First Past the Post Voting).

Anyway weren't UKIP proposing building three high speed lines in their 2010 election manifesto so I believe that their opposition to HS2 is little more than a political ploy to mop up some disaffected votes in the Tory shires.

 

[ainsworth74]

Anyway weren't UKIP proposing building three high speed lines in their 2010 election manifesto so I believe that their opposition to HS2 is little more than a political ploy to mop up some disaffected votes in the Tory shires.

From their April 2010 manifesto:

Invest in three new 200mph plus high-speed rail lines including a new line between London and Newcastle with a spur to Manchester, a London Bristol-Exeter line and a linking route via Birmingham

Source

As with all the small parties manifestos it's long on promise and rather shorter on detail.

 

[Chris125]

I've said before that I think HS2 is partly a 'sacrificial project', i.e. one that can be cancelled when it suits the government, to appear to save money, instead of making hard cuts to existing public services.

I disagree entirely, it's one project that can't be sacrificed as it's fundamental to so many aspects of government policy - infrastructure spending, tackling the north-south divide, domestic air capacity, investment in rail and the like. If they were going to cancel it they would've already, now with so much political capital already spent and no viable alternative it would achieve very little electorally especially as polling shows broad support for the overall scheme.

Chris

 

[The Decapod]

I agree UKIP used to be in favour of high speed rail but now they've tapped into the the (understandable) nimby sentiments all along the corridor blighted by the proposed HS2 route.

I'm still 50:50 over HS2. The arguments against seem to at least balance those in favour.

 

[HSTEd]

Is it possible to get updated figures on the length of above ground trackwork versus the length of buried trackwork?

I remember people claiming it was 60% in tunnel, with the latest changes I wonder if that has increased significantly?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I agree UKIP used to be in favour of high speed rail but now they've tapped into the the (understandable) nimby sentiments all along the corridor blighted by the proposed HS2 route.

I'm still 50:50 over HS2. The arguments against seem to at least balance those in favour.

Exactly, political opportunism at it's finest. It they u turn over one key election manifesto promise then how long before they change other manifesto promisers like flat income tax rate, scrapping national insurance etc even if they can afford these tax cuts without cutting far deeper than the Tories.