High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[DynamicSpirit]

A TGV Duplex has a 0.037kWh per seat km.
Assuming a 50% capacity factor that is ~ 0.074kWh per passenger km.
Assuming a London to Manchester distance of roughly 320km, that translates to approximately 23.68kWh of electricity used.

Supposedly the emissions per kWh of British electricity will be down to 50 grammes of carbon dioxide per kWh by ~2030 (although without a crash nuclear programme that won't happen).
Which means that 23.68kWh will release 1184g of carbon dioxide.

For reference that is about as much as driving a Toyota Prius ~10km or a comparable distance for a Volkswagen Golf BlueMotion.

Are you certain of those figures? I don't have any links to check them with, but it sounds highly implausible to me that someone travelling from Manchester to London at well above > 150mph would use no more carbon than say a trip to the local supermarket in a car.

Either way, having people commute that distance, while not going to reduce energy use, is hardly going to end the world or cause an "environmental disaster".

I would be very wary of using that kind of argument. The sum total impact of global warming - which arguably is amounting to an environmental disaster, is caused by an aggregation of millions of policy decisions by Governments and trillions of personal lifestyle decisions by individuals, each one of which by itself has a negligible impact on global CO2 emissions. Of course you can take any one big policy decision (such as building HS2, or building a single new road, or building a single new coal-fired power station, or awarding a single fracking license) and say, well by itself, doing this isn't going to have any appreciable impact on global warming therefore it's OK. But the problem is, then you'll take the same approach to the next decision. And the next one. And the one after that... And of course, if we take that approach, we will definitely end up with an accumulated disaster.

Britain is already a city state and will become more of one as time goes by.
We can either let London fly off by itself or we can harness the rest of the country to it.

I personally have no wish to live in a country where almost all the decent, skilled, professional, employment opportunities only exist in just one city. I don't think we're that bad yet, and I'd prefer to see the Government actively working to prevent that happening.

 

[Ironside]

Are you certain of those figures? I don't have any links to check them with, but it sounds highly implausible to me that someone travelling from Manchester to London at well above > 150mph would use no more carbon than say a trip to the local supermarket in a car.

HSTeds figures are correct. Figure 2.5 in the following link compares the creatures of different high speed trains. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/5878_Comparingenvironmentalimpactofconventionalandhighspeedrail.pdf

 

[The Ham]

I would be very wary of using that kind of argument. The sum total impact of global warming - which arguably is amounting to an environmental disaster, is caused by an aggregation of millions of policy decisions by Governments and trillions of personal lifestyle decisions by individuals, each one of which by itself has a negligible impact on global CO2 emissions. Of course you can take any one big policy decision (such as building HS2, or building a single new road, or building a single new coal-fired power station, or awarding a single fracking license) and say, well by itself, doing this isn't going to have any appreciable impact on global warming therefore it's OK. But the problem is, then you'll take the same approach to the next decision. And the next one. And the one after that... And of course, if we take that approach, we will definitely end up with an accumulated disaster.

The thing with train travel is that if the trains are running anyway (i.e. there is enough other travellers using the service for it to be running) then filling some more seats with commuters does not really add to the energy use. In fact the argument could well be that by them travelling on a train which is less well used (even if a longer distance) they are freeing up space on the services they previously used (even if it was only a fairly short, say 20 minutes, commute ) to allow someone who was previously driving to use the train instead. Thus it could actually reduce the amount of CO2 being generated.

Yes we do need to all do a little to reduce the amount of CO2 being produced and there are many ways of doing so, but quibbling over if a fairly minor number of people commuting on trains (which are likely to be running anyway) are increasing or decreasing the country's CO2 is fairly pointless. As there are a lot more steps that a lot more people could take which would reduce a lot more CO2 production.

Also if HSTEd's figures are out by a factor of 10 it will still be greener than someone driving 100km (a little further than Manchester to Stafford).

 

[JohnB57]

Indeed. A political appointee who knows naff all about railways...

You don't have to be able to lay an egg to tell a good one from a bad one.

The decision on HS2 needs to be taken from its business case and that's looking weaker by the day.

 

[HowardGWR]

You don't have to be able to lay an egg to tell a good one from a bad one.

The decision on HS2 needs to be taken from its business case and that's looking weaker by the day.

If a 'business case' for public investment (as opposed to private investment) does not take into account the two other factors of social and environmental considerations, as well as economic ones, it has no value as a decision supporting process. The economic component only provides a third of the picture.

The problem is that if every factor has to be weighed in money terms, it will be very difficult to do, although some attempts have been made. Examples that have been are the cost of collisions (was over a £million for a fatal, and £60000 for a 'serious', a few years ago when I was involved in this). Another is the value of an AONB or SSSI. No values have been assigned to these latter yet, AFAIK. Work has been done on carbon emissions but only quantitative not financial.

Governments have to take decisions based on value judgements. What is your value of a favourite footpath?

 

[JohnB57]

If a 'business case' for public investment (as opposed to private investment) does not take into account the two other factors of social and environmental considerations, as well as economic ones, it has no value as a decision supporting process. The economic component only provides a third of the picture.

The problem is that if every factor has to be weighed in money terms, it will be very difficult to do, although some attempts have been made. Examples that have been are the cost of collisions (was over a £million for a fatal, and £60000 for a 'serious', a few years ago when I was involved in this). Another is the value of an AONB or SSSI. No values have been assigned to these latter yet, AFAIK. Work has been done on carbon emissions but only quantitative not financial.

Governments have to take decisions based on value judgements. What is your value of a favourite footpath?

Actually, I agree with almost all you say.

But in common with many detractors and agnostics - I'm one of the latter - I'm highly sceptical about attributing arbitrary values to things like social and environmental benefits, whether financial or other scoring metrics They are extremely conjectural - you can basically decide on the outcome you want and score accordingly.

Your footpaths question is interesting as they happen to be something that I do fight to maintain. I think the answer would be that if the best solution to a local economic problem was to build over a public footpath, I'd have to manage without it if the only alternative was to spoil an area of forest. I'd like to think I could see the wood for the trees. Do you think you can?

 

[HSTEd]

Are you certain of those figures? I don't have any links to check them with, but it sounds highly implausible to me that someone travelling from Manchester to London at well above > 150mph would use no more carbon than say a trip to the local supermarket in a car.

Remember that while a car has a rather smaller frontal area and is moving slower, it also carries about one person.
Even at 50% occupancy a train can divide up its drag component (which is easily the dominant one for trains in this speed regime) into several hundred segments that are far smaller than those available to the car.

I would be very wary of using that kind of argument. The sum total impact of global warming - which arguably is amounting to an environmental disaster, is caused by an aggregation of millions of policy decisions by Governments and trillions of personal lifestyle decisions by individuals, each one of which by itself has a negligible impact on global CO2 emissions.

The only reason that we are looking this problem is one policy decision made by the governments of the world in the aftermath of TMI and Chernobyl, to end pursuit of atomic energy.
Decarbonisation of electricity and heating (using heat pumps) gets Britain a 65% decrease in carbon emissions from that one policy.

Of course you can take any one big policy decision (such as building HS2, or building a single new road, or building a single new coal-fired power station, or awarding a single fracking license) and say, well by itself, doing this isn't going to have any appreciable impact on global warming therefore it's OK. But the problem is, then you'll take the same approach to the next decision. And the next one. And the one after that... And of course, if we take that approach, we will definitely end up with an accumulated disaster.

But the opposite approach is just as disastrous for the people of the country.
And remember once de-carbonisation of electricity takes place (if it ever does) then it won't matter how much electricity you use, since it will still not have any measurable environmental impact.

I personally have no wish to live in a country where almost all the decent, skilled, professional, employment opportunities only exist in just one city. I don't think we're that bad yet, and I'd prefer to see the Government actively working to prevent that happening.

The only way you can really stop it is to simply ban people from moving regions, with all the apparatus of internal borders.
I can't see any other measures that have a chance in hell of actually working well. The battle is already lost.
All we can do is improve transport links to expand the area defined as London (who says that it is just inside the M25? If getting to the area around Birmingham Airport on HS2 takes about as long as getting to the edges of London on the Metropolitan line, is that london or not?)

 

[yorksrob]

But in common with many detractors and agnostics - I'm one of the latter - I'm highly sceptical about attributing arbitrary values to things like social and environmental benefits, whether financial or other scoring metrics They are extremely conjectural - you can basically decide on the outcome you want and score accordingly.

Whilst I am sceptical about HS2 for reasons which I have gone into before, I feel quite strongly that it is important to try and quantify social, environmental and wider economic benefits for any potential project otherwise you get to the situation where pretty much any activity that doesn‘t generate an immediate profit is deemed to be a drain on resources. Not only does such a limited outlook distort the basis of providing pretty much any public service, but it is demonstrably risky for the wider railway.

 

[Snapper]

Here's more ridiculous scaremongering & fiddled figures from the anti Hs2 mob.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local...sed-rail-route-1-5879326#.Ue4m2Mi0T-U.twitter

Perhaps some people would like to respond to this rubbish so they don't get away with it...

 

[pablo]

Howarth is not even articulate. Why worry?
And, the councillors want a re-built Victoria station rather than Meadowhall. Let them get on with it.

 

[hs2critic]

Originally Posted by HSTEd View Post
Britain is already a city state and will become more of one as time goes by.

Oh please! Go and get yourself a GCSE Geography text book, and look up the term "primate city".

Yes, it is true, London is significantly larger than the next largest cities, but this is true of many other countries around the world. It is simply the way they have evolved over time - so the same could be said of France, but not of Germany or the USA, which are polycentric. There's no real correlation to say one model inherently makes for a stronger country, and all this talk of "rebalancing" forgets we've never been balanced in the first place.

Now let's ask just exactly what are you wanting to do about it? London has a natural attraction, which then means more people want to be there, more jobs want to be there and so on, but it also works the other way round, because London gets more expensive to be in, some people and companies move out, or at least move part of their operations out.

So what has the TGV done to reduce the fact that Paris is also still very much a primate city?

 

[tbtc]

all for the sake of getting you into London 10 minutes early... This money would be better spent helping our ailing NHS

If this is the standard of debate that the Killamarsh and Renishaw HS2 Action Group have...

 

[YorkshireBear]

If this is the standard of debate that the Killamarsh and Renishaw HS2 Action Group have...

Oh dear god, just read a comment on that article saying they were in favour until they were told updating and modernising the ENTIRE network was cheaper. No upgrading the WCML is cheaper....

 

[tbtc]

Oh dear god, just read a comment on that article saying they were in favour until they were told updating and modernising the ENTIRE network was cheaper. No upgrading the WCML is cheaper....

Yup!

You could probably electrify thousands of miles for the cost of HS2, though you'd need new trains (the HS2 costs include the rolling stock, but the naked costs of electrifying a mile of track on the existing network obviously don't).

However they're missing the point that a lot of the areas at/nearing capacity in the UK are already electrified - which is why we need to build a "WCML by-pass". Or, as I like to call it, HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh please! Go and get yourself a GCSE Geography text book, and look up the term "primate city".

Yes, it is true, London is significantly larger than the next largest cities, but this is true of many other countries around the world. It is simply the way they have evolved over time - so the same could be said of France, but not of Germany or the USA, which are polycentric. There's no real correlation to say one model inherently makes for a stronger country, and all this talk of "rebalancing" forgets we've never been balanced in the first place.

So there is no reason not to do it then?

Now let's ask just exactly what are you wanting to do about it? London has a natural attraction, which then means more people want to be there, more jobs want to be there and so on, but it also works the other way round, because London gets more expensive to be in, some people and companies move out, or at least move part of their operations out.

But they won't.
There is a surplus of office space in London at the present time and with the numerous high rise completions in the near future there will be for years to come.
If recent advances in high quality prefabricated construction of high rises come off we will see steadily increasing levels of provision of office space in the capital.

The London basing of companies has such a weight in international business circles that it is worth any inconvenience in financial terms.

So what has the TGV done to reduce the fact that Paris is also still very much a primate city?

The TGV belt has come into existence, with significant commuting from outside the central part of the Île-de-France.
And you seem to have completely miscontrued my argument.
I don't want to stop London being a 'primate city' I want it to become one that spreads over a significant portion of the entire south of England rather than being packed into the bottom corner.

EDIT:

And note that if you had no concern for environmental impacts you could build HS2 for a rather small percentage of its current cost, as there would be no need to use a single tunnel outside of an urban area.
You could cross the Chilterns on a series of large embankments, cuttings and long cheap concrete viaducts.

 

[tec]

HS2 is a waste of money, as I never go to Birmingham or London, and don't know of anyone who would want to either!

I live somewhere between both terminals, so what is there for us, apart from demolishing perfectly good houses and countryside?

You could house all the long term unemployed and immigrants in nice houses and still have cash left over, and also building houses would create more jobs for local people.

 

[HSTEd]

I live somewhere between both terminals, so what is there for us, apart from demolishing perfectly good houses and countryside?

I don't think there will actually be a significant number of house demolitions as part of the project and I imagine what losses there are could easily be made good without denting the project budget in any measurable sense.

You could house all the long term unemployed and immigrants in nice houses and still have cash left over, and also building houses would create more jobs for local people.

Ah, the magical invisible houses that do not blot the precious countryside in any way? And magically provide employment for significant numbers of people after the busy few months in which they are constructed?

 

[ainsworth74]

HS2 is a waste of money, as I never go to Birmingham or London, and don't know of anyone who would want to either!

How about London to Manchester/Leeds/Newcastle/York/Edinburgh/Liverpool/Glasgow/Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield and journeys between them? Because as I'm sure you're aware HS2 is serving rather more than just London and to Birmingham.

 

[tbtc]

HS2 is a waste of money, as I never go to Birmingham or London, and don't know of anyone who would want to either!

You live in between London and Birmingham and don't know anyone who wants to travel to either city?

Okay.

 

[jon0844]

HS2 is a waste of money, as I never go to Birmingham or London, and don't know of anyone who would want to either!

This is a joke, right?

I mean, I've never been on any railways in north Wales or the Scottish highlands. So why the hell are we wasting money keeping them open?

 

[hs2critic]

I want it to become one that spreads over a significant portion of the entire south of England rather than being packed into the bottom corner.

What's HS2 got to do with that? London already has its commuter belt, and within that belt are substantial towns and cities that are also centres in their own right, such as Oxford, Brighton or Cambridge.

You have talked of Manchester and Birmingham becoming within this commuter belt too. That might move the location of where some money is spent, but not where it is earned.

My point about primate cities is that they are quite a different concept to a city state. Now I know you might want to make a point about London this and London that, but there is a very big difference between London being the largest city, and it being the only city (as in Singapore etc).

Roughly 1/3 of the UK population live within London's hinterland, the other 2/3 don't. I have yet to see a convincing argument about how high speed rail will redress theeconmic imbalance, although I accept that if you already have a more even distrubution - or even a nation that is duocentric, such as Spain or Italy, then the train can increase trade between the top cities in a way that benefits both.

The other key difference between the AVE and HS2 is that the AVE has slashed journey times by almost 2/3, compared to the previous TALGO service. That sticks a substantial load in the positive column, compared to the relative modest gains of HS2.

 

[tbtc]

The other key difference between the AVE and HS2 is that the AVE has slashed journey times by almost 2/3, compared to the previous TALGO service. That sticks a substantial load in the positive column, compared to the relative modest gains of HS2.

The "modest gains" argument against HS2 is a funny one (usually along the lines of "spending umpteen billion pounds to get to Birmingham thirty seconds earlier").

For me, living in Sheffield, it'd mean that a direct train to London goes down from just over two hours to just over one hour, roughly half the current time.

Is that relatively modest?

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 is a waste of money, as I never go to Birmingham or London, and don't know of anyone who would want to either!

I live somewhere between both terminals, so what is there for us, apart from demolishing perfectly good houses and countryside?

If you ever make intermediate journeys on the West Coast Main Line then you should benefit because HS2 will remove the long distance passengers and allow a much better frequency of service for shorter journeys.

 

[Philip Elliott]

You mean like Atherstone and Stone losing half their services....

 

[corfield]

Where ? Do they matter ?

Trying to claim HS2 offers only modest gains doesnt exactly build credibility. As easily pointed out above.

Redressing the economic balance might be best done by playing to our strengths (foucussing on London as a powerhouse), rather than the rather tired and failed method of endless subsidy in a vain effort to recreate very transient moment in history where the northern cities had the geography and local resources to become great heavy industrial powerhouses. A moment that has very much finished and moved on, whilst seemingly very unlikely to reoccur. Whilst London, throughout the ages the standout principal city of the British Isles just absorbed that age whilst always getting stronger.


So far, uber selfish Nimby and a mixture of lies ("modest") & strawman ("failure to make case that it completely and utterly redresses economic balance").

Im sure those who havent made up their mind would be bowled over.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The "modest gains" argument against HS2 is a funny one (usually along the lines of "spending umpteen billion pounds to get to Birmingham thirty seconds earlier").

For me, living in Sheffield, it'd mean that a direct train to London goes down from just over two hours to just over one hour, roughly half the current time.

Is that relatively modest?

I wonder how many people decide not to travel between Sheffield and London by train because of the current journey time? One suspects that very few people are put off by the two hour train ride as there isn't a quicker alternative. Which makes me wonder how much extra business HS2 is likely to win between South Yorkshire and London.

 

[The Ham]

The other key difference between the AVE and HS2 is that the AVE has slashed journey times by almost 2/3, compared to the previous TALGO service. That sticks a substantial load in the positive column, compared to the relative modest gains of HS2.

But how much og the journey time savings down to Spain having a fairly low speed service.

For instance isf it wasn't for the WCML or other 125mph lines then increasing line speeds to 200mph and missing several stations can make a sustantial time saving.

Build a high speed line to Penzance (about 300 miles) from London and you could get time savings of nearly 2/3's compared with the existing 5 hours.

 

[YorkshireBear]

benefits both.

The other key difference between the AVE and HS2 is that the AVE has slashed journey times by almost 2/3, compared to the previous TALGO service. That sticks a substantial load in the positive column, compared to the relative modest gains of HS2.

So you complain that its upteen billion to save a few mins then complain that it isn't quick enough?

 

[bangor-toad]

I wonder how many people decide not to travel between Sheffield and London by train because of the current journey time? One suspects that very few people are put off by the two hour train ride as there isn't a quicker alternative. Which makes me wonder how much extra business HS2 is likely to win between South Yorkshire and London.

Hi there,
I think that this is a key question that will determine and drive much of the demand for increased travel.

For leisure passengers wanting a day out in London/Birmingham/Newcastle/etc the travel time isn't quite so significant and provided it's sensibly possible to get there and back in a day the details aren't important.

For commuting there are some well researched studies as to people's tolerance to the length of their commute. Summarising widely and irresponsibly, many studies have shown that outside of London people will put up with a 40 minute commute each way but this increases to 90 to 100 minutes for those travelling into/near London.
(Why the difference is probably worthy of a few phycology PhD's but that's not for now...)

Similarly, my own work at one of the old development agencies showed that many business trips would be undertaken with less fuss if the travel time was 90 minutes or less.
Why we asked? It seemed to be that with the travel time as less than 90 minutes each way it was possible to travel there, have a meeting and come back within 1/2 a day. With travel being 2 hours each way you'll looking at needing the whole day to have a meeting.

With HS2 the Sheffield - London travel time comes down into that 90-100 minute mark. This opens up the opportunities for far more commuting and for more business travel.
(OK I fully accept that a cross London, HS2 trip and cross Sheffield trip is going to be significantly longer and so it won't be for everyone.)

So, my view on the answer to your question is that HS2 will open up more travel opportunities and these will be reasonably significant.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[jon0844]

One thing that also needs to be considered is that in future years, once HS2 is up and running, there could be branches off the line to other places - and other new HS lines built, such as down to Plymouth or wherever.

Getting HS2 off the ground is just the first step to what will hopefully be other new railway construction in the next 50-100 years.