High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[The Planner]

You seem perfectly happy with the M40.

To be fair with that though, the first bit of the M40 around High Wycombe was opened in 1967 right at the time the railway was in a bit of a decline. The cutting at Lewknor opened in 1974 and was originally planned as a tunnel but got changed to the cutting due to cost. To be fair, they did a good job with that due to the curvature as you can't see it until you are on it.

 

[DarloRich]

Objections

Too few stations served and failing to spread economic benefits
Speed of the line, raising costs and lowering green credentials
Lack of joined up thinking in transport strategy (How does HS2 fit into the big picture)
Specific routing objections in the Warwickshire area, some are due to the speed of the line necessitating the routing.

Major Concerns

Cost of the project
Location of Birmingham Central Station
Will average people be priced off HS2

Objections

Where else should the line serve? It is a high speed line after all. Any more stations will simply drive up the price.

Green creditals mean sod all to me. I dont care. We are hardly going to be burning coal and small children. We will run electric trains.

We don’t have a joined up transport strategy so why should HS2 be any different. I don’t understand this point.

Specific routing issues smacks of nimbyism - the real stand point of the majority of the antis.

Speed - it is supposed to be a high speed line!

Concerns

Cost - indeed it is expensive. The costs need to be challenged and driven down.

Birmingham Central Station Location - is an available, Brownfield site in a city centre. Where else shall it go? Bear in mind you are already worried about the costs.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I disagree to an extent, I could live with 155mph it would still present time savings, but at a lower cost to the design speed, and with a negative carbon position. Better integration of HS2 into the current rail network would bring about even further capacity release from classic lines and additional stations, in strategic locations could attract this overlapping market, and use the fact that HS2 does not with the exception of Birmingham (which I still maintain is a horrific locational decision), Leeds and Manchester serve city centres, to attract people who are put off travelling by rail because of the city centre location of local stations, in addition to spreading the economic benefits more widely.

When you build it to a lesser speed that means it's going to be more curvaceous and therefore longer than a straighter route, meaning the journey time is longer still. You're not going to need much less infrastructure per kilometre at lower speeds so the increased route length nullifies most of the cost savings - this is the entire reason why HS2 is being built for 400km/h running even though even the Chinese haven't gone beyond 350km/h. Earthworks are so much cheaper for us to do now with modern machinery and TBMs so we don't need to be as limited by geography as the Victorians were when they built these corridors 150 years ago.

Right now an obscene amount of carbon is produced by the plethora of tiny ~180 seater planes which shuttle between the cities of the UK. Air is still more than competitive on the main Inter City routes in the country so if we spend all those billions on a new line what's the point making it still uncompetitive with air travel? It might be the case that between London and Birmingham the speed isn't too important but between London and anywhere beyond it's essential to cut down the rail journey time. Yes, running faster will require more energy, but the alternative is that those planes will still fly at the same time as a notquiteHigh Speed Two would run so you would have ever more carbon emissions.

Remember that HS2 won't integrate into the current rail network - it'll integrate into the future rail network after CP6 is finished. HS2 will take a lot longer to plan and build than any of the smaller schemes feeding into it so there won't be problems getting people connected to the network.

 

[jon0844]

Yesterday I got a text alerting me to delayed trains due to overrunning engineering work on FCC. But it was a bank holiday, so not necessarily a big deal.

However, today I got a text saying the 0838, 0848, 0908, 0928, 0943 and 0948 trains were cancelled - emergency engineering works.

From what I gather, this was down to more overrunning work. No doubt caused chaos for people, as there must have been loads of other affected train services into King's Cross.

The reason I post that here is simple; imagine us deciding to go with upgrading the WCML instead of a new line. These messages would likely be extremely common for years.

 

[Bonemaster]

Yesterday I got a text alerting me to delayed trains due to overrunning engineering work on FCC. But it was a bank holiday, so not necessarily a big deal.

However, today I got a text saying the 0838, 0848, 0908, 0928, 0943 and 0948 trains were cancelled - emergency engineering works.

From what I gather, this was down to more overrunning work. No doubt caused chaos for people, as there must have been loads of other affected train services into King's Cross.

The reason I post that here is simple; imagine us deciding to go with upgrading the WCML instead of a new line. These messages would likely be extremely common for years.

I think thats a bit unfair, emergency engineering works can happen anywhere at any time, if you was too lose HS2 to emergency engineering works, you would stuff up the equivalent of the ECML & WCML long distance flows in one move.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When you build it to a lesser speed that means it's going to be more curvaceous and therefore longer than a straighter route, meaning the journey time is longer still. You're not going to need much less infrastructure per kilometre at lower speeds so the increased route length nullifies most of the cost savings - this is the entire reason why HS2 is being built for 400km/h running even though even the Chinese haven't gone beyond 350km/h. Earthworks are so much cheaper for us to do now with modern machinery and TBMs so we don't need to be as limited by geography as the Victorians were when they built these corridors 150 years ago.

Right now an obscene amount of carbon is produced by the plethora of tiny ~180 seater planes which shuttle between the cities of the UK. Air is still more than competitive on the main Inter City routes in the country so if we spend all those billions on a new line what's the point making it still uncompetitive with air travel? It might be the case that between London and Birmingham the speed isn't too important but between London and anywhere beyond it's essential to cut down the rail journey time. Yes, running faster will require more energy, but the alternative is that those planes will still fly at the same time as a notquiteHigh Speed Two would run so you would have ever more carbon emissions.

Remember that HS2 won't integrate into the current rail network - it'll integrate into the future rail network after CP6 is finished. HS2 will take a lot longer to plan and build than any of the smaller schemes feeding into it so there won't be problems getting people connected to the network.

I cant find the reference right now but building a slower network would save in the region of £4bn from DfT. The faster you go the more energy you need, and the further apart the optimum distances between stations become. I would also go so far as to say that some of the noise mitigation measures, could also be removed with slower running creating even bigger savings.

HS2 itself estimates transfer from air will be 3% of passengers, not a hugely magnificent number, the grand total of carbon after building HS2, transfer from planes, transfer from cars, and running a train is errrr... Neutral

 

[Deerfold]

I cant find the reference right now but building a slower network would save in the region of £4bn from DfT. The faster you go the more energy you need, and the further apart the optimum distances between stations become.

But if you go slower you need more trains and more staff to run the same frequency of service and have a lower overall capacity on the line.

HS2 itself estimates transfer from air will be 3% of passengers, not a hugely magnificent number, the grand total of carbon after building HS2, transfer from planes, transfer from cars, and running a train is errrr... Neutral

Is that 3% of air passengers will transfer to HS2 or 3% of HS2 passengers will have transferred from air?

 

[L&Y Robert]

The arguments roll to and fro, everyone likes to get in there and have a go, picking up points, rubbishing others. What fun! But it's all a waste of effort (unless you enjoy it, that is) capacity issues, route issues, all sorts of issues, these experts say this but those experts say that, but
- ITS POLITICAL!
The Goverment has decided Britain must have high speed railways - France has got 'em, so's Germany, and Italy, and even Spain. So we've gotta have some too. See to it, Jeeves, will you . . .
The government will decide to do it or not, almost (but not quite) irrespective of all the fact grubbing.

 

[Tobbes]

HS2 itself estimates transfer from air will be 3% of passengers, not a hugely magnificent number, the grand total of carbon after building HS2, transfer from planes, transfer from cars, and running a train is errrr... Neutral

I've always been surprised by this, but I've assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it is the result of not (yet) getting to Edinburgh or Glasgow; with sub-three hour journey times to London, I expect that the domestic air travel market would be decimated, especially if HSR has a loop to LHR.

Tobbes

 

[jon0844]

I think thats a bit unfair, emergency engineering works can happen anywhere at any time, if you was too lose HS2 to emergency engineering works, you would stuff up the equivalent of the ECML & WCML long distance flows in one move.

The work was in relation to work carried out over the weekend, so not a real emergency (like a broken rail or whatever) but rather caused by the work carried out. In fact, FCC is saying the problem was simply down to overrunning engineering work on Twitter (not mentioning emergency work at all) and that left stock in all the wrong places.

Anyway, my point is that you're going to get all of these problems doing work on a live railway - as against building HS2 (bar where it connects to the existing network/stations).

Of course, once open, HS2 will have days when things go down. That said, how often does HS1 'go down'? I can't say I can recall any thread on here about problems with wires or rails, or signalling. I presume they DO have problems, or is a much more modern line generally a lot more reliable? [It goes without saying, this is yet another benefit of an all-new construction if so].

 

[Bonemaster]

But if you go slower you need more trains and more staff to run the same frequency of service and have a lower overall capacity on the line.



Is that 3% of air passengers will transfer to HS2 or 3% of HS2 passengers will have transferred from air?

3% of HS2 passengers will transfer from air. Its here in table 2 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...update/hs2-economic-case-appraisal-update.pdf

I've always been surprised by this, but I've assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it is the result of not (yet) getting to Edinburgh or Glasgow; with sub-three hour journey times to London, I expect that the domestic air travel market would be decimated, especially if HSR has a loop to LHR.

Tobbes

I'm not sure why its so low, but my initial thought was that currently most domestic flights are operated by non budget airlines, so that air industry has room to reduce prices somewhat from current levels, and mitigate against loss of business to HS2. I also suspect its pegged NPV.

 

[Chris125]

The Goverment has decided Britain must have high speed railways - France has got 'em, so's Germany, and Italy, and even Spain. So we've gotta have some too. See to it, Jeeves, will you . . .
The government will decide to do it or not, almost (but not quite) irrespective of all the fact grubbing.

We already have a high speed line and have done for many years now. Building another is simple economics, which itself explains why virtually every long distance passenger line in the world is being designed for high speed operation - the greater economic benefits far outweigh the higher construction costs.

Chris

 

[Bonemaster]

The work was in relation to work carried out over the weekend, so not a real emergency (like a broken rail or whatever) but rather caused by the work carried out. In fact, FCC is saying the problem was simply down to overrunning engineering work on Twitter (not mentioning emergency work at all) and that left stock in all the wrong places.

Anyway, my point is that you're going to get all of these problems doing work on a live railway - as against building HS2 (bar where it connects to the existing network/stations).

Of course, once open, HS2 will have days when things go down. That said, how often does HS1 'go down'? I can't say I can recall any thread on here about problems with wires or rails, or signalling. I presume they DO have problems, or is a much more modern line generally a lot more reliable? [It goes without saying, this is yet another benefit of an all-new construction if so].

Its not difficult to find an example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lays-leave-passengers-stranded-for-hours.html

HS2 will also have to have engineering works, and even new lines get old

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Its not difficult to find an example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lays-leave-passengers-stranded-for-hours.html

HS2 will also have to have engineering works, and even new lines get old

Were those problems in France or England, the video mention snowfall in France as the cause of delays.

 

[PR1Berske]

Apropos nothing. I was called out for talking "absolute tosh" by the Managing Editor of "RAIL" magazine today for my opposition of HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

155mph railway would not really have any major benefits over the 200mph railway.

People need to stop conflating the idea of additional station stops with the high speed preventing them, the Japanese have emphatically demonstrated that this is not the case.

The problem is that regular stopping trains reduce capacity from ~18 paths an hour to ~10 paths, which effectively doubles the price of the line.
Unless you want to eliminate all the travel time savings and run all trains to all stops (which might be an argument you could make) at approximately the current travel time.
(6 intermediate stops before Birmingham with a ~1hr20 travel time).

 

[jon0844]

Its not difficult to find an example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lays-leave-passengers-stranded-for-hours.html

HS2 will also have to have engineering works, and even new lines get old

If you need to go back to March 2012, I think this suggests HS1 is (for now) having rather fewer problems than older lines - assuming this was actually in the UK, rather than on the other side (I didn't read the entire story).

Yes, newer lines will get old. But HS1 and HS2 will be a lot newer than the WCML and ECML, and to bring them up to modern standards might need to be almost completely reconstructed.

If they can stay reliable for 50+ years, that will do me!

Apropos nothing. I was called out for talking "absolute tosh" by the Managing Editor of "RAIL" magazine today for my opposition of HS2.

If you were carrying on with all the nonsense you were posting over the weekend, such as what you had in your signature for so long, then is that any surprise?

The other people against HS2 are mostly coming up with genuine discussion points and concerns.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think thats a bit unfair, emergency engineering works can happen anywhere at any time, if you was too lose HS2 to emergency engineering works, you would stuff up the equivalent of the ECML & WCML long distance flows in one move.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I cant find the reference right now but building a slower network would save in the region of £4bn from DfT. The faster you go the more energy you need, and the further apart the optimum distances between stations become. I would also go so far as to say that some of the noise mitigation measures, could also be removed with slower running creating even bigger savings.

HS2 itself estimates transfer from air will be 3% of passengers, not a hugely magnificent number, the grand total of carbon after building HS2, transfer from planes, transfer from cars, and running a train is errrr... Neutral

If you don't build it for full high speed to begin with there's not much point investing in a new route at all. If you really want a stopping 155mph service it won't be much faster than a 110mph stopping service along the existing WCML, and all the services which don't stop at all between Birmingham and London still won't since the market for a fast service to London is much greater than the market for one which stops at every little London exurb on the way. Where are your proposed intermediate stations anyway? Aren't they going to get faster and more frequent services after HS2 is built anyway? If after HS2 is built the metro-ified WCML fills up anyway it's not outwith the realms of possibility to build your 155mph stopping line someday to relieve capacity even more.

The air market won't transfer en masse until the entire route is HSR from London to the Central Belt/Newcastle and at speeds which make it worthwhile. Right now the time savings aren't enough to finally kill off the domestic air market simply because the current HS2 plans only go halfway there with the remainder having to be slower than current services due to the lack of tilting classic compatibles. There is only planned to be a single hour's worth of journey time reductions even at 225mph between Wigan and London so you're not going to get anywhere like that if you dial it back down to 155mph.

 

[PR1Berske]

155mph railway would not really have any major benefits over the 200mph railway.

People need to stop conflating the idea of additional station stops with the high speed preventing them, the Japanese have emphatically demonstrated that this is not the case.

The problem is that regular stopping trains reduce capacity from ~18 paths an hour to ~10 paths, which effectively doubles the price of the line.
Unless you want to eliminate all the travel time savings and run all trains to all stops (which might be an argument you could make) at approximately the current travel time.
(6 intermediate stops before Birmingham with a ~1hr20 travel time).

I think people are concerned -- I know I am -- that this very expensive project, with no budget cap, is building a single railway between two major cities without any real justification or reason. The fewer stations built on HS2 only goes to double the doubt and cynicism; why spend so much when it goes through so many towns and cities without stopping? Britain isn't used to these sorts of long, HS lines with few or any stops, and that's why it seems alien.

I'd rather Britain kept to what it does best - intercity routes connecting as many towns and cities as possible, rather than an expensive expressway.

Regular stopping trains may well slow down timetables, but surely it's better to do that than exclude millions of potential passengers from a brand new train they've paid for but can't use? We don't moan about buses having too many stops, after all, so why is the WCML suddenly too packed for purpose?

 

[D365]

Deleted.

 

[jon0844]

I'd rather Britain kept to what it does best - intercity routes connecting as many towns and cities as possible, rather than an expensive expressway.

Intercity... like London (okay, so pedants will point to City of London being actually quite small) to Birmingham, Manchester... all cities, and rather like what Intercity trains go between.

Am I missing something?!

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think people are concerned -- I know I am -- that this very expensive project, with no budget cap, is building a single railway between two major cities without any real justification or reason. The fewer stations built on HS2 only goes to double the doubt and cynicism; why spend so much when it goes through so many towns and cities without stopping? Britain isn't used to these sorts of long, HS lines with few or any stops, and that's why it seems alien.

I'd rather Britain kept to what it does best - intercity routes connecting as many towns and cities as possible, rather than an expensive expressway.

Regular stopping trains may well slow down timetables, but surely it's better to do that than exclude millions of potential passengers from a brand new train they've paid for but can't use? We don't moan about buses having too many stops, after all, so why is the WCML suddenly too packed for purpose?

The logical end of that argument is why don't we just extend the Metropolitan line instead?

The reason why build lines which don't stop between cities is that there are enough people who want to go between these two cities to warrant the line on its own. The people who do want to get on and off between them can be served by the existing lines around which the towns and cities in which they live were built.

 

[Geezertronic]

... is building a single railway between two major cities without any real justification or reason

(My bold) No wonder the Managing Editor from RAIL called you out for talking tosh because there you go again... whilst I don't agree with a lot of what Bonemaster says (for example), at least what Bonemaster says is factual and is open to decent discussion... (apologies Bonemaster for using your name in vein)

 

[yorksrob]

The Managing Editor from "Rail" isn't immune to talking tosh himself. He's claiming in the latest edition of that the current train fleet is half the age it would have been under BR, even though the average age of rolling stock is currently in the 19 - 20 year range.

 

[Bonemaster]

If you don't build it for full high speed to begin with there's not much point investing in a new route at all. If you really want a stopping 155mph service it won't be much faster than a 110mph stopping service along the existing WCML, and all the services which don't stop at all between Birmingham and London still won't since the market for a fast service to London is much greater than the market for one which stops at every little London exurb on the way. Where are your proposed intermediate stations anyway? Aren't they going to get faster and more frequent services after HS2 is built anyway? If after HS2 is built the metro-ified WCML fills up anyway it's not outwith the realms of possibility to build your 155mph stopping line someday to relieve capacity even more.

We need capacity thats the point in building this new line as those against are constantly told. Speed is a bonus. And your example is every suburb is somewhat of an exagreation for when I said 5-6 additional stations across both phases. Personally I would be looking at an M25 parkway, Aylesbury, Around Stoneleigh Warwickshire for Coventry/Leamington/Warwick, Stoke On Trent, and a South Manchester Parkway. The answer to are they going to get better services post HS2, No, No, No, No, and No in that order.

The air market won't transfer en masse until the entire route is HSR from London to the Central Belt/Newcastle and at speeds which make it worthwhile. Right now the time savings aren't enough to finally kill off the domestic air market simply because the current HS2 plans only go halfway there with the remainder having to be slower than current services due to the lack of tilting classic compatibles. There is only planned to be a single hour's worth of journey time reductions even at 225mph between Wigan and London so you're not going to get anywhere like that if you dial it back down to 155mph.

That is not even currently on the proposal list so is irrelevant. What ifs, Maybes and in the long and distant future possibly, can easily cloud our judgement.

 

[PR1Berske]

The logical end of that argument is why don't we just extend the Metropolitan line instead?

The reason why build lines which don't stop between cities is that there are enough people who want to go between these two cities to warrant the line on its own. The people who do want to get on and off between them can be served by the existing lines around which the towns and cities in which they live were built.

But that means thousands upon thousands of people, potentially millions, are paying through taxes for an ultra-modern high speed route they will never use. And that's no good use of public funds by any measure

Use the money on the existing route on new lines, new track, new stations, rather than HS2, which ultimately misses millions and pleases only the London elite.

 

[jon0844]

But that means thousands upon thousands of people, potentially millions, are paying through taxes for an ultra-modern high speed route they will never use. And that's no good use of public funds by any measure

Use the money on the existing route on new lines, new track, new stations, rather than HS2, which ultimately misses millions and pleases only the London elite.

I pay taxes to fund hospitals miles and miles away that I will never visit, and schools I will never go to.

I also pay for the upkeep of rural railway lines that I've never seen, let alone used. Maybe one day I will, of course.

I don't use the WCML daily, but when I go to Manchester or Birmingham, I do.

Surely taxpayers in many other parts of England will be wondering how the benefit from doing anything to the WCML if they think the same way?

 

[D365]

But that means thousands upon thousands of people, potentially millions, are paying through taxes for an ultra-modern high speed route they will never use. And that's no good use of public funds by any measure

Use the money on the existing route on new lines, new track, new stations, rather than HS2, which ultimately misses millions and pleases only the London elite.

Nobody is going to use every god-damn line and train... Why should I pay for the GW modernisation when I've never used it in my life? Why should I pay to replace the Pacers when they aren't my region? Even on my route, why should I even ciugh up for the 6-tracking of the ECML Finsbury-Alexandra section when the additional Hertford/Welwyn services won't benefit me?..

Would the 51m upgrades be any better use of money? No, they don't provide anything on the same proportion of capacity. Not sustainable, like the long-term high-capacity railway which is being developed.

 

[The Ham]

I pay taxes to fund hospitals miles and miles away that I will never visit, and schools I will never go to.

I also pay for the upkeep of rural railway lines that I've never seen, let alone used. Maybe one day I will, of course.

I don't use the WCML daily, but when I go to Manchester or Birmingham, I do.

Surely taxpayers in many other parts of England will be wondering how the benefit from doing anything to the WCML if they think the same way?

Likewise I don't claim benefits (other than child support) however would I argue that we should do away with them? not likely. As although it is a large amount of the governments budget and some people abuse the system it is a useful safety net and is of much help to most people with those who need it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We need capacity thats the point in building this new line as those against are constantly told. Speed is a bonus. And your example is every suburb is somewhat of an exagreation for when I said 5-6 additional stations across both phases. Personally I would be looking at an M25 parkway, Aylesbury, Around Stoneleigh Warwickshire for Coventry/Leamington/Warwick, Stoke On Trent, and a South Manchester Parkway. The answer to are they going to get better services post HS2, No, No, No, No, and No in that order.

Post HS2 it could be possible to (by using the existing network) provide a better service to these locations. The question is; is it really worth providing HS stations at such locations? I would suggest proberbly not for some of them.

For those where it could be useful to provide a HS link to/from London and the rest of the HS network, do the costs associated with providing them outweigh the benefits?

 

[Geezertronic]

But that means thousands upon thousands of people, potentially millions, are paying through taxes for an ultra-modern high speed route they will never use. And that's no good use of public funds by any measure

Use the money on the existing route on new lines, new track, new stations, rather than HS2, which ultimately misses millions and pleases only the London elite.

I never went to the Olympics but still probably contributed to it somehow, same with Crossrail and Thameslink as I doubt I will use those either....

 

[Bonemaster]

Post HS2 it could be possible to (by using the existing network) provide a better service to these locations. The question is; is it really worth providing HS stations at such locations? I would suggest proberbly not for some of them.

For those where it could be useful to provide a HS link to/from London and the rest of the HS network, do the costs associated with providing them outweigh the benefits?

It would be difficult from many of the locations using classic lines, as the capacity is given away to slower services and where the faster services that currently serve them are diverted away with HS2 running in the vicinity, others are new journey opportunities in providing what is currently not there and integrating HS2 into the wider transport network, and some a mixture of the two. The last one, and to a lesser extend one of the others is political, giving back something to an area highly impacted by the construction, as such I strongly believe all of them have strong justification.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

whilst I don't agree with a lot of what Bonemaster says (for example), at least what Bonemaster says is factual and is open to decent discussion... (apologies Bonemaster for using your name in vein)

No problem, if we all agreed life would be boring.