High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[anthony263]

I think we can argue that point all day too be honest. My previous post is my own views on what I am seeing and reading.

If done correct HS2 can bee a great money maker and I think once it is built and fully up and running we will see a lot of these nimbies disapear, some of them I suspect will be using the line. A lot of the problem is that people are arguing against HS2 without really doing research and listening to the argumenst put out by the pro HS2 camp

 

[PR1Berske]

I think we can argue that point all day too be honest. My previous post is my own views on what I am seeing and reading.

If done correct HS2 can bee a great money maker and I think once it is built and fully up and running we will see a lot of these nimbies disapear, some of them I suspect will be using the line. A lot of the problem is that people are arguing against HS2 without really doing research and listening to the argumenst put out by the pro HS2 camp

But similarly the pro HS2 camp choose to ignore critical reports.

 

[jon0844]

If the latest argument is that HS2 won't serve lots of people (as in the track will pass a lot of people by) then we're doomed. Some motorways have many miles between junctions, yet I'm sure many people still benefit indirectly.

That's what people can't get about HS2. The people who have fast trains going through will see an improvement on the line where their existing trains DO stop.

As for critical reports and ignoring them - I'd be happy to discuss the finer points of the cost if we could stop inflating the figures and making assumptions that the budget will massively go over.

Let's look at the original cost and work from there. It's already had a massive contingency fund added, so why the need to keep expanding it?

If there's such a good reason for not building HS2, it shouldn't be necessary to 'win the argument' by inflating the costs. It should be easy to still use those same arguments with the original budget.

To me, it smacks of desperation. The anti-HS2 lobby are of the opinion that people would want a new line, but won't if they can be convinced it will cost too much or come at the expense of other things. If that's the way to win, it's not going to work in my opinion.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think we can argue that point all day too be honest. My previous post is my own views on what I am seeing and reading.

I'm sorry but you and I know both know that you've actually made this up to support your argument.

If done correct HS2 can bee a great money maker and I think once it is built and fully up and running we will see a lot of these nimbies disapear, some of them I suspect will be using the line. A lot of the problem is that people are arguing against HS2 without really doing research and listening to the argumenst put out by the pro HS2 camp

I'm not sure how those NIMBY's going to access HS2 as there are no stations on the stretch of line that run's through Bucks.

 

[anthony263]

True and the argument about spending the money on things other than HS2 doesnt stand up. If investors wanted to put their money into other stuff they would have started doing so already.

One suggesteion about widening the west coast mainline to 6 tracks I think really makes the anti-hs2 groups shoot themselves in the foot since it would probably mean more disruption than hs2 and lets not forget what happened the last time we tried upgrading the west coast mainline (That should surely remind people that there are times where new is better than upgrading old).

With capacity released on teh west coast mainline for example that should mean there will be extra capacity for more long distance services to call at Watford Junction, Milton Keynes for example giving those places more fast trains into London taking some pressure of local services allowing them to be filled by new customers from other area's.

It could also allow places such as Blackpool, Shrewsbury etc more direct trains to London
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure how those NIMBY's going to access HS2 as there are no stations on the stretch of line that run's through Bucks.

If there is a business case to support it then I will agree with you that a station on HS2 should be built in the area.

I did read somewhere (cant remember where) that a station would be built on the east -west line which would be used by workers building HS2. Perhaps this might be a good interchange station just like a station at Old Oak Common will be (Although I dont agree about stopping the GW high speed services there)

 

[jon0844]

Upgrading the WCML seems preferable simply because it means the building work is somewhere else. It effectively proves that it really is all about NIMBYism.

Is there the same anti-HS2 sentiment throughout the route, or is it mostly targeted in Bucks? I expect as you go further north, less people are seeing it as some sort of disaster that will make their property values go through the floor (which I don't think will ever happen anyway).

 

[anthony263]

I wonder how have the property prices been in the area's which are close to HS1? that should give us a pciture of what "could" happen with HS2.

From what I have seen in the press most of the arguments against HS2 seen to be down from the southern area of where HS2 will be built with area's such as Manchester and the midlands.

I have however seen one argument against the route HS2 will take into Manchester

 

[edwin_m]

As I'm sure I've posted before, for every train that stops at a station in Buckinghamshire at least one other train can't run, as such a train will use up two paths. This might mean that at phase 2 there would not be enough capacity to serve the destinations further north. So there would have to be a very strong business case for a station if it were to go ahead.

Such a station would only be 10min or so quicker into London than the Chiltern line, so actually slower for most people as the station would have to be somewhere rural and accessible mainly by car, so most people locally would be able to get to one of the many Chiltern stations more quickly. Connections with East West Rail are of very little benefit as the places it serves such as Oxford and Milton Keynes would have quicker London journeys by other routes. There would be some benefits for people making longer journeys to/from the North but this market would be much smaller than those wanting London and they could use Chiltern to Moor Street which will be integrated with the Birmingham HS2 station, or XC to New Street which will probably have a quick link by travelator or similar.

Old Oak gives a range of connection options between the north and the west. What services stop there probably depends on which journeys turn out to be quicker by changing at OOC than by changing at Birmingham.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm sorry but that entire paragraph is at best uninformed nonsense. Age is not an issue here when it comes to challenging the planned construction of HS2. And this comes from someone who actually supports the construction of HS2!

I think you'll find it is. In fact, it's an extremely common problem, and has been for a very long time.

Is it any wonder that the media outlets that are the least progressive/open to large-scale change (or rather, just outright reactionary) are those with the highest age of average readership?

 

[jon0844]

Surely there's one paper that ensures people of a certain age are kept distracted by the continuing revelations about the murder of Princess Diana?

 

[WatcherZero]

Upgrading the WCML seems preferable simply because it means the building work is somewhere else. It effectively proves that it really is all about NIMBYism.

Is there the same anti-HS2 sentiment throughout the route, or is it mostly targeted in Bucks? I expect as you go further north, less people are seeing it as some sort of disaster that will make their property values go through the floor (which I don't think will ever happen anyway).

Apart from leafy Cheshire where there is a little disquiet, no there doesnt seem to be any significant local opposition to the northern half, indeed LG's have universally supported it.

 

[tbtc]

Interestingly the Public Accounts Committee (or the "influential Public Accounts Committee", if you are against HS2 and want to make things look more significant) haven't found any alternative suggestions for how to improve things.

For all the froth in the media today about how we calculate the benefits to the economy of someone working on a train for an hour versus someone arriving at work much earlier than they currently do (etc)...

...and the criticism that HS2 won't help our current economic woes because "there won't be a spade in the ground for another five years" (in which case surely we should build it faster rather waiting until we've built Crossrail?)...

...there's a distinct lack of alternatives being suggested.

What is the business case for doing nothing?

 

[The Ham]

Had I not asked that first question, would you have addressed the points raised by the influential Public Accounts Committee?

The Department has been making huge spending decisions on the basis of fragile numbers, out-of-data data and assumptions which do not reflect real life, such as assuming business travellers do not work on trains using modern technology.

I suspect none of you will, because the report cuts too close to the bone. Such is the way with inconvenient truths.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1560043&postcount=4674

OK, a few points on the above (the other points raise, see link, sound more like political point scoring than any real strong argument against HS2, like the costs spiralling - no they haven't they have just published another figure in the range of figures which HS2 MAY cost):

- Yes there is out of date data, like the number of passengers who now use the network, which is currently MUCH higher than the 2010 predictions had (the predictions had this number of passengers in 2015). Even if numbers now drop back to 2.5% per year growth (unlikely over the next 7 years given how much is currently being invested in the "classic" network) we'll still hit 2033's passenger numbers about 5 years early.

- The anti's are still using the same out of date data for passenger figures for saying that declassifying first class and lengthening trains further can cope with the number of passengers predicted upon opening of HS2. However (and no-one is willing to answer this) what happens if growth does carry on at above the predicted growth figures, what other options are there to cope? Anyone?

- Although business travellers can work on trains it is only when they have a seat, when passenger numbers get too high (which they could well do in the next 20-30 years, even on fairly modest growth predictions) then they can't. In which case then building a new line where they can get a seat to enable them to work is of benefit to them and therefore it is not unreasonable to use that in the calculations.

I suspect none of you will answer "what other options, if we don't build HS2, are there to cope if growth is higher than predicted?" as it cuts too close to the bone. Such is the way with inconvenient truths.

 

[joeykins82]

I think that the business case for doing nothing is mostly the costs of paying riot police and ambulances for Euston station every evening as x thousand people per hour try to get on to train services with a total capacity of y thousand people per hour (where y is significantly less than x). Oh, and then the net economic costs of more accidents and congestion on the M1 as commuters give up trying to travel on the railways and switch back to cars to do Northampton/MK/Leighton Buzzard/Hemel Hempstead etc to London.

 

[WatcherZero]

Word is the revised business case is going to be published on Wednesday and in addition to ditching the 'time saved' economic value it will still show the BCR rising from 2 to nearly 3.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm sorry but that entire paragraph is at best uninformed nonsense. Age is not an issue here when it comes to challenging the planned construction of HS2. And this comes from someone who actually supports the construction of HS2!

You think any significant number of younger people could afford any ot those absurdly expensive houses?

 

[jon0844]

Interestingly the Public Accounts Committee (or the "influential Public Accounts Committee", if you are against HS2 and want to make things look more significant) haven't found any alternative suggestions for how to improve things.

Aren't a lot of people just against spending the money at all? After all, why should anyone believe that everyone is against the construction of HS2 and reinvesting that money elsewhere on the railway network?

Quite aside from the fact that we already know that if the money isn't raised for HS2, it won't just be raised to patch up other lines, investors would want something that might give a return in years to come, not to just make repairs. That's the job of Network Rail.

I don't know how/if HS2 will now get lots of private investment, as the negative press must have done some damage, but I'd still see it as a pretty sound investment.

- The anti's are still using the same out of date data for passenger figures for saying that declassifying first class and lengthening trains further can cope with the number of passengers predicted upon opening of HS2. However (and no-one is willing to answer this) what happens if growth does carry on at above the predicted growth figures, what other options are there to cope? Anyone?

How far can you extend platforms before you have some serious issues with signalling to address? 12-cars seems to be about the limit without having to extend already extended stations further, let alone the ones still only able to deal with 4, 5 or 6-car trains.

Double deck? Suddenly you've got a height issue to deal with.

New signalling might cram in a few more paths, but the big problem is when there's a delay (and often that will down to passenger action, like holding open doors) and suddenly you've got a massive traffic jam and have to make decisions like cancelling a service short - which then makes things even worse and gets commuter all uptight (quite righting in some, but not all, cases).

- Although business travellers can work on trains it is only when they have a seat, when passenger numbers get too high (which they could well do in the next 20-30 years, even on fairly modest growth predictions) then they can't. In which case then building a new line where they can get a seat to enable them to work is of benefit to them and therefore it is not unreasonable to use that in the calculations.

Another good point. If you got rid of first class to give more room, you've now effectively made it even harder for someone to get a seat and use their laptop and if we need to get more from our existing network, the best option is actually to have less seats to allow for more standing room - or reduce the space for each seat by going high density - in which case, only people with a tablet or ultrabook will stand any chance of working on a train.

Has anyone promoting HS2 thought to tell people about the differences between traditional/classic trains here and what HS2 could offer? As in much wider carriages, with far more room to allow people to actually have proper tables?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Surely there's one paper that ensures people of a certain age are kept distracted by the continuing revelations about the murder of Princess Diana?

Is that the same paper that still measures temperatures in Fahrenheit, by any chance?

 

[PR1Berske]

From "LibDemVoice".

I agree with many of the points here and I'd like to know if anything in this piece would help alter peoples' opinions.....

The Lib Dem transport strategy “Building a Fast Track Britain” agreed in 2008 is an excellent document which is well worth re-reading. Lib Dem proponents of HS2 constantly refer back to this strategy when declaring their support for the project.

But High Speed Rail (HSR) does not necessarily mean HS2. On the day that the Public Accounts Committee publishes yet another damning indictment of the project, it’s worth making clear that HS2 is certainly NOT in line with Lib Dem transport strategy:-

[*]It will not help to reduce carbon emissions. Its ultra-high speed specification will result in much higher emissions than a conventional railway line – energy requirements increase with the square of speed.
[*]It will not divert significant traffic from road and air. Demand forecasts for HS2 are mostly based on switching from conventional rail and ‘new journeys’.
[*]It will not be an ‘extensive high speed network’, but a single line (albeit with two northern ‘legs’).
[*]It will be funded directly by the taxpayer, rather than the methods set out in the 2008 document for creating a Future Transport Fund (e.g. lorry road user charging, domestic flight surcharges, motorway and trunk road pricing).

We have got ourselves into a situation where the Lib Dems are supporting an uneconomic project which is not compatible with Lib Dem transport strategy, by assuming, without any critical examination, that the HS2 proposal inherited from the previous Labour Government should be continued, just because it had the magic words ‘high speed rail’ on the tin.

In fact, the UK already has extensive high speed rail. The EU definition of HSR (Directive 96/48/EC Appendix 1) includes ‘specially upgraded High Speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h’, i.e. 125 mph. The Virgin Pendolino trains on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) run at up to 125 mph, and could increase to their design maximum of 140 mph if further improvements to the track were made.

Journey times between our regional centres already compare favourably with other European countries. The UK is a relatively small, crowded country – we don’t need ultra-high speed trains which can’t stop at intermediate stations. What we do need is the rest of the inter-city rail network brought up to WCML standards and beyond, through electrification and track and station improvements. We need to optimise the capacity of the WCML through further improvements which have already been identified. If, ultimately, we do end up needing a brand new line to relieve capacity on the WCML, then let it follow existing transport corridors and be routed via Heathrow.

The wording in the 2008 document was sensible and pragmatic: ‘Commit to building a high speed rail network in Britain, with an initial link from St. Pancras to Heathrow. This would be done in stages: building one section, acquiring a revenue stream, then resuming building work’.

It’s time for the Lib Dems to scrap their support for HS2 and go back to the party strategy agreed in 2008.

Source: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-hs2-is-not-lib-dem-policy-36076.html

 

[MidlandMainlie]

From "LibDemVoice".

I agree with many of the points here and I'd like to know if anything in this piece would help alter peoples' opinions.....




Source: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-hs2-is-not-lib-dem-policy-36076.html

What upgrades to the WCML to allow 140mph running? I hear this banded about all the time but no one ever says what schemes are need to achieve this or how much it would cost! What effect would it have on the capacity of the WCML running at this speed?

The problems on the WCML are due to running services at too broad a different range of speeds 75mph freight, 100-110mph commuter services and 125mph intercity services, trying to run services at 140mph is only going to make the problems worse.

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps if HS2 was built to have trains running at just 125mph it wouldn't be so bad, as the emissions would likely be lower?

Yes we might have what is regarded as a high-speed rail network in an EU definition, but most trains rarely travel at 125mph all the way due to slower services running around them.

I am not sure why LibDemVoice hasn't acknowledged that, or you (well, okay I know the latter!!) and I am not sure how they think it can be down without taxpayers funding at least part of it. Sounds like the LibDems are rather anti-rail as a whole if they have that way of thinking.

Sounds to me like another group of people that are only looking at speed, not capacity.

Interesting to see the comment about it not being a proper network, as it's just a 'single line'. Surely to build a network, you'd be building HS3, HS4 etc.. which will probably happen one day (many years from now) but would cost even more if done now.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Apart from leafy Cheshire where there is a little disquiet, no there doesnt seem to be any significant local opposition to the northern half, indeed LG's have universally supported it.

Staffordshire is not happy.
Apart from the long-standing opposition to the route around Lichfield from Phase 1, Stoke on Trent is miffed that it is by-passed in Phase 2.
Liverpool is also not happy.

 

[WatcherZero]

People in Liverpool arent happy that it isnt going there, the councils supporting it and word is are working on a proposal for a spur, Staffs is a few nimbys and isnt anywhere near as vocal as the Chilterns, highest attendence theyve managed for a protest is 100. Stoke are agitating for a station (and have hired consultants to draw up plans for a station in North Staffs)their ludicrously claiming that HS2 will reduce services to Stoke station from 30 per day to 3 per day!

Frankly if your opposition is angry not that its being built but that it isnt being built to them then you have already won half the argument.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Interesting to see the comment about it not being a proper network, as it's just a 'single line'. Surely to build a network, you'd be building HS3, HS4 etc.. which will probably happen one day (many years from now) but would cost even more if done now.

How do they propose to build a network without starting somewhere, no reason why there could not be a phase 3 extension to Scotland or a HS3 to Bristol/South Wales in the future but you need HS2 to be built first to form he foundations of a network, unless they are proposing building high speed lines all across the country to make a national network all at once. :roll:

 

[jon0844]

If you wanted to build a whole new network, it sort of contradicts the argument against HS2.

Still, most of these arguments all stem from the fact that everyone has concentrated on speed. It's unfortunate that only now has it sunk in that it wasn't the best way to sell the scheme.

 

[route:oxford]

Perhaps Bucks needs something to in return for HS2?

Having spent around 2 hours driving cross country from Hitchin to Oxford, how about an "arc of prosperity" by way of a 6 lane motorway running from East of Swindon via Didcot, Aylesbury, Hitchin, Diss & Norwich?

 

[Philip Elliott]

The problems on the WCML are due to running services at too broad a different range of speeds 75mph freight, 100-110mph commuter services and 125mph intercity services, trying to run services at 140mph is only going to make the problems worse.

That can go in the 'Myths 2013' thread. We have things called "fast lines" and "slow lines" that separate much of the different speeds. The fast lines out of Euston have 9x EPS125, 2x110mph and 1x100mph.

The only times freight intermingles with the expresses south of Winsford is between Brinklow and Attleborough (northbound only) and Colwich to Whitehouse.

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps Bucks needs something to in return for HS2?

Having spent around 2 hours driving cross country from Hitchin to Oxford, how about an "arc of prosperity" by way of a 6 lane motorway running from East of Swindon via Didcot, Aylesbury, Hitchin, Diss & Norwich?

Good luck getting that through.

People will never agree to such a thing.

 

[route:oxford]

Good luck getting that through.

People will never agree to such a thing.

Surely a car running on quiet rubber tyres at less than a third of the speed of a nasty noisy train would be appreciated?

 

[HSTEd]

Surely a car running on quiet rubber tyres at less than a third of the speed of a nasty noisy train would be appreciated?

A 6 lane motorway is going to be the best part of 4 times the width of a high speed rail line and will in fact be far more noisy than HS2 ever would be.

Look at the last generation of motorway protests for an example of how it would go.