High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HowardGWR]

I was under the impression some sort of connection around Bromford was on the cards anyway.

It's just a no-brainer isn't it and one would expect SW to NE compatibles to use the connections through New St as well. As always, clear diagrams from Mark.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Yet another anti-HS2 Story in the Torygraph :roll:

David Cameron is facing a public revolt over his support for the HS2 rail project, a new poll shows, as the extent of the line's impact on England’s rural landscape is disclosed.

A Telegraph/ICM survey found that just 3 per cent of voters believe the £50 billion high-speed link between London and the North will be delivered on time and on budget.More than two thirds want the Government to scrap HS2 or halt the plan while other options are considered. Only one in five agrees with the Prime Minister that HS2 is “essential” for Britain.

A detailed analysis of 50,000 pages of official documents, published last week, shows the vast scale of environmental destruction that the project will entail. The HS2 Hybrid Bill and accompanying environmental report, effectively the planning application, disclose that seven major rivers will need to be diverted, while 19 ancient woodlands will be chopped down to make way for the new route.Up to 310 miles of hedgerows will be destroyed and some parts of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will still be experiencing “moderate adverse effects” in 2086, 60 years after the line opens, the documents show.

In addition, some 1,180 buildings will be demolished and farmland will be lost. Tunnelling and other structures required for HS2 will cause a risk to drinking water in the Chilterns and the Colne Valley near Uxbridge, north-west London.
The non-technical summary of the documents states that the effects on public water supplies may be “significant” and “adverse,” though it claims they will also be “temporary”, occurring only during the six-year construction period. However, several of the more detailed “water resources assessments” raise deeper questions over the impact on drinking water supplies. The assessment for the Colne Valley, which will be crossed by a new two-mile viaduct, describes HS2’s impact on water resources as “major”, the effect as “very large” and the duration as “permanent”.

The Government is also quietly giving itself the power to allow massive building development, including on Green Belt land, bypassing normal planning controls. Ministers will be able to order the compulsory purchase of any land where they believe HS2 creates “an opportunity for regeneration or development”.
The details emerged as the Telegraph/ICM poll found overwhelming public opposition to the plans. While more people accepted than rejected the idea that transport connections between London and northern England would need improvements, just 12 per cent believed HS2 was the best way forward.
A total of 68 per cent of voters want HS2 to be scrapped because it is too expensive, or put “on hold” while alternative plans are drawn up. Residents of northern England were the most likely of any region to say that the project should be scrapped entirely because it is too costly, with 39 per cent supporting calls to abandon the scheme, against an average of 37 per cent.
Only 21 per cent of those polled agreed with the statement that HS2 is “essential”, while 80 per cent expected costs to rise.The budget for HS2 has already risen substantially, increasing by £10 billion earlier this year.

Martin Boon, the director of ICM Research, said: “The public are yet to be convinced of the case for HS2. Perceptions of large-scale public sector infrastructure projects are conditioned by experiences of the Millennium Dome and the Olympics, and HS2 is being bracketed as another huge cost, huge risk build with a dubious business case.”

The lack of support and scepticism about rising costs represent “a dangerous combination lining up against the Government’s political will”, he said, adding that unless the Government can show “tangible benefits” from the scheme, “the public will remain unconvinced and largely opposed” to HS2. The Prime Minister is already facing a rebellion from scores of Tory MPs who are expected to vote against the Bill next year.

Andrew Bridgen, the Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, said the poll showed HS2 was “not only a flawed policy but also an electoral liability”.
“The Conservative Party might find that although the economy is lifting with light at the end of the tunnel, that in fact it is a high-speed train coming the other way,” he said.Kelvin Hopkins, a Labour MP, urged Ed Miliband and Ed Balls to reconsider their support for HS2 in light of the public opposition.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport (DfT) said: “We need to act now and build HS2 because we are running out of room on our railways for more passengers and trains. We have assessed the alternatives; they simply don’t give the increase in capacity needed.”

The planned high-speed route is due to run from London to Birmingham in its first phase, expected to begin operating in 2026. It will then be extended to Manchester and Leeds in phase two, due to launch by 2033.

Notice how they fail to mention how many people actually responded to this survey.

 

[jon0844]

You didn't attach a link, but I bet a certain Andrew Gilligan had something to do with that article.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You didn't attach a link, but I bet a certain Andrew Gilligan had something to do with that article.

I'm sorry to say this but in terms of public opinion the Daily Telegraph is not too far off the mark. In my experience people don't understand why a railway line to relieve the southern half of the WCML i.e. Birmingham to London should cost so much money.

 

[jon0844]

That's why it's perhaps a good thing that we elect people to make decisions for us, and not get involved on every single thing.

As such, HS2 - which I believe IS a good thing - will go ahead now and, eventually, people will come to realise it was a good thing.

Imagine if we didn't have the ECML or WCML already and proposed building one of them. I bet we'd see loads of opposition to that too.

If it didn't go ahead, then in years to come people would realise what an error of judgement they'd made, and we'd be totally buggered for ages as we then pressed ahead anyway.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Imagine if we didn't have the ECML or WCML already and proposed building one of them. I bet we'd see loads of opposition to that too.

People seem to forget that there were plenty of NIMBY's in the 19th century!

 

[jon0844]

People seem to forget that there were plenty of NIMBY's in the 19th century!

Maybe, but I bet nobody really cared what they said - unless they were in a position of wealth and/or power.

Now anyone can cause a fuss and delay something for years, and drag things out, increasing the costs in the process.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

You didn't attach a link, but I bet a certain Andrew Gilligan had something to do with that article.

Apologies here is the link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10486462/Public-revolt-over-HS2.html

Correct it is partly written by our favourite journalist at that fine British Newspaper

 

[WatcherZero]

People seem to forget that there were plenty of NIMBY's in the 19th century!

Who usually accepted a large payoff and that the railway through their estate would be in a tunnel or cutting, heck there were even people who had their own private/local village stations built.

 

[The Ham]

From the above artical

In addition, some 1,180 buildings will be demolished

At first read that sounds like that's a lot of people that are going to have their house demolished. However consider the following:

- it's not houses it's buildings so garages, barns, etc. all could be counted
- some of those buildings may not actually still be in use
- even if that is just in phase 1 that is 10 buildings a mile, if it includes Phase 2 then it falls to 7 buildings every 2 miles. Either way hardly a major impact on the number of buildings which need to be replaced.

 

[jones_bangor]

Maybe, but I bet nobody really cared what they said - unless they were in a position of wealth and/or power.

Now anyone can cause a fuss and delay something for years, and drag things out, increasing the costs in the process.

That's because Britain is a democracy my friend.

 

[NSEFAN]

That's because Britain is a democracy my friend.

We're not a direct democracy, though. In principle we elect people to sit down and look at all the options, then make the right choices on behalf of the public. People have the right to raise their objection to proposals made, both in written form and protesting, but this isn't the same as giving the public the final say on every single issue.

The system we have will always have examples of where public opinion and government opinion differs. Most of the public haven't gone and spent hours reading all the documentation, but have just read about it on the news. The DfT however SHOULD be more clued up on these things, although many on here will argue against that.

I wouldn't want to live in a direct democracy. Given how many people still blindly believe what they read in the press, it would effectively give a lot of power to completely unelected media barons, as if they aren't powerful enough already. The large number of negative articles about HS2 is ultimately why the public is against the project.

 

[jon0844]

You'd find that all youngsters would seek to cut back on pensions and elderly care, while pensioners would cut money on education. It would be a mess if people could decide everything and that's even before they got influenced by the media, Facebook or Twitter!

 

[MidlandMainlie]

It seems Gilligans on a roll this weekend, not one but two anti- HS2 stories about the "Biblical"impact of HS2 on the Chilterns :roll:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...S2-is-a-blueprint-to-ruin-land-and-lives.html

 

[mr_jrt]

It seems Gilligans on a roll this weekend, not one but two anti- HS2 stories about the "Biblical"impact of HS2 on the Chilterns :roll:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...S2-is-a-blueprint-to-ruin-land-and-lives.html

Urrgh, I had a read through for the sake of this discussion. Found one interesting tidbit:

Most interestingly of all, clause 39 completely scraps the normal legal procedure for closing any existing railway line or station if ministers deem its closure “necessary or expedient” for HS2.

One of the key fears of the scheme’s opponents has always been that it will devastate the existing rail network, with services to towns not on the route slowed down or scrapped, connections made more difficult and many journeys actually becoming slower.

This clause appears to suggest those fears are not only justified, but that something even worse — complete closure of some services — may be coming down the track. Under the Railways Act 2005, any proposed closure of a passenger line or station must go through an expensive legal process, involving long notice periods, transport assessments and consideration of hardship. In practice, this has made it almost impossible to close any line. The new summary procedure means that lines could be closed at the stroke of a pen.

The Department for Transport insists that no “intercity or commuter line” will go, but buried deep in the documents is the admission that one passenger line — from Paddington to West Ruislip — is already for the chop. It is little used at the moment, though an important diversionary route when the main line is closed. It could be the first of many to go.

Bad news.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Urrgh, I had a read through for the sake of this discussion. Found one interesting tidbit:


Bad news.

I though that line was being spared now that HS2 is to be tunnelled due to the cost of gauge clearing that particular line?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I though that line was being spared now that HS2 is to be tunnelled due to the cost of gauge clearing that particular line?

I seem to remember that it's the tunnel vent and access shafts which will be problematic. If the Wikipedia reference to Moden Railways' July 2013 (p11) issue is correct, then it will be severed in two places during construction.

See page 49 of the HS2 Environmental Statement Volume 2 Map Books CFA5 Northolt Corridor to see what one of these shafts will look like. It seems they have, at least here, left enough space for the line to be redoubled and OHLE'd once the work is finished. If they were going to block it permanently at one of the shafts, there wouldn't be much point leaving space for it anywhere else so I am hopeful they will reopen it at the end of the work.

 

[jon0844]

Bad news.

Is it any worse than the current farce of running a single one way service at stupid o'clock just once or twice a week to pretend it's still in use though?

I'd sooner change things so if a line is to be closed, it's closed properly but only with the requirement to provide some other form of service in its replacement - like a bus.

And that service would in itself be protected to stop that being axed after a fortnight.

In any case, would such changes have anything to do with HS2 happening or not? Seems like some people are clutching at straws (still).

 

[mr_jrt]

Is it any worse than the current farce of running a single one way service at stupid o'clock just once or twice a week to pretend it's still in use though?

I'd sooner change things so if a line is to be closed, it's closed properly but only with the requirement to provide some other form of service in its replacement - like a bus.

And that service would in itself be protected to stop that being axed after a fortnight.

In any case, would such changes have anything to do with HS2 happening or not? Seems like some people are clutching at straws (still).

Aside from the specific example I have a vested interest in , the general point that HS2 will be used to sneak in the neutering of the closure process is a worrying aspect.

 

[WatcherZero]

From the above artical

At first read that sounds like that's a lot of people that are going to have their house demolished. However consider the following:

- it's not houses it's buildings so garages, barns, etc. all could be counted
- some of those buildings may not actually still be in use
- even if that is just in phase 1 that is 10 buildings a mile, if it includes Phase 2 then it falls to 7 buildings every 2 miles. Either way hardly a major impact on the number of buildings which need to be replaced.

Average along the length is even lower, more than a third of the demolitions are just in the first few miles getting out of London.

 

[swt_passenger]

Aside from the specific example I have a vested interest in , the general point that HS2 will be used to sneak in the neutering of the closure process is a worrying aspect.

I think it is scare mongering on the grand scale, for which the author has previous form. Apart from the obvious section from Old Oak Common towards Rusilip, which other parts of the phase 1 route put any of the existing railway at risk?

 

[tbtc]

Only 21 per cent of those polled agreed with the statement that HS2 is “essential”

You're never going to get a big majority in favour of something that costs tens of billions of pounds and will have no benefits for a generation (same goes for other long term government projects).

You could argue that its surprising that so many people are in favour, considering virtually every newspaper is against it, every article you see about it is negative, the only voices that most people will see supporting it are the voices of unpopular politicians.

Slightly disingenuous to say that "A total of 68 per cent of voters want HS2 to be scrapped because it is too expensive, or put “on hold” while alternative plans are drawn up", which means comparing all those at least mildly against it to those strongly in favour, but then this is Andrew Gilligan, and I have low expectations...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think it is scare mongering on the grand scale, for which the author has previous form. Apart from the obvious section from Old Oak Common towards Rusilip, which other parts of the phase 1 route put any of the existing railway at risk?

Agreed. Can't say I'll lose much sleep over a route that sees only one train a day for driver training reasons. Not can I think of other proper alignments that are going to be closed as a result of this (other than getting into some argument about HS2 meaning some obscure route closed fifty years ago can't easily be re-opened)

 

[HSTEd]

The line may end up singled but it appears it will still be open after the work is complete.
The ventilation shafts do not appear to completely sever the alignment.

 

[6Gman]

Presumably the provision to avoid formal closure is restricted to lines directly affected by HS2, and is there to prevent some energetic filibustering by the antis if rebuilding east of New Street means that the line from "Proof House East Jn" to "Landor Street West Jn" [precise descriptions made up for this purpose] is technically closed to allow realignment.

 

[IKBrunel]

A question for the civil engineers on here..

I am interested in the proposed 'slow speed 2' cycle route which will run parallel to HS2. I understand from Roger Geffen of the CTC, that the current concept is that SS2 will run within 3miles of HS2, but not necesarily immediately adjacent, the ideas being that the detailed route should link places of interest which would benefit most from a cycle route. NB that SS2 is being managed by DfT but not by HS2 Ltd, this is seen as an advantage for a number of reasons, eg that SS2 would still happen if HS2 didn't.

Anyway.. In the context of HS2 phase 2 where design detail is at consultation phase. If you needed to build a HS rail bridge and also a cycle bridge over a river (like the Trent for example). Would it be cheaper to widen the Rail bridge by 3m to allow for a shared cycle/walking route & fence, or to build the cycle bridge seperately?
This path would also be available for use for maintenance access, & could be rated to eg 2t to allow transit van use.

The HS2 bridge would probably be at least as high as the MML bridge here, since HS2 goes over the MML immediately north & south of the Trent.
Cycle bridge deck would also need to be high enough to satisfy the environment agency that it wouldn't add to upstream flooding, but as a seperate bridge I think it would probably be a bit lower.

Or do we think the preference would be to keep the cycle bridge away from the railway, to reduce risks of trespass etc?

 

[edwin_m]

Not a civil engineer but I work with some. I would expect that incorporating a cycle track in the design of a new bridge would be much cheaper than building two separate bridges, but adding a cycle track onto a pre-existing bridge would probably be more expensive than either. Designs could be produced to get round the trespass problem.

 

[The Decapod]

You're never going to get a big majority in favour of something that costs tens of billions of pounds and will have no benefits for a generation (same goes for other long term government projects).

If HS2 isn't cancelled before construction starts, later cancellation of Phase 2 could well happen. That would leave the London - Birmingham section vulnerable to operational downgrading into a fast relief route carrying all sorts of traffic.

 

[HowardGWR]

A question for the civil engineers on here..

I am interested in the proposed 'slow speed 2' cycle route which will run parallel to HS2. I understand from Roger Geffen of the CTC, that the current concept is that SS2 will run within 3miles of HS2, but not necesarily immediately adjacent, the ideas being that the detailed route should link places of interest which would benefit most from a cycle route. NB that SS2 is being managed by DfT but not by HS2 Ltd, this is seen as an advantage for a number of reasons, eg that SS2 would still happen if HS2 didn't.

Anyway.. In the context of HS2 phase 2 where design detail is at consultation phase. If you needed to build a HS rail bridge and also a cycle bridge over a river (like the Trent for example). Would it be cheaper to widen the Rail bridge by 3m to allow for a shared cycle/walking route & fence, or to build the cycle bridge seperately?
This path would also be available for use for maintenance access, & could be rated to eg 2t to allow transit van use.

The HS2 bridge would probably be at least as high as the MML bridge here, since HS2 goes over the MML immediately north & south of the Trent.
Cycle bridge deck would also need to be high enough to satisfy the environment agency that it wouldn't add to upstream flooding, but as a seperate bridge I think it would probably be a bit lower.

Or do we think the preference would be to keep the cycle bridge away from the railway, to reduce risks of trespass etc?

The last I think, sadly. It's probably not a pleasant cycling experience anyway, as one would be next to a huge forbidding fence the whole way. Frankly, on cycling infrastructure, it's in the towns where the money needs spending. The same argument is made against HS2 itself, but you can't compare the two. How many people want to cycle from London to Brum, as opposed to the tens of thousands in every city who just want to cycle to the shops safely?

 

[edwin_m]

Although this is the first I've heard of it, I agree it would probably be better for "slow speed 2" to be away from HS2 for much of the distance, but perhaps an exception could be made for the relatively few places where both the cycleway and the railway need a major structure. This wouldn't be viaducts etc because the cycleway could just run at ground level, but might apply to crossings of watercourses, railways and major roads.

HS2 will probably build "haul roads" alongside the future formation to allow road vehicles to access it during construction, as happened with the Trent Valley four-tracking. Normally these would be temporary but there might be an opportunity to make some of them permanent as part of a cycleway. However this would incur land purchase costs instead of just rental for the construction period, and it would mean the cycleway being fairly close to the railway (but not within the slopes of the earthworks).

 

[HSTEd]

A cycleway should ideally keep its gradients as low as possible, so might want to use the viaducts if at all possible as well.

Since people tend to be power limited unless cars which are speed limited.