HS2, a constantly changing story.

[markskoda]

At the initial announcement of HS2 much was made about the time saving between London and Birmingham. Ignoring the fact that not many journeys would be point to point between the two termini with no onward travel. On a journey from Croydon to Cradley Heath for example any time saving on the high speed leg would be lost in getting to the London departure station and changing stations in Birmingham, from Curzon Street to Moor Street in the case of Cradley Heath or to New Street for many other West Midlands destinations. This would be the case even if there were to be a rapid transfer system at Curzon Street. Even then passengers would have to get to Croydon and from Cradley Heath, probably other than by foot. Lots of opportunities along the journey for losing any time advantage. This fact seems eventually to have dawned on the supporters of HS2 and they seem to have backed away from the time saving argument.

 

[swt_passenger]

In this quote from a 2011 consultation leaflet, capacity is mentioned first. I think any emphasis on time saving between London and Birmingham was driven by the media oversimplifying the proposals. They, as always, try to distil hundreds of pages into about two sentences...

A Y-shaped national high speed rail network
linking London to Birmingham, Manchester and
Leeds, and including stops in the East Midlands
and South Yorkshire, as well as direct links to
the HS1 line and into Heathrow Airport, would
cost £32 billion to construct, and would
generate benefi ts of around £44 billion, as well
as revenues totalling a further £27 billion.
It would deliver a huge increase in rail capacity
to meet rising demand for long-distance rail
travel, and ease overcrowding on existing
railways.
It would slash journey times between cities,
bringing London within 49 minutes of Birmingham,
and to within 80 minutes or less of both
Manchester and Leeds. Travel times between
regional centres would be cut equally sharply,
so that Birmingham would be only around 50
minutes from Manchester and just over an hour
from Leeds.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....eedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/hsr-consultation.pdf

Found the 2010 Command Paper on High Speed Rail now, and it too mentions both capacity and journey time saving, I don't think it emphasises the latter:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228887/7827.pdf

 

[edwin_m]

On a journey from Croydon to Cradley Heath for example any time saving on the high speed leg would be lost in getting to the London departure station and changing stations in Birmingham, from Curzon Street to Moor Street in the case of Cradley Heath or to New Street for many other West Midlands destinations. This would be the case even if there were to be a rapid transfer system at Curzon Street.

Using Croydon to Cradley Heath as an example, the fastest rail journey today is likely to be train to Victoria, tube to Euston, train to New Street, walk to Moor Street.

HS2 will start from Euston so that part of the journey will be the same. Curzon Street to Moor Street is probably going to be shorter than New Street to Moor Street. There may ten minutes extra walking as the stations are larger, or to get to New Street, but this is offset by the time saving on the London-Birmingham leg - and more so for longer journeys.

So there is a journey time saving, and probably will be for any journey which currently uses centre-to-centre rail travel between London, Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds. It's not huge and it isn't the main reason to build HS2, at least unless/until it gets to Scotland when it probably makes rail more attractive than air for journeys between London and Glasgow/Edinburgh.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Using Croydon to Cradley Heath as an example, the fastest rail journey today is likely to be train to Victoria, tube to Euston, train to New Street, walk to Moor Street.

HS2 will start from Euston so that part of the journey will be the same. Curzon Street to Moor Street is probably going to be shorter than New Street to Moor Street. There may ten minutes extra walking as the stations are larger, or to get to New Street, but this is offset by the time saving on the London-Birmingham leg - and more so for longer journeys.

So there is a journey time saving, and probably will be for any journey which currently uses centre-to-centre rail travel between London, Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds. It's not huge and it isn't the main reason to build HS2, at least unless/until it gets to Scotland when it probably makes rail more attractive than air for journeys between London and Glasgow/Edinburgh.

Indeed. The bleating on about the relatively minimal London-Birmingham journey time savings is ridiculous when Phase 2 cuts an entire hour off journeys to Manchester and Leeds. Phase 1 was never justified on its own, and from the very beginning it was made very clear that it was simply the first phase of the Y network.

Now, thinking about journey time savings to Scotland, there's an interesting point to make about threats made that a Yes vote kills off the chance of it reaching Scotland. The entire network configuration - the 'Inverse A', which is the Y network with extensions to Glasgow & Edinburgh via Preston and Newcastle via Yorkshire plus some form of enhanced service between Manchester and Leeds - was chosen despite requiring the most track out of the three available options. It was chosen because it delivers the most substantial journey time savings to Scotland on top of other connectivity benefits. If people are threatening that a Yes vote kills off HS2 to Scotland, then that completely changes the point of the entire network.

If you don't have to worry about getting to the Central Belt faster than an air passenger can, the choice to split north of Birmingham into two lines either side of the Pennines is no longer really justified when Manchester and Liverpool are the only places that it would really serve on that side of the country. Indeed, HS2 Ltd was founded specifically to design a line between London and Scotland, and its initial task of designing a 400km/h line between London and the West Midlands was intentionally the first part of it. What this all boils down to is that if HS2 is never extended, the choices made already would very likely no longer be optimal for the curtailed network that would never reach Scotland. If Newcastle is the northernmost reach of the entire network then all you need to do is ensure that HS2 is competitive with air, and as the ECML is very straight and will be served by IEP it is unlikely that it will actually make much of a difference over what is already the case.

It is looking almost certain now that there will be no official movement from HS2 Ltd, the DfT or TS before the referendum on the topic of high speed rail reaching Scotland. It is my firmest belief that even if there is a Yes vote, which is now looking rather less unlikely given that people are now being much more engaged about the actual consequences of a No vote in terms of public spending and most importantly the NHS, the message that would come across is that the plans will continue almost unchanged, as if Scotland had voted No. The alternative is that basically the whole plans of HS2 so far, including the Hybrid Bill and all the public consultations, is no longer current and could well need to be scrapped and started again. I'm more than certain that an alternative route configuration could deliver a higher BCR if it will only serve England, but the cost and disruption of starting everything again from scratch (and completely ruining David Higgins' day) is immense.

 

[ainsworth74]

There were a large number of off-topic posts on this thread. That discussion has been moved to this thread here and I would ask that further posts on this thread focus on HS2 and not on a general discussion of Scottish Independence.

 

[tadhatter]

At the initial announcement of HS2 much was made about the time saving between London and Birmingham. Ignoring the fact that not many journeys would be point to point between the two termini with no onward travel. On a journey from Croydon to Cradley Heath for example any time saving on the high speed leg would be lost in getting to the London departure station and changing stations in Birmingham, from Curzon Street to Moor Street in the case of Cradley Heath or to New Street for many other West Midlands destinations. This would be the case even if there were to be a rapid transfer system at Curzon Street. Even then passengers would have to get to Croydon and from Cradley Heath, probably other than by foot. Lots of opportunities along the journey for losing any time advantage. This fact seems eventually to have dawned on the supporters of HS2 and they seem to have backed away from the time saving argument.

Are you not in favour of HS2 then?

 

[Sapphire Blue]

At the initial announcement of HS2 much was made about the time saving between London and Birmingham. Ignoring the fact that not many journeys would be point to point between the two termini with no onward travel. On a journey from Croydon to Cradley Heath for example any time saving on the high speed leg would be lost in getting to the London departure station and changing stations in Birmingham, from Curzon Street to Moor Street in the case of Cradley Heath or to New Street for many other West Midlands destinations. This would be the case even if there were to be a rapid transfer system at Curzon Street. Even then passengers would have to get to Croydon and from Cradley Heath, probably other than by foot. Lots of opportunities along the journey for losing any time advantage. This fact seems eventually to have dawned on the supporters of HS2 and they seem to have backed away from the time saving argument.

Nice try Mark.You will be complaining next that HS2 will bring no benefits to the Czech Republic.

 

[Clip]

Nice try Mark.You will be complaining next that HS2 will bring no benefits to the Czech Republic.

I think thats unfair given the sheer amount of people who want to go from Croydon to Cradley Heath every single day

 

[jon0844]

My cousin is in Thailand and has informed me that HS2 won't help him in any way shape or form.

Why are we still continuing with this nonsense?

☺

 

[gordonthemoron]

HS2 will benefit me enormously even though I have no intention of using it

 

[Yew]

HS2 will benefit me enormously even though I have no intention of using it

Of course it will, big infrastructure and science projects are a massive boost to the economy. See the Hoover Dam in the depression, or even the apollo project, for every $1 spent on the moon missions, $14 dollars where put into the US economy.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course it will, big infrastructure and science projects are a massive boost to the economy. See the Hoover Dam in the depression, or even the apollo project, for every $1 spent on the moon missions, $14 dollars where put into the US economy.

HS2 doesn't benefit the moon so this statement proves it's a bad idea.

 

[jon0844]

A very good point, well made.

 

[Wavertreelad]

A very good point, well made.

But neither does it harm it, at least travel wise.

 

[pablo]

Where did those $14 come from? Did the bankers just create them? If so, that's inflationary. i.e. QE.

 

[jon0844]

But neither does it harm it, at least travel wise.

But surely we should be investing for the future, thus axing HS2, taking the pot of cash sitting around in a bank doing nothing, go to Vegas, turn it into even more cash, and then create a regular clockface shuttle service to the moon?

While we hear of the rich businessmen (who are clearly all nasty to their staff and like smoking cigars and burning money because they have so much of it) getting to travel to Birmingham a few minutes quicker than today while enjoying champagne and caviar, we don't hear anything about the distinct lack of travel options for the 99% that want to be able to pop to the moon for a walk, or to sit in a Starbucks with a nice view of their house.

Once again, it shows just how out of touch the people in power are.

 

[Wavertreelad]

But surely we should be investing for the future, thus axing HS2, taking the pot of cash sitting around in a bank doing nothing, go to Vegas, turn it into even more cash, and then create a regular clockface shuttle service to the moon?

While we hear of the rich businessmen (who are clearly all nasty to their staff and like smoking cigars and burning money because they have so much of it) getting to travel to Birmingham a few minutes quicker than today while enjoying champagne and caviar, we don't hear anything about the distinct lack of travel options for the 99% that want to be able to pop to the moon for a walk, or to sit in a Starbucks with a nice view of their house.

Once again, it shows just how out of touch the people in power are.

But isn't HS2 about investing in the future of this country and giving both users of it, and the WCML and if you include the spur to the East Coast route sufficient capacity to enable them to travel? OK it may not be as glamorous as travelling to the moon, and it could equally be argued that spending huge sums of public money on space exploration in these challenging times would be unacceptable. I'm not suggesting that space exploration is a no no, but that as a nation we simply have not got the funds or resources to attempt it. However, that is not to say our industry should not work with suitable partners to develop the technology etc to take this forward.

 

[The Decapod]

Within the next 6 months, before the next general election, I predict we will either see the cancellation of HS2 by the present government or an announcement by Labour that they would cancel it if elected.

 

[starrymarkb]

Maybe time to dust off the BR Flying Saucer Patent?

 

[Emyr]

Within the next 6 months, before the next general election, I predict we will either see the cancellation of HS2 by the present government or an announcement by Labour that they would cancel it if elected.

I don't see that sitting well with any of their overall policy portfolios.

I hope there are enough Keynesian economists there to highlight the impact of withdrawing infrastructure investment on this scale.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Within the next 6 months, before the next general election, I predict we will either see the cancellation of HS2 by the present government or an announcement by Labour that they would cancel it if elected.

Would you give some reason for that belief? Labour would be crucified by their northern councils and for the Tories it would be the biggest U-turn yet of their government, which doesn't exactly bode well for their chances of re-election. Network Rail would be apoplectic, to say the least.

 

[The Decapod]

Would you give some reason for that belief?

HS2 is unpopular with the public, who are the electorate.

UKIP is against HS2 and the Tory Party is running scared of UKIP

I believe that HS2 has always (secretly) been a sacrificial project, with the option of cancellation at a future date to save money or buy popularity.

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 is the kind of project that will destroy the Government that pushes it through but in a hundred years everyone will be very glad it was built.

 

[NotATrainspott]

HS2 is unpopular with the public, who are the electorate.

UKIP is against HS2 and the Tory Party is running scared of UKIP

I believe that HS2 has always (secretly) been a sacrificial project, with the option of cancellation at a future date to save money or buy popularity.

The vast majority of the public are at best indifferent and at worse ignorant about HS2. If you explain to them that the alternative is worse, they will come to support HS2. It's like nuclear power - you might be able to get a few opinion polls asking 'should we use nuclear power' to say we shouldn't but if you explain that would then mean energy price increases and more pollution (etc) you get the numbers to sort themselves out. Outside of the Chilterns no one will win a seat just because of their support/opposition of HS2.

UKIP won't be able to sink the Tories because they will still be able to count on the need to vote tactically. They will win some seats where they have a proper majority but in marginals, they know the Tories will still win.

HS2 Ltd costs the DfT around £200m a year to run now, to pay for the enormous amount of professional and engineering services required to design and run the scheme. If this were a sacrificial project, there would be hell to pay for the government that spent that money needlessly.

 

[Emyr]

HS2 is unpopular with a subset of the public. A subset of the public are the electorate.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Oswyntail]

HS2 is unpopular with a small subset of the public; a different, larger subset are the electorate.

Fixed that for you.

And fixed that

 

[Emyr]

Opponents-of-HS2 and Electorate probably have a non-zero intersection.

 

[Taunton]

I've been a great rail development supporter over many years, was on the inaugural Channel Tunnel, really looking forward to Crossrail - but I have to be honest, HS2 just leaves me cold, it's plain wrong on so many grounds.

Firstly, in the current climate, Chiltern have come along and mounted a cheaper-and-cheerfuller challenge on London to Birmingham, and scooped a bit of what once was Euston's monopoly. Do we not think the same will happen with HS2. HS1 has given us the experience of jacked-up fares from less convenient stations (St P over Charing Cross), the same will doubtless be done for London to Birmingham fares, and we will then have both Chiltern AND Virgin (because do not imagine the WCML will just go away) having a crack at diluting the demand, mainly by offering cheaper fares.

If HS2 had gone via Heathrow that would have been a plus, a new market with incoming air travellers, plus all of the Thames Valley/Surrey, familiar with parking there for the day and flying to Scotland or Ireland, doing the same to Birmingham. Because believe you me, the south end of Camden is by no means a rich source of high-paying travellers. Most of these live well out of London, more than most in that western sector. Likewise all the offices out there. Abandoning Heathrow cut out so much of this traffic. Where is the M25 Parkway station? There isn't one.

If there was going to be a station in Birmingham, or Manchester, that should have been right at the existing central station, presumably underground, rather than silly short distances away.

As time has gone on more and more of the route has been put into tunnel as an appeasement, which has surely wrecked any cost justification and will just drive fares up and up to unaffordable levels.

 

[edwin_m]

Firstly, in the current climate, Chiltern have come along and mounted a cheaper-and-cheerfuller challenge on London to Birmingham, and scooped a bit of what once was Euston's monopoly. Do we not think the same will happen with HS2. HS1 has given us the experience of jacked-up fares from less convenient stations (St P over Charing Cross), the same will doubtless be done for London to Birmingham fares, and we will then have both Chiltern AND Virgin (because do not imagine the WCML will just go away) having a crack at diluting the demand, mainly by offering cheaper fares.

The cheaper fares argument has been done to death on this forum several times.

If HS2 had gone via Heathrow that would have been a plus, a new market with incoming air travellers, plus all of the Thames Valley/Surrey, familiar with parking there for the day and flying to Scotland or Ireland, doing the same to Birmingham. Because believe you me, the south end of Camden is by no means a rich source of high-paying travellers. Most of these live well out of London, more than most in that western sector. Likewise all the offices out there. Abandoning Heathrow cut out so much of this traffic. Where is the M25 Parkway station? There isn't one.

It will be much quicker to get to Heathrow from Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc by changing at Old Oak Common for a Crossrail service or whatever replaces HEx with stations at every terminal, than by going into Euston on the classic route and out again via Paddington. Even if there was a HS2 station at Heathrow (and there may still be) it's unlikely it would serve all the widely-spaced terminals without having to change trains to transfer to some of them. Old Oak also provides interchange to the GW main line to the Thames Valley. Although various TOCs and others have suggested M25 interchanges on main lines, none has succeeded in making the case to build one.

If there was going to be a station in Birmingham, or Manchester, that should have been right at the existing central station, presumably underground, rather than silly short distances away.

The station in Manchester will be right next to Piccadilly station. The one in Birmingham will be right next to Moor Street and less than ten minutes walk from New Street, probably with tram and other transfer options available.

I don't mind if people are opposed to HS2, as it's important to have a democratic discussion, but I just wish they'd base their opinions on the facts rather than, as it sometimes seems, getting it the other way round!

 

[NotATrainspott]

I've been a great rail development supporter over many years, was on the inaugural Channel Tunnel, really looking forward to Crossrail - but I have to be honest, HS2 just leaves me cold, it's plain wrong on so many grounds.

Let's see...

Firstly, in the current climate, Chiltern have come along and mounted a cheaper-and-cheerfuller challenge on London to Birmingham, and scooped a bit of what once was Euston's monopoly. Do we not think the same will happen with HS2. HS1 has given us the experience of jacked-up fares from less convenient stations (St P over Charing Cross), the same will doubtless be done for London to Birmingham fares, and we will then have both Chiltern AND Virgin (because do not imagine the WCML will just go away) having a crack at diluting the demand, mainly by offering cheaper fares.

The Chiltern Railways company themselves are supportive of HS2, as evidenced by the responses they have given to consultations on the scheme. HS2 was never intended for passengers from London to Birmingham, it is just that Birmingham is a reasonable market and one placed in the right place to have the first phase end at. Both Chiltern and the ICWC operator are going to be just as pressured in future for capacity, so without HS2 it does not mean that their current low fares structure will survive. HS2 will free up space on both services for passengers not served by the high speed line, so the scheme does deliver benefits to both.

If HS2 had gone via Heathrow that would have been a plus, a new market with incoming air travellers, plus all of the Thames Valley/Surrey, familiar with parking there for the day and flying to Scotland or Ireland, doing the same to Birmingham. Because believe you me, the south end of Camden is by no means a rich source of high-paying travellers. Most of these live well out of London, more than most in that western sector. Likewise all the offices out there. Abandoning Heathrow cut out so much of this traffic. Where is the M25 Parkway station? There isn't one.

The Heathrow station is still feasible, dependent upon the Airports Commission final report. There is a place for the station in all three possible outcomes, with the Gatwick option making possible the extension of the Heathrow spur round to Gatwick. Heathrow would be the M25 Parkway station, while the Thames Valley station is Old Oak Common which will be served by every single Crossrail and GWML service. It's laughable to argue that because of the socio-economic makeup of Camden, the scheme will falter because people from across London and the SE will come to Euston and Old Oak Common to travel northwards. If David Higgins' plans for Euston happen, we might even see another Canary Wharf pop up over the station and throat so don't imagine the place will remain disadvantaged for long.

If there was going to be a station in Birmingham, or Manchester, that should have been right at the existing central station, presumably underground, rather than silly short distances away.

The Birmingham station is less than a 400m double set length away from New Street, and only across the road from the Bullring shopping centre. The Manchester terminus is an extension of Piccadilly station. If you didn't know that, you are clearly either laughably ignorant about the scheme or are delusional. The cost of an underground terminus in Birmingham would have been enough to destroy the economics of the branch, and absurd when the Curzon Street site is perfect for the scheme. Do remember that Curzon Street is literally next door to the Moor Street station, and will be served by the expanded Midland Metro.

As time has gone on more and more of the route has been put into tunnel as an appeasement, which has surely wrecked any cost justification and will just drive fares up and up to unaffordable levels.

And a good number of those tunnels are either cost-neutral or would reduce costs. For example, the Ruislip tunnel is cheaper and easier to build than the alternative of using the NNML alignment, as there is no need to rebuild every bridge and the Hanger Lane Gyratory.

Your points are laughable at best. Do try harder next time.