HS2 - register your support.

[Bonemaster]

I see HS2 as being about capacity, and hopefully reliability, than all out speed.

Which is not what the proposals are about, its a high speed trunk route which is all about speed and doesn't do what it could for capacity because it avoids everywhere. If you dont think a new line should be about speed respond to the consultation and tell them.

A lot of it is tit-for-tat though, the plethora of emotive and petty arguments against HS2 in turn provoke emotive and petty responses.

I dont see why that is such a bad thing at all, this is a once in a hundred years event and I would be more worried if everyone looked at it with total apathy. We should be proud that we live in a country which allows the freedom of individuals to both support and oppose such schemes, and its only when you get such views that you get to the best answer.

Whilst I don't think HS2 is ideal (needs to be 4 track to Brum + 2 track to HS1 + stations at Amersham + Banbury), it will go a long way to actually establishing a long term strategy for railways, rather than patching up our notoriously unreliable "classic" network in the true british "make do and mend" stylee.

The choice is quiet clear as the proposals have been put you are either for it or against it, the question must be asked if its not ideal why spend all the money on it, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get this right if we don't we might as well forget about any rail revival, and a public backlash against subsidies for rail, if the maths turns out to be wrong. The labour government and the subsequent coalition have blinkered eyes over the high speed factor and have forced a polarization of views

I also don't think that NIMBYism is confined to the Chilterns, it's just that the people who live there tend to work at Newspapers/governments/authorities and know exactly how to get their voice heard more than most.

There is some serious NIMBYism in my home county (warks) yet this isn't nearly as vocal as the Chiltern NIMBYs, because they hold all the high influence, high paid jobs and want to ensure that it remains that way. Not just their surroundings, but their job prospects also.

As soon as you start talking about NIMBYism, it shows that you have no understanding and almost an arrogance about your own point of view.

I used to think the same until some recent proposals in my neck of the woods, that I was actively fighting, I would ask anyone who uses the NIMBY phrase one question. If the government proposed to put a Motorway, a prison or a nuclear power station at the bottom of your back garden, would your household object? If the answer is Yes you are a NIMBY just waiting for the project to object too. I bet you a pound to a penny when its in your back garden yourselves and your community are NIMBYs. NIMBY is such an easy word to use when you either dont understand or dont want to understand the issues.

 

[pmgarvey]

The high speed line increases capacity because it shunts a very large number of people who are travelling intercity onto High Speed leaving the other lines free.

In fact this is good for the people of the towns along the WCML, as more of the trains on it can be stoppers as opposed to the very high number which just fly past (this is assuming that they keep a high number of trains on it, which surely they will because it's about capacity, if that isn't the plan then I apologise).

If you're going to oppose economic benefits for big areas that slightly hurt significantly smaller ones then I fail to see how any progress can be made, someone's nearly always going to lose out

And as an aside I'm actually hoping that HS2's route through Manchester comes directly through my town, I'd absolutely love to walk 5 minutes and watch them go by (though there is a nightclub merely metres from my front door, so even the loudest high speed trains would be practically silent).

 

[ushawk]

Im against it because of the high-cost involved and for about half the country they wont use HS2. But on the other hand, there would be an economic long-term boost for the midlands and the north to have the link.

Also we would probably be seeing "premium" fares like there is on HS1, which would make the WCML attractive to people. Even though it would take longer, it would be cheaper.

 

[Failed Unit]

In reply to post 32 was as much opposition placed to the m40 which also destroyed the Chilterns? It may have been I don't know. But surely the m40 is worse in terms of noise and amount of destroyed countryside.

Would hs2 be acceptable if it followed the m40 as the countryside is already ruined and the noise exists.

 

[The Planner]

Depends how protest minded people were back then, the first section of the M40 opened 1967 and the rest followed in bits up until 1974. The last section from Oxford up to the M42 was a long time after in 1991.

 

[jon0844]

...I would ask anyone who uses the NIMBY phrase one question. If the government proposed to put a Motorway, a prison or a nuclear power station at the bottom of your back garden, would your household object? If the answer is Yes you are a NIMBY just waiting for the project to object too. I bet you a pound to a penny when its in your back garden yourselves and your community are NIMBYs. NIMBY is such an easy word to use when you either dont understand or dont want to understand the issues.

Doesn't the above just prove the point that it IS about being a NIMBY? If a nuclear power station was going to be built in my back garden, I'd probably moan too - and be shouted down by those who tell me not to be a NIMBY!

Of course, I think I'd be very honest and say I don't want a power station in my back garden. People against HS2 who live on or near the route don't say that, but claim other reasons.

 

[button_boxer]

Which is not what the proposals are about, its a high speed trunk route which is all about speed and doesn't do what it could for capacity because it avoids everywhere. If you dont think a new line should be about speed respond to the consultation and tell them.

Read what I said in post 17. The point is that a dedicated HS line will increase capacity on the classic lines because the traffic running on them will be more homogeneous. The fast trains will use the HS line, the classic trains will serve more of the intermediate places and will be able to do so at a higher frequency than at present because they're not having to be threaded in among the fast ones.

 

[jon0844]

Precisely.

 

[Bonemaster]

Of course, I think I'd be very honest and say I don't want a power station in my back garden. People against HS2 who live on or near the route don't say that, but claim other reasons.

They might claim other reasons but the fundamental reason behind the objections is the same as you not wanting the power station in your back garden; however that will not galvanize popular public opinion that is required to get the authorities to listen, and the No2HS2 campaign has been very effective at this.

However it is only fair and rational that the case being presented is subject to full public scrutiny, and whom is most likely to look into this with scrutiny? those who are impacted! Someone liking in the depths of Yorkshire or the Highlands is not going to spend there money and time on properly scrutinising and publicly challenging a business case, and the evidence for something that impact the other end of the country, its a fact, and that is why NIMBYs get the reputation that they do because they conduct the scrutiny, and of course the publicity for any campaign to stop local development won't tell you the positive points, and nor will the developers releases tell the full impact of the development or facts they don't want to tell people or admit too. This scrutiny is good and very desirable in the consultation phase, or even protest. If someone isn't the first to shout nobody will say anything, and the biggest problem with politics these days is the apathy which is shown, HS2 proves proper rational debate and protest is not dead in this country.

 

[anthony263]

I personally think HS2 will be good for the uk again as it will allow the fast trains to use it while freing up paths for commuter trains and freight services on the classic routes. I do hope however that HS2 eventually reaches scotland.

Also personally think that the destinations which have HS2 will find that they get an economic boost.

Cost wise, it may be expensive, but it would bee a good investment in the long term and would save the governemnt a lot of money compared to spending even more money upgrading the weast coast mainline etc, which if it dod happen i would be willing to bet we will end up seing costs spirral.

Been reading what nigel harris has been putting into rail magazine aboout HS2. The latest issue of rail has a photo showing some threatening letter addresed to nigel harris from it has been claimed someone from the anti HS2 brigade. Nigel harris has stated that things like that are not doing the anti HS2 brigade any good.

Nigel harris has also stated that his own house was threatened by a high speed rail proposal.


Also from photos i have seen before & after construction of HS1 it doesnt seem to have caused that much damage to the local area, so I personally think that the Anti HS2 groups are making thing sound worse that what they will be.

 

[Bonemaster]

Read what I said in post 17. The point is that a dedicated HS line will increase capacity on the classic lines because the traffic running on them will be more homogeneous. The fast trains will use the HS line, the classic trains will serve more of the intermediate places and will be able to do so at a higher frequency than at present because they're not having to be threaded in among the fast ones.

The point is what you said in post 17 only applies sometimes, and its pointed out like its going to happen all the time.

Please read Greenguage 21s proposal document; lets take a look at some example journeys on the WCML. Coventry - London reduced by 66%, Coventry - Birmingham reduced by 25%, Marston Green - Birmingham reduced by 33%, Northampton - Birmingham No change, Rugby - Birmingham No Change, Milton Keynes - Birmingham No change.

The point you are making is based on no substance, there are no firm proposals to do much increasing at all North of Milton Keynes and even then its all up in the air with nothing firm at all

 

[anthony263]

Personally think HS2 should have started to be built years ago, rather than just throwing all that money into the west coast mainline upgrade. Yes it has had some benefits, but did they justify the amount of money that was spent?

yes i know HS2 will cost a lot, but i think it would bring must better benefits to the regions it serves that just upgrading existing routes.

 

[jon0844]

If there's demand, a train company will provide a service. I think that's pretty obvious.

Even if you think most TOCs are just bus companies trying to run trains, you have to admit they're not stupid!

 

[tbtc]

If the government proposed to put a Motorway, a prison or a nuclear power station at the bottom of your back garden, would your household object? If the answer is Yes you are a NIMBY just waiting for the project to object too

But, of course a railway (sitting in the bottom of a cutting, with the line designed to be "hidden" away for long sections) is a bit different.

Yet you are comparing it to the worry about escaped prisoners/ nuclear explosions... that's being a little emotive...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A lot of it is tit-for-tat though, the plethora of emotive and petty arguments against HS2 in turn provoke emotive and petty responses.

Whilst I don't think HS2 is ideal (needs to be 4 track to Brum + 2 track to HS1 + stations at Amersham + Banbury), it will go a long way to actually establishing a long term strategy for railways, rather than patching up our notoriously unreliable "classic" network in the true british "make do and mend" stylee

I agree with that, there are some improvements that could be made (I'd go straight through Birmingham/ Manchester etc rather than avoiding them, I'd want four tracks with a Chiltern station linking to an "east - west" line...), but we can't squeeze more fast trains onto existing routes (which are shared with freight/ stoppers), we need a blank sheet of paper to start with!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When the motorway network was being expanded, no-one ever said that:-
YOU CANNOT HAVE MORE ROADS, AS THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ROAD MAKING MATERIAL AND THE MONEY THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPENT ON PURCHASING THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN BUDGETED ELSEWHERE.

One only has to ask for new (or cascaded) stock to improve rail services on both sides of the Pennines these days and a similar response is immediately evoked. It would be laughable, if it was the case that this was true, but there surely must be other reasons why the provision of adequate rolling stock is witheld in this area.

Ask for cross -Pennine electrification and you will receive a horrified silence in response.

 

[NSEFAN]

When the motorway network was being expanded, no-one ever said that:-
YOU CANNOT HAVE MORE ROADS, AS THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ROAD MAKING MATERIAL AND THE MONEY THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPENT ON PURCHASING THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN BUDGETED ELSEWHERE.

That's because certain powers-that-were gained a lot from the construction of motorways.

 

[thefab444]

£32bn. That could buy us about 21,000 new coaches, or would go nicely towards electrification, upgrade and re-opening schemes across the country.

 

[Snapper]

Here's the latest from the pro campaign:

http://www.campaignforhsr.com/prime-minister-re-iterates-his-commitment-to-high-speed-rail

http://www.campaignforhsr.com/david-begg-refutes-tpa-claims-on-the-spectators-coffee-house

 

[sprinterguy]

£32bn. That could buy us about 21,000 new coaches, or would go nicely towards electrification, upgrade and re-opening schemes across the country.

Yes, and over the course of the next 25 years that that funding is earmarked for (The £32 billion figure covers the cost of the entire planned HS2 network to Leeds and Manchester: The initial London to Birmingham/Lichfield stage, to be hopefully opened in fifteen years time, has been costed at £17 billion), Britains' railways will see similarly large sums of money spent on them and major infrastructure projects undertaken: Thameslink, Crossrail, IEP, GWML electrification, North West electrification, reopening of the Borders railway...And that's just what is on the table right now; there'll be plenty more projects announced in the course of the next two decades...

 

[PinzaC55]

Personally I think it's a typical Government idea - a waste of money. If only a fraction of this money was spent on reopening the major "Lines which should never have been closed" - Great Central, Waverley, Peak Line, Leamside, Woodhead - the benefits would be huge for a fraction of the outlay.

 

[NSEFAN]

Personally I think it's a typical Government idea - a waste of money. If only a fraction of this money was spent on reopening the major "Lines which should never have been closed" - Great Central, Waverley, Peak Line, Leamside, Woodhead - the benefits would be huge for a fraction of the outlay.

If the money allocated for HS2 were not to be spent on HS2, that doesn't automatically mean that it will be spent elsewhere. The government doesn't just sit there with a gigantic pot of money and hand out cheques to whomever it likes. Whilst I agree that other lines should be reopened throughout the country, getting investment for smaller lines is more difficult than in a large scale project with a lot of big players.

 

[PinzaC55]

Or a lot of publicity because it is a "Big Project"? Or of course if you make a balls up of it like the Millennium Dome you can blame the public for not using it?

 

[jon0844]

Rather than claim the money for HS2 could be better spent on existing railways, which isn't automatically the case, I'm surprised the anti-HS2 brigade hasn't started to compare the cost of HS2 against new hospitals, or schools. Ah, yes, schools. So if you're pro-HS2 then you obviously don't want kids to get a good education.

Oh dear, I think I may have now given them that idea!!

 

[NSEFAN]

Or a lot of publicity because it is a "Big Project"? Or of course if you make a balls up of it like the Millennium Dome you can blame the public for not using it?

The millenium dome was a bit of a vanity project. HS2 may well be that as well, but it is a longer-term idea and will actually serve a useful purpose.

The £750 million or so spent on the dome would have been better spent on London's transport network. If the dome had never happened, however, I doubt there would have been any more investment in public services. Big sexy projects attract more attention and funding than sustained investment, planning and maintenance to an existing infrastructure.

I'm surprised the anti-HS2 brigade hasn't started to compare the cost of HS2 against new hospitals, or schools. Ah, yes, schools. So if you're pro-HS2 then you obviously don't want kids to get a good education.

I thought they'd already been there and done that!

 

[jon0844]

While we can argue about how much the tax payer benefited from the subsequent sale of the dome, the outcome was the O2 which has brought London an excellent entertainment venue.

So, I think it was actually quite good that it was built (along with the transport links). I am sure the surrounding area has benefited a great deal too in recent years.

I can't imagine HS2 ever turned out to be a failure. I mean, a line connecting the major cities together can't fail - or else why are so many people using the WCML, MML and ECML?

 

[yorksrob]

Rather than claim the money for HS2 could be better spent on existing railways, which isn't automatically the case

I wonder whether the Government has done any study to even consider whether these billions would be better spent on capital improvements to the existing railway.

I'm not saying that I think that this would automatically be the case, however it strikes me that Governments, which always seem to underestimate the utility of the existing railway network, wouldn't think to evaluate it in the first place (and if they did, they probably wouldn't get it right anyway).

 

[crewmeal]

All for the sake of saving around 30 mins. If you travel to Brum airport, with all the transfers there will be saving of around 5-10 mins!!

 

[jon0844]

When HS2 is completed, I imagine myself using it to go further than Birmingham. The first stage doesn't interest me as much as the completed project.

Flying may be quicker, but as long as there's lengthy check in times and security, as well increasing fuel costs, ash clouds (okay that's being a bit OTT) and other possible problems, I can see that having a riskier future than rail.

 

[NSEFAN]

I wonder whether the Government has done any study to even consider whether these billions would be better spent on capital improvements to the existing railway.

I don't think they'd even dare to consider a repeat of the WCML upgrade chaos. They might get it right this time, but the experience seems to have hit them hard! Building a new line at least won't interfere much with the current setup.

All for the sake of saving around 30 mins. If you travel to Brum airport, with all the transfers there will be saving of around 5-10 mins!!

There are better reasons for the line than the one you just gave. One argument is capacity. Sure, it may not be urgently needed right now, but then that's why we future proof things. The construction won't even start for years yet, so by the time trains actually start running, there will be a more pressing need for them.

Furthermore, when the line is extended further north, the whole route will actually have more serious competition with the internal flights. It may still be slower than a flight, but given all the security and baggage BS we have to put up with, travelling by train is comparatively straight forward.

Also, rail infrastructure is currently well suited for future energy needs when compared to air travel. The reality is that it won't be possible to get cheap oil in the future, so unless you can come up with lightweight, efficient batteries, then electric trains will have a big advantage over fuelled planes.

There is more to life than increasing its speed.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think they'd even dare to consider a repeat of the WCML upgrade chaos. They might get it right this time, but the experience seems to have hit them hard! Building a new line at least won't interfere much with the current setup.

Yes, this is certainly a consideration.

I suppose my doubts (and they are doubts rather than any stronger feelings on the issue) come from thinking about Leeds.

It relies heavily for its economy on its Inter-City link to London, which there is good reason to believe will be full to capacity in the medium term, a problem which will be solved fairly spectacularly by HS2.
Yet Leeds also relies very heavily for its economy on commuter links and inter-urban links to other towns which are also predicted to be full to capacity fairly soon, a problem which will not be solved by HS2 - quite the opposite if the McNulty squeeze comes to pass. I'm sure Manchester and Birmingham are in the same situation.

Then there are the large numbers of areas which aren't anywhere near to these cities, whose problems also wouldn't be solved by HS2.

The question is, whether that money could be spent in such a way as to alleviate all of these problems instead of just one.

Take the WCML for example, I read that before it was rebuilt, Euston used to have a fifteen carriage long platform. Do other stations on the route have fifteen carriage platforms and if so, would it be possible to upgrade power supply and signalling to to take fifteen carriage trains on some routes?

Obviously this would be for the engineers to answer, but has anyone even considered it.