HS2 - the case for a review

[Bob M]

A few weeks ago there was a workshop in York of transport academics, who produced a report calling for a review of the HS2 plans. I've mentioned this in the 'HS2 in the press' thread already, but it probably deserves a thread of its own, so here it is.

The report can be found at
http://www.passengertransportnetworks.co.uk/HS2 - the case for a review.pdf

 

[gordonthemoron]

just build the thing

 

[Steveman]

Waste of money for what you get which isn't much.

 

[deltic]

Some of our academics seem a bit slow on the uptake - if they wanted to inform the debate they should have done so 6 years ago when Government first published its Y proposals. Their call for a review is standard UK procedure which means decades pass before anything happens.

Heathrow airport is the classic - study after study has come out with the same result. The same is likely to occur with HS2.

While HS2 is far from perfect virtually every alternative has been looked at and considered - the idea of improving connectivity with the classic network is all well and good but the problem of trying to come up with a workable scheme at Euston just shows how hard and expensive it is.

 

[HowardGWR]

How does HS2 enable Brum to Paris to secure modal shift from air?

 

[deltic]

It doesn't but that's not its objective

 

[quantinghome]

How does HS2 enable Brum to Paris to secure modal shift from air?

It doesn't. Well, it does a bit if you don't mind a bracing stroll along euston road. But then, neither does it relieve congestion on the Chester bypass, or improve connectivity through rural Devon. But, then that's not that point of the scheme.

 

[RPM]

What we really, really don't need is any more delay. I quibble with certain details of HS2, but we can't procrastinate forever. We need HS2 and time is running out.

 

[Camden]

Some of our academics seem a bit slow on the uptake - if they wanted to inform the debate they should have done so 6 years ago when Government first published its Y proposals.

I think if they wanted to inform the debate they needed to have done so more than a decade ago, when lobby groups and individual ministers were first toying with the idea and related ideas. I think HS2, how it came to be the project it is today, how it keeps on going no matter what is a subject worthy of a national debate, as part of a general overhaul of democratic decision making. On a number of grounds I think it is less than desirable, so halt it and use it for the only thing I think it could be useful for which is analysing where things go so badly wrong in our society. I think we could get a lot more value out of the project that way. No matter how you argue for the project (capacity into London, capacity on the west coast main line, regenerating northern cities) I find there are always much more convincing arguments for doing something other than blowing £50 billion on a high speed train line, usually in a way that makes more coherent sense too.

£4 billion to each of Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle would transform their ability to deliver infrastructure, attract investment, attract companies, attract people... leading to less pressure on London, spreading population pressure to cities that need to regrow, leave the cities with money to spare, and total £20 billion (maximum, rather than £50 billion plus inevitable overspend). Were these cities more successful as entities in their own right, then you might expect London to account for less and less of their long distance travel needs as people increasingly connect between them instead, but on top of this why not invest in internet infrastructure and innovations that removes most need for such travel, reducing it simply to want?

We need HS2 and time is running out.

No we don't and no it isn't.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think if they wanted to inform the debate they needed to have done so more than a decade ago, when lobby groups and individual ministers were first toying with the idea and related ideas. I think HS2, how it came to be the project it is today, how it keeps on going no matter what is a subject worthy of a national debate, as part of a general overhaul of democratic decision making. On a number of grounds I think it is less than desirable, so halt it and use it for the only thing I think it could be useful for which is analysing where things go so badly wrong in our society. I think we could get a lot more value out of the project that way. No matter how you argue for the project (capacity into London, capacity on the west coast main line, regenerating northern cities) I find there are always much more convincing arguments for doing something other than blowing £50 billion on a high speed train line, usually in a way that makes more coherent sense too.

£4 billion to each of Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle would transform their ability to deliver infrastructure, attract investment, attract companies, attract people... leading to less pressure on London, spreading population pressure to cities that need to regrow, leave the cities with money to spare, and total £20 billion (maximum, rather than £50 billion plus inevitable overspend). Were these cities more successful as entities in their own right, then you might expect London to account for less and less of their long distance travel needs as people increasingly connect between them instead, but on top of this why not invest in internet infrastructure and innovations that removes most need for such travel, reducing it simply to want?

That's a daft idea. If the Northern cities become stronger, their travel demands to London are only going to increase, not decrease, thus making the case for HS2 even stronger. London will always be a major business centre in the UK; what needs to happen is that the Northern cities grow strength in their own areas, taking advantage of their own natural talent. If there are going to be lots of important businesses in London, and lots of important businesses in the Northern cities, then these businesses will need to be able to get to each other to make the most of it. This is beyond obvious. Otherwise, why would there be such well-developed air links between London and New York and Tokyo and wherever else?

The idea that the internet will completely kill off the need to travel is also stupid. Companies are finding that remote working is simply not as productive as getting people into the office, as the sorts of interactions which drive innovation and therefore profit just can't happen over a video connection. It should be remembered that what human work will remain in future will revolve even more around problem solving. You might be able to discuss something specific over a remote connection but you lose the ability to engage in other, less formal forms of discussion which often end up resulting in a solution. Since the cost of travel is going down, and at the same time individual productivity is going up (that solution or idea might earn the company a huge amount of money), the business case for moving employees around the world to meet in person is getting stronger. That productivity means that time spent travelling (and therefore out of the office, away from other thinkers) is very valuable.

No we don't and no it isn't.

Since HS2 was announced the case for building it has only got stronger. By the time it opens it will probably be too late even on the current construction timetable.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

HS2 is all bad news for the following:

It will cause huge economic woes for some cities (HS2 tried to hide the fact).
IMidland and Northern cities which will either get a slower service, less frequent service or worse trains when traffic is diverted via HS2.

CO2 emissions are high as it's top speed needs so much energy.
Connectivity with lenghy walks/tram trips are needed at many stations isn't ideal.

Safety concerns hsve been raised as the Rayleigh Wave created by HS2 could cause a derailment at top speed.
The cost is not worth it, the money would be better spread into reopening lines and making tramways.

Freight has been ignored, despite the loading guage being perfect and freight being a bigger bonus environmentally, it's banned from HS2.
Ancient woodland which stands to be destroyed is an irreplaceable loss
.
The North isn't the main benefactor, it'll just make part of the WCML a commuter branch, and the other stops will just help London business, London is the place that gets thr most money from the scheme, so how does it 'rebalance' the economy?

The fact some will benefit doesn't justify all the pain it will cause.
We need High Speed UK, a far better project for the whole country.

 

[The Planner]

There are some crackingly misinformed ones there!

 

[Hadders]

It frustrates me that other countries just get on build things but here we faff around, try to make do and mend the rest being inadequate infrastructure.

Let's just get on and build it. The last thing we need is another review.

 

[NSEFAN]

It's bad news for safety as the Rayleigh Wave created by HS2 could cause a derailment.

Politics aside, do you really think that engineers would design, build and test a railway that wasn't safe? :roll:

 

[Harbornite]

HS2 is all bad.
It's bad news on a huge economic scale for some cities (HS2 tried to hide the fact).
It's bad news for Midland and Northern cities which will either get a slower service, less frequent service or worse trains when traffic is diverted via HS2.
It's bad news for CO2 emissions as it's top speed needs so much energy.
It's bad news for connectivity with lenghy walks/tram trips needed at many stations.
It's bad news for safety as the Rayleigh Wave created by HS2 could cause a derailment.
It's bad news for cost, the money would be better spread into reopening lines and making tramways.
It's bad news for freight, as despite the loading guage being perfect and freight being a bigger bonus environmentally, it's banned from HS2.
It's bad for ancient woodland which stands to be destroyed.
It's bad for the North, it'll just make part of the WCML a commuter branch, and the other stops will just help London business, London is the place that gets thr most money from the scheme, so how does it 'rebalance' the economy?
It's bad news fullstop, the fact some will benefit doesn't justify all the pain it will cause.

We need High Speed UK, a far better project for the whole country.

I'm not keen on the formatting of your post, I prefer reading conventional paragraphs. You don't have to repeat "it's bad" for each point.

 

[jon0844]

As usual, there are people that think the money is somehow available in a pot somewhere waiting to be spent, so let's spend it on something else and divide it up. Maybe open a few schools or pay nurses more.

It's money that will be raised or borrowed, with an intention for a return - possibly to private investors. If HS2 isn't built, the money won't be there to divert.

I can't believe we can't just build it. But HS1 opened years after Eurostar started, and the Thameslink upgrade work too ages to start. It's something we're so good at, along with moaning shout crumbling infrastructure and overcrowded trains.

Anyone see a connection?

 

[Hadders]

But HS1 opened years after Eurostar started

That's a really good point. When Eurostar started the French already had their High Speed line built. Of course the UK was embarrassing with the trains going having to slow down so you could admire the Kent countryside.

There were huge protests against building HS1 at the time. Now, 10-ish years on, is anyone seriously still suggesting we shouldn't have build it.

 

[HSTEd]

Eh, I certainly wouldn't agree that what was built was the optimum solution.
Especially given the restrictive loading gauge.
There should have been a through route (even if doing so for platforms was impractical) at the full Channel Tunnel loading gauge all the way to the M25.

 

[DerekC]

The academics are right to say that it's a gold plated project with an unnecessarily high top speed for our small country. But it's far too late to say so now - the steamroller has built up too much momentum. And "I told you so" (a lot of people did) is always an admission of failure. The only thing to do is proceed, but with a pretty stringent value engineering process that strips out gold plating (and maybe even reduces the top speed) as far as is possible without changing the route or undermining the business case.

 

[LateThanNever]

As usual, there are people that think the money is somehow available in a pot somewhere waiting to be spent, so let's spend it on something else and divide it up. Maybe open a few schools or pay nurses more.

It's money that will be raised or borrowed, with an intention for a return - possibly to private investors. If HS2 isn't built, the money won't be there to divert.

I can't believe we can't just build it. But HS1 opened years after Eurostar started, and the Thameslink upgrade work too ages to start. It's something we're so good at, along with moaning shout crumbling infrastructure and overcrowded trains.

Anyone see a connection?

The money is of course available without any borrowing whatsoever if the government wish it to be.
Britain does have a sovereign currency so are you really understanding who creates Britain's money?

And the academics are correct that the HS2 speed is indeed unnecessarily high for England - a country that is the most densely populated in Europe.

 

[deltic]

The money is of course available without any borrowing whatsoever if the government wish it to be.
Britain does have a sovereign currency so are you really understanding who creates Britain's money?

And the academics are correct that the HS2 speed is indeed unnecessarily high for England - a country that is the most densely populated in Europe.

The vast majority of money is created by private sector banks lending to people/businesses, Government can also create money but is a small player in the market.

Not clear how much extra cost is incurred by designing for slightly higher operating speeds and not clear what density of population has to do with operating speeds. If High speed rail does reach Scotland than higher operating speed could have an impact on journey times.

 

[HSTEd]

And the academics are correct that the HS2 speed is indeed unnecessarily high for England - a country that is the most densely populated in Europe.

Thanks to the magic that is multiple units, we could have Shinkansen stop spacings and still reach the planned normal operational top speed of 320km/h [360km/h only for timetable resilience, which will be rare considering the nature of the services].

 

[LateThanNever]

The vast majority of money is created by private sector banks lending to people/businesses, Government can also create money but is a small player in the market.

Not clear how much extra cost is incurred by designing for slightly higher operating speeds and not clear what density of population has to do with operating speeds. If High speed rail does reach Scotland than higher operating speed could have an impact on journey times.

On money I agree absolutely that 97% of money is created out of thin air by the private banks as debt. But we mustn't forget that money can be just created by the government, and although this normally accounts for the other 3%, it doesn't account for the £375 billion that was created, interest free, by the government as Quantitaive Easing, which is still outstanding.
I fear there is far too much acceptance of financialisation of the economy. Whilst all resources have a price that price doesn't need to include debt. Indeed I would suggest that finance as debt means that Britain is grossly handicapped in its efforts to compete, as paying for shelter takes such a great proportion of wages. Germany doesn't have rampant house bubbles or ever spiralling rents. 70% of their money is created by not for profit/cooperative banks...

The density of England's population means that by designing for travel from Euston to Curzon Street quickly you don't offer a great benefit to those who want to go from Brighton to Wolverhampton because they have to change and much of the journey becomes hurry up and wait. Meanwhile there is no advantage at all to those who want to travel from Plymouth to Liverpool or Norwich to Nottingham. If the improvements were spread more evenly in a crowded country there is both less need for greatly enhanced speed and a greater opportunity for the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

 

[jon0844]

Does anyone think HS2 will be it, forever? That it doesn't help people in Brighton, Norwich or Plymouth?

Or that if we got on and built HS2, we'd then be on to HS3 to the West, HS4 to the easy, HS5 to the south?

We need more capacity anyway, and as we build new housing on green belt we'll need new stations in areas not served by rail today.

 

[deltic]

A single rail scheme is never going to benefit everyone in the country and the amount being spent on the rail network each year will be more than will be spent each year on HS2. HS2 also offers the opportunity to recast a large part of the rail timetable and open up new journey opportunities. Clapham Junc to Old Oak Common and then HS2 opens up a lot of quicker journeys from south to north avoiding travelling across London.

What is not clear is whether HS2 will be fully utilised north of Birmingam eg will it be possible to use classic compatible services to link Leicester to Leeds for example

 

[Heartland]

As a historian, I find the HS2 discussions quite diverse, those for and those against have many reasons for their respective views. I have to keep an unbiased view, yet there is one important issue which I feel should be raised. There is the dead hand of history which may yet play its part if those who oppose the scheme have their way. Using existing networks, even with repairs and reconstruction will at some point in the future have some serious calamity. Take the London and Birmingham Railway, which was a line engineered by Robert Stephenson and completed in 1838. No matter how our engineering teams maintain the track, the constant passage of a host of services does lead to a deterioration of the infrastructure. All it takes is for one forgotten culvert to collapse and erosion set it, before detection. The resulting collapse, if happens a a time of trains passing, could have serious consequences.

 

[MarkyT]

The resulting collapse, if happens a a time of trains passing, could have serious consequences.

Even if there were no trains involved directly, a major infrastructure failure can be very disruptive afterwards until it is fully repaired, see Dawlish and Dover for fairly extreme examples. The Kent collapse didn't isolate Dover completely, with routes remaining from London via Chatham and from Ashford via Canterbury West, illustrating the value of diverse routes whether accomplished by new lines or not. Also I'm sure the much longer closure possible at Dover will have allowed a very thorough, robust reconstruction.

 

[Camden]

As a historian, I find the HS2 discussions quite diverse, those for and those against have many reasons for their respective views. I have to keep an unbiased view, yet there is one important issue which I feel should be raised. There is the dead hand of history which may yet play its part if those who oppose the scheme have their way. Using existing networks, even with repairs and reconstruction will at some point in the future have some serious calamity. Take the London and Birmingham Railway, which was a line engineered by Robert Stephenson and completed in 1838. No matter how our engineering teams maintain the track, the constant passage of a host of services does lead to a deterioration of the infrastructure. All it takes is for one forgotten culvert to collapse and erosion set it, before detection. The resulting collapse, if happens a a time of trains passing, could have serious consequences.

I think of all the reasons to argue for HS2 this is one of the most creative I have seen!!

There is no reason why with a rolling renewals programme a correctly managed existing railway would be any less safe than one built from scratch.

Of course there is the risk of calamity. There is also the same risk with HS2, air travel, motorways and crossing the road.

In the wake of train disasters elsewhere there has been criticism where people have considered too much has been spent on high speed rail rather than maintenance, so what would your "dead hand of history" say to that? And what happens when HS2 gets on a bit?

The London & Birmingham Railway isn't going to be replaced by HS2, but simply augmented by it, so the risk you speak of isn't going away just because HS2 gets built. The world's oldest intercity train line is still in operation today between Manchester and Liverpool. HS2 have had every opportunity to replace that line with a brand new HS2 intercity line, but they haven't done chosen to do so. Maybe you ought to have words??

As the existing railway isn't to close when HS2 opens, and as the line opens it will require maintenance along with the existing network, as there is only so much money and workforce to go round, maybe it would be safer all round to cancel HS2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, I'd say it is worth building London-Brum as a Swiss style Neubaustrecke, including the Euston extension as the station is presently overused. Then, I would move onto ensuring our towns and cities have proper transport systems - U- and S-Bahnen (operational concept for the latter on existing lines) for bigger ones, trams for smaller ones. Only then look at more new heavy rail.

As far as the mainline goes, much of the non-London-commuter overcrowding could be solved by maxing out train lengths on the existing infrastructure. The 2-car DMU should be relegated to branch lines. Manchester suburbans, for instance, should be a minimum of 4, most longer. Merseyrail should be 6-car, all day every day - might as well just build the new stuff as fixed formation articulated.

 

[Voglitz]

Using existing networks, even with repairs and reconstruction will at some point in the future have some serious calamity. Take the London and Birmingham Railway, which was a line engineered by Robert Stephenson and completed in 1838. No matter how our engineering teams maintain the track, the constant passage of a host of services does lead to a deterioration of the infrastructure.

If 'existing networks with a constant passage of a host of services' will at some point in the future have some serious calamity, avoiding that calamity would, presumably, involve closing down the West Coast Main Line, the Great Western, the London Underground, etc.

Would the constant passage of 18 trains per hour on the HS2 track not lead to a 'deterioration of the infrastructure'?

All it takes is for one forgotten culvert to collapse and erosion set it, before detection. The resulting collapse, if happens a a time of trains passing, could have serious consequences.

Serious consequences can arise on new infrastructure, such as at Eckwersheim, Angrois, and Wenzhou, so it's rather difficult to understand your thinking.