HS2: Support or Scrap?

Why should we pay in excess of £100bn for something that is outdated before we even start with far far cheaper options for increasing capacity if we are to opt for old and slow methods?

Reply 23

Original post by 3121

The line from London to Birmingham is stupidly unnecessary, I just can’t understand why it was approved when we already have 2, TWO lines from London to Birmingham. Keep and prioritise the northern section though. We don’t need to spend 10’s of billions on building a new line to arrive a few more minutes early, it capacity is an issue, just upgrade the existing lines for bigger trains - were the only European country to not have double decker trains which are outstanding in terms of efficiency at high capacity

BOTH those lines serve more than Birmingham and are at capacity already!! The London commuters of the Chiltern line hate us and Oxford as our express trains mean they have an extremely stagnated timetable where trains make very unusual stopping patterns in order to make way for the express services. The population on the Chiltern line is growing, being an out of London commuter belt. It would be better to use this inclusively as a local line than a semi-express line given the populations it serves.
The WCML has pretty much the same story, just it has more lines so the local, semi-express and intercity trains can be separated far more so than on the Chiltern route meaning they don't have the ridiculous stagnation problem.

Our loading gauge is much narrower than other countries. The work which would be needed to upgrade the lines for bigger trains is huge. Not only would you have to rebuild many road bridges, you'd have to adjust the curves on the track significantly to keep the trains on the track and stop them from touching. Network Rail are consistently performing studies on double decker trains, and they always conclude they would be far more expensive than other types of upgrades. The case they look at it most, is on the Brighton Mainline. (HS2 is being built to the larger loading gauge so it would be the first line which is capable of taking them!).

Adding capacity by increasing the capacity of trains doesn't allow for more services to be added. When a train service has a 10 minute or less service, it is treated as a "turn up and go" service which has a very significant impact on the number of people using the trains because they don't worry so much about missing trains and will be more likely to use the train over the car which has a huge environmental impact. HS2 will allow the frequency of these crucial local services to be increased which is what we need!!

Reply 24

Original post by Muttley79

Near where friends live HS2 are acting like vandals ripping our hedges and cutting down trees in the nesting season. The London to Birmingham bit needs scrapping as there is a perfectly good service already. Build the other northern bits but no need for the rest.

#TheMidlandsExists

Yes, there is a good service between Birmingham and London. But what about Lea Hall to Birmingham? Just 2 trains per hour. For a local station in a major conurbation this is ridiculous. HS2 removes high speed trains which allows for more local services.

Reply 25

Original post by Fullofsurprises

They've announced that it's delayed for a further 5 years anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/03/hs2-to-be-delayed-by-up-to-five-years

Until 2030, it won't go into Euston - it will go to Old Oak Common, their new out of town hub in West London. Except it won't be a hub. It will be hopeless. It isn't on Crossrail and the tube connections are dire. It is not that far from the current Overground, which is very overcrowded and slow.

Remarkably, when this first part of HS2 is completed, it will actually take much longer to get from C. London to Birmingham than it does currently. You couldn't make it up.

Old Oak Common will eventually be a large interchange facility between many major train lines. It is part of a long term strategy. Crossrail will go through Old Oak Common once the GWML lines (which crossrail runs on) are realigned to go into Old Oak.

I would be very surprised if all Birmingham to London via WCML services stopped once the first phase of HS2 is opened if it is only to Old Oak Common. If anything it will allow for a longer soft opening which if you've seen the delays on crossrail is most definitely needed and appreciated so that when it fully opens there is a lot less to go wrong.

Reply 26

Original post by Jammy Duel

Why should we pay in excess of £100bn for something that is outdated before we even start with far far cheaper options for increasing capacity if we are to opt for old and slow methods?

It isn't outdated. If your referring to "hyperloop technologies" then just look at Thunderf00t's videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk It isn't a proven technology and it's likely not to be in a timely manor with the demand for transport.

Maglev technology is far more costly than conventional rail at the moment, and given it needs lots of electromagnets across the whole length of track, rather than just one continuous wire - it kinda makes sense to be more expensive.

You can have that theory for most things: wait until it becomes cheaper to build. You could think that for any period of time, infinitely even. We didn't build high speed rail in the 70s/80s like most of Europe - so when should we wait until?!

Reply 27

Rungirlrun!!

9

As someone living in West Yorkshire, from whose back garden the HS2 train will be seen and heard, and for whom the train line poses absolutely no benefits whatsoever, I am strongly against it.
We have access to London. This is not going to help us as we will have to travel further to get to a train station for this train. It is a ridiculous idea and a waste of time, money, and effort.

Reply 28

Scrap, based on environmental impacts.

Reply 29

JamieLouiseGlynn

5

Original post by 04MR17

Like any major infrastructure investment, High Speed 2 has been a controversial policy for many years.

The TSR Government in the Model House of Commons is currently thinking about what we should do with HS2.

There have been plenty of news stories in recent weeks about the increasing costs of the project (as is similar with a lot of massive transport projects) and there are pros and cons to the whole plan.

We want to know what you would do? :beard:

Would you continue to build or would you pull the plug?

It's worth saying that significant public money has already been put into this, and a lot of that can't really be retrieved. If building operations were terminated a lot of that money is "wasted". Although if you're a massive opponent of the project you might argue that the whole thing is a waste of money.

What are your thoughts? :holmes:

(This thread is part of a Government Consultation from the Model House of Commons. You can get involved in our other threads here.)

HS2 doesn't even link to HS1 or to the eurostar, it just connects the north to the south 20 minutes quicker. It's cheaper at the moment to get a flight and still will be considering the ticket prices the HS2 will have. This makes the whole project unneeded meanwhile someone is profiting from pushing this project and the taxpayers will be paying off the mistake for years to come.

Reply 30

Original post by Fullofsurprises

That's the original propaganda figure that Adonis and the HS2 contractors put forward when the government rigged, er, informed the Parliamentary votes that approved HS2. It's repeatedly been shown to be inflated by many studies. It's based amongst other things on alleged transfers of freight to rail, which are now seen as optimistic, by alleged journey time reductions which have vanished into thin air as slower trains are proposed and by acting as though the budget was fixed at £56bn when the estimated cost is now over £100bn and still climbing.

On the contrary, £2.30 is a massive underestimate. The costs of the scheme could triple and it would still be incredible value.

Reply 31

Original post by shadowdweller

Scrap, based on environmental impacts.

I read this and was like, wait, wtf?

HS2 will do more to reduce carbon emissions than any other infrastructure scheme ever built in this country. How can you not know that?

Reply 32

Original post by shadowdweller

Scrap, based on environmental impacts.

...

People commuting by car is an enormous contributor to the environment in terms of co2 emissions. The WCML runs through very densely populated parts of the West Midlands. The local commuter stations on this line only get 1-3 trains per hour (station dependent) because of the tight timetable. At the moment only a handful of trains a day can call at all local stations.
HS2 will take many of the high speed trains off the line, allowing more paths for local trains. This will create a more frequent service which will encourage people commuting into Birmingham to use the train instead of driving. The environmental benefits from this are huge.
It is well known trains are one of the most environmentally friendly motorised ways to travel.

Original post by JamieLouiseGlynn

HS2 doesn't even link to HS1 or to the eurostar, it just connects the north to the south 20 minutes quicker. It's cheaper at the moment to get a flight and still will be considering the ticket prices the HS2 will have. This makes the whole project unneeded meanwhile someone is profiting from pushing this project and the taxpayers will be paying off the mistake for years to come.

You don't know how much tickets on HS2 will cost! The plan, as far as I last heard, was to keep them the same as they are now. The main markets of the WCML (Manchester & Birmingham - London) are not that competitive to take by plane. Scotland/The Far North to London is not the main reason HS2 is being built, otherwise they'd be building the High Speed track further up there!!
(Not to mention how environmentally unfriendly planes are...)

Does HS2 need to link to HS1? I think you are over estimating the benefits. At the moment there are no direct trains from anywhere north of London to the south east - which suggests perhaps there isn't much of a market for Manchester to Margaret or Birmingham to Faversham. Keeping services separate also has the benefit of delays on one line not spreading to the other. Eurostar is probably the only largely useful service which could come from it, but you still have to ask is there a large enough market to frequently fill trains between other places to Europe.

If your happy with sardine tin loaded trains on the WCML for years to come, then yes, it is unneeded, but otherwise it jolly well is. If the government wouldn't contract everything out and started construction schemes (on a regular basis) themselves, then it would be cheaper.

Reply 33

Drewski

19

Keep. But build the other way round - start in the North.

Reply 34

Original post by centraltrains

People commuting by car is an enormous contributor to the environment in terms of co2 emissions. The WCML runs through very densely populated parts of the West Midlands. The local commuter stations on this line only get 1-3 trains per hour (station dependent) because of the tight timetable. At the moment only a handful of trains a day can call at all local stations.
HS2 will take many of the high speed trains off the line, allowing more paths for local trains. This will create a more frequent service which will encourage people commuting into Birmingham to use the train instead of driving. The environmental benefits from this are huge.
It is well known trains are one of the most environmentally friendly motorised ways to travel.

Original post by desou

I read this and was like, wait, wtf?

HS2 will do more to reduce carbon emissions than any other infrastructure scheme ever built in this country. How can you not know that?

Except that environmental impact is not purely based on carbon emissions - we'd also be seeing the demolition of large areas of woodland, create huge amounts of landfill, and risk to habitats. The environmental impact of a project also pertains to the damage taken to build it in the first place, not just the advantages it has once built.

Reply 35

Original post by shadowdweller

Except that environmental impact is not purely based on carbon emissions - we'd also be seeing the demolition of large areas of woodland, create huge amounts of landfill, and risk to habitats. The environmental impact of a project also pertains to the damage taken to build it in the first place, not just the advantages it has once built.

All major road and rail schemes are committed to provide net positive ecological impacts. Its not "large areas of woodlands". Its less than a fraction of a %. Read the actual research, not just the daily mail scaremongering.

Reply 36

Original post by desou

All major road and rail schemes are committed to provide net positive ecological impacts. Its not "large areas of woodlands". Its less than a fraction of a %. Read the actual research, not just the daily mail scaremongering.

Which, granted, is a lovely sentiment, but it doesn't really mean a great deal in reality. For example, planting trees in an attempt to mitigate the impact of the HS2 does not equate the the environmental impact of losing centuries-old woodland, nor does it mean that the wildlife species living there have not lost their habitats. Now, you may not consider 61 areas of woodland (including 16.7 hectares of ancient woodland), to be a large amount, but that does not mean others do not.

That's not to mention the project creating 58 million tonnes of landfill; which equates to four times the total waste sent to landfill in the whole country annually, nor the diversion of nine rivers, or the species threatened by it.

I'm basing this on actual research, I doubt anyone interested in this debate would be basing in on the 'Daily Mail' of all sources.

Reply 37

Original post by shadowdweller

Which, granted, is a lovely sentiment, but it doesn't really mean a great deal in reality. For example, planting trees in an attempt to mitigate the impact of the HS2 does not equate the the environmental impact of losing centuries-old woodland, nor does it mean that the wildlife species living there have not lost their habitats. Now, you may not consider 61 areas of woodland (including 16.7 hectares of ancient woodland), to be a large amount, but that does not mean others do not.

That's not to mention the project creating 58 million tonnes of landfill; which equates to four times the total waste sent to landfill in the whole country annually, nor the diversion of nine rivers, or the species threatened by it.

I'm basing this on actual research, I doubt anyone interested in this debate would be basing in on the 'Daily Mail' of all sources.

16.7 hectares is a tiny amount on a national scale.

You're not basing this on actual research, because you don't have access to the actual research. You're basing it on prejudice, speculation and years-old documents that are totally out of date.

Reply 38

Original post by desou

16.7 hectares is a tiny amount on a national scale.

You're not basing this on actual research, because you don't have access to the actual research. You're basing it on prejudice, speculation and years-old documents that are totally out of date.

I would appreciate it if you also addressed the comments around the project creating 58 million tonnes of landfill; which equates to four times the total waste sent to landfill in the whole country annually, nor the diversion of nine rivers, or the species threatened by it, and also the wildlife species living there have not lost their habitats. As I've made clear, the issue here isn't solely around how much of a percentage of the overall woodland in the UK is lost.

Reply 39