HS2

[melmerby]

41 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Small edit made above...

I find the Scottish Highlands (formerly the Caledonian Forest) and the Peak District/Yorkshire Dales (those dry-stone walls didn't build themselves) to be good examples to give people who want to protect the "natural" environment.

Add the Lake District, also mostly man made (but not most of the lakes!)

 

 

[martin_wynne]

12 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

I must have missed the announcement that the technology to shove anything we buy from a supermarket down a fibre-optic line had been developed.

 

I'm quite happy for my bread and milk to be delivered at less than 200mph, and for the electric truck bringing it to drive around an ancient woodland.

 

The nation almost certainly needed improved freight infrastructure, but a high-speed passenger railway isn't it.

 

Martin.

[billbedford]

It's always amusing when people consider landscapes enabled by the Enclosure Acts 'natural' or even 'historic'. 

[corneliuslundie]

I feel that we have already done this debate to death. Can we please keep this thread now to what is happening, whether good or bad? 

Jonathan

[martin_wynne]

38 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Most people (60%) cannot work from home

 

And how many of them will be travelling on HS2? A high-speed long-distance passenger railway is the wrong solution.

 

Martin.

[melmerby]

1 minute ago, martin_wynne said:

 

And how many of them will be travelling on HS2? A high-speed long-distance passenger railway is the wrong solution.

 

Martin.

With a statement like that you quite clearly have not read (or are willing to accept) any of the facts (discussed and re-discussed many times) as to why it is needed.

The anti argument was lost so why don't you give up the harping?

 

[martin_wynne]

6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

With a statement like that you quite clearly have not read (or are willing to accept) any of the facts (discussed and re-discussed many times) as to why it is needed.

The anti argument was lost so why don't you give up the harping?

 

Why are the pro-HS2 enthusiasts so stroppy about it?

 

I found a video online which made me feel sad, so I posted it.

 

I'm not against building a new railway. But it doesn't need to be so fast that it can't find a winding route that doesn't cause so much destruction. The sweeping curves of the existing railways have blended into the landscape in a way that many think actually enhances it. Using natural materials, brick and stone. A dead straight strip of concrete, destroying all before it, is going to take a long time to blend in.

 

Did no-one think of building a new canal instead? With solar-powered tug boats? Why do we assume faster is always better?

 

Martin.

[Ron Ron Ron]

36 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

......Can we please keep this thread now to what is happening, whether good or bad? 

 

 

100% agree.

The time for complaining, moaning (or getting out the crayons to draw alternative ideas on the back of fag packets), has long passed.

HS2 is already under construction.

Sites are being cleared or prepared along its length (phase 1) and the first construction works have been taking place over the last 6 months.

Protests are not going to stop it now.

 

The best thing that protesters can do, rather than march around waving placards, wasting time posting on social media or climbing into trees, which won't do anything at all to help address their concerns, is to take an active part in some of the new initiatives being organised to provide various forms of environmental mitigation, such as the Woodlands Trust tree planting campaign.

 

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/woodland-trust-plans-to-plant-50-million-trees-by-2025-to-fight-climate-crisis/

 

 

.

 

 

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

I'm quite happy for my bread and milk to be delivered at less than 200mph, and for the electric truck bringing it to drive around an ancient woodland.

 

The nation almost certainly needed improved freight infrastructure, but a high-speed passenger railway isn't it.

 

No "almost certainly" about it. The growth in rail traffic over the last few years demands extra capacity. Taking the fast trains off the existing network provides many extra paths for other, slower, trains. These include freight. But you know this as it's been discussed and explained on here many times.

 

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

And how many of them will be travelling on HS2? A high-speed long-distance passenger railway is the wrong solution.

 

Quite a lot of them would like to be on the extra middle and short distance trains that are already working at capacity. And more of these (thanks HS2) will be a good thing.

 

40 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Did no-one think of building a new canal instead? With solar-powered tug boats?

 

I don't suppose they thought of powering the tug boats by burning unicorn droppings either - it's likely to be as practical.

 

 

[martin_wynne]

14 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

... complaining, moaning ... Protests ... waving placards ... climbing into trees ...

 

I'm not doing any of those things. But is it possible to watch a wood being destroyed and not feel a bit sad? And wonder if it is strictly necessary?

 

The present situation may not make a big long-term change, but it will surely make some change. Why else would BA be retiring its entire fleet of 747s? And selling off the crockery?

 

Martin.

 

[martin_wynne]

5 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Taking the fast trains off the existing network provides many extra paths for other, slower, trains.

 

Of course it does. But you don't need to put them somewhere else. Just take them off, full stop:  https://slowways.uk/

 

Martin.

[woodenhead]

29 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

I'm not doing any of those things. But is it possible to watch a wood being destroyed and not feel a bit sad? And wonder if it is strictly necessary?

 

The present situation may not make a big long-term change, but it will surely make some change. Why else would BA be retiring its entire fleet of 747s? And selling off the crockery?

 

Martin.

 

The 747 was due for retirement in any case, they just brought it forward.

 

The A380 was already an albatross before COVID as it became obvious that the world wanted efficient 2 engine jets going forward not 4 engine behemoths.

 

Faster rail travel reduces air travel which cuts the pollution that kills the trees (young or old, pollution doesn't differentiate).

[class26]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Of course it does. But you don't need to put them somewhere else. Just take them off, full stop:  https://slowways.uk/

 

Martin.

Which means I, and I would think many others will take my car (very polluting) rather than the slower train. What does this achieve ?

 

What needs pointing out is that old, mature  trees are not absorbing CO2 any more, it is the young, growing trees that are doing so. HS2 is planting millions of new trees 

Edited December 3, 2020 by class26

[Ron Ron Ron]

28 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

......Why else would BA be retiring its entire fleet of 747s? And selling off the crockery?

 

 

Nothing to do with a "new normal".

BA's fleet of 747-400's was already being gradually retired before Covid-19 struck.

Out of their original fleet of 57  747-400 aircraft, only 31 were still operational by March this year (as the pandemic hit us) ...and they were all due to be gone by 2023/24.

Almost a dozen more were due to be withdrawn from service during autumn 2020 to spring 2012 (round about now).

 

They've simply brought forward the retirement date as a result of the collapse in passenger traffic demand, as they have no use for them at the present time.

In the meantime, some of the aircraft being bought to replace them, have been delivered over the last few months, with more on the way.

 

.

[martin_wynne]

9 minutes ago, class26 said:

What needs pointing out is that old, mature  trees are not absorbing CO2, it is the young, growing trees that are doing so. HS2 is planting millions of new trees but why let facts get in the way ?

 

That's interesting, thanks for pointing out something that I didn't know about the age of trees. But why spoil it by adding the last bit (my red)? Get in the way of what?

 

Martin.

[Northmoor]

52 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Of course it does. But you don't need to put them somewhere else. Just take them off, full stop:  https://slowways.uk/

 

Martin.

Unfortunately that's a YOSHIE argument; when someone who doesn't need something says You Shan't Have It Either.

 

Yes faster trains use more energy, but if they cover the end-to-end journeys faster, you need fewer of them.  Sticking freight on canals (I'm sure you aren't seriously suggesting people should have to take several days to travel between London and Birmingham?) will hugely increase the cost of EVERYTHING.  If even our non-perishable goods spent several days instead of several hours "in transit", that's a lot of cost tied up in stuff that isn't at the manufacturer, isn't in the shop/customer's location and isn't gaining any added value.

 

One more thing - it's not a concrete railway, the cuttings and embankments are earth like railways have always been .  Don't mistake a concrete tunnel mouth for the whole railway.

 

As others have said (remember there are some VERY experienced rail professionals contributing to this thread), please take the time to read through the thread.  I've learned a great deal more about HS2 from here than I've ever learned from listening to politicians and protesters.  I started as very cynical about HS2 and am now a supporter (with the caveat that I expect the mitigations to be delivered as well).  One of the main things I've learned is that calling it High Speed 2 has probably led to more ill-informed criticism than almost any other factor.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Northmoor
typos

[melmerby]

This thread had been going along nicely when somebody has to come and derail (sic) it

[class26]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

That's interesting, thanks for pointing out something that I didn't know about the age of trees. But why spoil it by adding the last bit (my red)? Get in the way of what?

 

Martin.

Ok, I edited my post 

I also love trees and have many in my garden but those protesting need to see the bigger picture. Yes, it is sad that some ancient trees have to be felled but for the greater good of getting many people out of their cars then surely it is worth it ? And, as i said , the young trees being planted will absorb far, far more CO2 as they grow than  those "ancient" trees which everyone is trying to protect. This  ancient tree debate is emotive, designed to appeal to those who don`t want to change anything but the facts say different.   

HS2 has really not explained itself very well but i also suspect there are many who really do not want to hear. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by class26

[Bernard Lamb]

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Why are the pro-HS2 enthusiasts so stroppy about it?

 

I found a video online which made me feel sad, so I posted it.

 

 

Martin

It is not that we are stroppy about it. If you can present a good case for an alternative I am prepared to listen to it. One thread on the subject was closed due to politics taking over. So far this one has been doing rather well.

The video you posted was "fake news". There is about 100m of an earth work that is at least 7 miles long being destroyed that includes a small number of trees. The area being dug up has very little if any original features visible on the ground. Those are the facts. That is not what comes across in the video. This section where I was yesterday is far better than the one they have dug up and with luck will remain for a few hundred years into the future.

We need a new railway so why not build one to the highest standards?

Bernard

 

[melmerby]

I might need re-iterating again that an "Ancient Woodland" does not necessarily mean ancient trees, just that it has been continuously natural woodland for at least the last 100 (? not sure of the figure) years.

The trees themselves might only be 100 years old due to natural renewal, altough some woodlands will inevitably have some very old trees.

 

I believe HS2 is planting at least 2:1 on what has to be felled and are trying to be re-locate certain "special" trees if feasible.

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Martin

It is not that we are stroppy about it. If you can present a good case for an alternative I am prepared to listen to it. One thread on the subject was closed due to politics taking over. So far this one has been doing rather well.

The video you posted was "fake news".

 

Hi Bernard,

 

I don't have an alternative. I'm just wondering if it is needed at all.

 

The future as far as I can see it doesn't include large numbers of people travelling long distances daily. What will be in Birmingham or Leeds in 50 years time that can't be done in London -- or Aberystwyth? A map of the existing network surely shows enough freight rail lines to be sufficient for the size of country?

 

What is blindingly obvious is the need for improved means of local public transport. In most parts of the country the local bus services are in a dire state, and important to many more people than will ever travel on HS2. How much would it cost to cover the country in a supertram network along existing roads?

 

I have fond memories of trolleybuses -- the infrastructure needed for them is a fraction of any other -- just some white lines for a segregated lane on most roads and a few poles for the OLE:

 

© Creative Commons BusriderSF2015

 

The video can't be "fake news" if it shows before and after photographs. It may be insignificant news, but it is an actual fact that a wood has been destroyed. It had better be worth it.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

8 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I might need re-iterating again that an "Ancient Woodland" does not necessarily mean ancient trees, just that it has been continuously natural woodland for at least the last 100 (? not sure of the figure) years.

The trees themselves might only be 100 years old due to natural renewal, altough some woodlands will inevitably have some very old trees.

 

I believe HS2 is planting at least 2:1 on what has to be felled and are trying to be re-locate certain "special" trees if feasible.

 

Hi Keith,

 

That video wasn't primarily about the trees -- which can be replanted as you say.

 

It was about an historic man-made earthwork. Which can't be.

 

Martin.

[black and decker boy]

21 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Keith,

 

That video wasn't primarily about the trees -- which can be replanted as you say.

 

It was about an historic man-made earthwork. Which can't be.

 

Martin.

So one man made earthwork replacing another man made earthwork. Nothing unusual in that. It’s called progress 

 

HS2 are doing significant archaeological studies along the route. If there was anything there to study, learn & record, they will have done.
 

 

[Northmoor]

43 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

I don't have an alternative. I'm just wondering if it is needed at all.

Then you're proposing "Do Nothing" as an alternative.  It will have been considered - genuinely, every project uses this as a baseline - but was rejected as unacceptable.

 

Quote

The future as far as I can see it doesn't include large numbers of people travelling long distances daily. What will be in Birmingham or Leeds in 50 years time that can't be done in London -- or Aberystwyth? A map of the existing network surely shows enough freight rail lines to be sufficient for the size of country?

Again, you're assuming a sudden change in travel habits, much of them enforced by legislation, are the New Normal.  They won't be.

 

Quote

What is blindingly obvious is the need for improved means of local public transport. In most parts of the country the local bus services are in a dire state, and important to many more people than will ever travel on HS2. How much would it cost to cover the country in a supertram network along existing roads?

Improved local public transport, yes, absolutely.  You will then have to basically force people to use it, because as soon as a significant proportion of people transfer to the bus, the roads become clear and it is quicker to drive yourself.  As for the cost of the network you're proposing, consider this: trams are only an efficient means of transport where you are carrying a lot of people for most of the day.  To do this, look up what it cost to build the Edinburgh tram, a mileage barely in double figures, then multiply it by the number of miles you want.  I'd estimate you'd need to a number ending in Billion and multiplied by something close to another one.

 

Quote

The video can't be "fake news" if it shows before and after photographs. It may be insignificant news, but it is an actual fact that a wood has been destroyed. It had better be worth it.

 

It will be worth it, when you hear that airlines are withdrawing Heathrow - Manchester/Birmingham flights (there is a precedent, Inter-City saw off Liverpool flights in the 1980s) due to declining traffic from modal transfer; when you hear of stopping and semi-fast services between Birmingham and Euston being increased from two to three per hour; when towns along the route are growing because of the all the part-time commuters who are moving out of London as the travel (which they are only doing some days of the week) has become tolerable; when traffic on the M40 and M1 is measurably falling in holiday periods because people are getting to Heathrow by rail instead of road.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Northmoor

[Trog]

54 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Keith,

 

That video wasn't primarily about the trees -- which can be replanted as you say.

 

It was about an historic man-made earthwork. Which can't be.

 

Martin.

 

The WCML crosses another Grims Dyke about 100yards north of Hatch End station where the foot bridge is, I think the footpath may run along or close to the line of the earthwork. Those Victorians shovelling through ancient earthworks just so they can charge about the countryside at 40MPH, what is wrong with a horse and cart anyway I ask you.