HS2 under review

[GoingUnderground]

We would not object to four tracking of the Chiltern route as we can actualy use the services and maybe stringing the wires up as well will bring real benefits to the area and take a lot of cars off surrounding roads.Whats the point of a rail service that only a few well off people can use when there are perfectly good services at reasonable prices available now that are crying out for more trains and upgraded stations .I suggest that some of the pro people on this site come and have a look at what this line will destroy with no benefit to the communities it will pass through.

 

Ah, now we have the nub of the objections, there's nothing in it for me, especially if the only benefit is to a few well off people. May we take it that you'd be perfectly happy if there was a benefit for the communities through which the line will pass? What benefit or change in HS2 projected ridership would you need to persuade you that it was worth building HS2?

 

Do you use the A41, the M1, the A5, The M40, the WCML into Euston, the Metropolitan or Chiltern Lines services into London, or any of the roads in the area? If you do, don't you think you're being just a little hypocritical in using forms of transport which if they were built today would invoke exactly the same response in the communities through which they pass as HS2 produces? Every generation has to make sacrifices for the benefit of future generations, a point that seems to be lost on the HS2 objectors. I love the Chilterns, I used to be taken there for pic-nics when I was a child, and take my girlfriends out for drinks in the pubs when I was able to drive. So I have very fond memories of the area, but I utterly refuse to believe that building HS2 will "destroy" it. Change some areas yes, but destroy, never.

 

I had lunch in a pub in the Chilterns a few weeks ago and asked the barman what he thought of HS2. He said that he couldn't understand the fuss, as the line was nardly near to the village.

 

Likewise the route through West Ruislip. When I was young it was used by Paddington trains as well as the GC route trains from the East Midlands. Putting HS2 through there will make it no worse than if those routes had remained in operation.

 

I don't want to live in a country that's preserved in aspic, unable to grow and evolve and take advantage of modern technology which is what the HS2 objectors seem to want. Equally I don't want progress to destroy the planet. I can't see HS2 destroying the planet, and it might just make a very small contribution to saving it if it helps get some cars off the road.

[phil-b259]

Ah, now we have the nub of the objections, there's nothing in it for me, especially if the only benefit is to a few well off people.

 

Precisely

 

In fact, as a generalisation I have far more respect for an anti HS2 person who is honest and says "I don't want it because it will spoil the view from my house" or "my house price / land value will go down" or even somebody who says "It won't benefit me so why should my taxes be spent on it" than someone who tries to hide behind half truths, myths and uses emotional language. At the end of the day all humans are pretty selfish really (me included) - just in different ways and there is no shame in admitting it.

[lmsforever]

Yes I do use the local transport infrastructure ,my point is why if we are going to sacrifice so much for this line cant we have a parkway station somewhere in Bucks?They put them on the TGV lines out of Paris but we don't put up barricades and burn lorries etc ,instead we go through the rule of law which is our right.I still have to be convinced as to the actual viability of the project ,I went to the local roadshow and collected the excellent booklets etc so have a full appreciation of what,s being proposed . In the August Modern Railways there is an article stating a Pendolino is faster than HS2 to Edinborough so why build a new line.Virgin are working towards 135mph on parts of the WCML so this will provide services that actualy call at existing stations and provide connections.Chris Gibb of Virgin has already stated that there is capacity on the WCML (check MR)so why waste our precious money on HS2 .

[phil-b259]

Yes I do use the local transport infrastructure ,my point is why if we are going to sacrifice so much for this line cant we have a parkway station somewhere in Bucks?They put them on the TGV lines out of Paris but we don't put up barricades and burn lorries etc ,instead we go through the rule of law which is our right.I still have to be convinced as to the actual viability of the project ,I went to the local roadshow and collected the excellent booklets etc so have a full appreciation of what,s being proposed . In the August Modern Railways there is an article stating a Pendolino is faster than HS2 to Edinborough so why build a new line.Virgin are working towards 135mph on parts of the WCML so this will provide services that actualy call at existing stations and provide connections.Chris Gibb of Virgin has already stated that there is capacity on the WCML (check MR)so why waste our precious money on HS2 .

 

You are sounding like a broken record

 

(1) Parkway stations : - We have been through this before, they reduce capacity unless everything stops and consume far more land than a plain bit of railway will. Aditionally the Chilterns are far to close to London, In France the 1st parkeway station on the TGV Sud-est line (160mph max) is Gare du Creusot TGV 370Km (270miles) from Paris while the 1st parkway station on the TGV Nord (186mph max) is Gare TGV Haute-Picardie at 126Km (78 miles). In the UK you have already got to Birmingham by that stage where a parkway station is indeed being provided.

 

(2) Incremental upgrades to the WCML :- Again we have been through this before and there are many reports out there which show that whatever tinkering you do to the existing infrastructure it will not be enough in 20 years or so. Yes it will buy you a few more years and I don't think anybody has said that it won't, but such an approach is not sustainable in the long term where the costs of upgrading the WCML to cope are not that much different to the cost of HS2 (once you factor in the disruption, compensation and additional engineering costs that come from rebuilding a live railway).

 

As for the MR article, I will check it out.

Edited July 25, 2013 by phil-b259

[jjb1970]

I can actually understand the argument "there is nothing in it for us so why should I support it", we may not like it but it is a normal human reaction. I also think it is all too easy to dismiss NIMBYism out of hand without stopping to think what our own reaction would be if somebody plonked something we didn't want or like next to our home (just for example, one day the other side of your fence is a waste incineration plant full of garbage). This is not to agree or support those objecting to HS2 and I certainly don't think we should abandon the project on such reasons but I do have some sympathy for those protesting on the grounds that I can quite easily imagine various scenarios where I'd be objecting to new developments. My feeling is that HS2 has tried to engage with local communities and one of the reasons for cost escalation is increasing tunneling etc to reduce local impact. A lot of the cost escalation due to pandering to local communities in some ways is a political cost for buying agreement in what is supposed to be a country with representative government. However, personally I do think there is a good argument for a Bucks Parkway.

My worry is not NIMBYism but rather that the wider political and financial argument is losing momentum, the political consensus is cracking and that there is a danger the political will to push it through to completion may be lost.

[The Stationmaster]

I can actually understand the argument "there is nothing in it for us so why should I support it", we may not like it but it is a normal human reaction. I also think it is all too easy to dismiss NIMBYism out of hand without stopping to think what our own reaction would be if somebody plonked something we didn't want or like next to our home (just for example, one day the other side of your fence is a waste incineration plant full of garbage). This is not to agree or support those objecting to HS2 and I certainly don't think we should abandon the project on such reasons but I do have some sympathy for those protesting on the grounds that I can quite easily imagine various scenarios where I'd be objecting to new developments. My feeling is that HS2 has tried to engage with local communities and one of the reasons for cost escalation is increasing tunneling etc to reduce local impact. A lot of the cost escalation due to pandering to local communities in some ways is a political cost for buying agreement in what is supposed to be a country with representative government. However, personally I do think there is a good argument for a Bucks Parkway.

My worry is not NIMBYism but rather that the wider political and financial argument is losing momentum, the political consensus is cracking and that there is a danger the political will to push it through to completion may be lost.

I think you're right and I think the 'pandering' is a very big part of the problem - for example the pandering to Northolt to put a line that would have been on existing formation into tunnel 'because that's what the posh folk in the Chilterns are getting' shows just how stupid things have got with this project.  It needs some really firm steady hands on the tiller and not a bunch of ducking and weaving amateur politicians trying to be all things to all men.

[frobisher]

In the August Modern Railways there is an article stating a Pendolino is faster than HS2 to Edinborough so why build a new line.

Well given a Pendolino service runs on a daily basis and it isn't currently planned to extend HS2 to Edinburgh, of course the Pendolino will get there before HS2 does.

[The Stationmaster]

Well given a Pendolino service runs on a daily basis and it isn't currently planned to extend HS2 to Edinburgh, of course the Pendolino will get there before HS2 does.

And so would an A4 - it's bit of daft comparison and I'm not sure what Chris Gibb has in mind unless he's 'under instruction'.

[jamie92208]

Having read the article in question there are a lot of 'ifs' in the detail.  The journey time quoted is 3 hrs 37 minutes for Pendolino enabled for 140mph on the ECML with tilt enabled where possible and ETCS signalling.   The HS2 time of 3hrs 38 minutes is for a non tilting HS train coming off HS2 and being restricted to 110-125mph on the WCML.  What isn't stated is where it joins the WCML eg HS2 phase 1 near Lichfield or phase 2 near Wigan.  

 

Jamie

Edited July 27, 2013 by jamie92208

[frobisher]

jamie92208, on 27 Jul 2013 - 20:34, said:

Having read the article in question there are a lot of 'ifs' in the detail. The journey time quoted is 3 hrs 37 minutes for Pendolino enabled for 140mph on the ECML with tilt enabled where possible and ETCS signalling. The HS2 time of 3hrs 38 minutes is for a non tilting HS train coming off HS2 and being restricted to 110-125mph on the WCML. What isn't stated is where it joins the WCML eg HS2 phase 1 near Lichfield or phase 2 near Wigan.

So quite a few "ifs" indeed. And of course it doesn't answer the capacity problem or the fact that Pendalinos aren't actually going to be the applied solution for the ECML in any case...

[lmsforever]

I will keep on with my point of view on this project(we still live in a democracy) and yes like a broken record hard luck if you don't like my point of view .If the Chiltern was quadrupled we would still have our current station stops and a decent service also have a good look at the booklets etc produced by HS2 the footprint is wide and the noise levels high close to with levels of noise very high a good distance from the line.I wonder how many of you have been to a roadshow?

[phil-b259]

I will keep on with my point of view on this project(we still live in a democracy) and yes like a broken record hard luck if you don't like my point of view .If the Chiltern was quadrupled we would still have our current station stops and a decent service also have a good look at the booklets etc produced by HS2 the footprint is wide and the noise levels high close to with levels of noise very high a good distance from the line.I wonder how many of you have been to a roadshow?

 

I don't mind that, as you say its a fundamental part of living in a democracy for you to give your opinion and to draw your own conclusions about the project.

 

As regards noise levels, I accept that the noise will travel some distance in certain locations, thats unavoidable. However there have been quite a few studies into noise over the years (be it from motorways, railways or airports) and what they have found is actually out of all of them, train noise is the least disruptive - something to do with it not being a constant din (like the M40 is through the Chilterns), or excessively loud like an aircraft, but rising and falling in a gentle arc which is a lot easier on the ear.

 

As for the roadshow, no I haven't been and given my location I don't expect to be able to. What I have done is read all the published reports which give all the same information (although not in such a 'packaged' way I admit)

[Joseph_Pestell]

I will keep on with my point of view on this project(we still live in a democracy) and yes like a broken record hard luck if you don't like my point of view .If the Chiltern was quadrupled we would still have our current station stops and a decent service also have a good look at the booklets etc produced by HS2 the footprint is wide and the noise levels high close to with levels of noise very high a good distance from the line.I wonder how many of you have been to a roadshow?

 

I have not been to an HS2 "roadshow". But I remember a similar event for HS1 where someone forgot to turn off the tape-recording and listeners were treated to a 120 decibel cuckoo.

 

That said, I don't doubt that a 400kph railway will generate a lot of noise - far less if operated at 330kph. Much better on cost and environmental grounds to go for lower speeds but the need for HS2 is clear.

 

Arguments about times to Glasgow/Edinburgh are peripheral. The bulk of the traffic (as now on WCML) will be generated at distances less than 250 miles from London.

[Re6/6]

An interesting concept of a Low Speed 2! : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23657010

[Joseph_Pestell]

An interesting concept of a Low Speed 2! : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23657010

 

And no doubt the additional cost will be added to  the HS2 bill.

 

What a daft idea! Other than train spotters, who will want to cycle the length of HS2?

 

Much better, for instance, to improve canal towpaths for cyclists to use as they pass through city centres (like the scheme which links Lancaster Uni to the city centre).

[Ramblin Rich]

Also from the BBC - five alternative infrastructure projects, including trams for Leeds & Liverpool said to give a better return on investment than HS2.

I'm not really in a position to argue the case here as HS2 is nowhere near where we live, but seeing the expansion of the LGV network in France recently (Brittany & Pays-de-Loire) makes me long for a proper network - and the space to provide it....

[frobisher]

Joseph_Pestell, on 13 Aug 2013 - 14:16, said:

And no doubt the additional cost will be added to the HS2 bill.

 

What a daft idea! Other than train spotters, who will want to cycle the length of HS2?

For the lovely countryside (that's what the anti HS2 biddies keep banging on about...)? A cycle route between London and Birmingham that keeps you away from road traffic sounds like a fantastic idea to me. The cost should be next to zero as well if it's right alongside as you could do it as part of the landscaping that they're having to do anyway.

 

Joseph_Pestell, on 13 Aug 2013 - 14:16, said:

Much better, for instance, to improve canal towpaths for cyclists to use as they pass through city centres (like the scheme which links Lancaster Uni to the city centre).

I suspect that will be necessary in any case so it won't be an either/or state of affairs.

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

An interesting concept of a Low Speed 2! : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23657010

 

"......The government has also announced a feasibility study to look at creating a new national cycleway broadly following the route of the HS2 rail line from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester......"

 

 

Presumably for those who can't afford the astronomical fares charged on HS2 ?

 

 

......Arguments about times to Glasgow/Edinburgh are peripheral. The bulk of the traffic (as now on WCML) will be generated at distances less than 250 miles from London.

 

Indeed.

Any business case (...or what little that can be salvaged from the rather tenuous current HS2 business case) will be completely used up before any extension to Scotland is considered.

There is absolutely no business case left for pushing on to Scotland; just very expensive negatives.

 

......but seeing the expansion of the LGV network in France recently (Brittany & Pays-de-Loire) makes me long for a proper network - and the space to provide it....

 

Well there is no proposal for a "network" here.

HS2 is primarily WCML capacity enhancement, that is being made to HS standards (a sensible course of action if you are building a new line IMHO).

 

There's no guarantee that HS will be part of the national network either; apart from it naturally being segregated infrastructure.

There is every possibility that it will be franchised off to a standalone infrastructure operator, just like HS1.

 

 

 

.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Ron Ron Ron

[lmsforever]

The cycle schemes are to provide safe cycling in cities and towns as so many motorists are idiots behind the wheel,in the Netherlands cycle routes to stations with safe cycle parking is always included in any project.Also all main roads have separated cycle paths that are maintained properly and are not used for dog walking,parking as happens in the UK.A route to Birmingham would probably bring a good income to b&b,s and hotels along the route as more people explored our lovely country by cycle.At least this would add to HS2 as all over transport scheme ,I have come to terms with it as it will be operating long after I have departed this world!

[Re6/6]

What a daft idea! Other than train spotters, who will want to cycle the length of HS2?

But it could make for easier cycling if one was to catch the back draft of a passing train...!" 

[Edwin_m]

Maybe they should put a convenient grab handle on the back corners of the HS2 trains? 

[Re6/6]

Here we go again: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23744619   As usual a BBC headline piece on the radio news first thing this morning with very little reporting from the other standpoint. A bit like the recent fracking reports from Balcombe.

 

Just why we should believe a 'free market think tank' that gets a lot of its funding from worldwide tobacco companies is beyond me.

 

I wonder if they have any 'thinkers' from the railway industry associated with the compilers of this report.

[chrisf]

Taken with the alarmist article that I gather leads today's Mail on Sunday, the next thing to appear should be a robust rebuttal from HS2 Ltd and DfT.  Hmmm.  Quiet, isn't it?

 

Chris

[GoingUnderground]

 

Here we go again: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23744619   As usual a BBC headline piece on the radio news first thing this morning with very little reporting from the other standpoint. A bit like the recent fracking reports from Balcombe.

 

Just why we should believe a 'free market think tank' that gets a lot of its funding from worldwide tobacco companies is beyond me.

 

I wonder if they have any 'thinkers' from the railway industry associated with the compilers of this report.

 

I hate to say that I told you so, but this cost escalation to buy off opponents is exactly what I expected and predicted would happen. The only part missing from my prediction is the politicos now saying that the costs have made it uneconomic to proceed and cancelling it.

[Butler Henderson]

Amusing comments from a spokesman from Stop HS2 on FiveLIve this morning compaining about people wanting to get to Derby would have to take a bike with them to use from Toton, which typically was pronounced wrong (should be Toe-ton). Shows how well he had read the whole scheme. Suppose it would be right to include the cost of extending Nottinghams tram system and the provision of shuttle trains from Toton to Derby/ Nottingham / Leicester in the overall cost, and still think in order of travel time saved they really ought to start building south from Leeds.