HS2 under review

[GoingUnderground]

I have three vested interests in HS2. First I grew up in NW London in the Ruislip area. Second I lived next to the WCML in Harrow for 10 years. Thirdly, I have use the SNCF TGV services at least 4 times a year over the past 5 years or so.

 

I am all in favour of HS2. The WCML with its 6 tracks generates much more traffic than the 2 tracks of HS2 will. The ruining of the countryside is not and is never a valid reason for not doing these projects. If that was true, we wouldn't have a single road, canal, railway line or airport anywhere in the UK. I do feel sympathy for people who already live on the proposed route because the value of their properties will go down. So there does need to be an adequte compensation scheme. But I cannot help thinking that the objections would be much less if there were stations in the areas of greatest objections as history shows that improved communications always increases property values. No I am not advocating additional stations.

 

The objectors are forgetting that the noise is not continuous, unlike motorways.

 

I did laugh when I saw on Channel 4 News on Tuesday a whole load of protesters standing outside Ruislip Metropolitan Line Station. The route will pass throught the Ruislip area, but it goes through West Ruislip Central Line station. Wrong station, guys! Many of them have probably forgotten, or more likely never knew that the route through West Ruislip was the GWR main line route to Birmingham Snow Hill as sweel as heign the GC fast route. Putting HS2 through that alignment is simply a restoration of main line services not a new line.

 

I don't expect the level of traffic on the WCML, or the noise it generates to reduce much.

 

I am extremely pleased that the Government didn't "bottle out! in the face of objection s from the "Tory Shires", and look forward to travelling on the line from the Midlands direct to the Continent.

Edited January 12, 2012 by GoingUnderground

[Kris]

The ruining of the countryside is not and is never a valid reason for not doing these projects.

 

I don't quite agree with that. There are some parts of the countryside that are far more important than a project like this one. The land that this line will pass through doesn't come into this category however.

[RedgateModels]

am I the only one not able to see the route maps?

[Glorious NSE]

_{http://assets.dft.gov.uk/hs2-maps-20120110.htm}

_{For some reason they would not open when clicked for me, but saving them then opening them outside of Internet Explorer worked?}

[GoingUnderground]

I don't quite agree with that. There are some parts of the countryside that are far more important than a project like this one. The land that this line will pass through doesn't come into this category however.

The same argument could be advanced for not building the Settle to Carlisle line on the grounds that the Ribblehead Viaduct ruined the view of the Ribble Valley. Provided appropriate landscaping and tunelling is carried out on the most environmentally sensitive parts there is no reason for not pressing ahead. The Chilterns already has the WCML, the former GCR route, (HS0 as Watkin wanted a Manchester to Paris high speed route), and the remains of the GWR Birmingham route, not to mention the M40. Beautiful the Chilterns definitely are, we used to go on picnics near Great Missenden in the 1950s and '60s when I was a Kid and the GCR was open the whole way, but the proportion that will be affected by HS2 is minuscule.

[Kris]

The countryside is far more than the view, it's a patchwork of different habitats. There are cases when disturbing these would be so harmful to the wildlife (or particular species) that building the line could not be justified. There are times when tunnelling / landscaping will cause just as much harm. In these cases these sections of the countryside need avoiding. As I said in my previous post however the current proposal doesn't reach these levels so there is no case for not building it.

[D605Eagle]

A very intersting article in the Telegraph the other day. A similar high speed route to HS2 built in Holland has seen hardly any passengers, and in an attempt to force passengers to use it the existing intercity trains have been slowed down. However their (decent) passenger users comittee has taken the state railways to court and won and forced the old timetable to be reintroduced. Now so few people use the high speed route its not even paying the interest on the loans to build it. Why do I feel the same will happen to our 100+billion HS2, but because we are spineless the change to reduce and slow the trains on the WCML will be allowed to go ahead unchallenged?

Heres some more info about the Dutch line

http://www.reuters.c...E71025P20110201

Edited January 12, 2012 by D605Eagle

[S.A.C Martin]

A very intersting article in the Telegraph the other day. A similar high speed route to HS2 built in Holland has seen hardly any passengers, and in an attempt to force passengers to use it the existing intercity trains have been slowed down. However their (decent) passenger users comittee has taken the state railways to court and won and forced the old timetable to be reintroduced. Now so few people use the high speed route its not even paying the interest on the loans to build it. Why do I feel the same will happen to our 100+billion HS2, but because we are spineless the change to reduce and slow the trains on the WCML will be allowed to go ahead unchallenged?

Heres some more info about the Dutch line

http://www.reuters.c...E71025P20110201

 

But again, we have a totally different scenario here - a HUGE amount of commuters every day journeying up to and including 100 miles + to go to work! The railway network is saturated and still the commuters come to use the trains.

[Kris]

A very intersting article in the Telegraph the other day. A similar high speed route to HS2 built in Holland has seen hardly any passengers, and in an attempt to force passengers to use it the existing intercity trains have been slowed down. However their (decent) passenger users comittee has taken the state railways to court and won and forced the old timetable to be reintroduced. Now so few people use the high speed route its not even paying the interest on the loans to build it. Why do I feel the same will happen to our 100+billion HS2, but because we are spineless the change to reduce and slow the trains on the WCML will be allowed to go ahead unchallenged?

Heres some more info about the Dutch line

http://www.reuters.c...E71025P20110201

 

Chris Higgs in post 264 gave a personal observation on this.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Any newspaper report will be selective in its application of the fact, especially as in this case, it will be many of the Telegraph's own readership who inhabit the region through which HS2 will pass.

This is a time to be extremely wary of what you read in the papers.

 

Dave.

[phil-b259]

A very intersting article in the Telegraph the other day. A similar high speed route to HS2 built in Holland has seen hardly any passengers, and in an attempt to force passengers to use it the existing intercity trains have been slowed down. However their (decent) passenger users comittee has taken the state railways to court and won and forced the old timetable to be reintroduced. Now so few people use the high speed route its not even paying the interest on the loans to build it. Why do I feel the same will happen to our 100+billion HS2, but because we are spineless the change to reduce and slow the trains on the WCML will be allowed to go ahead unchallenged?

Heres some more info about the Dutch line

http://www.reuters.c...E71025P20110201

 

How long is the dutch line and how much of a time saving are we talking about? If the line is short and the time savings are small then naturally the ammount of passengers attracted to the new line will be less. At first sight this statement may well seem to count against HS2 but that is only the case if you look at it in isolation. Yes the London - Birmingham time savings might be relativley small, however when complete (the y shaped network) London - Manchester / Liverpool, London - Leeds, London - Newcastle & London - Scotland will all get signifficant time savings compared to current journey times.

 

In any case the whole point of HS2 is not outright speed (though naturally it makes sense to build new infrastruicture to take into account the latest developments) it is about providing more capacity on the WCML for freight and commuter trains - the equlavalent of an additional pair of tracks along the entire route from central London to central Birmingham. Adding passing loops here and there will not be enough - in fact the bits most in need of relief are actually those urban in charichter i.e. frequent stations (e.g. Coventry - Birmingham and Wembley - Milton Keynes). I'm afraid that this is something most of those against HS2 do not seem to apreciate - the alternatives to a new line have been well investigated and rejected for sound reasons. Unless we in the UK suddenly decide to stop traveling and importing ever increasing ammount of stuff via containers (unlikley given the way employment has evolved) we will need more capacity, full stop

 

As many detailed reports have demonstrated widening the exsisting WCML or Chiltern lines would cause signifficant ammounts of property demolition in all the towns along the route as well as signifficant disruption while being built. Additionally in the privitised railway TOCs have to be paid compensation for such disruption and the recent reports show that because of the increase in trains over the past 10 years Virgin would be entitled to DOUBLE the compensation (which was a signifficant element of the overall project costs) for having to put up with the last upgrade. Similarly Chiltern have experenced a large increase in ridership so they won't be cheep to compensate either.

 

What really ###### things up though is the need to have a spur to Heathrow in the later stages of the project. If it wasn't for that the natural route for HS2 would be to head directly north from Euston (tunnel from Camden northwards), running roughly alongside the M1 (although Luton might be a problem) and avoiding the most senic bit of the Chilterns

[Guest dilbert]

But again, we have a totally different scenario here - a HUGE amount of commuters every day journeying up to and including 100 miles + to go to work! The railway network is saturated and still the commuters come to use the trains.

 

And that is the issue - there is no real strategy for creating jobs at a local level and building an infrastructure to support this. This project will only over time exacerbate the problem. UK PLC needs to take a closer look at how other EEC countries balance out their industries and markets. The idea is great, the focus is wrong... dilbert

Edited January 12, 2012 by dilbert

[edcayton]

But again, we have a totally different scenario here - a HUGE amount of commuters every day journeying up to and including 100 miles + to go to work! The railway network is saturated and still the commuters come to use the trains.

 

Simon, I tried to answer your earlier post last night, but it was too late and I c***ed it up cos' it was too late.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that it's a gpod thing to spend all this money etc to allow long distance commuting. Your own journey sounds like sheer hell to me and I cannot believe you enjoy it.

Yes, I do accept that some people need to travel long distances, but that is not a justification to encourage the practice. We already have millions of pounds worth of trains doing nothing for eighteen hours a day, and from my observations of the ECML outside the peak it doesn't appear anywhere near capacity.

 

I do accept the need for long-term planning, but surely the need to reduce energy usage must be paramount, and that is my main reason for querying the need for HS2 (and other projects to do with airports and roads).

 

Ed

[D605Eagle]

Any newspaper report will be selective in its application of the fact, especially as in this case, it will be many of the Telegraph's own readership who inhabit the region through which HS2 will pass.

This is a time to be extremely wary of what you read in the papers.

 

Dave.

emmmmmm the info comes from Reuters.............

[phil-b259]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that it's a gpod thing to spend all this money etc to allow long distance commuting. Your own journey sounds like sheer hell to me and I cannot believe you enjoy it.

 

The thing is these days most people don't have much choice about comuting. Over the past 30 years or so traditional UK employment which tended to be localised has been decimated as globalisation has led to the closure of lots of the UKs manufacturing capability. Consiquently people are having to travel further and further afield for jobs. Also the rise in house prices has resulted in people being pushed further and further out from our majour cities, helped of course by the growth of the motorway network and fast trains. In some ways its a vicious circle of course as once comuting becomes feasable - house prices rise, jobs can become more centralised thus promiting yet more long distance comuting.

 

Thus while saying we should not be comuting / traveling so far and so fast while is a very laudable concept, both from a enviromental and human wellbeing perspective, it does ignore the current economic model used by the Western world, where, if we are brutally honest with ourselves, usastaniable growth (be it the encouragement to spend yet more on consumer goods or a presumption in favour of development) is seen as all important for generating jobs, profits and life as we know it. Again reducing energy use and caring for the enviroment are very laudable goals but they simply at odds with the goals of capitalism and globalisation which govern how we live our lives today

Edited January 12, 2012 by phil-b259

[D605Eagle]

Simon, I tried to answer your earlier post last night, but it was too late and I c***ed it up cos' it was too late.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that it's a gpod thing to spend all this money etc to allow long distance commuting. Your own journey sounds like sheer hell to me and I cannot believe you enjoy it.

Yes, I do accept that some people need to travel long distances, but that is not a justification to encourage the practice. We already have millions of pounds worth of trains doing nothing for eighteen hours a day, and from my observations of the ECML outside the peak it doesn't appear anywhere near capacity.

 

I do accept the need for long-term planning, but surely the need to reduce energy usage must be paramount, and that is my main reason for querying the need for HS2 (and other projects to do with airports and roads).

 

Ed

Lets face it, if the sums of money that will eventually be spent building this monstrous white elephant were spent on local trasportation it would benefit millions instead of a few hundred. I've said before and I'll say it again. If your going to try and waste such a vast amount of public money on something so pointless, especially when the country's power supply and distribution is in such a desperate neglected state and needs billions spending on it, the public should get the chance to vote on it.

[Glorious NSE]

I do accept the need for long-term planning, but surely the need to reduce energy usage must be paramount, and that is my main reason for querying the need for HS2 (and other projects to do with airports and roads).

 

I know there is a certain amount of illogic to my answer here, as FWIW I agree with you. But if you *didn't* build this then what is the likely outcome?:

( A ) You remove long distance commuting and redress the balance?

( B ) There is no difference to the UK's economic model, but area's where commuting is now not feasible by rail stagnate?

( C ) The commuting still goes on, but instead of going to their local station they now have to drive 30 miles to find one where you can get on a train...?

Edited January 12, 2012 by Glorious NSE

[Glorious NSE]

Lets face it, if the sums of money that will eventually be spent building this monstrous white elephant were spent on local trasportation it would benefit millions instead of a few hundred.

 

Surely a typo....a few hundred people benefit?

[Guest Natalie Graham]

 

( B ) There is no difference to the UK's economic model, but area's where commuting is now not feasible by rail stagnate

 

 

Do they? Or do employers in areas where there is a shortage of locally available labour move to areas where there is an available workforce? I can see this line actually being harmful to the local economies of the provincial areas it purports to serve as they increasingly become dormitory towns for London workers What are required are initiatives to remove the requirement for long distance commuting not to facilitate it.

[Glorious NSE]

Apologies Natalie, i'd intended those to be posed as questions not statements, i've modded my post.

[bike2steam]

Just turned off 'Question Time' about 'HS2' in annoyance, do hate it when people pontificate, in the media, about what's wrong with the railways when they don't have the first idea about how they are run.

Edited January 12, 2012 by bike2steam

[GoingUnderground]

Lets face it, if the sums of money that will eventually be spent building this monstrous white elephant were spent on local trasportation it would benefit millions instead of a few hundred. I've said before and I'll say it again. If your going to try and waste such a vast amount of public money on something so pointless, especially when the country's power supply and distribution is in such a desperate neglected state and needs billions spending on it, the public should get the chance to vote on it.

What makes you say that the power supply and distribution network is in such a poor state? In case you hadn't noticed that is all privately owned now. I really can't see the relevance of your point here.

[Guest Max Stafford]

emmmmmm the info comes from Reuters.............

 

Doesn't mean it won't be selectively sampled by the editorial staff at the 'graph!

 

Dave.

[D605Eagle]

What makes you say that the power supply and distribution network is in such a poor state? In case you hadn't noticed that is all privately owned now. I really can't see the relevance of your point here.

We need new powerstations, especially fast breeding nukes and the distribution from them. We can either pay through inflated energy bills, or the government could build new ones, or at least provide the money to build them with the view of palming them off at a later date. Either way its going to cost us big time.

 

Doesn't mean it won't be selectively sampled by the editorial staff at the 'graph!

 

Dave.

Whatever.... but that page I listed was Rueters, not the Telegraph.

[S.A.C Martin]

 

 

Simon, I tried to answer your earlier post last night, but it was too late and I c***ed it up cos' it was too late.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that it's a gpod thing to spend all this money etc to allow long distance commuting. Your own journey sounds like sheer hell to me and I cannot believe you enjoy it.

Yes, I do accept that some people need to travel long distances, but that is not a justification to encourage the practice. We already have millions of pounds worth of trains doing nothing for eighteen hours a day, and from my observations of the ECML outside the peak it doesn't appear anywhere near capacity.

 

I do accept the need for long-term planning, but surely the need to reduce energy usage must be paramount, and that is my main reason for querying the need for HS2 (and other projects to do with airports and roads).

 

Ed

 

Trust me Ed - I hate the commute. Love the job though, I get a lot of satisfaction out of it though it wasn't what I had expected to do ten years ago!

 

Fact of the matter is that commuting is simply not a choice for millions of Britons. Either you remove the system for them to travel, or fail to keep up with demand, thus rendering their employment from afar untenable, or you plan ahead for the future as the reality is clear.

 

I travel 75 miles there and back to my place of work every day - a friend is a male nurse and travels to work via East Coast - why? Because he can't afford the rent in London to move down here. He literally works to keep himself afloat, and that's true of so many commuters it is unreal.

 

I don't like the situation anymore than anyone else, and IF I had the choice, I'd be working from home! But I don't and neither does anyone else.

 

Huge unemployment combined with a huge amount of job seekers and far fewer jobs - people will get a job in whatever and wherever, and hold onto it.

 

Far from being ideal, but that's the reality.

Edited January 13, 2012 by S.A.C Martin