HS2

[Si]

So, what are the forum's thoughts on HS2 - the proposed high speed rail link, initially between London and Birmingham, and then to be expanded northwards?

Round here the cyclists seem fairly anti due to the problems of road closures while it's being built (we had enough of that with the new A5 and the M6Toll), and because it will spoil the nice tranquil country side that we ride through, although, since the change of route it comes towards Birmingham down a pretty busy corridor anyway - however, in other parts of the country it will certainly carve up some scenic areas.

Also there is the cost - our local public transport is already creaking and not overly bike friendly - just think how it could be improved if the money that might be spent on HS2 was spent more locally. And what good could be done if it was spent on promoting sustainable travel like cycling and walking.

Will it benefit the cyclist? Well, getting to London (and major northern stations) is already very expensive by train (sometimes more expensive than flying), so I can't see HS2 making things any cheaper - probably more expensive than the existing fairs if anything. I think that most cyclists wanting to move their bikes between Birmingham and London would probably favour a slightly slower, cheaper train.

On the other hand it will bring money/jobs to Birmingham (and other northern cities that it has stops at) - not actually a cycling issue, but part of its justification. But will it have that big a positive effect? Might we just find that the average person in the street won't be able to afford to use HS2 for commuting, thus it gets used by affluent Londoners/London businesses to allow them to have cheap(er than London) homes and offices out of the capital. Causing property prices near the HS2 stations to rise out of the reach of the average native of that area.

Watching the report on the One Show last night there is definitely someone who was all for it, albeit in a covert way. If you want to put across the argument against it I don't think that you do the antis any favours by getting some land owning gentry NIMBYs to complain about it crossing the edge of their 100 acre estate and being visible from their mansion, or some posh woman from Quainton saying that it is a bad thing because it will benefit northerners, like northerners were second class citizens to be kept in their places. Funny how people from Quainton don't worry about the impact that they railway that they use to get into London every day has had on the intermediate country side!

[Richard Mann]

We already have mostly 4-track 125mph railways, and improvements can simply be infill 4-tracking. The Germans, for instance, only build High Speed Lines if all the traffic is using a slow 2-track railway.

There might eventually be a capacity problem on the West Coast Main Line, but it'll never be enough to fill a whole new line.

Building a new approach into Birmingham probably makes sense, but the rest of it is a waste of money.

Richard

[iviehoff]

In 2007, I assisted a little with this report my colleagues wrote on the green (carbon emissions) case for a generic high speed line from London to Glasgow, not completely unfindable via the DfT website, but certainly they don't care to draw attention to it. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... impact.pdf

In summary, there isn't a plausible green case for it, unless you make implausible assumptions. Very roughly summarised, high speed rail puts out a lot more carbon than conventional rail. In the UK situation, what high speed rail does is not take enough people out of aeroplanes, and attracts too many people off conventional rail, to have a plausible green case. A high proportion of the people flying from Manchester to London are doing so to take a connecting flight. People don't fly from Leeds to London. The London-Scotland market is really all that can put out a green case for high speed rail in the UK, but that isn't the focus of the proposal, and the London-Scotland market is barely big enough anyway. The London-Scotland high speed rail journey times at 3h30 are too long to take a huge market share in the way that has happened on London-Paris, Paris-Marseile, etc.

What did make me rather sad was to travel up Hyde Lane near Great Missenden. They have put up signs showing the edges of the HS2 cutting that will go through there. If you streetview it, then about a third of the way along the road from the Chesham Road end is a rather lovely manor house. HS2 goes straight through the middle of it. It is one of the more idyllic spots in the area.

I live about 600 yds from the Chiltern/Met line with 12 trains per hour passing at the 55mph maximum line speed that applies on the Amersham-Harrow section. We are practically unaware of it. You hear a faint rattle on a still evening. In fact I was so unconcerned by it I looked at several houses whose garden backs onto the track when looking for houses. I know a friend who used to live next to the West Coast Main Line in Leighton Buzzard, and her house shook and windows rattled every time a train went past. It's a big difference. That's why the Ladies of Quainton don't worry too much about the impact of the line from Aylesbury to London, which near Aylesbury mostly runs straight along the A413 anyway. At Wendover, it is the road not the railway line that has impact.

[Si]

That's why the Ladies of Quainton don't worry too much about the impact of the line from Aylesbury to London

I doubt it - I would suggest that they don't worry about it because (a) it is now part of the landscape rather than a suggested change, and (b) its existence is to their advantage. I know people from Quainton who chose to live there because it had the rail links with London.

That's not to say that I support HS2, and likewise, I find your arguments about the projected impacts of HS2 very compelling.

[Big T]

I'd rather see the moey spent on the electrification of the Midland Mainline as far as Sheffield/Leeds and improvements to the existing West Coast line. HS2 will cost billions and whilst it will benefit Birmingham, it still won't benefit the major Midlands and Northern cities such as Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, unless the further extension is bulit at vastly greater cost.

[fatboy]

I think that it is a waste of money and will lead to a running down of the rest of the railway. Also what is the point of having the Chilterns designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty which has planning restrictions applied to it if the government can literally buldoze through this at will? It is easy to see the people who live in the Chilterns complaining about it as NIMBYs but imagine the outcry if this was the Lake or Peak district that they were talking about.

[Flinders]

I'm hoping it will displace air travel. I'm also hoping (and I'm on the WCML near the possible junction) that though we won't have a 'stop' here it will make some of the trains from here less crowded- and if the lines actually compete properly, maybe keep the prices here from spiraling up even further (forlorn hope, I suppose).

As for disruption during construction, that isn't forever. In fact, when they were working on a bridge round here they closed the minor road but kept it open for walkers and cyclists most of the time- you dismounted and crossed the bridgework on a footway. It was brilliant for cycling, the road either side was really quiet for about two months. It isn't all bad..........

It is crazy that we don't have high speed intercity trains like the rest of Europe but rely on internal flights in a country as small as this. Even this 'high speed' link will be a snail compared to the best of European high speed rail (which is also cheaper than our slow services).

As for damage to the countryside, rail does very, very, little. It's far narrower than a road. The objectors to this route round here don't care that the roads they overload when driving were built right through the centre of large existing communities, (hey, but they are urban communities, so who cares about the split and the ongoing pollution?) and these roads are far more visually and aurally intrusive. The same people turn country lanes into rat runs when it suits them as well.

[fatboy]

My biggest objection is the cost; they are planning to spend £740,000,000 before the end of the current parliament just to formulate a plan while they are slashing budgets left right and centre! And then how much will it cost when they build it. Also it seems completly rubbish that HS1 goes from St Pancras and HS2 goes from Euston. Everything about it seems a bit daft, OTT and seems to look like a weeing contest with our European Neighbours. All this at a time of supposed austerity!

[bromptonrail]

One of the arguments put forward by SoS Hammond is that HS2 will bring the North closer to London. Why would anyone want that? As it is the population and the economy of the country continues to "sink" to the south eastern corner of England. Journey times by HS2 to Birmingham will reduce by about 30 minutes it seems, presumably without a stop en-route. But the current services by VWC Pendolinos as fast and not anywhere near full off peak, the same is true of Manchester. The saving between London and Leeds is also about 30 minutes, yet the current EC service runs half hourly and takes about 140 minutes for 186 miles, yet trains mid morning are far from full and many of the passengers are travelling on cheap advance fares anyway. HS2 proposed trains are bigger and must charge higher fares to even pay its way, so where will the extra passengers come from?

Rail (especially with full trains) is amongst the greenest travel modes, but it doesn't become greener by running more trains and at higher speed. Reducing the need to travel is the only way to reduce emissions and get greener.

Besides - just go to Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol (for example) between 7.30 and 9.00 any weekday and see the gross overcrowding on local trains and you will see where the problem is on our railways. But solving that problem is not "sexy" and doesn't bring political credit to national politicians.

[timlennon]

I live in London, and it looks like a London-centric waste of money. Colossal in no way accurately describes just what a waste of money it is. If nothing else, if they think this is such a winner, why not do the northern section, say from Edinburgh to Birmingham, first? It would be cheaper, there are more route options, and .... bah, why am I bothering? It's a bad idea on all levels. I will try to take the effort to post my distaste on the public consultation, and would urge everyone to do the same.

[irc]

If it is going to get done at all it should be done London to at least the NE of England if not all the way to Edinburgh. But the cost could be vastly reduced if outside London it didn't go into city centres. Instead it should skirt cities far enough out to make construction cheaper. Then there should be park and ride hubs and links to the existing rail network.

When you think about it apart from a tiny percentage of travellers all users will need to take another method of transport from home or whatever location they are travelling from to get to the new rail line. There is no need for that journey to be in to already congested city centres.

[iviehoff]

I'm hoping it will displace air travel. I'm also hoping (and I'm on the WCML near the possible junction) that though we won't have a 'stop' here it will make some of the trains from here less crowded- and if the lines actually compete properly, maybe keep the prices here from spiraling up even further (forlorn hope, I suppose).

Well, look back at my previous post on this thread, where you will find commentary on displacement of air travel, and a link to a report on how much it is likely to displace air travel. I'll say it again: people don't fly from London to Brum or Leeds; a high fraction of those flying from Manchester to London are doing so in order to take a connecting flight. It's mainly the Scotland air market that it might displace, but at 3h30 it won't do that very well...

The Economist has a good article this week on what an economic nonsense this project is. As they point out, the existing HS1 isn't carrying anything like the number of people forecast. So actually, it has failed to achieve the economic case put up to justify it. This is also true of most of the high speed lines in Europe. They characterise it essentially as being a "prestige project".

[philg]

It's worse than that - see Andrew Gillgans article in yesterdays Telegraph. Seems they plan to axe/reduce many normal services to accommodate this White Elephant.
And those that still run will have their journey times increased to allow connection to HS2.
What a shambles.

[Steady rider]

The cost of £17 billion is about £280 for each person in the UK. I would sooner my £280 went on cycling.

Could someone start a petition or is there one already.

[hubgearfreak]

The cost of £17 billion is about £280 for each person in the UK.

or 1/5 that the billionaires of the nation don't pay in tax that they should pay.
or 1/5 of the thing that no-one will ever use* that's going to replace trident.

OK, so it's a folly - but it's also a train - if johnnie foreigner has got high speed white elephants then so should jolly old blightly, by jove. i understand that the land use economics makes up for quite a bit of the cost, so i'm all up for it avoiding london.
i'm quite fond of stoodley pike and the humber bridge too.

*or if they do, we won't be around to see the benefit.