HS2 high-speed London-Birmingham route rail project - discussion

[teuchter]

It's a solution to a particular problem. Capacity on existing routes between London and Birmingham isn't sufficient, more is needed. Fine. And if that's all you want, if your objective in building new infrastructure is just to make the same old systems in one quite specific area viable for the next 50 years, it'll do that.

To me it says that we can't do national infrastructure planning anymore. That the combination of property values, difficulty in negotiations, public will etc has essentially ruled out a nationwide HS rail network for the foreseeable. If we want public transport to be the main option within the next few decades, it paints a pretty fucking bleak picture.

I kind of fall down on 'well why the fuck not?' at this point. I mean great, people will make bank developing that bit of Brum, the wheels of capital will keep spinning. It'll be expensive as shit <the project costs>, but I suppose someone modelled that. I'd like to think it will reduce use of the M1, but suspect that capacity will be filled, for that is the law of roads.

But yeah, I think that £80-fuck knows billion might have been better spent on how we do work in general. Why exactly we want hundreds of thousands of people travelling between London and Birmingham every day.

It's really not just aimed at solving an isolated capacity problem in a specific area though. Releasing capacity at the heart of the network has benefits for the entirety of the national network because.... it's a highly interconnected network with loads of knock on effects. When you look at how timetables are planned you can often see how timings and frequency in one place are quite heavily dependent on conditions at places quite distant.

I get the point about reducing travel overall - and who knows how changing work patterns will affect this. But even if you reduce overall travel somewhat, then we should be trying to reduce travel on other more harmful modes - not on the most efficient mode available to us for medium-long distance mass travel. And the rail network is in many places running so over capacity that it's not just that more trains than really fit are packed into the schedules, but those trains rely on people being packed in standing. You can reduce the numbers traveling to the point where everyone gets a seat but you still have a congested network where the number of trains on the track still continually causes delay and unreliability.

And on top of this there's freight - and we could and should be moving loads of freight off the roads and onto the rails. Freight is currently constrained by core parts of the network being saturated with passenger traffic.

 

[Elpenor]

My understanding is that the additional train paths will allow for additional as well as new services to be developed

 

[Cid]

It's really not just aimed at solving an isolated capacity problem in a specific area though. Releasing capacity at the heart of the network has benefits for the entirety of the national network because.... it's a highly interconnected network with loads of knock on effects. When you look at how timetables are planned you can often see how timings and frequency in one place are quite heavily dependent on conditions at places quite distant.

I get the point about reducing travel overall - and who knows how changing work patterns will affect this. But even if you reduce overall travel somewhat, then we should be trying to reduce travel on other more harmful modes - not on the most efficient mode available to us for medium-long distance mass travel. And the rail network is in many places running so over capacity that it's not just that more trains than really fit are packed into the schedules, but those trains rely on people being packed in standing. You can reduce the numbers traveling to the point where everyone gets a seat but you still have a congested network where the number of trains on the track still continually causes delay and unreliability.

And on top of this there's freight - and we could and should be moving loads of freight off the roads and onto the rails. Freight is currently constrained by core parts of the network being saturated with passenger traffic.

Yeah, that's fair. I mean I do get that it will have benefits, and that those benefits are probably more in proportion to expenditure than people imagine... It's just simultaneously enormously frustrating, because I do also think it will be more of an expansion (a necessary one) of the existing situation than any kind of rethink of how we do transport.

 

[cybershot]

Mostly I sigh as most new builds get brought by investors while endless properties sit empty. Then I frown at the loss of green space and wonder if the local road infrastructure will be improved.

And where the new drs and schools etc are being built to deal with the increase in residents... But that's another story.

 

[teuchter]

Yeah, that's fair. I mean I do get that it will have benefits, and that those benefits are probably more in proportion to expenditure than people imagine... It's just simultaneously enormously frustrating, because I do also think it will be more of an expansion (a necessary one) of the existing situation than any kind of rethink of how we do transport.

I would like all sorts of rethinks about how we do transport too. But a well functioning rail network is more compatible with a rethink than a dysfunctional one. And not building HS2 does not make any kind of rethink more likely. The money saved would not simply transfer to other, similarly transformative transport projects. Much of it is borrowing and it will be creating a revenue generating entity to some extent.

 

[teuchter]

Also - yes the amounts of money are enormous. But it's public spending and it's to build public infrastructure. It's not normally the case on urban75 that we have a bunch of people objecting to public spending. We don't get people saying we shouldn't be building more hospitals or schools because it's too expensive. Social care or benefits are too expensive. We are into "good at spending other people's money" and "magic money tree" territory. The answers to those kinds of objections usually involve talking about how governments can borrow cheaply and that the returns aren't measured only in financial terms. How many people on this thread objecting to the cost of HS2 have also spent years arguing against the thinking behind austerity measures?

And HS2 in many ways is a catching up of some of the underinvestment in the public transport network that's been going on for decades, a kind of austerity in itself.

 

[Pickman's model]

Also - yes the amounts of money are enormous. But it's public spending and it's to build public infrastructure. It's not normally the case on urban75 that we have a bunch of people objecting to public spending. We don't get people saying we shouldn't be building more hospitals or schools because it's too expensive. Social care or benefits are too expensive. We are into "good at spending other people's money" and "magic money tree" territory. The answers to those kinds of objections usually involve talking about how governments can borrow cheaply and that the returns aren't measured only in financial terms. How many people on this thread objecting to the cost of HS2 have also spent years arguing against the thinking behind austerity measures?

And HS2 in many ways is a catching up of some of the underinvestment in the public transport network that's been going on for decades, a kind of austerity in itself.

Oh for fuck's sake
We object to lots of public spending like the money that goes on trident. The money that goes to the PFI contracts. Money that goes on state repression.

As for hs2 there are I'm sure other ways to increase capacity which don't rely on the wholesale destruction of homes and blighting of lives which has happened in just the first mile of the scheme, in Camden. But I suppose that the lives of the silverdale residents are just collateral damage

 

[BigTom]

Oh for fuck's sake
We object to lots of public spending like the money that goes on trident. The money that goes to the PFI contracts. Money that goes on state repression.

As for hs2 there are I'm sure other ways to increase capacity which don't rely on the wholesale destruction of homes and blighting of lives which has happened in just the first mile of the scheme, in Camden. But I suppose that the lives of the silverdale residents are just collateral damage

Everything that can be done to maximise capacity on the existing lines has been done. The only thing to do is build new lines.

 

[Pickman's model]

Everything that can be done to maximise capacity on the existing lines has been done. The only thing to do is build new lines.

So the only way to do that is to act as hs2 are. That this plan is the best possible plan. There Is No Alternative. Sounds like bollocks to me, tbh

 

[BigTom]

So the only way to do that is to act as hs2 are. That this plan is the best possible plan. There Is No Alternative. Sounds like bollocks to me, tbh

There are no doubt alternative routes that could be taken, but they have already done what they can to increase capacity by doing things like upgrading signalling or adding more standard carriages to trains.
Tell me, what do you think can be done to increase capacity further on existing lines?

 

[Saul Goodman]

Oh for fuck's sake
We object to lots of public spending like the money that goes on trident. The money that goes to the PFI contracts. Money that goes on state repression.

As for hs2 there are I'm sure other ways to increase capacity which don't rely on the wholesale destruction of homes and blighting of lives which has happened in just the first mile of the scheme, in Camden. But I suppose that the lives of the silverdale residents are just collateral damage

You could buy all 280,000 homeless people a half million quid house each with the money that getting spunked on this nonsense.
It would make a lot more sense to move whatever jobs people are travelling into London for out of London.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are no doubt alternative routes that could be taken, but they have already done what they can to increase capacity by doing things like upgrading signalling or adding more standard carriages to trains.
Tell me, what do you think can be done to increase capacity further on existing lines?

I haven't said anything can be done to increase capacity on existing lines. I accept that it can't be. That doesn't mean hs2 is right or necessary

 

[Saul Goodman]

Tell me, what do you think can be done to increase capacity further on existing lines?

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is how do we decrease the number of people on the already at capacity trains.

 

[BigTom]

I haven't said anything can be done to increase capacity on existing lines. I accept that it can't be. That doesn't mean hs2 is right or necessary

So what do you suggest then?

 

[Pickman's model]

A rethink.

 

[Badgers]

Also - yes the amounts of money are enormous. But it's public spending and it's to build public infrastructure. It's not normally the case on urban75 that we have a bunch of people objecting to public spending.

The landowners and freeholders will benefit nicely

 

[Saul Goodman]

The landowners and freeholders will benefit nicely

I'm sure the route will be well planned to (over)compensate the cronies.

 

[teuchter]

As for hs2 there are I'm sure other ways to increase capacity which don't rely on the wholesale destruction of homes and blighting of lives which has happened in just the first mile of the scheme, in Camden. But I suppose that the lives of the silverdale residents are just collateral damage

Seeing as you are "sure" - what are the other ways?

You can't come up with any of course.

The fact is that there are already loads of aspects of the scheme that are designed to minimise disruption, and it's these aspects that are responsible for much of the expense.

Getting the route through densely populated areas with minimum disruption is immensely complicated and expensive, and that's one of the reasons that a potential link between HS1 and HS2 was abandoned, even though Euston and St Pancras are so close. Some would say that would have been a very useful link as trains could run directly from the north of England to the continent. But in the end the decision was made that the costs outweighed the benefits.

On the one hand you have people complaining that it's too expensive and on the other that more should be spent on minimising disruption. You can't satisfy both other than by not building the thing, or any version of the thing along any route, at all. And then you are back to people complaining about our unreliable, antiquated railway network, a large proportion of which still relies on stuff built 150 years ago... Causing massive disruption at the time.

 

[teuchter]

Oh for fuck's sake
We object to lots of public spending like the money that goes on trident. The money that goes to the PFI contracts. Money that goes on state repression.

So you are making the construction of public transport infrastructure equivalent to nuclear weaponry or state repression?

As for PFI contracts - did anyone call for, say, all hospital construction to be abandoned, or did they call for it to be funded in a different way?

Feel free to criticise the funding model for HS2. That's a different argument to the one about whether it should be built or not though.

And PFI was attractive to those who wanted to minimise state spending. The objections to HS2 centre around excessive state funding.

 

[Pickman's model]

So you are making the construction of public transport infrastructure equivalent to nuclear weaponry or state repression?

As for PFI contracts - did anyone call for, say, all hospital construction to be abandoned, or did they call for it to be funded in a different way?

Feel free to criticise the funding model for HS2. That's a different argument to the one about whether it should be built or not though.

And PFI was attractive to those who wanted to minimise state spending. The objections to HS2 centre around excessive state funding.

Nuclear weapons and rail transport both involve public spending. A term you used.

 

[teuchter]

Nuclear weapons and rail transport both involve public spending. A term you used.

When I used the term it was quite obvious that I was talking about public spending on things agreed to be of public benefit. It's also obvious that generally on u75 nuclear weapons and state repression are not agreed to be of public benefit, so congratulations on your wilful misinterpretation skills.

 

[cybershot]

There are no doubt alternative routes that could be taken, but they have already done what they can to increase capacity by doing things like upgrading signalling or adding more standard carriages to trains.
Tell me, what do you think can be done to increase capacity further on existing lines?

There’s a whole fuck ton of existing lines they could reopen.

 

[teuchter]

There’s a whole fuck ton of existing lines they could reopen.

Go on and give us one single example of an existing alignment that could easily be reopened, and which would significantly relieve pressure on a route that currently has major capacity issues.

 

[Pickman's model]

When I used the term it was quite obvious that I was talking about public spending on things agreed to be of public benefit. It's also obvious that generally on u75 nuclear weapons and state repression are not agreed to be of public benefit, so congratulations on your wilful misinterpretation skills.

Pipe down you puffed up windbag

 

[cybershot]

Go on and give us one single example of an existing alignment that could easily be reopened, and which would significantly relieve pressure on a route that currently has major capacity issues.

I don’t think any route has major capacity issues ‘currently’

and have seen articles of services being reduced. It will be interesting to see how post pandemic time tables change.

 

[teuchter]

I don’t think any route has major capacity issues ‘currently’

and have seen articles of services being reduced. It will be interesting to see how post pandemic time tables change.

You said there were loads of lines that could be reopened to deal with capacity issues - I asked if you could give an example.

I'm going to take it that no, you cannot give an example. Because there are hardly any.

The question of how capacity issues will be affected by changes in travel patterns post Covid is a different issue.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

There’s a whole fuck ton of existing lines they could reopen.

There really aren’t. There’s bits of lines, sure, but unfortunately a lot of them have been built on.

 

[teuchter]

Anyone who thinks an easy option would be to reopen bits of old lines, and upgrade existing ones, should look at the East-West Rail project to create a continuous link between Oxford and Cambridge.

A lot of it is upgrades to existing lines. There's a section that could have been conveniently provided along a disused alignment if it hadn't been built upon at various points, so a completely new route has to be found. This stitching-together project is also expensive and provoking objections all along the route. And it'll provide new more convenient connections but it doesn't really address a core capacity problem.

If, when all those lines were closed post war, we'd simply written it into planning law that the routes could not be built upon, we'd be in a very different position now. Thanks to short term thinking that isn't what happened. Similar kind of thinking that can't see the long term benefits of getting HS2 done now.

 

[cybershot]

a

You said there were loads of lines that could be reopened to deal with capacity issues - I asked if you could give an example.

I'm going to take it that no, you cannot give an example. Because there are hardly any.

The question of how capacity issues will be affected by changes in travel patterns post Covid is a different issue.

I couldn't be arsed to look into it because of your aggressive style of reply and went for the infuriate you further approach.

I'm not a train expert, but have heard of reopening of lines often, in fact, it is often mentioned around the Midlands. I'm sure you can find articles if you google for it. Tons of priorties here Re-opening rail lines (not put much effort into validating any of this - go for it though)

 

[alex_]

a


I couldn't be arsed to look into it because of your aggressive style of reply and went for the infuriate you further approach.

I'm not a train expert, but have heard of reopening of lines often, in fact, it is often mentioned around the Midlands. I'm sure you can find articles if you google for it. Tons of priorties here Re-opening rail lines (not put much effort into validating any of this - go for it though)

Hardly any of which would take pressure off a major hub.

Alex