Suppose HS2 was cancelled
Discussion
alscar said:
Yup shouldn’t take more than a few hundred years for the new trees planted to replace all those cut down to make way for this.
A bit of hyperbole there? Visually it’ll take a few months for a lot of it to “green-up”.
Tree cover will return in a few years, but in terms of full replacement I reckon 50 years tops. I live on a ridge just above two valleys, both of which were very industrialised from the 1800s until about 1950 with farms above the industrial water mills and zero tree cover. The mills and farms are mostly gone now and the valley sides are both covered in thick woodland with massive mature broadleaf trees.
TeaNoSugar said:
A bit of hyperbole there?
Visually it’ll take a few months for a lot of it to “green-up”.
Tree cover will return in a few years, but in terms of full replacement I reckon 50 years tops. I live on a ridge just above two valleys, both of which were very industrialised from the 1800s until about 1950 with farms above the industrial water mills and zero tree cover. The mills and farms are mostly gone now and the valley sides are both covered in thick woodland with massive mature broadleaf trees.
Maybe a bit Visually it’ll take a few months for a lot of it to “green-up”.
Tree cover will return in a few years, but in terms of full replacement I reckon 50 years tops. I live on a ridge just above two valleys, both of which were very industrialised from the 1800s until about 1950 with farms above the industrial water mills and zero tree cover. The mills and farms are mostly gone now and the valley sides are both covered in thick woodland with massive mature broadleaf trees.
although my point was more about the replacement of hundred + year old trees for something that should never have been started. alscar said:
Maybe a bit although my point was more about the replacement of hundred + year old trees for something that should never have been started.
Why shouldn’t it have been started? although my point was more about the replacement of hundred + year old trees for something that should never have been started. I take it you also disapprove of the Lower Thames crossing scheme which will also destroy ancient woodlands?
valiant said:
Why shouldn’t it have been started?
I take it you also disapprove of the Lower Thames crossing scheme which will also destroy ancient woodlands?
I have no feelings one way or the other on the Thames crossing scheme. I take it you also disapprove of the Lower Thames crossing scheme which will also destroy ancient woodlands?
It’s not the ancient woodlands being destroyed per se IF it meant that a grand infrastructure project would actually be needed, come in on budget , provide vfm , not be based on numbers that were incorrect ( nice word ) and generally be a white elephant.
I say budget but clearly there isn’t actually one.
Obviously Covid wasn’t a factor then but I seem to recall HS2 originally suggesting trains would run every 2 minutes when it was completed for 24 hours - there weren’t enough people in the UK ever travelling from North to South on any one day to ever see that happen.
When it is completed and running - and currently that’s what a decade plus away (?) we still don’t know where it will go to or terminate ( but not Euston ) , it will probably be freight only and all the while Chiltern Railways could have been invested into to expand the track already running to Brum and achieve pretty much the same thing.
And that’s without forgetting the upheaval and ruining of the countryside and properties that HS2 has caused to so many people.
So yes big fan.
alscar said:
I have no feelings one way or the other on the Thames crossing scheme.
It’s not the ancient woodlands being destroyed per se IF it meant that a grand infrastructure project would actually be needed, come in on budget , provide vfm , not be based on numbers that were incorrect ( nice word ) and generally be a white elephant.
I say budget but clearly there isn’t actually one.
Obviously Covid wasn’t a factor then but I seem to recall HS2 originally suggesting trains would run every 2 minutes when it was completed for 24 hours - there weren’t enough people in the UK ever travelling from North to South on any one day to ever see that happen.
When it is completed and running - and currently that’s what a decade plus away (?) we still don’t know where it will go to or terminate ( but not Euston ) , it will probably be freight only and all the while Chiltern Railways could have been invested into to expand the track already running to Brum and achieve pretty much the same thing.
And that’s without forgetting the upheaval and ruining of the countryside and properties that HS2 has caused to so many people.
So yes big fan.
Mostly incorrect, but on a phone I can't be arsed to type out a full explanation as to why. Suffice to say though that upgrading existing track would have taken far longer and been far more expensive than HS2. It won't be a white elephant because people will use it, in the same way they use every other piece of infrastructure in the country. It’s not the ancient woodlands being destroyed per se IF it meant that a grand infrastructure project would actually be needed, come in on budget , provide vfm , not be based on numbers that were incorrect ( nice word ) and generally be a white elephant.
I say budget but clearly there isn’t actually one.
Obviously Covid wasn’t a factor then but I seem to recall HS2 originally suggesting trains would run every 2 minutes when it was completed for 24 hours - there weren’t enough people in the UK ever travelling from North to South on any one day to ever see that happen.
When it is completed and running - and currently that’s what a decade plus away (?) we still don’t know where it will go to or terminate ( but not Euston ) , it will probably be freight only and all the while Chiltern Railways could have been invested into to expand the track already running to Brum and achieve pretty much the same thing.
And that’s without forgetting the upheaval and ruining of the countryside and properties that HS2 has caused to so many people.
So yes big fan.
Either we invest in the future and build things, power stations, railways, roads etc, or we prioritise the trees, the properties and the countryside and gradually the country slips backwards. If the railway builders of the 1850s had your attitude there wouldn't be a country like we have to day.
Condi said:
Mostly incorrect, but on a phone I can't be arsed to type out a full explanation as to why. Suffice to say though that upgrading existing track would have taken far longer and been far more expensive than HS2. It won't be a white elephant because people will use it, in the same way they use every other piece of infrastructure in the country.
Either we invest in the future and build things, power stations, railways, roads etc, or we prioritise the trees, the properties and the countryside and gradually the country slips backwards. If the railway builders of the 1850s had your attitude there wouldn't be a country like we have to day.
Indeed, hats off to the Victorians, they had vision and an incredible work ethic. The UK is currently desperate for major and long overdue investment to our crumbling infrastructure and it doesn’t matter which way we colour it the day after HS2 opens we will effectively see no difference. Either we invest in the future and build things, power stations, railways, roads etc, or we prioritise the trees, the properties and the countryside and gradually the country slips backwards. If the railway builders of the 1850s had your attitude there wouldn't be a country like we have to day.
Our slavish trajectory towards net zero will hinder this countries ability to prosper, even the good old USA say one thing at COP26 or whatever whilst massively increasing its sale of coal to China.
20 years from now the best most efficient way to travel around these fair Isles will still be the car and freight will still be moved predominantly by HGV.
Essarell said:
Our slavish trajectory towards net zero will hinder this countries ability to prosper, even the good old USA say one thing at COP26 or whatever whilst massively increasing its sale of coal to China.
20 years from now the best most efficient way to travel around these fair Isles will still be the car and freight will still be moved predominantly by HGV.
Not sure if this was in reply to my post or not, but it has nothing to do with net zero, indeed building hs2 will contribute to getting tho net zero as electric trains are incredibly environmentally friendly and the more cargo we can move off the roads onto the railways the cleaner our air will be. 20 years from now the best most efficient way to travel around these fair Isles will still be the car and freight will still be moved predominantly by HGV.
Condi said:
Mostly incorrect, but on a phone I can't be arsed to type out a full explanation as to why. Suffice to say though that upgrading existing track would have taken far longer and been far more expensive than HS2. It won't be a white elephant because people will use it, in the same way they use every other piece of infrastructure in the country.
Either we invest in the future and build things, power stations, railways, roads etc, or we prioritise the trees, the properties and the countryside and gradually the country slips backwards. If the railway builders of the 1850s had your attitude there wouldn't be a country like we have to day.
Mostly incorrect ?Either we invest in the future and build things, power stations, railways, roads etc, or we prioritise the trees, the properties and the countryside and gradually the country slips backwards. If the railway builders of the 1850s had your attitude there wouldn't be a country like we have to day.
Obviously you “can’t be arsed “ to tell me why I’m mostly incorrect so I will assume that every other detractor is also mostly incorrect in what comments are made when they are also against it.
I also assume you don’t live anywhere near any part of this.
My objection like so many others is based upon the lies and incorrect data needed to start this project.
But glad you think the country is in a good place.
alscar said:
Condi said:
Mostly incorrect, but on a phone I can't be arsed to type out a full explanation as to why. Suffice to say though that upgrading existing track would have taken far longer and been far more expensive than HS2. It won't be a white elephant because people will use it, in the same way they use every other piece of infrastructure in the country.
Either we invest in the future and build things, power stations, railways, roads etc, or we prioritise the trees, the properties and the countryside and gradually the country slips backwards. If the railway builders of the 1850s had your attitude there wouldn't be a country like we have to day.
Mostly incorrect ?Either we invest in the future and build things, power stations, railways, roads etc, or we prioritise the trees, the properties and the countryside and gradually the country slips backwards. If the railway builders of the 1850s had your attitude there wouldn't be a country like we have to day.
Obviously you “can’t be arsed “ to tell me why I’m mostly incorrect so I will assume that every other detractor is also mostly incorrect in what comments are made when they are also against it.
I also assume you don’t live anywhere near any part of this.
My objection like so many others is based upon the lies and incorrect data needed to start this project.
But glad you think the country is in a good place.
"it will probably be freight only and all the while Chiltern Railways could have been invested into to expand the track already running to Brum and achieve pretty much the same thing."
It doesn't really motivate people to answer fully because it's doubtful if you're being serious.
Just to express a little interest and humour you - where does the "freight only" idea come from? With tunnels twice as capacious as other mainlines wouldn't that be a bit daft?
TOCs don't pay for infrastructure, but you knew that. The history of the West Coast mainline upgrades tell you why improving the existing track isn't an option, as has been explained many times ITT.
Hammersia said:
I think when you make comments like:
"it will probably be freight only and all the while Chiltern Railways could have been invested into to expand the track already running to Brum and achieve pretty much the same thing."
It doesn't really motivate people to answer fully because it's doubtful if you're being serious.
Just to express a little interest and humour you - where does the "freight only" idea come from? With tunnels twice as capacious as other mainlines wouldn't that be a bit daft?
TOCs don't pay for infrastructure, but you knew that. The history of the West Coast mainline upgrades tell you why improving the existing track isn't an option, as has been explained many times ITT.
Sorry if you don’t think I’m serious - my “ achieving the same thing “comment “ was meant in regard to passenger traffic - poorly expressed. "it will probably be freight only and all the while Chiltern Railways could have been invested into to expand the track already running to Brum and achieve pretty much the same thing."
It doesn't really motivate people to answer fully because it's doubtful if you're being serious.
Just to express a little interest and humour you - where does the "freight only" idea come from? With tunnels twice as capacious as other mainlines wouldn't that be a bit daft?
TOCs don't pay for infrastructure, but you knew that. The history of the West Coast mainline upgrades tell you why improving the existing track isn't an option, as has been explained many times ITT.
Freight only comment was in regards to potential cost of a passenger ticket.
And also the fact that the passenger numbers were never there in the first place and won’t be there if and when HS2 is completed.
But like the nett zero debate to build it I thought this was simply a discussion thread with different views and opinions.
alscar said:
Sorry if you don’t think I’m serious - my “ achieving the same thing “comment “ was meant in regard to passenger traffic - poorly expressed.
Freight only comment was in regards to potential cost of a passenger ticket.
And also the fact that the passenger numbers were never there in the first place and won’t be there if and when HS2 is completed.
But like the nett zero debate to build it I thought this was simply a discussion thread with different views and opinions.
We all welcome different views, but you can't have your own facts. Freight only comment was in regards to potential cost of a passenger ticket.
And also the fact that the passenger numbers were never there in the first place and won’t be there if and when HS2 is completed.
But like the nett zero debate to build it I thought this was simply a discussion thread with different views and opinions.
Hammersia said:
We all welcome different views, but you can't have your own facts.
Sorry Hammersia , just so I know where I’ve gone wrong here, what are the facts I’ve quoted that are wrong or should I have peppered my comments with “ supposedly “ or “maybe” or just “ imho “ ?But others can though ?
I’m asking genuinely btw as really don’t want an argument with anyone.
alscar said:
Sorry Hammersia , just so I know where I’ve gone wrong here, what are the facts I’ve quoted that are wrong or should I have peppered my comments with “ supposedly “ or “maybe” or just “ imho “ ?
But others can though ?
I’m asking genuinely btw as really don’t want an argument with anyone.
Your previous post was:But others can though ?
I’m asking genuinely btw as really don’t want an argument with anyone.
alscar said:
Obviously Covid wasn’t a factor then but I seem to recall HS2 originally suggesting trains would run every 2 minutes when it was completed for 24 hours - there weren’t enough people in the UK ever travelling from North to South on any one day to ever see that happen.
When it is completed and running - and currently that’s what a decade plus away (?) we still don’t know where it will go to or terminate ( but not Euston ) , it will probably be freight only and all the while Chiltern Railways could have been invested into to expand the track already running to Brum and achieve pretty much the same thing.
And that’s without forgetting the upheaval and ruining of the countryside and properties that HS2 has caused to so many people.
So yes big fan.
The factual errors are:When it is completed and running - and currently that’s what a decade plus away (?) we still don’t know where it will go to or terminate ( but not Euston ) , it will probably be freight only and all the while Chiltern Railways could have been invested into to expand the track already running to Brum and achieve pretty much the same thing.
And that’s without forgetting the upheaval and ruining of the countryside and properties that HS2 has caused to so many people.
So yes big fan.
HS2 was never and is not ever proposed to run at trains every two minutes 24 hours per day (a more intense service than the London Underground). It was originally set at one train out of London up to every 3.5 minutes in the peak times, assuming full completion up the west coat and the east Yorkshire arm. The service frequency is now proposed to be a no more than one train every six minutes. The signalling system may allow for headways of two minutes (I'm not saying that's the case, just speculating on where you've got that number from) but that's not the intended service.
HS2 is not intended for freight service either in its infrastructure or its connections, so it will never be 'freight only'. One of its primary purposes is to remove passenger traffic from the WCML to allow more freight paths.
Investing in the ex-GWR Chiltern line to Birmingham to bring it up to the same level of capacity and speed would cost as much (if not more), cause more network disruption and would almost certainly not provide same benefits (real and potential). It would also not serve as the root of a nation-wide HSR network.
Overall passenger numbers on the UK network are essentially back at pre-pandemic levels. The patterns have changed (less commuter/peak demand in some areas, more 'off peak' travel in others) while some routes and services are still under-utilised while others are over-utilised. The long-standing capacity issues and the egregious bottleknecks on the network remain, and remain problems that need solving.
A lot of the 'failings' of HS2 now being discussed are as a result of classic British stinginess and short-termism - cost-cutting and political timidity risks leaving the 'completed' project as a shadow of its proposed form, saving what are actually minimal amounts of money in return for a greatly degraded piece of infrastructure, which will then lead to all the sceptics and nay-sayers slapping themselves on the back because they knew it would be a white elephant all along.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 8th June 15:50
alscar said:
Mostly incorrect ?
Obviously you “can’t be arsed “ to tell me why I’m mostly incorrect so I will assume that every other detractor is also mostly incorrect in what comments are made when they are also against it.
I also assume you don’t live anywhere near any part of this.
My objection like so many others is based upon the lies and incorrect data needed to start this project.
But glad you think the country is in a good place.
Your objection is based on emotion, and not facts. Obviously you “can’t be arsed “ to tell me why I’m mostly incorrect so I will assume that every other detractor is also mostly incorrect in what comments are made when they are also against it.
I also assume you don’t live anywhere near any part of this.
My objection like so many others is based upon the lies and incorrect data needed to start this project.
But glad you think the country is in a good place.
The facts are quite simple - the lines around London going North are at capacity, mainly because they run a mix of slow commuter traffic, fast long distance traffic, scheduled freight, and any other ad-hoc trains (engineering trains, special cargo etc). Due to the distances required between trains this means the lines are used inefficiently, slowing down both the fast trains and the slow trains. The whole point of HS2 is to take the fast trains which might not stop between London and Birmingham, or London and Manchester, off the existing track, essentially bypassing the congested sections. This then allows both the fast (HS2) and slow (existing) lines to be utilised more efficiently, increasing capacity for both longer distance and commuter/freight trains.
Yes, the destruction of any woodland is a regrettable thing, however, if you take your attitude that we should prioritise that ahead of any development then at best we are stuck with a railway system at capacity and built over 150 years ago, and at worst we wouldn't even have a railway system or motorway system at all, if builders throughout history had taken the same view.
You imply that the country is in a mess, but I would argue part of the reason for that is a lack of investment in infrastructure over the last 15/20 years, especially outside of London (so excluding HS1, Crossrail, Thames Sewer). HS2 will be used by your kids, their kids, and their kids kids - it's a long term strategic investment, the likes of which the UK has been very poor at delivering for quite a while.
As for the assertion that I can't live anywhere near the line, you couldn't be more wrong. It passes about a mile from my house and I cross the route about 4 times on my commute to work. What I also see is the huge investment in new roads, new junctions and all the ancillary infrastructure required to build the line, as well as the new village hall HS2 have paid for. The money being spent goes far beyond "just a railway line".
2xChevrons said:
The factual errors are:
HS2 was never and is not ever proposed to run at trains every two minutes 24 hours per day (a more intense service than the London Underground). It was originally set at one train out of London up to every 3.5 minutes in the peak times, assuming full completion up the west coat and the east Yorkshire arm. The service frequency is now proposed to be a no more than one train every six minutes. The signalling system may allow for headways of two minutes (I'm not saying that's the case, just speculating on where you've got that number from) but that's not the intended service.
HS2 is not intended for freight service either in its infrastructure or its connections, so it will never be 'freight only'. One of its primary purposes is to remove passenger traffic from the WCML to allow more freight paths.
Investing in the ex-GWR Chiltern line to Birmingham to bring it up to the same level of capacity and speed would cost as much (if not more), cause more network disruption and would almost certainly not provide same benefits (real and potential). It would also not serve as the root of a nation-wide HSR network.
Overall passenger numbers on the UK network are essentially back at pre-pandemic levels. The patterns have changed (less commuter/peak demand in some areas, more 'off peak' travel in others) while some routes and services are still under-utilised while others are over-utilised. The long-standing capacity issues and the egregious bottleknecks on the network remain, and remain problems that need solving.
A lot of the 'failings' of HS2 now being discussed are as a result of classic British stinginess and short-termism - cost-cutting and political timidity risks leaving the 'completed' project as a shadow of its proposed form, saving what are actually minimal amounts of money in return for a greatly degraded piece of infrastructure, which will then lead to all the sceptics and nay-sayers slapping themselves on the back because they knew it would be a white elephant all along.
Thanks for your comments. HS2 was never and is not ever proposed to run at trains every two minutes 24 hours per day (a more intense service than the London Underground). It was originally set at one train out of London up to every 3.5 minutes in the peak times, assuming full completion up the west coat and the east Yorkshire arm. The service frequency is now proposed to be a no more than one train every six minutes. The signalling system may allow for headways of two minutes (I'm not saying that's the case, just speculating on where you've got that number from) but that's not the intended service.
HS2 is not intended for freight service either in its infrastructure or its connections, so it will never be 'freight only'. One of its primary purposes is to remove passenger traffic from the WCML to allow more freight paths.
Investing in the ex-GWR Chiltern line to Birmingham to bring it up to the same level of capacity and speed would cost as much (if not more), cause more network disruption and would almost certainly not provide same benefits (real and potential). It would also not serve as the root of a nation-wide HSR network.
Overall passenger numbers on the UK network are essentially back at pre-pandemic levels. The patterns have changed (less commuter/peak demand in some areas, more 'off peak' travel in others) while some routes and services are still under-utilised while others are over-utilised. The long-standing capacity issues and the egregious bottleknecks on the network remain, and remain problems that need solving.
A lot of the 'failings' of HS2 now being discussed are as a result of classic British stinginess and short-termism - cost-cutting and political timidity risks leaving the 'completed' project as a shadow of its proposed form, saving what are actually minimal amounts of money in return for a greatly degraded piece of infrastructure, which will then lead to all the sceptics and nay-sayers slapping themselves on the back because they knew it would be a white elephant all along.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 8th June 15:50
I think the comment I made about the once every two minutes was from one of the early press comments but if I’m wrong then apologies.
Personally I very much doubt that it will be at the 6 minute interval you mention but as we won’t know the answer to that for some considerable time I’ll leave that aspect there.
I cannot comment on the passenger traffic numbers other than hearsay but with the companies now wfh I cannot believe that all lines are back to where they were 5 working days a week.
Whether HS2 will ever deliver vfm for this Country I struggle with and a budget that has no apparent control or end in sight is clearly a concern.
alscar said:
I cannot comment on the passenger traffic numbers other than hearsay but with the companies now wfh I cannot believe that all lines are back to where they were 5 working days a week.
I didn't say that all routes were back to pre-pandemic levels - I specifically said that some aren't, and they are usually the traditional urban commuter networks. But overall, in terms of the numbers of people travelling by rail, the numbers are back where they were at the start of 2020. In fact slightly higher: https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-new...
The overall pattern the network is seeing is 'flattening of the curve' (to use a pandemic-era phrase). The peak times at the start and end of each weekday, are slightly less pronounced, and the quiet dip in the middle is slightly higher. There is also increased use of the railways for discretionary/private/tourist use between cities rather than the surburb->city centre work commute - exactly the sort of traffic that HS2 should be ideal for.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff