HS2 construction updates

[AM9]

Just put a sedative into the tunnel then drag them out

Not necessary, - just ensure that the only people that they can communicate with are the police and wait for the food to run out and the waste products to build up. Then, they'll crawl out with no-one to blame.

 

[Taunton]

How useful for the Swampies to assist the contractors with their groundworks. That will save a few pennies.

 

[Bald Rick]

Leave them in there. If they are trespassing (one presumes they are), then they’ll come out when they get hungry or the latrine starts kicking off. Also it’s not been on the news since, and with no publicity their cause is irrelevant. Perhaps we should lock this thread to help reduce the publicity?

 

[AM9]

... Also it’s not been on the news since, and with no publicity their cause is irrelevant. Perhaps we should lock this thread to help reduce the publicity?

Unfortunately, BBC London insisted on having another article on it yesterday evening where they interviewed a couple of other protesters saying what a good job they are doing at Euston, plus somebody else who has been involved in protesters tunnels saying what a good bit of tunnel engineering it was.

 

[Mollman]

Leave them in there. If they are trespassing (one presumes they are), then they’ll come out when they get hungry or the latrine starts kicking off. Also it’s not been on the news since, and with no publicity their cause is irrelevant. Perhaps we should lock this thread to help reduce the publicity?

Except this is the HS2 construction thread rather than the Euston Square tunnel thread

 

[CW2]

I see the anti-HS2 protesters are complaining of "torture".
Evening Standard extract.
Apparently those nasty HS2 construction people are working through the night to dig down to evict the protesters, rather than giving up at night so they can all get a good night's sleep.
This is apparently deliberate sleep deprivation tactics and mental torture.
What an interesting view of life they must have.

 

[Energy]

I see the anti-HS2 protesters are complaining of "torture".
Evening Standard extract.
Apparently those nasty HS2 construction people are working through the night to dig down to evict the protesters, rather than giving up at night so they can all get a good night's sleep.
This is apparently deliberate sleep deprivation tactics and mental torture.
What an interesting view of life they must have.

I cant feel sorry for the protestors, they dug themselves into this hole (excuse the pun), did they really expect HS2 to get cancelled when contracts for phase one have been awarded and construction started just because some people dug a very small short tunnel?

 

[jfowkes]

I cant feel sorry for the protestors, they dug themselves into this hole (excuse the pun), did they really expect HS2 to get cancelled when contracts for phase one have been awarded and construction started just because some people dug a very small short tunnel?

No, because the point wasn't to get HS2 cancelled, the point is to get HS2 noticed. Specifically, to get it bad PR.

 

[CW2]

No, because the point wasn't to get HS2 cancelled, the point is to get HS2 noticed. Specifically, to get it bad PR.

I can't help feeling that getting themselves noticed plays a large part in their motivation.

 

[DaveHarries]

I am a bit mixed on this one. I sympathise with the case, largely because of the huge environmental damage being done by this project - although I am not a full-scale environmentalist - but not much sympathy for the protesters. I am highly unlikely to ever use HS2 though: did anyone see the Countryfile episode on BBC 1 (Sunday 24th January)?

Dave

 

[Ianno87]

I am a bit mixed on this one. I sympathise with the case, largely because of the huge environmental damage being done by this project - although I am not a full-scale environmentalist - but not much sympathy for the protesters. I am highly unlikely to ever use HS2 though: did anyone see the Countryfile episode on BBC 1 (Sunday 24th January)?

Dave

What huge environmental damage would that be? Without using the words "destroying ancient woodlands" (which isn't true).

 

[quantinghome]

I am a bit mixed on this one. I sympathise with the case, largely because of the huge environmental damage being done by this project - although I am not a full-scale environmentalist - but not much sympathy for the protesters. I am highly unlikely to ever use HS2 though: did anyone see the Countryfile episode on BBC 1 (Sunday 24th January)?

Dave

I've a few issues with that statement:

- Huge compared to what? How does it compare mile-for-mile to other projects? The numbers are big because it's a big project. This argument would preclude the country ever building large-scale infrastructure.
- It's vastly more expensive than it needs to be purely in engineering terms because of the huge spend on mitigating environmental damage. Again, try comparing it to other infrastructure schemes.
- Define environmental damage. There's a case to be made against it in terms of local conservation (although not that much given the vast amount of mitigation put in place). But the biggest environmental challenge we face is getting to net zero carbon. Transport is now the top cause in carbon emissions in the country. We can't eliminate carbon emissions without a massive shift from cars to public transport. And that means building more railways.

The environmental activists have got it badly, badly wrong on HS2. They are unthinkingly going along with the bogus arguments put forward by thinktanks like the IEA and TPA which are notoriously anti-public transport and pro-car.

 

[Ianno87]

I've a few issues with that statement:

- Huge compared to what? How does it compare mile-for-mile to other projects? The numbers are big because it's a big project. This argument would preclude the country ever building large-scale infrastructure.
-

And what is the environmental consequence of *not* building HS2? Continuing the pre-Covid level of domestic air travel, for example.

 

[6Gman]

To be fair, the tunnel is phase 2b and likely still 15 years away. The house owners may not even be aware of it even now.

I'd be astonished if they didn't know about it. We live 200m (further) away and have been getting 2 or 3 letters a year from HS2.

It's been pretty standard on searches for a number of years, knowing someone who moved 4 years ago, HS2 appeared as a possibility of being in compensation range, despite it being a route that was discarded in favour of the current alignment.

I'd imagine if you currently live in the area, you have probably been contacted by HS2, and if not, definitely STOP HS2!

We have heard nothing from STOP HST. Despite the route going slap through the area of our local Parish Council it's all very calm round here. Any opposition is pretty muted.

did anyone see the Countryfile episode on BBC 1 (Sunday 24th January)?

Dave

Yes. Thought it was poor journalism (typical for Yuppyfile). Did you want to highlight anything from it?

 

[quantinghome]

And what is the environmental consequence of *not* building HS2? Continuing the pre-Covid level of domestic air travel, for example.

Exactly. I heard there are (or were and will be in future) 170 flights a day between London and the Scottish central belt. Just madness.

 

[Bald Rick]

I am a bit mixed on this one. I sympathise with the case, largely because of the huge environmental damage being done by this project - although I am not a full-scale environmentalist - but not much sympathy for the protesters. I am highly unlikely to ever use HS2 though: did anyone see the Countryfile episode on BBC 1 (Sunday 24th January)?

Dave

HS2 has an objective of causing no net loss to bio-diversity, within ‘reasonable practicability’. This means that (assuming it delivers that objective), any environmental damage to the ‘biosphere’ on the route is offset by environmental improvements. Difficult to measure of course - someone has to work out how many bats equal a badger, and how many badgers make an acre of beech trees. But the principle is sound.

All that means that at a national level, HS2 will cause less net environmental damage than the Brackley Bypass, to use one example.

Exactly. I heard there are (or were and will be in future) 170 flights a day between London and the Scottish central belt. Just madness.

Over 200.

HS2 will make a dent in that, but not eliminate it.

 

[Tobbes]

Over 200.

HS2 will make a dent in that, but not eliminate it.

It would be interesting to see what the modelling looks like for a full LGV route to Edinburgh/Glasgow and see whether many flights remain I could see a shuttle to LHR for interlining, but that's peanuts compared with now. At 360km/h a sub 3hr Lon/Edi-Gla time is surely feasible, and at that point the attractiveness of flying evaporates unless you live very close to the airport and the other airport is closer to your destination than the city-centre station.

We could even call it the New Border Union Railway!

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be interesting to see what the modelling looks like for a full LGV route to Edinburgh/Glasgow and see whether many flights remain I could see a shuttle to LHR for interlining, but that's peanuts compared with now. At 360km/h a sub 3hr Lon/Edi-Gla time is surely feasible, and at that point the attractiveness of flying evaporates unless you live very close to the airport and the other airport is closer to your destination than the city-centre station.

We could even call it the New Border Union Railway!

When I was involved in the work, ahem, 15 years ago this very month, we reckoned it was just possible to do a 2h30 time to each of Edinburgh and Glasgow with a 350km/h HSL throughout, allowing for 2 stops (at putative stations close to each of Birmingham International and Manchester Airport). Little better than crayoning at that stage, but it helped demonstrate the possibility of very significant journey time reductions.

With those times, you’d capture something like 75% of the air market. The rest would be that which is connecting through Heathrow to long haul (or minutely but importantly, at Glasgow / Edinburgh for the isles), plus traffic which as you say have an origin / destination point convenient for the airport.

There’s a ‘but’. Unlike the rest of the air market, London to Central belt has barely grown since then, as the new Virgin timetable, improvements on the ECML, and the changes to air security procedures have led to rail capturing all the growth in the market. Nevertheless, if 75% of the air market swapped to a high speed line, it would be worth about half a billion a year in income. But about half of that will come with HS2 phase 2b anyway.

 

[Class 170101]

No, because the point wasn't to get HS2 cancelled, the point is to get HS2 noticed. Specifically, to get it bad PR.

Not needed HS2 does bad PR quite adequately itself, alongside the mainstream media who gnerally dislike railways anyway it seems.

 

[adamedwards]

Re the air market, the UK should copy the French and make it a bailout condition for airlines that they cannot sell tickets to London where the rail journey is less than three hours, except for connections. It would give rail a post covid boost to get people travelling again.

 

[Tobbes]

When I was involved in the work, ahem, 15 years ago this very month, we reckoned it was just possible to do a 2h30 time to each of Edinburgh and Glasgow with a 350km/h HSL throughout, allowing for 2 stops (at putative stations close to each of Birmingham International and Manchester Airport). Little better than crayoning at that stage, but it helped demonstrate the possibility of very significant journey time reductions.

With those times, you’d capture something like 75% of the air market. The rest would be that which is connecting through Heathrow to long haul (or minutely but importantly, at Glasgow / Edinburgh for the isles), plus traffic which as you say have an origin / destination point convenient for the airport.

There’s a ‘but’. Unlike the rest of the air market, London to Central belt has barely grown since then, as the new Virgin timetable, improvements on the ECML, and the changes to air security procedures have led to rail capturing all the growth in the market. Nevertheless, if 75% of the air market swapped to a high speed line, it would be worth about half a billion a year in income. But about half of that will come with HS2 phase 2b anyway.

Fascinating, tyvm. So 2h 20m non-stop?

 

[camflyer]

Re the air market, the UK should copy the French and make it a bailout condition for airlines that they cannot sell tickets to London where the rail journey is less than three hours, except for connections. It would give rail a post covid boost to get people travelling again.

Since flights from Manchester, Newcastle etc which do connect to long haul would still be allowed then wouldn't that just mean flights operating with fewer people on board?

 

[takno]

Since flights from Manchester, Newcastle etc which do connect to long haul would still be allowed then wouldn't that just mean flights operating with fewer people on board?

Most of the flights are to Luton, Stansted, City and Gatwick, and hardly contain any connecting passengers at all. You'd probably end up with just the Heathrow ones. All this is speculation anyway, and nothing to do with construction

 

[NoRoute]

- Define environmental damage. There's a case to be made against it in terms of local conservation (although not that much given the vast amount of mitigation put in place). But the biggest environmental challenge we face is getting to net zero carbon. Transport is now the top cause in carbon emissions in the country. We can't eliminate carbon emissions without a massive shift from cars to public transport. And that means building more railways.

The environmental activists have got it badly, badly wrong on HS2. They are unthinkingly going along with the bogus arguments put forward by thinktanks like the IEA and TPA which are notoriously anti-public transport and pro-car.

I agree with the need to decarbonise transport and that this will require improved public transport, but I'm not convinced HS 2 is an effective way to do this. Rail services along much of the HS2 route are already a faster and superior alternative to using the car, particularly when accessing London and other major cities where car use is now actively discouraged. HS2 improves existing rail alternatives further but doesn't offer anything fundamentally new so I wonder how much decarbonisation it will really deliver, I suspect a lot of travellers on those routes will already be using the train.

If the goal is to get people out of their cars and onto public transport then the country is probably better focussing its spending to target car usage where there is no public transport alternative, or where that alternative is a poor substitute for the car. That means improving existing regional and local rail services and restoring rail services to underserved communities. It also means investing in the unloved and under supported bus services and city transport options like trams.

Outside London and some of the big cities there really is no alternative to the car, London is different world. I suspect rolling out decent bus services across much of the country would cut car usage and decarbonisation at a lot lower unit cost than HS 2.

 

[yoyothehobo]

HS2 is about capacity. Capacity for freight and more commuter services by removing the long distance services from the WCML south of birmingham initially.

If you can get 10000 people a day using extra services created by HS2, it will always be better than 1000 people across multiple smaller local railways.

There are no underserved communities in the UK that if connected to the network would have any where near the impact of HS2.

 

[Grimsby town]

I agree with the need to decarbonise transport and that this will require improved public transport, but I'm not convinced HS 2 is an effective way to do this. Rail services along much of the HS2 route are already a faster and superior alternative to using the car, particularly when accessing London and other major cities where car use is now actively discouraged. HS2 improves existing rail alternatives further but doesn't offer anything fundamentally new so I wonder how much decarbonisation it will really deliver, I suspect a lot of travellers on those routes will already be using the train.

If the goal is to get people out of their cars and onto public transport then the country is probably better focussing its spending to target car usage where there is no public transport alternative, or where that alternative is a poor substitute for the car. That means improving existing regional and local rail services and restoring rail services to underserved communities. It also means investing in the unloved and under supported bus services and city transport options like trams.

Outside London and some of the big cities there really is no alternative to the car, London is different world. I suspect rolling out decent bus services across much of the country would cut car usage and decarbonisation at a lot lower unit cost than HS 2.

As has been mentioned, HS2 frees up vast amounts of paths for freight and local rail services which allows more services to run and new stations / lines to open.

I disagree that HS2 only serves flows that already compete well with cars. CrossCountry for example doesn't particularly outpace an equivalent car journey. The thing to remember that while city centre to city centre journeys might already be quick, the majority of people using services will have onward travel to the suburbs. E.g a journey like Kidderminster to Harrogate is quicker by road than rail currently and this is the same with most journeys from one major cities suburbs to another. However if you knock 1 hour 15 minutes of the Leeds to Birmingham rail journey time, suddenly rail journeys like Kidderminster to Harrogate or Solihull to Saltaire become far more competitive with cars

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And what is the environmental consequence of *not* building HS2? Continuing the pre-Covid level of domestic air travel, for example.

Exactly. I heard there are (or were and will be in future) 170 flights a day between London and the Scottish central belt. Just madness.

Re the air market, the UK should copy the French and make it a bailout condition for airlines that they cannot sell tickets to London where the rail journey is less than three hours, except for connections. It would give rail a post covid boost to get people travelling again.

HS2 at least gives the possibility of reducing these journeys. Without HS2 no chance.

 

[AM9]

HS2 at least gives the possibility of reducing these journeys. Without HS2 no chance.

It is such a shame that all of those involved in the promotion of HS2 from conception to the present day have serially failed to get the purpose of the project across to the masses and allowed it's opponents and detractors to capture the media's attention. Even on a rail special-interest social media platform like RUK, ignorance of the true aims of HS2 still prevail.

 

[Ianno87]

I agree with the need to decarbonise transport and that this will require improved public transport, but I'm not convinced HS 2 is an effective way to do this. Rail services along much of the HS2 route are already a faster and superior alternative to using the car, particularly when accessing London and other major cities where car use is now actively discouraged.

Not necessarily true - some non-London journeys on the WCML are slower/less frequent than they ought to be. Take Coventry to Milton Keynes which (pre-Covid) lacked an 08xx arrival at MK for commuters, and the rest of the day is an hourly service. Reasonably attractive if you're near the station, but if you're not it is much less attractive than a car (compared to running, say, a half hourly train that would be a decent improvement on this).

 

[Harold Hill]

First and biggest mistake remains the decision to call it 'HS2'. That immediately upset millions of people. Too late to rename it but 'RT1' aka 'Relief Track One' would have been a more appropriate and less contentious name