How does #HS2 deliver those things? How, for example, will it improve local rail services?
Some people seem to think HS2 is about “knocking 35 minutes off London to Birmingham”. But there's much more to it than that... 2/n
Yes, #HS2 will dramatically reduce journey times: the project will cut London-Manchester from two hours to one; it takes around an hour off the journey to Scotland; and Birmingham-Nottingham, which currently takes over an hour, falls to an almost ridiculous 20 minutes. But... 3/n
Speed is not the main point of #HS2. The objective is capacity, and not just capacity for fast intercity services, either, but for local, regional and commuter services too. Allow us to explain how HS2 can deliver a local transport revolution... 4/n
Britain’s antiquated railway network carries a mix of express intercity trains (the kind which #HS2 will take) and stopping local and commuter services (the kind people use to get to work, do some shopping or pop to see family in another town). 5/n
This mix is a very inefficient way to run a railway, for a reason that is quite obvious if you think about it: trains cannot overtake each other on the same set of tracks. They would bang into the back of one another if they tried. Not ideal. 6/n
To get around this, local stopping trains need a large gap behind them in the timetable, so the expresses behind do not catch up. That reduces the number of trains you can have per hour on a line, dramatically reducing its capacity for every type of service—local and express. 7/n
#HS2 will shift those express intercity trains off the older mainlines, freeing them up for stopping local and commuter services. When trains are all travelling at roughly the same speed on a line, you can fit a lot more in, because the gaps needed between them are smaller. 8/n
Let’s represent express trains with a “|” and local trains with a “/”.
Our current railways are run inefficiently, like this:
|/|/|/|/|/|/|/|/|/
With #HS2, we’ll have a twin network with doubly boosted capacity, like this:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
////////////////////
9/n
So if, like Greenpeace, you’d like local trains that come so frequently you don't need to check a timetable, *and* passenger rail so easy, accessible and fast that it beats suffering in airports...
And if you also want cities that aren’t built around cars...
Support HS2. 10/n
H/t to @joncstone for inspiring elements of this thread with his journalism on #HS2 and transport. 11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We've seen a lot of evidence over conference week and today that @TheGreenParty is still some way from being able to discuss #HS2 constructively, based on a good understanding of what it offers as well as what it costs. The party's policy on high speed rail remains confused. /1
We say again: we are Party members who support #HS2 because it furthers the Green agenda rather than hinders it. We are happy to explain this case to any other member, including senior party figures, if asked. We aren't shills, trolls, astroturfers or trainspotters. /2
HS2 is being built. We aren't going to stop it. But we can campaign along the way: for HS2 Ltd to behave respectfully to the habitat and communities they disturb, for freed capacity to be used for local benefit, for transport policies to be put in place for road pricing, ../3
We know many very committed Greens are involved in these protests against #HS2, concerned about the loss of habitat and woodland - we respect their dedication. But they’re protesting about the wrong thing - the real enemy is the #RIS2 roads programme. /1
Unlike #RIS2, #HS2 is an investment in a low-CO2 future. It may not look like it now during construction, but the tree loss and upheaval we see is going to be paid back over decades because of how it helps the shift from high-CO2 cars and planes to low-CO2 travel. /2
. The chart summarises: over 60 years HS2 with no policy assistance will be neutral or better; over 120 years a huge win; with Green policies behind it, a major sustainability win. Note the numbers: worst case 1.2m tonnes CO2.) /3
We often hear from Greens, including very senior ones, that #HS2 is a climate disaster because it won’t be CO2-neutral for a long time. “120 years!” is quoted, “HS2’s own figures!”. One big problem with this: it isn’t true. Let’s take a look at HS2 and CO2... /1
HS2’s official position is that after 60 years #HS2 will either be slightly CO2-negative (if construction doesn’t improve its CO2 efficiency) or slightly CO2-positive (if it does). (The Oakervee review covers this: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… - sections 5.30 to 5.37) /2
The modelling is covered in more detail in this document: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…. We’ve extracted the numbers below from that. They consider 2 future scenarios - Scenario A in which electric cars and grid decarbonisation happen slowly, and a more optimistic B. /3
There has been a call to cancel #HS2 and use the money on more immediate needs like properly funding the NHS or buying everyone a bike. We all want the NHS to be funded - but it doesn't work that way: in fact we'd be worse off. A thread to explain why... /1
We Greens believe in borrowing to invest. Our 2019 manifesto proposed £94bn, to be invested in the national grid, energy storage, renewable electricity, home insulation, R&D, railways, cycle paths, electric vehicle infrastructure and so on (greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/E… p85) /2.
The point about investing is that you invest *in* something - an asset which has value and generates a return (in accountant-speak, "CAPEX"). /3
Some Greens are worried about how HS2's drilling and tunnelling into the chalk below its route might affect drinking water and chalk streams such as the River Misbourne. It's a challenge, but they needn't be too alarmed. A thread on piles and tunnels ... /1
We'll start with a disclaimer - we're not water or geology experts, so we're open to correction if anything we say here turns out to be wrong. /2
First up - piling in the Colne Valley. To hold up the viaduct where the railway crosses the valley, HS2 has to drive piles through the upper soils down into the chalk which lies below. (This is what the viaduct will look like when it's done). /3
One of the criticisms of #HS2 is that because it's so fast, it uses up much more energy than normal trains - so Greens should push for lower speed railways. There is just enough truth in this to make it plausible, but it's not the whole story. A thread to explain why... /1
For sure, if you run a train twice as fast, it needs nearly four times as much energy to maintain speed. (check out Davis Equation if you want to know more. Aerodynamic resistance, that dominates at high speeds, goes up by the square of the speed). However .... /2
... other things to consider. Firstly, a better measure when comparing is how much energy is used to move *each passenger*; and if our interest is really CO2, it's how much greenhouse gas is generated to do that. /3