HS2 under review

[edcayton]

I just can't help thinking that if we are to hold our head up in Europe that we need a high speed rail line along the spine of the country from the top to the bottom(including a Dawlish bypass) via London (but no need to change). FWIW anything less than that and we may as well not bother.

 

Ed

[Reorte]

I just can't help thinking that if we are to hold our head up in Europe that we need a high speed rail line along the spine of the country from the top to the bottom(including a Dawlish bypass) via London (but no need to change). FWIW anything less than that and we may as well not bother.

That sounds like "we need one because everyone else has one", which doesn't strike me as a good reason for spending an awful lot of money. The capacity argument is a pretty strong one for something less than that being worth bothering doing.

[Glorious NSE]

So the Scots should be aiming for Plymouth?   

The other European countries would appear to have developed their high speed network piecemeal, plugging into the "classic" networks where necessary to complete routes, I know we're late out of the gate, but I don't think it's a bad way to go (though I know it gives us more challenges than they had in terms of train size, we also know that was solvable with 90s technology!)

HS2 + HS3 gives a pretty good core network for future development IMHO, just keep bolting on branches and extensions as and when capacity and finance make sense.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The SNP claim that the business case for a high speed line from Scotland to London is very strong. Is there anything to stop the Scottish Govt from funding the construction of such a route on English soil, southwards to the point where the English bit of HS2 fizzles out?

 

Scottish Govt funding (unless and until Scotland becomes independent) would come from the UK govt funds anyway. So that does not really work.

 

There may be a sound business case for HS2 to Scotland but I rather doubt it. Politics often interferes with the best decision-making on business-led grounds. WCML north of Preston was not really the most pressing route to electrify back in the 70s.

[Glorious NSE]

Scottish Govt funding (unless and until Scotland becomes independent) would come from the UK govt funds anyway. So that does not really work.

 

The point though is that Scotland chooses what that Scottish transport budget gets spent on, so Transport Scotland gets to decide whether a high speed line towards England is their #1 priority. Complaining that the UK parliament won't fund it is wrong, effectively they already have decided to fund Scottish transport, it's just down to Scotland to decide to build high speed rail with that or spend it on something else.

 

Changing the subject - on the core network thinking, looking at the list of the biggest urban area's in the UK and aiming to link up the top 20 off the list (with the exception of Belfast) I get this:

 

 

Red is either in existence (HS1) or almost certainly going to happen (HS2) - blue is a reasonable guesstimate of what could come about if the Northern Hub HS3 project happens. Green are logical addons to that network within England to help connect additional urban area's, and Orange would be potential 'plug ins' for Welsh and Scottish governments to look at.

 

Slightly more controversially (after all, "everyone knows" that everybody in the South East commutes on a totally empty, brand new train with gold plated door handles) if you look at it that way suggests we also need one connecting the three larger urban area's on the South Coast (Purple), I figured the best argument for building those was likely to be capacity of the existing commuter routes into Waterloo and Victoria (both of which are, or are becoming an issue,) so i've connected them at the London end of the High Speed network.

 

Southampton-Bristol-Birmingham (and North) might make some sense from a "network" point of view, but i'm unsure how much from a financial one.

[caradoc]

Considering that not a single centimeter of HS2 has yet been constructed it is a bit early to start moaning about it not going to Scotland. Anyway, as long as HS2 can take conventional trains which can continue onto existing lines, a la TGV, it will directly benefit Scotland by speeding up at least part of the journey. BTW the SNP showed their true colours regarding rail when they cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link. Any protestations they make are simply political gestures to further their view of Scotland's status as helpless victim of evil Westminster.

[Graham Hughes]

So the SNP's position is best summarised as 'we want faster rail links to the rest of the country we want to leave'. 

So why did the UK government build the first High Speed Rail link speed up travel from the UK to France? Just because you want to govern your own affairs doesn't mean you want to isolate yourself from the rest of the world.

Scotland will be paying £3.5 Billion in the form of the revenue which Westminster retains for "Strategic UK spending" for this rail line that not only won't come anywhere near Scotland but will, according the the KPMG study commissioned by the UK government when HS2 was announced, damage the Scottish economy to the tune £100miliion pa for Aberdeen and the North East and £66million pa for Glasgow, to quote the two examples I can recall from memory.

 

 

 

BTW the SNP showed their true colours regarding rail when they cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link

Why did we need a rail Link to Glasgow Airport? You can get on the direct bus from outside the terminal to the door of Paisley Gilmour Street Station in a few minutes. I haven't been on it recently but it used to cost 50p. 

 

I thought this site was supposed to be non-political, yet it seems the all too predictable, ill-informed SNP-bashing and ignorantly depicting Scotland as being subsidised by England is allowed.

 

[Mike Storey]

 

 

Scotland will be paying £3.5 Billion in the form of the revenue which Westminster retains for "Strategic UK spending" for this rail line that not only won't come anywhere near Scotland 

 

I thought this site was supposed to be non-political, yet it seems the all too predictable, ill-informed SNP-bashing and ignorantly depicting Scotland as being subsidised by England is allowed.

 

 

Nice try. The £3.5 billion is for all strategic spending and is not hypothecated into one scheme, be it rail, road, defence or other infrastructure. HS2 is unlikely to be publicly funded north of Birmingham anyway.

 

However, I agree some of the sentiments expressed here and elsewhere about Scottish funding and spending are somewhat ignorant and bigoted. Let's hope the actions to be taken following the Smith report will help clarify the true situation.

 

For those sentiments expressed about the growing costs of HS2 Ltd already, before any construction has started, may I just remind you that Thameslink 2000 (as it was) which suffered from two major delays and two public enquiries, primarily regarding the London Bridge section, with very significant changes to scope at each stage, and took some 15 years in preparation, cost around £105m (conservatively, and at c.2000 prices) prior to any major construction, due to all the detailed proposals, planning submissions, re-planning, environmental studies, design, detailed design, wasted design, timetable modelling and re-modelling, etc etc etc, just for essentially a bit of serious upgrading over a few dozen route miles (when you added all the individual bits together). About 75% of this cost is the price of living in a democracy. HS2 is on a rather more serious scale, so such pre-GRIP stage 4/5 costs are much in line. I would expect costs up to the start of GRIP 5 (construction) to emerge at around 10% of the total costs, i.e. about £3 billion.

 

If you don't spend this kind of money and take your time before boots on the ground, there is a plethora of evidence on projects in every walk of life, that your total bill will turn out to be much, much more than you planned. Major projects like London Overground, 2012 Olympics works, CrossRail and the North East London sewerage replacement programme, have all followed this route and were, or are being, on time and on budget. The one exception, where excellent pre-planning was done to a major extent, was HS1 (and many lessons were learnt from that), which only goes to prove that every project contains risks, so the more time and effort you take to try to identify them and deal with them, or plan how to live with them, before work starts, the better.

[Graham Hughes]

Nice try. The £3.5 billion is for all strategic spending and is not hypothecated into one scheme, be it rail, road, defence or other infrastructure. HS2 is unlikely to be publicly funded north of Birmingham anyway.

 

No. the £3.5bn will be the share by population of the total cost of HS2. Your own estimate of costs has 10% of the total at around £3bn which is not that different.

[Purley Oaks]

However, I agree some of the sentiments expressed here and elsewhere about Scottish funding and spending are somewhat ignorant and bigoted. Let's hope the actions to be taken following the Smith report will help clarify the true situation.

 

Agreed.

 

A little off-HS2-topic here, apologies. The costly Edinburgh tram link (which duplicates the bus link to some extent) scuppered plans to build a rail link to Edinburgh Airport which means that travellers still need to travel 10 miles east into Edinburgh to catch a train north or west of Edinburgh. A rail link at the airport would have meant travellers being able to reach Glasgow, Carlisle, Aberdeen, Perth, Stirling, Inverness directly from the airport. Probably not part of HS2, though...

 

Mal

[Oakydoke]

Scotland will be paying £3.5 Billion in the form of the revenue which Westminster retains for "Strategic UK spending" for this rail line that not only won't come anywhere near Scotland ......

 

Just like other parts of the UK.

HS2 won't be going anywhere near the SW of England, Wales, East Anglia either and the people of those regions will be paying as much.

Then there are the numerous cities and towns along HS2's route who will be bypassed. In practical terms, HS2 will be nowhere near them either, even if it physically passes nearby. Proportionately speaking, there will be a far higher proportion of the population south of the border, who will not see the direct benefit.

At least trains from Scotland (classic compatible HS trains) will be able to join the HS2 line further south and benefit from significantly reduced journey times. A benefit most of the rest of the UK will not receive.

[jjb1970]

The problem with this is that since HS2 is subject to political decision making it is hard to discuss it without impinging upon politics. However we should try and avoid them and us divisiveness, from both sides. As Oakydoke says the argument that "our taxes will fund it and we won't benefit" breaks down as it is applicable to all government spending and all parts of the UK. Taxation is not a savings account, you pay in and the money is spent where our political masters deem it to be needed.

[edcayton]

Just like other parts of the UK.

HS2 won't be going anywhere near the SW of England, Wales, East Anglia either and the people of those regions will be paying as much.

Then there are the numerous cities and towns along HS2's route who will be bypassed. In practical terms, HS2 will be nowhere near them either, even if it physically passes nearby. Proportionately speaking, there will be a far higher proportion of the population south of the border, who will not see the direct benefit.

At least trains from Scotland (classic compatible HS trains) will be able to join the HS2 line further south and benefit from significantly reduced journey times. A benefit most of the rest of the UK will not receive.

 

Seems a fairly convincing argument for not building it at all.

 

Ed

[Glorious NSE]

Seems a fairly convincing argument for not building it at all.

 

Ed

 

You could use the same argument for not doing anything, ever though...

[Oakydoke]

Seems a fairly convincing argument for not building it at all.

 

Ed

It was not intended to be.

Let's face facts.

The primary purpose of HS2 has been subverted by politicians, railway campaigners and others.

It was conceived as both a solution to the capacity constraints on the core North - South axis and to link the 3 largest key provincial cities (in terms of both passenger numbers and importance) with London.

The add on benefit, is the concept of "classic compatible" trains being able to use the HS line and run on to other cities and towns.

 

As a strategic national transport program, the whole nation will have to pay for it. If they didn't they'd be paying for the alternative solutions that might end up being a bigger waste of money.

[caradoc]

Getting a bit off-topic, and apologies for straying into politics, but a rail link to Glasgow Airport was, and most certainly still is, required because rail provides a faster, better-quality service than any bus link ever can. The following UK Airports have had new rail connections built in the last forty years:

 

Birmingham (new station)

Newcastle (light rail)

Manchester (new line, station since expanded twice, and light rail)

Heathrow (2 new lines, one extended twice)

Prestwick (new station)

Edinburgh (light rail)

Liverpool (improved station)

Stansted (new line)

Luton (new station)

 

There may be others I have missed.

 

Anyway, getting back to HS2, surely anything that provides higher speeds and increased capacity over the WCML, even if only at the southern end at first, will benefit services to and from Scotland as well as the Midlands and North-west England ?

[The Stationmaster]

Going somewhat OT but even as a complete stranger to the area I found access to Glasgow airport from the city centre to be pretty straightforward.  I had a meeting at Polmadie depot followed by one in Brussels the next day and the whole process of getting from one place to the other, including the 'bus link to the airport, was remarkably simple.  A through train service would no doubt be good, especially if a number of routes could be incorporated but the fact is that reopening/improvement of rail routes in Scotland is very much down to decisions made by the Scottish Govt and their priority list for such schemes.

[lmsforever]

Agree when I have used Glasgow airport the bus link into the centre was swift and easy to use no need for a rail route or trams use the money for cross Glasgow route.

[Ron Ron Ron]

There may be others I have missed.

There certainly are, including a big one.....

 

Gatwick (several station expansions and redevelopments - currently having more platforms built)

Southampton (rebuilt, brand new station - on-airport - with inter city and regional train services)

Southend (brand new airport terminal and a brand new station alongside it)

London City (DLR - light rail + nearby Crossrail station due to open in 2 years time)

 

Also...

 

The following UK Airports have had new rail connections built in the last forty years:

 

Birmingham (new station)

Newcastle (light rail)

Manchester (new line, station since expanded twice, and light rail)

Heathrow (2 new lines, one extended twice) + Crossrail, (extending the rail connections reach) and another new line that will be built in the next few years (WRAtH - project started and now underway)

Prestwick (new station)

Edinburgh (light rail)

Liverpool (improved station) - actually, nowhere near the airport.

Stansted (new line)

Luton (new station) - a bit closer than Liverpools' station, but still well off the airport.

[phil-b259]

Agree when I have used Glasgow airport the bus link into the centre was swift and easy to use no need for a rail route or trams use the money for cross Glasgow route.

 

Glasgow airport has the advantage of being next to the M8 motorway which - unlike the M1, M4 or M11 London actually passes through the heart of the city center making a bus connection to and from the airport an easy and quick option (traffic permitting of course)

[locoholic]

HS2 Bill was in the Queen's Speech, so no sign of George Osborne baulking at the price tag and getting cold feet.

[Kris]

HS2 Bill was in the Queen's Speech, so no sign of George Osborne baulking at the price tag and getting cold feet.

Despite all the nay sayers, this project just keeps moving forward with no real signs of it not happening. 

[Edwin_m]

Agree when I have used Glasgow airport the bus link into the centre was swift and easy to use no need for a rail route or trams use the money for cross Glasgow route.

That has been my experience too, but colleagues in Glasgow tell me the M8 is very prone to congestion especially at peak times.  Particularly when serving an airport, something that takes 20min nine times out of ten but 60min the other time isn't very helpful. 

[Mike Storey]

No. the £3.5bn will be the share by population of the total cost of HS2. Your own estimate of costs has 10% of the total at around £3bn which is not that different.

 

That was not my point at all, but never mind. I very much doubt that anything like the full cost will be borne by UK taxpayers, but whatever the amount, it is the proportion of taxpayers, personal and corporate, and not population, which determines each regions'/nations' contributions to any scheme of national importance, as others have cited. Benefits and subsidy on the other hand are determined largely by population, as well as other factors.

[jjb1970]

Major transport schemes will generally be aimed at large population centres and connecting large population centres for the simple and obvious reason that this is where there is greatest demand and need. On the other hand it is also true that many of the more rural areas have benefitted from effective subsidies in terms of infrastructure development given that much rural electrification, telecoms, potable water and sewage and road infrastructure would not be affordable or viable if it had to be paid for only be local people and not funded from general taxation and funding. I grew up in a rural part of England where it is common to hear complaints that the big cities get everything and what do we get whilst ignoring the fact that the utilities infrastructure and many other things had been effectively paid for by the rest of the UK for our benefit.