HS2 under review

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

But all development is good according to a certain political party - creating thousands of new jobs and easing the housebuilding crisis........

 

 

It's not a party political issue.

Both leading parties claim they are committed to building a large number of new homes.

One of those parties talks of building around a million homes, heavily weighted towards social housing.

 

Even if they don't build, or encourage such development, where are you going to house an extra 6 million people ?

 

I repeat...6 million extra people !!!!

 

 

Think. That's another Birmingham, Greater Manchester and Leeds.

 

 

 

..

 

 

.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Ron Ron Ron

[phil-b259]

Not necessarily one planning approval near here has been so overturned (so far) and another is being thrown back into the melting pot by a local council who are trying to stop it, partly because of the designation of the site as being primarily for commercial use.  And the number of new houses is being reduced by the County Council.

 

Obviously much depends on local factors, but to give an  example, a recent permission for a new development just by the Bluebell Railways viaduct in East Grinstead was given approval despite intense opposition by locals / councillors - with the planning inspector / SOS lambasting Mid Sussex District Council for (a) Having a housing plan that was 5 years out of date and (b) The site was one of the few areas around the town not subject to environmental protection (AONB etc).

 

In other words the view of the SOS / legislation passed by Westminster, because the council was not keeping its local housing plan up to date it had no right to object to any housing developer proposals (other than because of it impinging on things like SSIs, AONBs etc).

 

Its something that rather gets lost on locals and their councillors when they complain about new developments - councils are basically being forced to say yes to new developments and can only have a say in where they go if they actually nominate land for the purpose. If insufficient land is safeguarded then the developers are given free reign to pick were they want safe in the knowledge it will pretty much guaranteed to be approved on appeal.

 

So if you dislike development (as LMSforever has indicated he does) then you need to remember that local authorities are largely Pawns in this process  complaints really need to be directed higher at Westminster who have put in place the framework which makes local authorities obliged to facilitate development come what may.

 

Personally, given the rising population and sky high house prices in many places I see the need for more development and don't oppose it per say - though its obvious that are national infrastructure networks (Roads, rail, electricity, water, gas) are all ill-prepared to cope with the level of housing development needed thanks to decades of logicically 'free market / competition is all* you need / always* best' policies from the inhabitants of Westminster.

 

 

* Please note the inclusion of the word 'all' in this statement

Edited January 22, 2019 by phil-b259

[lmsforever]

I fully understand the need for new housing but what is being built is not for the people who need a home if they can afford the deposit and mortgage its for the current homeowners who have a suitable budget.The planning issues are a hotly contested matter everywhere but the real issues are ignored ,no surgeries schools or even shops very often are not included so the new residents have to go off area for these services.  Roads seem to be a forgotten subject in many areas to give an example ,here in Aylesbury there are three 3500 developments and many small ones have all put the roads under intense pressure .To pass through the town and onto other destinations you basically have to go through the centre meaning one accident and its gridlocked .The councils are just tinkering with so called link roads (single carriageway) and one such road is going to have houses built along it and up to HS2.The whole policies on transport has been ignored by all governments and the buck is continualy passed around leaving the people at the mercy of developers who care nothing for the havoc they cause.Now if we had an HS2 station that would be helpful?

[Mike Storey]

I fully understand the need for new housing but what is being built is not for the people who need a home if they can afford the deposit and mortgage its for the current homeowners who have a suitable budget.The planning issues are a hotly contested matter everywhere but the real issues are ignored ,no surgeries schools or even shops very often are not included so the new residents have to go off area for these services.  Roads seem to be a forgotten subject in many areas to give an example ,here in Aylesbury there are three 3500 developments and many small ones have all put the roads under intense pressure .To pass through the town and onto other destinations you basically have to go through the centre meaning one accident and its gridlocked .The councils are just tinkering with so called link roads (single carriageway) and one such road is going to have houses built along it and up to HS2.The whole policies on transport has been ignored by all governments and the buck is continualy passed around leaving the people at the mercy of developers who care nothing for the havoc they cause.Now if we had an HS2 station that would be helpful?

 

I can only agree about the roads and other infrastructure, having had the misfortune to have to drive past Aylesbury last autumn, whilst trying to find passage from the fabulous Garden Railway Specialists shop at Princes Risborough to the M1. The roads are entirely unsuitable for the traffic using them now, let alone future expansion.

 

I am not sure whether an HS2 station would be a good idea either - on past experience elsewhere, it would become an out of town parkway and attract a far wider catchment, worsening local problems even more?

[phil-b259]

I fully understand the need for new housing but what is being built is not for the people who need a home if they can afford the deposit and mortgage its for the current homeowners who have a suitable budget.The planning issues are a hotly contested matter everywhere but the real issues are ignored ,no surgeries schools or even shops very often are not included so the new residents have to go off area for these services.  Roads seem to be a forgotten subject in many areas to give an example ,here in Aylesbury there are three 3500 developments and many small ones have all put the roads under intense pressure .To pass through the town and onto other destinations you basically have to go through the centre meaning one accident and its gridlocked .The councils are just tinkering with so called link roads (single carriageway) and one such road is going to have houses built along it and up to HS2.The whole policies on transport has been ignored by all governments and the buck is continualy passed around leaving the people at the mercy of developers who care nothing for the havoc they cause.Now if we had an HS2 station that would be helpful?

 

But an HS2 station at wouldn't help with school, Doctors surgeries, transport links to local towns or local road provision would it? - and I would argue that these are far more important on a local level than fast trains to the North West / London.

 

I would also point out that not having a HS2 station in the Chilterns it theoretically makes it much easier to oppose development due to inadequate transport links - where as if one was provided there would be great temptation by developers / Government to use that in lieu of proper local connections to neighbouring towns / employment centres.

[lmsforever]

Tongue in cheek comment about HS2 station ,but tonight on news item about enquiry in Westminster about HS2 not good vibes for the project talk of cuts to services and speeds and worries over costs .Perhaps when the Brexit hysteria is over we shall see more of this and more cuts to project as we shall need the money spent elsewhere mp,s are starting to look beyond the hype .

[Mike Storey]

Tongue in cheek comment about HS2 station ,but tonight on news item about enquiry in Westminster about HS2 not good vibes for the project talk of cuts to services and speeds and worries over costs .Perhaps when the Brexit hysteria is over we shall see more of this and more cuts to project as we shall need the money spent elsewhere mp,s are starting to look beyond the hype .

 

Can you cite the news item and "enquiry" in Westminster please? The latest media item I can find about HS2, on any channel or web-based news, is this (my emphasis in bold):

 

“It is already clear that the government’s commitment to HS2 Phases 1 and 2a, strengthening the economic ties between London, the West Midlands and north west of the country, is encouraging long-term investment in those areas. We urgently need an equivalent commitment to HS2 Phase 2b to give similar confidence to the east of the country. This will add the East Midlands and Yorkshire to the list of beneficiaries.”

 

which was reported by Rail Technology last week, and was picked up by some of the main channels in the last day or two, including the Beeb. It concerns a request by North East councils to invest more in HS2 developments, not less. They are worried that Phase 2b is now a can being kicked down the road, similar to something else......

[lmsforever]

Comment on ITV local news for the Thames Valley just a few lines that's all.

[Richard E]

This press release, the most recent I can find for the Thames Valley area, seems to contradict that rumour - "High Speed Rail Industry Leaders (HSRIL) Parliamentary reception saw enthusiastic backing for the HS2 project from Ministers and MPs" and “HS2 is already delivering benefits, with 7,000 workers and 2,000 suppliers currently working on building what will become the backbone of Britain’s rail network."

 

There is also comment in that article on how HS2 is creating many jobs further down the supply chain including engineering apprenticeships in many of the supplier companies.

 

https://ciltuk.org.uk/News/Latest-News/ArtMID/6887/ArticleID/20680/Ministers-and-cross-party-parliamentarians-unite-to-back-HS2

[rodent279]

Thats good news I hated the walk to Euston especially if it was raining ,it will be interesting to see just how the new Euston will look hope it loses the jaded sixties atmosphere.

Personally, I love it. But then I like to be different!

[jjb1970]

I think Euston is a very maligned station, as a regular user I find it to be probably the most user friendly and efficient of all the major London stations.

[rodent279]

I think Euston is a very maligned station, as a regular user I find it to be probably the most user friendly and efficient of all the major London stations.

I think we'll regret it when it's gone. Ok the platforms aren't great, but the big hall with its light, open space and marble floor, is a modern classic. And I was relieved to see that the mezzanine hasn't ruined it, unlike the one at Liverpool St.

[keefer]

Tongue in cheek comment about HS2 station ,but tonight on news item about enquiry in Westminster about HS2 not good vibes for the project talk of cuts to services and speeds and worries over costs .Perhaps when the Brexit hysteria is over we shall see more of this and more cuts to project as we shall need the money spent elsewhere mp,s are starting to look beyond the hype .

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/companies/clients/hs2/hs2-ceo-says-slower-trains-among-number-of-options/10038880.article

[Mike Storey]

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/companies/clients/hs2/hs2-ceo-says-slower-trains-among-number-of-options/10038880.article

 

Subscription site, so most on here can't see it. But matter already covered a week ago - see https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/27462-hs2-was-route-maps/page-120&do=findComment&comment=3432350

 

Only thing that has changed is a report that Phase 2b parliamentary consideration has been pushed back to 2020, and may take a year or two after that for final approval.

[Richard E]

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/companies/clients/hs2/hs2-ceo-says-slower-trains-among-number-of-options/10038880.article

Text content is as follows (copy paste so the mistakes are in the original article):

 

 

HS2 could run fewer trains at a lower speed if changes are needed to finish the project on budget and on time.

 

MP Andrea Leadsom wrote to HS2 chief executive Mark Thurston (pictured) to raise concerns that he had told a meeting in parliament about the option, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

According to Ms Leadsom, Mr Thurston told the group that “these changes included possibly the speed the trains will operate at on the line by around 50 km/h, reducing the number of trains from 18 per hour to 14, and changing from a slab track to a ballast track”.

 

In her letter written in November, Ms Leadsom said: “Given that the HS2 business case was first predicated upon speed, then on capacity, then finally on improving connectivity with the north, can I ask how these changes – separately and cumulatively – would impact on the viability of the project?”

 

In a response to Ms Leadsom this month, the chief executive said he was simply outlining “a number of options” at the meeting in parliament.

 

He added: “I was also clear that HS2 Ltd is working to the scope and budget of the project which the government has set, and for which detailed debate in parliament has taken place.”

In December, former land and property director for the scheme, Doug Thornton claimed the cost estimates presented to parliament about the scheme were hundreds of millions of pounds too low on the BBC’s Panorama.

 

Mr Thurston told the programme that he was confident about the budget and that “it’s perfectly normal” for costs to change over time.

[GoingUnderground]

Tongue in cheek comment about HS2 station ,but tonight on news item about enquiry in Westminster about HS2 not good vibes for the project talk of cuts to services and speeds and worries over costs .Perhaps when the Brexit hysteria is over we shall see more of this and more cuts to project as we shall need the money spent elsewhere mp,s are starting to look beyond the hype .

I agree with you that it doesn't look good for the project, but I disagree that it's MPs looking beyond the hype. Rather it's the dawning realisation that there isn't going to be the money for it, or for much else come to that, especially if BoJo has his way with a low tax low regulation economic model post 29 March.

[Mike Storey]

Text content is as follows (copy paste so the mistakes are in the original article):

 

Thanks for posting the text of that article. On the question of property costs, as seized upon by many critics of the HS2 project, I read something more, but have lost the link, that the costs quoted in the base case, are net. In other words, many of the properties acquired, for site compounds, access and so on, will be sold again after construction, and that the subsequent commercial income available post-construction, in and above the new station and presumably on much of the tunnelled parts of the route in urban areas, particularly London, has been estimated to offset these costs. This is quite normal practice. A large part of the 2012 Olympics Business Case assumed major commercial income from post-Games sales (especially of new luxury appartments from the Olympic Village blocks) to offset original costs.

 

What we don't know is whether Mr Thurston was part of this original calculation (he arrived at HS2 well after the original BC was submitted) or whether he was merely pointing out that the purchase and wayleave costs quoted in that BC (to be netted off later) were already being exceeded. The latter is most likely, but then, the potential post-construction income is just just as susceptible to variation. I am not sure that this is a major issue for a dominantly railway scheme, in terms of viability, because it would normally be accepted as a variation outside the control of the project. What we do know, is that the private and commercial property displacement for the scheme eventually recommended, was the least disruptive of the 13 options originally considered. 

 

So I am not sure how this supports the views of those who say it would be better just to widen the existing lines etc. instead of doing HS2. For example, when I was part of a small team that looked at resurrecting the four-tracking of Welwyn Viaduct, in the late 1990's, we came up with a construction estimate of around £400m, which included an allowance for property purchase and compensation. When it was passed along to property experts to peer review, they tripled our estimates, and Gerald Corbett chucked it in the bin. HS2 had their own property experts to peer review, so I assume there was some sense checking of commercial liabilities and opportunities at the time....

[Kelly]

The nature of how the wcml was built by the Victorians largely negates any possible upgrade to achieve what hs2 is projected to provide.

 

The layout is very much a snake due to landowners historically refusing permission, so getting higher speeds is very difficult to achieve. Beyond 125 and can signalling is deemed essential I believe. Pebdolinos can do 140 and can signalling, but the 350s and others can't do more than 110 at most and combining the two makes any signalling upgrade very very expensive. Which is why br never did it despite wanting to when the apt-p was being developed.

 

As others have said, there is the problem with widening of just too many bridges and housing and industrial development to ever consider that viable in place of hs2.

 

My view has always been that hs2 is needed, to some extent regardless of the cost in some respects. The route and management are a different story.

[jamie92208]

The nature of how the wcml was built by the Victorians largely negates any possible upgrade to achieve what hs2 is projected to provide.

 

The layout is very much a snake due to landowners historically refusing permission, so getting higher speeds is very difficult to achieve. Beyond 125 and can signalling is deemed essential I believe. Pebdolinos can do 140 and can signalling, but the 350s and others can't do more than 110 at most and combining the two makes any signalling upgrade very very expensive. Which is why br never did it despite wanting to when the apt-p was being developed.

 

As others have said, there is the problem with widening of just too many bridges and housing and industrial development to ever consider that viable in place of hs2.

 

My view has always been that hs2 is needed, to some extent regardless of the cost in some respects. The route and management are a different story.

There is also the problem that a lot of the 4 tracking done by the LNWR was also done to a very tight budget and the clearances between tracks are very tight so that as far as I know it's nit possible to have both up line open if they are working on the down slow and vice versa.

 

 

This morning there was an item on BBC Breakfast about possible delays to HS2. There was no one from HS2 interviewed, just the chairman of Stop HS2 and a lady from the Construction industry who's main thrust was the need for both HS2 Phase 2b and Northern Powerhouse Rail. Not exactly balanced reporting.

 

 

Jamie

[jjb1970]

I think it's important to avoid assuming that criticisms of certain aspects of how HS2 is being developed equals an objection to HS2 being built. I'm actually pro-HS2, but I must admit I have scratched my head a bit at some of the things I have observed about the project.

[GoingUnderground]

I think it's important to avoid assuming that criticisms of certain aspects of how HS2 is being developed equals an objection to HS2 being built. I'm actually pro-HS2, but I must admit I have scratched my head a bit at some of the things I have observed about the project.

A case of too many SODs, that's Sub-Optimal Decisions, being made to keep the cost down. Or in other words, "Do it cheap, not right", a bit like the ECML electrification.

[adb968008]

I think it's important to avoid assuming that criticisms of certain aspects of how HS2 is being developed equals an objection to HS2 being built. I'm actually pro-HS2, but I must admit I have scratched my head a bit at some of the things I have observed about the project.

Agree.

The line I understand.

Old Oak Common i could only understand, if HS2 was designed to pass through London, rather than terminate.

 

It feels somewhat Victorian in its conception.

 

As it is, i think many oppourtunities have been missed, for instance it does nothing for anyone south of the Thames, which is half the populace right there.

Despite propaganda, Old Oak has useless connections.. no tube, no over ground, no road connections, its not suitable for Heathrow and even the canal manages to just miss it. I’m not convinced its a viable replacement for cross country trains, to expect South West/North West travellers to swing via Old Oak.

 

Regardless the thought, Londoners arent going to move to Birmingham unless they are forced to, and ticket prices alone will be too prohibitive to commute. The first time little johnny is sick at school in Brum, and HS2 goes sideways, panicked parents will truly realise what it means to be 100 miles away from your sick child, not 45mins from home with a selection of tubes, buses and stations to pick from and end at the same destination a dozen or two miles from london. They will radpidly start to reconsider, that is if they dont pre-consider that before moving.

 

It would be interesting to know how many millions of londoners today commute daily from Birmingham with their spouses, i suspect very few. Just because it saves 10 minutes isnt going alter the neccessary parking, changing tubes and onward journeys they have today, and no ones talking about lower fares.

 

If they really want to save money on HS2, make it relevent... scrap Old Oak and Euston, make the stock able to run it through Crossrail stopping at key central stations, and run onto Norwich, Stansted, and do a whip round for a HS1 connection to give access to Kent..(From stratford onto HS1) . it would save a few 345’s, 395’s and replacing those class 90’s too. Give Londoners options for a direct (not changing train service) for many more options and doesnt require a “terminus”.

Edited January 24, 2019 by adb968008

[lmsforever]

What a sensible post hits the nail on the head about the whole project.

[Siberian Snooper]

Or better still (my opinion) make it the North-South crossrail and kill two birds with one concrete block!!

[adb968008]

Or better still (my opinion) make it the North-South crossrail and kill two birds with one concrete block!!

A fastline between Euston and Waterloo, with a fourway junction to Crossrail at Tottenham court road...

 

Who would have thought a fastline across London was a good idea...

The Victorians did apparently, there was a plan for NYC style metro fastlines by passing some stops on the Northern line, during WW2 some potential platforms were built.

Clapham Junction even has a tube station access. However nothing was to come of it.

Today they are used for underground storage, Clapham junctions tube entrance is easily visible as you walk along the underground footpath between platforms 8/9 and 1-4.. next time you see those underground shops on the london side.. look up at the archways and you’ll see the style of a tube station entrance / exit arches occupied by the two largest retailers down there.

There was a website a few years back that did a visit, through a door at the back of the retailer that showed the underground storage vaults that could have been platforms.

There are other such locations around the capital, i believe one was used for housing immigrants in the 1950’s, examples are Bellsize Park, Clapham South, Clapham Common, Camden Town and Googe St.

Edited January 24, 2019 by adb968008