HS2 under review

[rockershovel]

Now it’s MY turn to say “your logic defeats me”.

 

I don’t begin to understand the logic of asserting that businesses will move to the North and Midlands. All the evidence seems to suggest that London is drawing in more than ever before. The erstwhile industries of the North didn’t go there to get good property prices, but because the resources they depended upon were found there, and nowhere else. 

 

One thing I DO know about construction sector jobs is that they are specialised and short-lived, supporting a mobile workforce which follows the work. 

 

As for “imagined EU ambitions”, it’s a bit of a weighty read but it’s extensively documented, in the public domain. The general concept of the EU functioning as a central executive, bypassing national governments to deal directly with regional authorities is well established, they have an organisation called “The Committee of Regions” which exists for exactly that purpose. Bear in mind that to the European mind, the concept of a nation as more-or-less a federation of local regions which exercise a considerable amount of autonomy is nothing remarkable, France is pretty much like that; Germany is a Federal Republic, and so forth. 

 

Coming to specifics, the concept of regional rail corridors is actually quite well documented

 

 

 

... which you will easily see, bears a considerable resemblance to the HS1 et seq schemes. These aren’t difficult to find, and bear scrutiny. 

 

I don’t advocate or oppose these, simply point out that the EU’s goals and overall view are quite easy to establish, and entirely consistent in their own terms. 

 

 

 

 

 

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

I don’t begin to understand the logic of asserting that businesses will move to the North and Midlands. All the evidence seems to suggest that London is drawing in more than ever before. The erstwhile industries of the North didn’t go there to get good property prices, but because the resources they depended upon were found there, and nowhere else.

 

Businesses factor in assorted items in choosing where to locate, and costs are certainly one of them whether it's rent/land purchase price or the amount they have to offer in pay to get the employees they want.

 

Being able to offer lower costs can benefit the north only if they get good transport links to help offset the negatives of not being in the southeast.

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

Businesses factor in assorted items in choosing where to locate, and costs are certainly one of them whether it's rent/land purchase price or the amount they have to offer in pay to get the employees they want.

 

Being able to offer lower costs can benefit the north only if they get good transport links to help offset the negatives of not being in the southeast.

 

I’m afraid that I find the whole train of argument, very difficult to follow. The depressed areas of the North and Midlands are major conurbations, which grew to great size very quickly (you might be surprised, how minor places like Birmingham were, two hundred years ago) as a result of industries which developed there, specifically there, because they provided essential materials like clay, coal, ironstone and water in the required quantities; or, like the textile industries of the NorthWest, access to the ports which served their very specific business model. 

 

Now those industries have collapsed, been abandoned or made obsolete and what remains are large populations of former workers, and their descendants. Don’t forget that even in its industrial heyday, this country was a considerable net exporter of population. 

 

Its rather touching, really, this faith that by providing “the right infrastructure” then “businesses”, in some abstract sense, will return. But all the evidence seems to point the other way, not least because that is clearly EU policy. Jaguar Land Rover recently built a new plant in Croatia, or some such place, with substantial EU inducements, which OUR government was prevented from matching by Brussels and lacked the will to simply offer the well-known two-fingered gesture in response. EU policy in respect of Japanese Trade is well advanced in signing a trade deal which will undercut the whole raison d’etre of the Nissan operation in the North East. 

 

None if this suggests that, stay or leave, there are any credible plans in any direction, to do anything constructive. 

 

Returning to an earlier theme, I don’t doubt that in this notably overpopulated country, any transport link from anywhere to anywhere will rapidly fill up, unless it lies in the economic wastelands North of the Wash and East of the A1. Whether any real benefit accrues, is a somewhat different question. 

 

As a closing note, this country is still an elective democracy of sorts. Making great plans for “the nation” doesn’t tend to be a vote-winner, when presented on the basis that “we have great plans, in which you do not figure”. Those plans have to be paid for, by politicians who need to achieve election...

 

 

 

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

 

I don’t begin to understand the logic of asserting that businesses will move to the North and Midlands. All the evidence seems to suggest that London is drawing in more than ever before. The erstwhile industries of the North didn’t go there to get good property prices, but because the resources they depended upon were found there, and nowhere else. 

 

 

 

We are in very different conditions these days due to technology. Those erstwhile industries are not really relevant. What counts is the jobs of today and fifty years time.

 

Even if a company requires a London/South-East base, it can locate the majority of its workforce elsewhere and rely on internet connectivity to provide the necessary communication for most purposes. There will still be a need for some travel to meetings etc for which HS2 will be very useful by virtue of reduced travel times. Meanwhile the conventional rail network gets more capacity to transport the goods manufactured "oop North".

[Edwin_m]

48 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

I’m afraid that I find the whole train of argument, very difficult to follow. The depressed areas of the North and Midlands are major conurbations, which grew to great size very quickly (you might be surprised, how minor places like Birmingham were, two hundred years ago) as a result of industries which developed there, specifically there, because they provided essential materials like clay, coal, ironstone and water in the required quantities; or, like the textile industries of the NorthWest, access to the ports which served their very specific business model. 

 

Now those industries have collapsed, been abandoned or made obsolete and what remains are large populations of former workers, and their descendants. Don’t forget that even in its industrial heyday, this country was a considerable net exporter of population. 

 

Its rather touching, really, this faith that by providing “the right infrastructure” then “businesses”, in some abstract sense, will return. But all the evidence seems to point the other way, not least because that is clearly EU policy. Jaguar Land Rover recently built a new plant in Croatia, or some such place, with substantial EU inducements, which OUR government was prevented from matching by Brussels and lacked the will to simply offer the well-known two-fingered gesture in response. EU policy in respect of Japanese Trade is well advanced in signing a trade deal which will undercut the whole raison d’etre of the Nissan operation in the North East. 

 

None if this suggests that, stay or leave, there are any credible plans in any direction, to do anything constructive. 

 

Returning to an earlier theme, I don’t doubt that in this notably overpopulated country, any transport link from anywhere to anywhere will rapidly fill up, unless it lies in the economic wastelands North of the Wash and East of the A1. Whether any real benefit accrues, is a somewhat different question. 

 

As a closing note, this country is still an elective democracy of sorts. Making great plans for “the nation” doesn’t tend to be a vote-winner, when presented on the basis that “we have great plans, in which you do not figure”. Those plans have to be paid for, by politicians who need to achieve election...

The resource that modern industries rely on is not coal or ore but brainpower.  And the way the economy is set up at present, that all gravitates to the south-east.  By making links easier the theory is that people can be based in the north and still visit colleagues, suppliers and clients in the south-east and vice versa, as well as other parts of the north.  I would personally like to see little or no season ticket discount on HS2, as an incentive to draw business and activity out of London rather than just increasing the commuter belt. 

 

The same effect applies across Europe, that areas close to the centre of activity are more prosperous.  Successive UK governments have ignored the regions remote from London and I can't see how losing the small amount of rebalancing the EU has provided can help.  Cutting oneself off from the centre of activity either in the UK or in Europe isn't going to revive those industries that depend on resources that have been exhausted or are no longer relevant, and doesn't strike me as a recipe for a more prosperous or better life. 

[black and decker boy]

Plenty of examples of businesses relocating back office functions out of London.

 

j Sainsbury for example has moved large numbers out of Holborn to Coventry.

 

office rental is cheaper, staff are cheaper

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Now it’s MY turn to say “your logic defeats me”.

 

I don’t begin to understand the logic of asserting that businesses will move to the North and Midlands. All the evidence seems to suggest that London is drawing in more than ever before. The erstwhile industries of the North didn’t go there to get good property prices, but because the resources they depended upon were found there, and nowhere else. 

 

One thing I DO know about construction sector jobs is that they are specialised and short-lived, supporting a mobile workforce which follows the work. 

 

As for “imagined EU ambitions”, it’s a bit of a weighty read but it’s extensively documented, in the public domain. The general concept of the EU functioning as a central executive, bypassing national governments to deal directly with regional authorities is well established, they have an organisation called “The Committee of Regions” which exists for exactly that purpose. Bear in mind that to the European mind, the concept of a nation as more-or-less a federation of local regions which exercise a considerable amount of autonomy is nothing remarkable, France is pretty much like that; Germany is a Federal Republic, and so forth. 

 

Coming to specifics, the concept of regional rail corridors is actually quite well documented

 

 

 

 

... which you will easily see, bears a considerable resemblance to the HS1 et seq schemes. These aren’t difficult to find, and bear scrutiny. 

 

I don’t advocate or oppose these, simply point out that the EU’s goals and overall view are quite easy to establish, and entirely consistent in their own terms. 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really anything new about that.  The concept and process of constructing integrated European railway timetables and connecting trains goes back to before the Great War.  The only major European economy which didn't originally sign up to it was the UK but by the 1920s it was as involved as any other European country in the concept of cross-Europe connecting and through services - just that our end was to some extent concentrated on London but it definitely extended on one route to Manchester,  It's just that it never seems to have been widely known even within the British railway industry because it mainly only involved the Southern and the LNER.  I have 1934 British published timetable leaflet which not only shows the trains from London but connections in Britain from as far afield as Swansea and Aberdeen and which on the European mainland shows connecting services right into Italy and even as far afield as Moscow - you don't get something like that without an international process to put it together.  And oddly that 1934 the timetable gives a route, and connections, from Ostend to Riga - the 'North Sea - Baltic' route which you seem to attribute to the EU yet a route which predates the EEC by at least 23 years and predates the EU by almost 60 years - hardly something created by the EU!

 

The Channel Tunnel and coming of Eurostar changed things but we still differed from a number of the continental administrations in not basing our timetables around international connections.  Hardly surprising when you consider that BR never truly grasped the idea of a wholly interlocking and inter-connecting nationally based timetable.  The fact that connections generally work well in some places where different timetables come together is not quite the same idea although at times it might give that impression.

 

As for the coloured map you posted all that basically does - as instanced above - is repeat a number of long established routes or proposals to develop routes which have as much to do with ideas emerging from the EU bureaucracy as what I shall be eating for my tea this evening.  Some on there are of course strictly freight routes and in that respect yet again they largely, if not wholly, reflect various ideas which have emerged from individual railways and operators or commercial people in those railways.  Incidentally the last one I worked on was a fully integrated connecting timetable for the route London - Brussel - Köln - Frankfurt - Basel - Zurich (and also of course connecting into the Swiss national timetable).  A plan which was intended to build on and revise as necessary existing timetable patterns and frequencies along that axis - I can confirm that there were no EU representatives involved in any correspondence or at either our formal meetings in Bruxelles or Frankfurt, or even at our less formal, but still international, meetings in a bar in Mainz.  Most of it happened but as ever the. British (apart from me and one or two others) didn't really want to play ball.

 

All the EU has actually done - although it was not really the EU but a working party of national railways' representatives chaired by a Dane - is decide how to greatly streamline and improve the manner in which international timetabling is progressed, especially for freight trains; that change was long overdue.  And odd though it might sound NR, as a member of the UIC (not the EU) is also supposed to work to the same timescales and at least uses the same annual timetable change date in December

[Bernard Lamb]

5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not really anything new about that.  The concept and process of constructing integrated European railway timetables and connecting trains goes back to before the Great War.  The only major European economy which didn't originally sign up to it was the UK but by the 1920s it was as involved as any other European country in the concept of cross-Europe connecting and through services - just that our end was to some extent concentrated on London but it definitely extended on one route to Manchester,  It's just that it never seems to have been widely known even within the British railway industry because it mainly only involved the Southern and the LNER.  I have 1934 British published timetable leaflet which not only shows the trains from London but connections in Britain from as far afield as Swansea and Aberdeen and which on the European mainland shows connecting services right into Italy and even as far afield as Moscow - you don't get something like that without an international process to put it together.  And oddly that 1934 the timetable gives a route, and connections, from Ostend to Riga - the 'North Sea - Baltic' route which you seem to attribute to the EU yet a route which predates the EEC by at least 23 years and predates the EU by almost 60 years - hardly something created by the EU!

 

 

The bloke in charge of things in Germany in 1934 had ideas of extending the national rail system rather further than Riga.

Bernard

[rockershovel]

Re various comments above, I did say earlier that the concept of inter-European and international rail networks considerably pre-dated the EU, citing the Austrian-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires and USA (among others) as examples.

 

its also true that geography being what it is, main routes and centres of population tend to be stable over very long periods of time; the Romans would recognise much of the A1/ECML. 

 

The real point about the maps I posted, was to demonstrate that they are, indeed, specifically EU policy. Look at the headers; they are public domain information from that source. This was to refute Mike Storey’s assertion that this was in some way “imaginary”, by citing a source.

 

[rockershovel]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not really anything new about that.  The concept and process of constructing integrated European railway timetables and connecting trains goes back to before the Great War.  The only major European economy which didn't originally sign up to it was the UK but by the 1920s it was as involved as any other European country in the concept of cross-Europe connecting and through services - just that our end was to some extent concentrated on London but it definitely extended on one route to Manchester,  It's just that it never seems to have been widely known even within the British railway industry because it mainly only involved the Southern and the LNER.  I have 1934 British published timetable leaflet which not only shows the trains from London but connections in Britain from as far afield as Swansea and Aberdeen and which on the European mainland shows connecting services right into Italy and even as far afield as Moscow - you don't get something like that without an international process to put it together.  And oddly that 1934 the timetable gives a route, and connections, from Ostend to Riga - the 'North Sea - Baltic' route which you seem to attribute to the EU yet a route which predates the EEC by at least 23 years and predates the EU by almost 60 years - hardly something created by the EU!

 

The Channel Tunnel and coming of Eurostar changed things but we still differed from a number of the continental administrations in not basing our timetables around international connections.  Hardly surprising when you consider that BR never truly grasped the idea of a wholly interlocking and inter-connecting nationally based timetable.  The fact that connections generally work well in some places where different timetables come together is not quite the same idea although at times it might give that impression.

 

As for the coloured map you posted all that basically does - as instanced above - is repeat a number of long established routes or proposals to develop routes which have as much to do with ideas emerging from the EU bureaucracy as what I shall be eating for my tea this evening.  Some on there are of course strictly freight routes and in that respect yet again they largely, if not wholly, reflect various ideas which have emerged from individual railways and operators or commercial people in those railways.  Incidentally the last one I worked on was a fully integrated connecting timetable for the route London - Brussel - Köln - Frankfurt - Basel - Zurich (and also of course connecting into the Swiss national timetable).  A plan which was intended to build on and revise as necessary existing timetable patterns and frequencies along that axis - I can confirm that there were no EU representatives involved in any correspondence or at either our formal meetings in Bruxelles or Frankfurt, or even at our less formal, but still international, meetings in a bar in Mainz.  Most of it happened but as ever the. British (apart from me and one or two others) didn't really want to play ball.

 

All the EU has actually done - although it was not really the EU but a working party of national railways' representatives chaired by a Dane - is decide how to greatly streamline and improve the manner in which international timetabling is progressed, especially for freight trains; that change was long overdue.  And odd though it might sound NR, as a member of the UIC (not the EU) is also supposed to work to the same timescales and at least uses the same annual timetable change date in December

 

You appear to be offering the common fallacy, by implication, that the EU is self-defined and self-invented. It isn’t; it is the current iteration of a political concept dating back to the days of Charlemagne, of a Franco-German axis controlling an empire from the Danube to the Atlantic, the Mediterranean to the North Sea. It would have been immediately recognisable to the 16th Century Spanish (who ruled the Netherlands) or the Hohenzollerns (I’m trying to avoid invoking Godwins Law...).

 

this is what makes it such a Gordian knot; that there is a great deal of underlying logic and necessity to the whole business. 

 

The core problem is that British membership does not, and never has, address the problem of Britain’s relationship with Germany as industrial competitors. This is why the Labour Party were once Eurosceptic, because of this obvious conflict of interest. The Conservatives, over time, have addressed this by the policy of abandoning industry, only to be confounded by an unforeseen, fundamental change resulting from the collapse of the USSR and the incorporation of its erstwhile satellites (who, naturally enough, regard themselves as European countries). 

 

So, the EU (understandably enough) concentrate their efforts on stabilising their Eastern border by devoting collective resources there, in the hands and pockets of natural supporters. This doesn’t suit the English, and there’s no reason it should; but the EU simply shrug their shoulders, regarding them as chronically disaffected quasi-outsiders, and apply the apocryphal principal of extracting the maximum of feathers with the minimum of squawk. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by rockershovel

[corneliuslundie]

A local post-industrial example of an attempt to move industry to a less favoured area. In the 1960s Newtown was made a New Town - alright, about 800 years late! - and grants were offered for companies to move to nice new light industrial units. Quite a few did. but then the subsidies ended, and those companies - usually subsidiary operations of English based companies - simply moved to the next area offering special area incentives. We still have a few companies, but the jewel in our crown, Control Techniques, is now Japanese owned and therefore vulnerable to changes in policy in the company.

How do you prevent this kind of thing happening? Improved transport links may help, but it is the money that talks.

Interesting the comments about early industrialisation. Merthyr is the classic example of a town which grew from almost nothing to the biggest town in Wales and then declined into poverty. And another example of how money can be poured in to solve the problem but it can all go pear-shaped again very quickly. Hoover is now just a warehouse for an Italian company and the main local activity seems to be out of town shopping - though I am surprised there is enough money locally to support it. I suspect that most of it comes from those working in Cardiff.

The message I am trying to give is that ;politicians can try as hard as they like but in the end market forces will win. Basically, if you want employment to move to an area you need a very long term plan to support and encourage it, and that is not something our political system offers - and even then there is no certainty of success.

Another factor is the perception that if one is not in London/the South East one is out of the race, and will be left behind. That is certainly one reason why it is difficult to get doctors etc in rural areas.

And as it has been said, in every country things to gravitate to the capital. I can't think of a counter example.

But all that is not a reason for improving regional transport links, just a pointer that they will not solve problems on their own.

Jonathan

[Edwin_m]

There are plenty of countries where the de facto commercial capital is separate from the administrative capital, Australia Netherlands and USA for example.  This helps to distribute the activity more fairly, as those companies with an interest in being close to government will gravitate to a different place from those serving commercial business.  Germany now has its historic capital back, but a lot of government institutions are devolved to other cities such as the federal courts in Karlsruhe (and unlike UK efforts this is the headquarters not just the back office). 

 

Regional subsidies tend to develop into a bidding war between regions and I agree the companise thus incentivised tend to leave if the subsidy ends or it is the first office to close if business declines.  Better transport links do however represent a more concrete (literally) commitment to long-term development and should reduce costs for business in the regions and also reduce the perceptional barrier if a business can boast of being close in time to central London or other cities. 

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Re various comments above, I did say earlier that the concept of inter-European and international rail networks considerably pre-dated the EU, citing the Austrian-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires and USA (among others) as examples.

 

its also true that geography being what it is, main routes and centres of population tend to be stable over very long periods of time; the Romans would recognise much of the A1/ECML. 

 

The real point about the maps I posted, was to demonstrate that they are, indeed, specifically EU policy. Look at the headers; they are public domain information from that source. This was to refute Mike Storey’s assertion that this was in some way “imaginary”, by citing a source.

 

But if they are 'EU policy' all that 'policy' is doing is imply putting a rubber stamp on what already existed or was planned, and in most cases for very many years before the EU was even thought of as a political reality (except perhaps as an empire created by conquest).  In other words the co-operation between nations to create a transport network, a rail transport network in this instance, was there long before the EU came along and in reality the EU of itself has not done very much to further those original ideas as most of the impetus has come, and continues to come, from the bottom up and via the UIC (which has nothing to do with the EU and predates it by many years).

 

And even the concept of international open access for rail operations didn't come from the EU but from the UK although it became enshrined in EU law of course.  And notwithstanding the efforts of some countries (France in particular) to  impede or delay it the idea has taken root even if some of the old practices, such as repartition, remain very much in use for international operations.

 

The UK's involvement, or otherwise, is largely a consequence of history because until a quarter of a century ago it's rail network remained largely isolated from that of Europe and had substantial gauge differences which needed to be recognised in special rolling stock for any sort of international operation.  Notwithstanding the creation of a simple rail link via the Channel Tunnel the consequences of over a century of isolation will remain for many years plus the fact that the UK is still not really internationally minded when it comes to train services - the preference is for connection by air.   All that again no doubt a consequence of us never really having the sort of everyday international rail links common to most other countries in Europe or seeking to expand what limited links there were.

 

Even when such links were devised and intended to operate they never have - normally for simple economic reasons.  Thus Eurostar, in its various schemes of organisation, has never got off the ground (and probably never will) the intended regular interval service London - Ashford - Lille which would have given the opportunity to develop more or less 'local'  travel between Lille and Ashford in both directions.  In other words the one opportunity we had for cross border short distance travel almost certainly won't happen.

[DavidH]

10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

The real point about the maps I posted, was to demonstrate that they are, indeed, specifically EU policy. Look at the headers; they are public domain information from that source. This was to refute Mike Storey’s assertion that this was in some way “imaginary”, by citing a source.

 

All you've done with the maps is show that they are hosted on the EU website. Could we have the actual links to see if there is any paperwork with them that presents them as policy, rather than factual information to assist planners and decision makers?

[Mike Storey]

10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Re various comments above, I did say earlier that the concept of inter-European and international rail networks considerably pre-dated the EU, citing the Austrian-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires and USA (among others) as examples.

 

its also true that geography being what it is, main routes and centres of population tend to be stable over very long periods of time; the Romans would recognise much of the A1/ECML. 

 

The real point about the maps I posted, was to demonstrate that they are, indeed, specifically EU policy. Look at the headers; they are public domain information from that source. This was to refute Mike Storey’s assertion that this was in some way “imaginary”, by citing a source.

 

 

This is what you said, in connection with the development of HS lines "....are directly linked to EU political and ideological ambition". As many have already illustrated, that is the imaginary bit.

 

These are economic links.

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

 

And as it has been said, in every country things to gravitate to the capital. I can't think of a counter example.

 

 

Italy. Most business and industry there is done in Milan, Turin and Bologna, and increasingly so. They now have some of the best high speed links in Europe.

[Mike Storey]

10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

You appear to be offering the common fallacy, by implication, that the EU is self-defined and self-invented. It isn’t; it is the current iteration of a political concept dating back to the days of Charlemagne, of a Franco-German axis controlling an empire from the Danube to the Atlantic, the Mediterranean to the North Sea. It would have been immediately recognisable to the 16th Century Spanish (who ruled the Netherlands) or the Hohenzollerns (I’m trying to avoid invoking Godwins Law...).

 

this is what makes it such a Gordian knot; that there is a great deal of underlying logic and necessity to the whole business. 

 

The core problem is that British membership does not, and never has, address the problem of Britain’s relationship with Germany as industrial competitors. This is why the Labour Party were once Eurosceptic, because of this obvious conflict of interest. The Conservatives, over time, have addressed this by the policy of abandoning industry, only to be confounded by an unforeseen, fundamental change resulting from the collapse of the USSR and the incorporation of its erstwhile satellites (who, naturally enough, regard themselves as European countries). 

 

So, the EU (understandably enough) concentrate their efforts on stabilising their Eastern border by devoting collective resources there, in the hands and pockets of natural supporters. This doesn’t suit the English, and there’s no reason it should; but the EU simply shrug their shoulders, regarding them as chronically disaffected quasi-outsiders, and apply the apocryphal principal of extracting the maximum of feathers with the minimum of squawk. 

 

 

 

 

 

This is your interpretation, but there is a very different one, which contradicts much of what you propose as "fact". But this is not the forum to debate it.

 

Let's just say two things:

 

a) A Franco-German axis does not exist. They disagree over most things. What each fears, as do many other countries, is that Britain was the only serious counter-balance to both of them. But that may be about to end.

 

b) Federalism across the EU has got precisely nowhere.

 

[corneliuslundie]

Thanks to those who pointed out that there are countries which have intentionally created capitals separate from the main commercial centres - and I had forgotten Italy. Germany is an interesting case, as development was affected by the partition of the country. Of course neither country is very old - if you ignore the Romans! But then neither are several other European countries.

It should perhaps be stressed, again, though, that much European rail policy was developed not by the EU but by the railways themselves through the UIC - and continues to be.

But is there anything to say about actual progress with HS2 or have we talked ourselves to sleep.

Jonathan

[Northmoor]

On 29/07/2019 at 17:22, black and decker boy said:

Plenty of examples of businesses relocating back office functions out of London.

 

j Sainsbury for example has moved large numbers out of Holborn to Coventry.

 

office rental is cheaper, staff are cheaper

Very few (large) companies employ a high proportion of their staff within Greater London.  The employment in the City is made up of tens of THOUSANDS of company head offices, where probably no more than a few percent of the workforce are based; some of the banks are the only exceptions I can think of.

 

I worked for a FTSE 250 company employing over 6000 people whose office in London had a staff of, I think, three.  It existed as a location for people prior to meetings with government departments, ministers or private sector customers.  That is how most of these organisations work; the face-to-face meetings from which business is generated.   You can only do so much on-line; history has shown that no matter how easy remote communication is made, we still want to communicate in person.

 

It has been shown in the "information economy", that the success of cities is closely related to their size.  London has reached and passed the critical mass, Manchester and Birmingham aren't big enough yet.  If linking these conurbations to London helps them to grow to achieve that critical mass, then it is well worth doing. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Northmoor
Added 3rd word in 1st sentence

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

 

But is there anything to say about actual progress with HS2 or have we talked ourselves to sleep.

Jonathan

 

Only that work continues where it had already started, but nobody would bid for the Birmingham Curzon Street main contract, as the contractors believed it to hold too many risks. HS2 Ltd are re-thinking that one.

 

HS2 seem to have gone into radio silence (apart from local consultations) whilst the review demanded by Johnson takes place, to reach conclusions by October.

 

Meanwhile, this is worth a watch:

 

 

That was filmed in February. This one below was filmed in July. Demolition is now complete and prep for the tunnelling machines is now starting.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Mike Storey

[melmerby]

Has this cropped up before?

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/boris-johnson-hs2-review

[Richard E]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Has this cropped up before?

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/boris-johnson-hs2-review

 

I see there is the usual uninformed comment there "Scrap HS2 and upgrade the existing tracks".

[Foulounoux]

4 hours ago, Richard E said:

 

I see there is the usual uninformed comment there "Scrap HS2 and upgrade the existing tracks".

With his moniker of Johnny Walker it appears he has imbibed too much of his namesake 

 

Good to see the response from Boris being measured

might the review go back to the speed question 

[Mike Storey]

23 hours ago, melmerby said:

Has this cropped up before?

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/boris-johnson-hs2-review

 

Unusually sensible comment from Johnson. He is fond of big ticket schemes, as exampled when Mayor of London, so this gives some hope for the future of HS2. We shall see.

[adb968008]

On 29/07/2019 at 16:44, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

We are in very different conditions these days due to technology. Those erstwhile industries are not really relevant. What counts is the jobs of today and fifty years time.

 

Even if a company requires a London/South-East base, it can locate the majority of its workforce elsewhere and rely on internet connectivity to provide the necessary communication for most purposes. There will still be a need for some travel to meetings etc for which HS2 will be very useful by virtue of reduced travel times. Meanwhile the conventional rail network gets more capacity to transport the goods manufactured "oop North".

Correct but wrong...

 

internet based jobs are increasingly overseas, where you can get IT resources for a 1/10th the cost of the UK.. when I say resources, thats not just people, but land, access to power & climate... Building a £300mn IT facility in the UK gets you 2 or 3 in other places and much cheaper to run them, in turn providing support skills and industries closer to them.

 

Their are pockets of IT technology in the UK,but new IT (especially cloud)  doesnt require travel in any great volumes like the days of consultants, hardware, installers, training etc... IT itself has moved on, an AI / Machine Learning / Cloud are the future, and these things aren't hosted in the UK anywhere close to volumes that traditional IT is today.

 

Indeed if you read the US/UK proposed trade deal, the US wants freedom to retain data & access to it, from within the US entity, which means many IT facilities and personnel will no longer be required here, but doesn't necessarily mean in the US either.. it just means they are freed of constraints to planning infrastructure in the UK..which since 2000 has supported 100k’s of jobs and bn’s of £, especially software industries with it.

 

i’m not sure our elected leaders understand this (especially as the industry isn't very “green”), and exporting IT permanently from the UK to Dublin, Amsterdam, Paris, Munich and Frankfurt has been one of the largest IT project management contract recruiting areas in an otherwise over capacity IT market in the UK already in the last 2 years, but the new technology investments replacing it, are not being set up in the UK, which means those new skills aren't either.

 

How does this make relevence to HS2...

it doesnt.. because one of the largest markets for HS2 businesses, higher paid industries like (IT/Finance/Legal) , will most likely have greatly reduced need of it in the future... through permanent export, reduced domestic presence, and new technology that doesn't require significant travel using over seas skillsets, unlike today.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by adb968008