HS2 under review

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, locoholic said:

 

HS2 does not "appeal" to private investors because they would lose their shirts if they invested in it. Why should taxpayers lose their shirts instead? 

 

I'm staggered that a member of this forum needs to even ask that question!

 

The answer is because since WW2 every single passenger railway system in a developed country has run at a loss!

 

If you want to see what happens when you demand its left to the private sector have a look at the USA - EVRY SINGLE RAILWAY COMPANY DITCHED PASSENGER OPERATIONS - those services do that remain are subsidised by individual states or by the Federal Government. AND in case you hadn't noticed the service you get out demands on how much you put in - do some research into just what repeated cuts have done to Amtrack!

 

The calculation is quite simple - subsidising railways, INCLUDING new railway infrastructure, keeps a significant number of cars off the roads and prevents the need for mass urban road building / demolition to make space to park the things.

 

If you can keep some cars off the roads then it not only creates space for people / business that have no alternative  but to use roads, but you help reduce air pollution - which not only causes the premature deaths of thousands of people every year - but is a massive drain on the NHS as it has to deal with repository illness that result.

 

HS2 exists because we are running out of rail capacity on the Southern WCML - what's your solution?

 

Widen the M1/ M6 / M40 / etc to  5, 6 .... 10 lanes in each direction and demolish vast swathes of housing to bring that traffic into the heart of London / Birmingham?

Continue to put money into the NHS treating respiratory problems which are entirely preventable?

Sit back and let thousands die every year from pollution related health problems?

Flatten everything next to the current WCML to and subject current users to a decade of misery while you add an extra 2 tracks all the way from London to Birmingham and Crewe?

 

Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending there isn't a problem or that if you wish hard enough it will go away IS NOT AN OPTION!

 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by phil-b259

[rockershovel]

8 minutes ago, TheQ said:

The English and come that Welsh and Scottish counties are not the same as they once were.  200years ago you could find a bit of Wiltshire near Windsor,  and the same for other counties.  They weren't a solid unit.  The core is in the same place,  but other bits would depend on what bit of land a king gave to some lord..

Even in my life time borders have been moved.. Rutland disappeared then reappeared.. 

 

I was following the first reply... up to a point. English regional devolution, as a concept, goes back at least to the early 20th Century in an attempt to balance the electoral arithmetic of a United Kingdom with 85% of the population in 50% of the land area. Winston Churchill was a supporter, at one time.

 

The English could never be persuaded to subdivide their nation, however. They believe quite strongly in the Union - indeed, they will even put up with the Scots for the sake of it - but devolution, no. So a typically British compromise evolved, whereby the Scots basically got two bites of the cherry and there was no English Parliament, as such. It left the “Lothian question” (“where’s that, and why?”) but nothing that couldn’t be worked around.

 

It all worked fairly well as long as it was operated in the interest of the nation. The problem came when we were associated with Europe, because in European terms - ie, a constitutional, federated superstate -  it’s a nonsense. It works even less well when projects like Arc Manche are introduced https://camis.arcmanche.eu/inshort/context/ArcManche.html which, as can be easily seen, is a political and economic project specifically designed to unify parts of the South East of England with France, with no regard whatsoever for the Midlands or North. 

 

I do wish people would desist from giving emotive answers, denying things which are all in the public domain for anyone to read. It’s like the constant allegations of stupidity and cowardice, when really it mostly comes down to dishonesty, unrealistic ambition, lack of vision and failure to prepare. 

 

Hence the equation of the English government regions with the pre-existing regions. The regions aren’t totally unfounded, but they have no grip on the English mind. It’s a typical example of how our political structure simply isn’t compatible with Europe. 

 

I certainly wouldn't dispute that  Westminster, all told have made a complete dog’s breakfast of integrating us with the EU, and have made a long practice of blaming things on Europe which are by no means entirely European, although many of them have a European component. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[melmerby]

30 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Taxpayers pay for stuff the private sector won't (police, fire, members of parliament, armies etc.), but is important to the country. It's why these things are called public services.

Are you sure about that?

 

Bit like the US where "elected" representatives are largely paid for by business interests.

Edited August 21, 2019 by melmerby

[Dave John]

Another discussion review of HS2? 

 

I suppose we could call it Shapps Summit.

 

Though I doubt the mainstream media would get the joke. 

[Bernard Lamb]

4 hours ago, lmsforever said:

About time there are far more important projects that need attention  and also there should be an inquiry into the new Oxford Cambridge road and also why the railway was descoped to not include electrification .

Pop up to Brill at the weekend.

I think you will enjoy the company.

Bernard

[brack]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Surely we should know what we intend, before commencing?

One might argue that the past several years would suggest this is not the habitual modus operandi of our current government...

[rockershovel]

25 minutes ago, brack said:

One might argue that the past several years would suggest this is not the habitual modus operandi of our current government...

 

I know. Sad, isn’t it? 

[brianusa]

From a layman's point of view, just because we like toy trains it doesn't make most of us an authority on the real ones.  Also as an expat abroad, it doesn't really affect me much.  If I remember, it all began because of the perceived lack of investment in the North and the general idea that the South was a 'favourite', so it was decided to reestablish 'The Great Northern Powerhouse' and the best way to start would be to make them more 'inclusive'; todays buzz word!  A new HSR seemed a good place to start and mentioning millions would help make everybody happy there.  But what else would it do other than knock half an hour off your trip?  There's still the basic problems remaining and now years later there has been a return to the bad old days already, car plants at risk, layoffs and other negatives familiar to the area.  As others have mentioned, it would be a dreadful financial loss to stop and take a tremendous amount of money to continue!

      Brian.

[Trainshed Terry]

I am all in favour of scrapping HS2, and since the tax paying public is funding the project the railways should be taken back from private companys which from my understanding are foreign companys. To which a percentage of the profits subsidised the cheap tickets prices on the continent.

 

Please don't get started on the other public services that should be under the control of the goverment

 

And I don't care if I get into trouble with the posting.

 

Rant over.

 

Me

[Phil Parker]

29 minutes ago, brianusa said:

From a layman's point of view, just because we like toy trains it doesn't make most of us an authority on the real ones

 

No. But some of us talk to the professionals. Some even ARE professionals. Those I've talked to whole handle schedules and paths are desperate for the extra capacity.

 

There is a good explanation which explains why it isn't about 20 minutes off a journey. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwibo5DX5ZTkAhUhtHEKHbsYAYEQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ianvisits.co.uk%2Fblog%2F2019%2F08%2F20%2Ftaking-a-look-at-hs2s-huge-old-oak-common-station%2F&psig=AOvVaw2FYi-Vu8GvThjTBtTYVaiR&ust=1566505447431106

[APOLLO]

3 hours ago, Dave John said:

Another discussion review of HS2? 

 

I suppose we could call it Shapps Summit.

 

Though I doubt the mainstream media would get the joke. 

 

Shap summit - It's downhill from there in either direction !!!!

 

Brit15

[Steamport Southport]

48 minutes ago, brianusa said:

From a layman's point of view, just because we like toy trains it doesn't make most of us an authority on the real ones.  Also as an expat abroad, it doesn't really affect me much.  If I remember, it all began because of the perceived lack of investment in the North and the general idea that the South was a 'favourite', so it was decided to reestablish 'The Great Northern Powerhouse' and the best way to start would be to make them more 'inclusive'; todays buzz word!  A new HSR seemed a good place to start and mentioning millions would help make everybody happy there.  But what else would it do other than knock half an hour off your trip?  There's still the basic problems remaining and now years later there has been a return to the bad old days already, car plants at risk, layoffs and other negatives familiar to the area.  As others have mentioned, it would be a dreadful financial loss to stop and take a tremendous amount of money to continue!

      Brian.

 

The thing is some of us actually use them.

 

This weekend for example I'm off to Birmingham. The weekend after Rotherham. Weekend after that Sheffield. Soon I'm off to Leeds. All four journeys can be an absolute nightmare and all would be vastly improved if they got their act together.

 

It's nothing to do with time (like so many opponents to the schemes seem to believe). It's all to do with capacity and infrastructure. Have you ever had to stand with luggage on a DMU between Liverpool and York? The infrastructure is fine between Liverpool and Manchester, but as soon as you pass Manchester you are on routes which haven't seen any real improvement since the Victorian era.

 

 

 

Jason

[Bernard Lamb]

26 minutes ago, Trainshed Terry said:

I am all in favour of scrapping HS2, and since the tax paying public is funding the project the railways should be taken back from private companys which from my understanding are foreign companys. To which a percentage of the profits subsidised the cheap tickets prices on the continent.

 

Please don't get started on the other public services that should be under the control of the goverment

 

And I don't care if I get into trouble with the posting.

 

Rant over.

 

Me

I presume from your address that you are not a regular user of the southern section of the WCML.

If like me you were, you might have a different opinion.

I do not care about the cost. Nor am I particularly worried about who is going to put up the money. I just want less crowded trains that run on time.

Bernard

[Trainshed Terry]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I presume from your address that you are not a regular user of the southern section of the WCML.

If like me you were, you might have a different opinion.

I do not care about the cost. Nor am I particularly worried about who is going to put up the money. I just want less crowded trains that run on time.

Bernard

 

I do use the local trains on occasion when I have to travel long distances.

 

There the rub, most TOC run short formations of trains out of peak hours, to maximise profts and to reduce there running costs.  It is the TOC to insure that there is sufficient trains of the correct formations for passenger comfort. Profits be fore passenger comfort.

 

Just a silly question has the timetable changed since BR days to allow for the extra services that wish to run.

 

Me

 

 

 

[BoD]

Can’t we just ask the EU for a grant to finish it?

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Trainshed Terry said:

I am all in favour of scrapping HS2, and since the tax paying public is funding the project the railways should be taken back from private companys which from my understanding are foreign companys. To which a percentage of the profits subsidised the cheap tickets prices on the continent.

 

Rant over.

 

Me

The railways are publicly owned by a government controlled company. It's called Network Rail. The Government also holds the rights to operate the services.

The train services are "Franchised" to be run on the government's behalf by private companies, the TOCs. (Franchised is not really the correct term,  more like a concession to run a service on the Government's railway.)

Some TOCs are foreign or part foreign owned but not all.

Unfortunately one of the largest UK transport companies, Stagecoach, refused to meet the pension terms of the latest round of franchising so got themselves barred.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Trainshed Terry said:

Just a silly question has the timetable changed since BR days to allow for the extra services that wish to run.

 

Me

 

You haven't noticed any changes in the last 30 years then?

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Trainshed Terry said:

I am all in favour of scrapping HS2, and since the tax paying public is funding the project the railways should be taken back from private companys which from my understanding are foreign companys. To which a percentage of the profits subsidised the cheap tickets prices on the continent.

 

Please don't get started on the other public services that should be under the control of the goverment

 

And I don't care if I get into trouble with the posting.

 

Rant over.

 

Me

 

And how exactly does nationalising the *remaining bits of the Railways create the massive increase in capacity the WCML desperately needs?

 

Extra track costs money to build - they are not going to suddenly appear because Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister.

 

HS2 was created to satisfy the need for extra capacity - and it makes sod all differance whether the railway system is full nationalised or privatised, the need is still there.

 

As such your views on how the railway should be structured are largely irrelevant to whether HS2 should be built or not.

 

*remember LNER and Network Rail are ALREADY 100% owned by the UK Government while several other ‘franchises’ are actually short term management contracts that will expire within 18months due DfT incompetence in letting franchises 

[rockershovel]

.... which leads us back to the relevant point that no other European country attempts to run its “privatised” rail network without significant government involvement. I don’t see why we “need” renationalisation,, when we already own the fixed assets as a nation, and the operating franchises revert with no further expenditure in the foreseeable future. 

 

That just leaves the leasing contracts for the rolling stock, and the operating staff. Neither of these are small issues, but they are conceptually much simpler than the present arrangements, and amenable to overall strategic planning in pursuit of agreed goals which don’t necessarily include profit as a primary goal. 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by rockershovel

[locoholic]

12 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Fair enough. So we won't be building any roads either (there are always protests), power stations (the same) or any infrastructure at all.

Some people don't think we should fund the Police. Others that the NHS is inefficient and shouldn't get any more money. I'm no fan of wars, so we can scrap all those battleships, tanks and expensive aircraft.

 

Taxpayers pay for stuff the private sector won't (police, fire, members of parliament, armies etc.), but is important to the country. It's why these things are called public services.

No, you are quite wrong: taxpayers don't pay for public services simply because the private sector won't. They pay for things that they will need or use, like the army, roads and hospitals, because there is a consensus that public funding for them is a good thing. Sadly for all the true believers on here, there is no public consensus that HS2 is a good thing (given its eye-watering cost), since only a tiny fraction of UK taxpayers will use it.

[locoholic]

12 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I'm staggered that a member of this forum needs to even ask that question!

 

The answer is because since WW2 every single passenger railway system in a developed country has run at a loss!

 

If you want to see what happens when you demand its left to the private sector have a look at the USA - EVRY SINGLE RAILWAY COMPANY DITCHED PASSENGER OPERATIONS - those services do that remain are subsidised by individual states or by the Federal Government. AND in case you hadn't noticed the service you get out demands on how much you put in - do some research into just what repeated cuts have done to Amtrack!

 

The calculation is quite simple - subsidising railways, INCLUDING new railway infrastructure, keeps a significant number of cars off the roads and prevents the need for mass urban road building / demolition to make space to park the things.

 

If you can keep some cars off the roads then it not only creates space for people / business that have no alternative  but to use roads, but you help reduce air pollution - which not only causes the premature deaths of thousands of people every year - but is a massive drain on the NHS as it has to deal with repository illness that result.

 

HS2 exists because we are running out of rail capacity on the Southern WCML - what's your solution?

 

Widen the M1/ M6 / M40 / etc to  5, 6 .... 10 lanes in each direction and demolish vast swathes of housing to bring that traffic into the heart of London / Birmingham?

Continue to put money into the NHS treating respiratory problems which are entirely preventable?

Sit back and let thousands die every year from pollution related health problems?

Flatten everything next to the current WCML to and subject current users to a decade of misery while you add an extra 2 tracks all the way from London to Birmingham and Crewe?

 

Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending there isn't a problem or that if you wish hard enough it will go away IS NOT AN OPTION!

 

 

 

But you are quite easily staggered. Please see my reply to Phil Parker for the reason why your comment is irrelevant.

[Pete the Elaner]

14 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

HS2 exists because we are running out of rail capacity on the Southern WCML - what's your solution?

 

Widen the M1/ M6 / M40 / etc to  5, 6 .... 10 lanes in each direction and demolish vast swathes of housing to bring that traffic into the heart of London / Birmingham?

Continue to put money into the NHS treating respiratory problems which are entirely preventable?

Sit back and let thousands die every year from pollution related health problems?

Flatten everything next to the current WCML to and subject current users to a decade of misery while you add an extra 2 tracks all the way from London to Birmingham and Crewe?

 

Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending there isn't a problem or that if you wish hard enough it will go away IS NOT AN OPTION!

 

 

Passenger numbers are rising & the southern section of WCML is hugely busy. Something needs to be done. Other routes are also suffering but you have to start with something.

So what should we do? Build more Victorian style railways? If anything new needs to be built, then surely build it to a modern standard?

 

You have mentioned some motorways. A large part of the M1 was opened in 1959 & a small part of the M6 a year earlier. Could you imagine life without these & the other motorways which followed?

Did the entire nation agree that building these was a great idea? Of course not. Back in the early 1950s, there were similar sceptics that we now have for HS2.

[luckymucklebackit]

Personally I never really "got" HS2, I failed to understand why Euston was to be the southern terminal so that it would not be integrated with HS1 and then ending it at some terminal in Birmingham equally remote from "traditional" connecting services, I felt it was a bit like making Gatwick the hub for all domestic air travel and Heathrow  for all International.  The French and German high speed networks all have dedicated fast routes, but these merge with the old network to allow the trains to run into the existing city centre stations.   If we were going to spend bit money on new routes,  would have preferred to see a "HS-F" a large loading gauge spine freight line capable of taking all freight from the SE and Channel Tunnel, so instead of the HGVs unloading at Dover, keep them on the trains to distribution depots at Daventry, Warrington, Mossend and other hubs, (this is the model that the Swiss are following), it would help to meet the environmental aims that we are supposed to be striving for and would have a benefit of clearing freight from the WCML and a good bit of the motorway network,  Things will always need to be transported, people less so, we have a very advanced communication network that includes video conferencing, people should be discouraged from travelling unless they absolutely need to be where they are going - "is your journey really necessary" and all that.

 

Jim

[melmerby]

41 minutes ago, luckymucklebackit said:

Personally I never really "got" HS2, I failed to understand why Euston was to be the southern terminal so that it would not be integrated with HS1 and then ending it at some terminal in Birmingham equally remote from "traditional" connecting services, I felt it was a bit like making Gatwick the hub for all domestic air travel and Heathrow  for all International.  The French and German high speed networks all have dedicated fast routes, but these merge with the old network to allow the trains to run into the existing city centre stations. 

Jim

More lack of understanding the situation.

Birmingham HS2 station is right next door to Moor Street which in itself is not too far from New Street and a new dedicated pedestrian way is to be built to connect them. This will actually be shorter than some of the pedestrian connections between London Underground platforms.

Birmingham New Street is already operating over it's capacity so there is no possibility to bring HS2 trains into the station. Hence your comparison with France and Germany is invalid.

Edited August 22, 2019 by melmerby

[jjb1970]

18 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

My feeling is the cancellation will just prove, yet again, that the UK can't do infrastructure and never will again.

 

Bit of a generalisation that. Crossrail may be a bit embarrassing given the last minute realisation that it wouldn't open on time but it's still a huge infrastructure project. The Thames super sewer (or Tideway as I believe we are meant to call it), the reconfiguration of the electrical supply system from coal to low carbon and renewable modes of generation, 4G then 5G cellular telecoms, fibre broadband, the continuous evolution of airports etc. GWML may have been grossly mismanaged but it is nevertheless being delivered (albeit more expensively and behind schedule). The problem we have is we like to imagine we live in a dire undeveloped country and that things are so much better elsewhere, the reality is that based on experiences travelling a lot things aren't particularly better on the other side of the fence and that whilst somebody else messing up is no excuse for our own projects messing up I don't really see that we manage projects any more badly than anywhere else. There is always the Chinese model which has modernised a country and built a world class infrastructure almost overnight but I'm really not sure we would want to accept the cost of what made that rapid development possible.