HS2 under review

[ess1uk]

So we have the Williams review.

the WCML/HS2 franchise has just been awarded.

now another review?

not very joined up thinking 

 

cut back top speed to 200mph and just get on with it

[phil-b259]

30 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Whether HS2 is the right solution is not so obvious. I like some others here would like to see less need for people to travel for work, but that requires a kind of long term policy which we in the UK never get, so it will not happen, especially while the Treasury gets so much money from fuel sales.

An interesting aside, i noticed a headline in a paper the other day saying that total population has blipped because of a drop in birthrate.  Whether this is true or not I cannot tell but it was one of the papers I would put in the same class as the Daily Wail. so it may be a fiction. In my neck of the woods population is actually dropping though absolute numbers of the elderly are increasing, but that is not the norm. But if true it has major implications for all sorts of things as it will affect tax income in a big way, and make arguments over waiting times in the health service seem trivial. And make major capital expenditure such as new railways even more difficult to afford and justify.

 

 

Even if various long term political fixes are applied, there will be a lag while they take effect. That means demand for travel will increase in the short term - and the southern WCML is already full up with plenty of suppressed demand out there at the moment!

 

Consequently HS2 (or something very much like it) is still essential in the short term - even if we do manage to slow / halt the need for increased travel in a decade or twos time.

Edited August 25, 2019 by phil-b259

[Fenman]

1 hour ago, John Tomlinson said:

...

As it happens, the business I worked for was highly profitable, which might have been part of the problem, and was also part of a much larger global conglomerate, also profitable, whose general ethos was if anything more extravagent than ours.

...

on the guess that you aren't CEO of a global conglomerate

...

 

 

You'd guess wrong.

 

Profitability by itself is not an indication of a well-managed business. I'm sure we can both come up with examples - a lot of profitability is down to exploitation of sunk costs, first-mover advantage, monopoly or near-monopoly advantages, geographical advantages, etc. Many business leaders assign to themselves super-human powers when, mostly, they just happen to be at the top of the staff tree by luck and good timing, and can exploit their position with golden handshakes, parachutes, windfalls, bonusses, share options... 

 

So, perhaps we can agree that some businesses are grotesquely mismanaged and are major contributors to pointless international travel; other businesses are well-managed, and limit international travel to the minimum necessary to carry out their trade.

 

A few years back I had to make five trips to Buenos Aires in one year. Each flight was 12-14 hours. In total that year, I spent more than an entire working month doing nothing but sitting on a cramped plane flying backwards and forwards across the Atlantic. Exhaustion and some jet lag became near-continuous. To maximise benefits I stuffed my time in Buenos Aires with more meetings than I would at home, doing the maximum I could in the minimum time, while hopefully ensuring I didn't give myself a heart attack. You may love Buenos Aires: frankly I saw very little of it other than what could be viewed through the windows of my taxis from the airport to the hotel, from the hotel to meeting sites. There is no sympathy from anyone, though, because most people look on and think it's some sort of "jolly", paid for by my employers, me guzzling champagne or lounging by the pool while scantily-clad lovelies drip grapes into my open mouth. 

 

I'm not complaining about my lot: I have what I think is a great job, despite its down-sides. But it's a bit depressing to read other people's lousy experiences extrapolated into a condemnation of what is stated as fact to be the malign intent of everyone who travels for work.

 

Paul

 

 

[jjb1970]

The irony of much of my flying is that it is to attend meetings on lowering GHG emissions. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

2 hours ago, Andrea506 said:

In this mornings Mail on line I read that HS2 is now being probed by the Serious Fraud Office, well well, I always suspected it was just a "gravy train" for the rich and powerful. Improving the links between Northern cities like Leeds and Manchester etc would be a much better thing to do.

Has the Mail claimed that HS2 causes cancer yet?

 

[John Tomlinson]

1 minute ago, Fenman said:

 

You'd guess wrong.

 

Profitability by itself is not an indication of a well-managed business. I'm sure we can both come up with examples - a lot of profitability is down to exploitation of sunk costs, first-mover advantage, monopoly or near-monopoly advantages, geographical advantages, etc. Many business leaders assign to themselves super-human powers when, mostly, they just happen to be at the top of the staff tree by luck and good timing, and can exploit their position with golden handshakes, parachutes, windfalls, bonusses, share options... 

 

So, perhaps we can agree that some businesses are grotesquely mismanaged and are major contributors to pointless international travel; other businesses are well-managed, and limit international travel to the minimum necessary to carry out their trade.

 

A few years back I had to make five trips to Buenos Aires in one year. Each flight was 12-14 hours. In total that year, I spent more than an entire working month doing nothing but sitting on a cramped plane flying backwards and forwards across the Atlantic. Exhaustion and some jet lag became near-continuous. To maximise benefits I stuffed my time in Buenos Aires with more meetings than I would at home, doing the maximum I could in the minimum time, while hopefully ensuring I didn't give myself a heart attack. You may love Buenos Aires: frankly I saw very little of it other than what could be viewed through the windows of my taxis from the airport to the hotel, from the hotel to meeting sites. There is no sympathy from anyone, though, because most people look on and think it's some sort of "jolly", paid for by my employers, me guzzling champagne or lounging by the pool while scantily-clad lovelies drip grapes into my open mouth. 

 

I'm not complaining about my lot: I have what I think is a great job, despite its down-sides. But it's a bit depressing to read other people's lousy experiences extrapolated into a condemnation of what is stated as fact to be the malign intent of everyone who travels for work.

 

Paul

 

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

First of all, congratulations to you for managing to run a tight ship. I can only say I wish I had the support of a like minded CEO during my employment, although in the round I have no complaints about my lot at the time.

 

We can certainly agree in respect of paras 2 & 3, and most definitely luck and the foresight of others in earlier times can lead to businesses coasting profitably and earning undeserved rewards - which was the case with my own employment.

 

I've never been to South America, but that isn't the point, you obviously needed to make the trips and presumably they were productive and set the path for your enterprise into the future.

 

I'm glad you've made your post, as it comes as an experience almost exactly opposite to my own, but I don't think it invalidates the proposition that some travel is unnecessary, it simply proves that some of it is required and probably always will be. 

 

I'm sure you will agree from your experience that businesses easily slip into doing things because that's how it always has been, and with ever advancing technology it is more than likely that opportunities to curtail travel are not being taken as they could be, nor indeed need to be in the light of environmental pressures.

 

John.

 

 

[melmerby]

27 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Has the Mail claimed that HS2 causes cancer yet?

 

It's about the only thing it hasn't claimed

[lmsforever]

So the company is being investigated for fraud and malpractice,. around this area home owners have been Bulleid cajoled into sales of homes and properties .In Wendover a row of cottages were bought for less than normal price and Phil B it was in our local newspaper so it happened now rented at very high prices. Local news last week visited a home owner who is refusing the derisory offer for his home and is now being threatened with compulsory purchase ,its not just his home its his business and before any of you supporters vilify me as usual this is fact and senareo being played out all along the route. So the review and the latest investigation are timely  we will wait and see just what ts happens .Please do not come back with your usual rude comments supporters beware the truth is coming out.

[black and decker boy]

What somebody ‘believes’ their property is worth and what the legal mechanisms & professionals decide it is worth are often the cause of problems.

 

the parliamentary powers given to HS2 allow for CPO as last resort the same as they do for all public infrastructure. The law is there to ensure no one can hold the country / councils to ransom but ensure a fair and balanced price is paid. 

 

I expect HS2 are currently offering more than the CPO will give.

[brack]

I think it's relevant here to mention a few swiss projects. The gotthard and lotschberg base tunnels. They definitely aren't high speed railways in the accepted sense of things, but are expensive long term investments in infrastructure. The gotthard base tunnel is 35.5 miles long and cut journey times between zurich and milan by about half an hour to 45 minutes.

Waste of money? Only for business people?

Well after it opened they were able to put the local stopping services back on the old line (which had been curtailed due to capacity issues), helping everyone in those two valleys and has vastly increased the capacity on a key north - south link, removing huge amounts of traffic that would otherwise have gone via road.

 

If the uninformed and ignorant had sat there trying to point out that they were spending billions to save business people less than an hour on their trip they'd quite simply be wrong: that was never the intention.

Its costs came in about 50% higher than budgeted, but it has certainly been successful.

Why is it the population was quite decisively in favour? Longest and deepest rail tunnel in the world, mainly for bridge traffic between two other countries. You might even suggest it sounds like a vanity project.

Perhaps there are simply less selfish people in switzerland? People who decry any central government investment or spending that doesn't directly benefit them.

There are some legitimate arguments against most major infrastructure projects but I'm not hearing them from those against HS2. It's unlikely any random contributor on here, or MP or (especially) our 'esteemed' PM has a better understanding of the need for HS2 than the experts who've spent years working out the necessary course of action and planning it. I dont think 50 odd billion was committed idly or on a whim.

This review isn't as a result of new evidence or solutions arising, it's purely political to satisfy the selfish, senescent selectorate of our current government.

 

I live in the north east. I likely won't benefit anything from HS2 as I've only travelled that end of the wcml 3-4 times when I lived elsewhere. However I can see it is useful and necessary. Likewise crossrail and other major infrastructure spending in other regions. Infrastructure spending is necessary in my region too, but I'm not stupid enough to think that stopping major projects elsewhere will make it any more likely.

Interestingly part of the lotschberg base tunnel (a mere 21 miles) were built to single track as money was short, things went over budget and funds were diverted to cover the gotthard base tunnel. The upshot is that almost immediately after opening it was at full capacity. They started work a year or two back on planning to finish the second bore. Would've been cheaper to have just done it at the same time, but at least when it came to cutting budgets they had the foresight to finish the digging of most of the western bore but just didnt fit it out and lay track.

[Fat Controller]

3 minutes ago, brack said:

 

 

I live in the north east. I likely won't benefit anything from HS2 as I've only travelled that end of the wcml 3-4 times when I lived elsewhere. However I can see it is useful and necessary. Likewise crossrail and other major infrastructure spending in other regions. Infrastructure spending is necessary in my region too, but I'm not stupid enough to think that stopping major projects elsewhere will make it any more likely.

Interestingly part of the lotschberg base tunnel (a mere 21 miles) were built to single track as money was short, things went over budget and funds were diverted to cover the gotthard base tunnel. The upshot is that almost immediately after opening it was at full capacity. They started work a year or two back on planning to finish the second bore. Would've been cheaper to have just done it at the same time, but at least when it came to cutting budgets they had the foresight to finish the digging of most of the western bore but just didnt fit it out and lay track.

The Lotschberg tunnel was put on hold before completion due to funding issues; When I visited it on a technical visit, the both tunnels were open on the northern section. Then, between the two cross-overs, the eastern bore was in use, whilst the western one was complete (but without track and services  to just beyond the south cross-over. After that, only the eastern bore was in use, whilst the western remained to be tunnelled. The tunnels were fitted with ETCS, which allowed closer spacing of trains than conventional signalling.

Part of the business case for both the Base Tunnel projects was to allow the possibility of running heavier freight trains, both conventional and 'Rolling Road'. 

[Bernard Lamb]

24 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

So the company is being investigated for fraud and malpractice,. around this area home owners have been Bulleid cajoled into sales of homes and properties .In Wendover a row of cottages were bought for less than normal price and Phil B it was in our local newspaper so it happened now rented at very high prices. Local news last week visited a home owner who is refusing the derisory offer for his home and is now being threatened with compulsory purchase ,its not just his home its his business and before any of you supporters vilify me as usual this is fact and senareo being played out all along the route. So the review and the latest investigation are timely  we will wait and see just what ts happens .Please do not come back with your usual rude comments supporters beware the truth is coming out.

I posted many pages ago about a friend who has three houses in the Wendover area who is very happy with the compensation offer from HS2. Of course people will moan to the local media to try to get a better offer or even to make a political point. The "real" figures quoted to me seem to be quite fair and realistic. 

Bernard

[phil-b259]

On 25/08/2019 at 13:24, lmsforever said:

So the company is being investigated for fraud and malpractice,. around this area home owners have been Bulleid cajoled into sales of homes and properties .In Wendover a row of cottages were bought for less than normal price and Phil B it was in our local newspaper so it happened now rented at very high prices. Local news last week visited a home owner who is refusing the derisory offer for his home and is now being threatened with compulsory purchase ,its not just his home its his business and before any of you supporters vilify me as usual this is fact and senareo being played out all along the route. So the review and the latest investigation are timely  we will wait and see just what ts happens .Please do not come back with your usual rude comments supporters beware the truth is coming out.

 

As I have said before - reports of bad practices should not be suppressed, how can things be made better if folk are not aware of them and appropriate pressure applied?.

 

The issue I have  with many of your comments is the inability to separate things which relate to bad project management (which need to be fixed) and the basis for HS2 as a piece of physical infrastructure which factual analysis proves is required to deal with WCML capacity issues. If you recall some months back I was supportive of or efforts to highlight HS2 contracts not behaving in line with environmental laws - precisely because such things are very relevant to the delivery of the project.

 

Let me state I welcome any contribution (including from yourself) provided it actually respects the fact that the need for HS2 (or similar) is proved - or that you have demonstrated another workable way of eliminating that proven need.

 

The need for any given project is separate from how that project is delivered and mistakes one one side do not invalidate the other. If you need an extra bedroom because you have another child and need to extend your house the need doesn't go away because the builders have made a complete screw up - even if it costs more than it would have done to move!

 

If the WCML had plenty of capacity remaining  and the justification for HS2 was simply faster journey times then  it wouldn't matter how perfect the execution / management of it was - the project would still representment poor value for money.

 

However that is not the case - study after study has proved the WCML is full, preventing modal shift from road to rail and negatively impacting current users because there is zero slack in the system. Good or bad project management by HS2 does nothing to change this - just as Network rail making a total mess of the GWML electrification does not invalidate the very sound reasons for electrifying it in the first place.

 

As I recently pointed out cost overruns and late delivery of new NHS facilities do not mean the said facilities are not required to treat sick / injured citizens. Scraping the project because of bad management doesn't mean that people will somehow magically be cured or be able to be squeezed into other facilities instead and with respect to the WCML here is no room to squeeze all the demand onto other existing rail routes without spending the same as HS2 (or even more) upgrading them with decades o disruption to existing users

 

Equally when faced with the problem of routing the M40 northwards, from Junction 8, the project wasn't canned because of Otmoor SSI was it? Instead a solution was found that allowed the motorway to be constructed that preserved the benefits of extending the road and addressed the need for further road capacity on the London to Birmingham corridor. The same is true with HS2 - if costs are too high then there is plenty of things that can be done to make savings (like dropping the top speed) WITHOUT affecting the projects ability to meet the objective of providing relief to the WCML.

 

Finally as regards rudeness - that is partly down to the tone of your comments over time. HS2 is a serious project which requires serious responses - engage in a proper debate (which means being able to back up your stance with proper research, not press soundbyites) and you will find folk are much more Iikely to be polite. Much like with school exams, the RMweb folk are intelligent people and even critics of your stance will award 'points' as it were if you show your workings as this demonstrates the subject at had has been considered properly.

 

You have been given multiple opportunities to provide a thoughtful and reasoned / detailed argument as to why you believe HS2 unnecessary - but you have consistently refused to do this in any detail. Witness your most recent superficial attempt being thoroughly demolished by 'the Stationmaster' of his forum in considerable detail.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by phil-b259

[mdvle]

 

 

Quote

An interesting aside, i noticed a headline in a paper the other day saying that total population has blipped because of a drop in birthrate.  Whether this is true or not I cannot tell but it was one of the papers I would put in the same class as the Daily Wail. so it may be a fiction. In my neck of the woods population is actually dropping though absolute numbers of the elderly are increasing, but that is not the norm. But if true it has major implications for all sorts of things as it will affect tax income in a big way, and make arguments over waiting times in the health service seem trivial. And make major capital expenditure such as new railways even more difficult to afford and justify.

 

A search online reveals that the birthrate in the UK has dropped to it's lowest level since 1947 when records started being kept.  This is not a surprise as this has been true in most/all western nations for a very long time as few families these days have more than 2 kids.

 

This is why most of the western countries have been allowing immigration (the dirty secret, our entire current economic system is based on growth of population).

 

The UK population appears to be still increasing based on a news story from the Independent 3 days ago, though the Telegraph had a headline earlier this month (in an attack on Harry/Meghan) appearing to proclaim doom because the world population will start to decrease in 30 years time.

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by mdvle

[corneliuslundie]

"the dirty secret, our entire current economic system is based on growth of population"

Unfortunately, our economy is based on the assumption of ever increasing population. Such things as the health service were never properly funded but are paid from day to day taxes/NI etc so as inflation puts up prices income needs to be increased. Admittedly partly covered by increased tax income.  But the health and social services also have the problem that increased demand comes not just from increased population but also greater expectations, more expensive treatments available for a wider range of problems and increased longevity. When the HM=HS was started, with the best of intentions, average male life expectancy was under 70 years, so on average one year's pension would be paid and the number of elderly people requiring increasingly expensive medical treatment was small. compare this with now. 

Not directly relevant to HS2, but it indicates one of the major issues affecting  life because there has never been proper forward planning.

Of course it would not have been reasonable to expect those building the railways in the 1840s to plan for eight tracks from Euston to Manchester!!

Jonathan

[Andrea506]

6 hours ago, melmerby said:

I'm sorry Andrea, if you can't come up with something better than such a lame suggestion you will not be treated seriously.

I wouldn't be surprised that the massive contruction required to carry out such a conversion could rival HS2's costs.

Every bridge, junction, service station etc would need to be completely re-constructed.

The disruption would make the construction of HS2 look like a picnic in the park

 

Really? Well at least it wouldn't involve the demolition of peoples homes and destruction of nature. Oh and before anyone tries to accuse me of "nimbyism" I do not own an affected property.

[Tricky-CRS]

16 minutes ago, Andrea506 said:

Really? Well at least it wouldn't involve the demolition of peoples homes and destruction of nature. Oh and before anyone tries to accuse me of "nimbyism" I do not own an affected property.

Unfortunately you have to crack eggs to make an omelet and thus you have to demolish stuff to build new stuff its called progress or circle of life. We have become to self obsessed and forget that we are just part of a society and that needs to come first occasionally.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Tricky-CRS
More added

[Clearwater]

19 minutes ago, Andrea506 said:

Really? Well at least it wouldn't involve the demolition of peoples homes and destruction of nature. Oh and before anyone tries to accuse me of "nimbyism" I do not own an affected property.

 

How do you know that it wouldn’t?  Without a survey, knowledge of the route, analysis of the alternative provision for your “plan”, you cannot make the statement that you do.  

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Andrea506 said:

Really? Well at least it wouldn't involve the demolition of peoples homes and destruction of nature.

 

Andrea, please apply brain before post such a simplistic comment - it just makes you look like a fool even if you are not.

 

For starters read THIS https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3659/hs2-review-of-route-selection-and-speed.pdf

 

To do as you suggest would require the M1 to be reduced to two lanes during the construction process - massively increasing congestion and considerably worsening air pollution in the process. Such works would make the current misery experienced those enduring the Governments 'smart motorway programme look like a walk in the park.

 

The only practical way of having a railway closely shadow an existing* road is to build it alongside - which involves plenty of demolition / nature removal (or tunnelling if the above are to be avoided). The M1 corridor was looked at (and then rejected) precisely because the cost of doing so would be considerably more than the alignment chosen.

 

* If the road is designed specifically with the fully prepared for a railway to run along the middle of it in civil engineering terms but the railway is not actually fitted out as it were (as has occurred in some countries) then things are different.

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by phil-b259

[Wheres_Wally]

1 hour ago, Andrea506 said:

Really? Well at least it wouldn't involve the demolition of peoples homes and destruction of nature. Oh and before anyone tries to accuse me of "nimbyism" I do not own an affected property.

 

You keep on about this M1 idea. Have you actually thought it through? For a start, you claim it will be cheaper. As they say in exams, please show your working, otherwise it's just a guess.

 

How do you propose to get the tracks between the lanes? Is your plan that the system is self-contained or does the track cross the motorway at some point? 

 

Running tracks down the middle of  motorway means reducing the number of lanes. How will the Daily Mail react to that?

[Rugd1022]

1 hour ago, Wheres_Wally said:

 

You keep on about this M1 idea. Have you actually thought it through? For a start, you claim it will be cheaper. As they say in exams, please show your working, otherwise it's just a guess.

 

How do you propose to get the tracks between the lanes? Is your plan that the system is self-contained or does the track cross the motorway at some point? 

 

Running tracks down the middle of  motorway means reducing the number of lanes. How will the Daily Mail react to that?

 

Not to mention the bit where the line reaches the roundabout at the bottom of the M1, to get from there to the HS2 station in central London you'd have to.... wait for it.... demolish people's homes.

 

I'm still waiting for Andrea to answer the points about capacity being at its limit on the WCML etc....

Edited August 25, 2019 by Rugd1022

[black and decker boy]

2 hours ago, Andrea506 said:

Really? Well at least it wouldn't involve the demolition of peoples homes and destruction of nature. Oh and before anyone tries to accuse me of "nimbyism" I do not own an affected property.

How much nature do you think is lost for the 3 million new homes the government says we need to build.

 

how much nature is lost for all of the bypasses and road widening schemes currently being funded by the DfT across the country (I give you the headline number of £100 million minimum, per county).

 

HS2 is funded for carbon net zero which means huge programmes of soft landscaping and new biodiversity 

 

if you replace HS2 with private developers, eg in city centres and suburbs you will get bare minimum and far less than net zero.

 

those houses are government policy. The new roads are government policy. Only HS2 has the net zero target.

[PhilH]

I think she probably gets the point now...

[jamie92208]

To also try and answer Andrea's suggestion about the M1 widening can I point out how much of the route has been widened to 4 lanes.   In general this has been done in such ways as steepening the embankments or building retaining walls an then converting the hard shoulder to an extra lane.   The one thing that they have tried very hard to avoid is to take more land and demolish property.   I would suspect that most of the M1 is as wide as it can be without major demolition of property, particularly in the Luton area.   As far as I'm concerned it's a non starter.

 

Jamie

[Davexoc]

33 minutes ago, PhilH said:

I think she probably gets the point now...

No, I think she was trying for best joke at The Fringe, but is a little late to the party......