HS2 under review

[62613]

42 minutes ago, PhilH said:

I think she probably gets the point now...

You hope so!

 

[melmerby]

On 24/08/2019 at 14:40, PhilH said:

1 hour ago, PhilH said:

I think she probably gets the point now...

 

I very much doubt it.

She's anti and won't be persuaded otherwise, whatever opposing view is put forward.

[rockershovel]

I’d be curious to see a more detailed analysis of the nature of the traffic foreseen. 

 

It’s a general comment that in this hugely overcrowded country, any transport infrastructure will rapidly fill to capacity. I don’t doubt in the least, that within five years of HS2 opening, the powers that Be will be crying for ANOTHER one. 

 

The rail links across the economic desert East of the ECML seem to contradict this, but that area is still undergoing economic decline - and roads there are choked. 

 

It’s also a general comment that GDP is calculated by a format which translates increased population directly into increased GDP, without actually producing a bent ha’penny of anything. 

 

I’m wholly unconvinced that HS2 will do anything except generate more debt. 

 

[black and decker boy]

10 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

 

The rail links across the economic desert East of the ECML seem to contradict this, but that area is still undergoing economic decline - and roads there are choked. 

Plenty of road investment happening in the east.

 

new bypass for Lincoln currently being built.

 

widening & dualling of the A47 from Peterborough to Norwich funded and due to start next year

 

A14 dualling nearing completion

 

A19 grade separation & capacity increases under construction 

 

new bypasses for Grantham & Melton Mowbray due to start next year

[Phil Parker]

12 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

I’d be curious to see a more detailed analysis of the nature of the traffic foreseen. 

 

It’s a general comment that in this hugely overcrowded country, any transport infrastructure will rapidly fill to capacity. I don’t doubt in the least, that within five years of HS2 opening, the powers that Be will be crying for ANOTHER one. 

 

The rail links across the economic desert East of the ECML seem to contradict this, but that area is still undergoing economic decline - and roads there are choked. 

 

It’s also a general comment that GDP is calculated by a format which translates increased population directly into increased GDP, without actually producing a bent ha’penny of anything. 

 

I’m wholly unconvinced that HS2 will do anything except generate more debt. 

 

 

Huh? You believe that HS2 will be at capacity in 5 years, that even in an area of economic decline there is still so much demand for transport that the roads can't cope and yet HS2 will do nothing? Presumably, nothing other than move people around. 

 

And if the country is overcrowded, home come only 8% is built on?

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Has the Mail claimed that HS2 causes cancer yet?

 

The Mail was well and truly trumped (sorry) by yesterday's 'Telegraph' which had an article claiming that Scottish Power will put up prices to domestic consumers to pay for the power supply links to HS2.  That one is so barmy not even the Mail's naive juvenile journos seem to have come up with it yet. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

1 minute ago, The Stationmaster said:

The Mail was well and truly trumped (sorry) by yesterday's 'Telegraph' which had an article claiming that Scottish Power will put up prices to domestic consumers to pay for the power supply links to HS2.  That one is so barmy not even the Mail's naive juvenile journos seem to have come up with it yet. 

I get the impression that HS2 goes past somebody senior in the Telegraph's house, given how much they attack it. 

[jonny777]

22 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

 

The rail links across the economic desert East of the ECML seem to contradict this, but that area is still undergoing economic decline - and roads there are choked. 

 

 

 

 

 

I would be interested to know which roads you think are "choked". 

 

The A14 is busy and queues can build up between Cambridge and Huntingdon, but that is more to do with the £1 billion + improvement scheme being implemented. 

 

The A17 A47 and A148 can be busy on summer weekends and Bank Holidays, but for most of the year the traffic races along (except for when slowed by certain drivers - see below). 

 

The A10 can see long lines of traffic in both directions, but in the majority of occasions that is due to agricultural vehicles and private car owners who insist on never travelling above 45mph. I believe the A11 is now dual carriageway for much of its length and could hardly be described as choked. 

 

Yes, the A12 can be a bit slow in places; but that is more to do with weird junction design than volume of traffic. Traffic planners ought to realise that roundabouts are ok, unless the majority of traffic needs to turn right; and then they become a nightmare - see the A1 (southbound) junction with the A421. 

 

[royaloak]

18 hours ago, mdvle said:

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.

 

Surely that would be a good thing?

[phil-b259]

58 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

I’d be curious to see a more detailed analysis of the nature of the traffic foreseen. 

 

It’s a general comment that in this hugely overcrowded country, any transport infrastructure will rapidly fill to capacity. I don’t doubt in the least, that within five years of HS2 opening, the powers that Be will be crying for ANOTHER one. 

 

The rail links across the economic desert East of the ECML seem to contradict this, but that area is still undergoing economic decline - and roads there are choked. 

 

It’s also a general comment that GDP is calculated by a format which translates increased population directly into increased GDP, without actually producing a bent ha’penny of anything. 

 

I’m wholly unconvinced that HS2 will do anything except generate more debt. 

 

 

I would be extremely surprised if HS2 was filled to capacity 5 years after opening for 2 reasons.

 

Firstly the stations , etc on the route will be able to cope with trains double the length they are toady. In other words we are talking about 900 plus seats (as you get in a Eurostar) instead of the 585 an 11 car Pendalino has today (the 9 car sets 469)

 

Secondly the stations and other features on the route will be capable of taking double deck trains - a train comprising of two TGV Duple units (which have 508 seats) giving a total seating capacity of over 1000 per train!

 

Assuming Birmingham currently receives 4tph from Euston made up of 11 car Pendollinos, then that gives a total of 2300 seats per hour - though as some of those will of course be used by travellers from Coventry, etc we are probably looking at around 1500 seats per hour for end to end users. If HS2 is run to provide maximum capacity (double deck trains 400m long) at 4tph then you are looking at 4000 seats per hour well over double what is provided now. If you take into account that the current service levels at Birmingham will need to be maintained broadly at current levels then you are getting for around to serve the likes of Coventry then you are talking about around 5000 to 6000 seats per hour being available for travellers between London and Birmingham. Similar calculations apply for Manchester and Leeds....

 

Now I do accept that away from HS2 proper these mega capacity trains won't be able to be used due to the UKs restrictive loading gauge and small stations (which is why taking HS2 into the heart of Birmingham and Manchester is needed) - but there is no reason why (i) a UK gauge train from Liverpool and a UK gauge service from Preston could not combine at Crewe for the run south , (ii) a HS2 double deck from Manchester and a UK gauge set from Manchester via Stoke and Stafford could not combine at Birmingham Parkway or (iii) a HS2 double deck set from Manchester couple to a double deck train from Birmingham at the Parkway station for the run to London (just like SNCF combine single and double deck TGVs were required to provide extensive penetration onto the classic network yet maximise capacity for the run along the LGV part).

 

 

Finally in the long term I see no reason why the UK should cry away from further high speed railway construction - its far more environmentally friendly than yet moe motorway building! Something from Birmingham to Bristol would do wonders for cross country services and could extend the benefits of the East Midlands leg of HS2 even further. Similarly if - and it is a big if, HS2 ever gets saturated then another high speed route along the est side of the county represents a sound investment. Even the GWR corridor could benefit in time if a serious uplift in capacity is required beyond what the current infrastructure can sustain.

Edited August 26, 2019 by phil-b259

[Bernard Lamb]

47 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

 

t’s also a general comment that GDP is calculated by a format which translates increased population directly into increased GDP, without actually producing a bent ha’penny of anything. 

 

 

 

The craziest example that I have come across of the way it works,is that a woman who breast feeds her baby is actually worse for  the GDP figures than one who purchases powdered milk.

Bernard

[melmerby]

50 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I get the impression that HS2 goes past somebody senior in the Telegraph's house, given how much they attack it. 

I thought all the "senior" Telegraph people lived abroad as tax exiles.

[corneliuslundie]

I am afraid the days of serious journalism ended some years ago, and are never likely to return. You as likely to get the truth in Private Eye as in even the "serious" press.

I don't know figures for the railways, but I remember clearly what happened when the M4 opened. The A48 between Cardiff and Newport was really quiet and pleasant to cycle along for a few years, but before many years it was busier than before the M4 opened. I am afraid that building any kind of transport infrastructure generates more traffic, whether we like it or not, simply because it makes travel easier. But not building new infrastructure solved no problems either. What we really need is a long term policy on transport which actually considers the whole picture rather than bits in isolation but that is extremely unlikely to happen in a country with national elections every few years and political parties always thinking about the next election and no further.

This is not an argument for or against HS2/3/4, electrification  or new motorways, simply a reflection that we are never likely to get it right whatever we do.

Unfortunately, the only scenario where one might get such an overall policy approach is a dictatorship and true benevolent dictators are in short supply.

So we need to continue to do the best the system allows.

Jonathan

[Pandora]

The Johnson review is about slicing the ball out of play to be lost and then found in the long grass as an interlude while other important matters are settled.

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, royaloak said:

Surely that would be a good thing?

 

Yes, population decline would be good from an ecological perspective.  You can also make a good argument that it is also necessary for the very long term good of us as a species.

 

But, and this is a very big but, it will bring about a lot of economic upheaval that would probably make the shift to China/computers/robotics look like a minor bump on the road.  Thus not only do business leaders not want it, but neither do most political leaders.

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

I am afraid the days of serious journalism ended some years ago, and are never likely to return. You as likely to get the truth in Private Eye as in even the "serious" press.

 

Those days will return once people show an inclination to fund "serious journalism". While they (including people on this forum) prefer random squealing from YouTubers because they come for free, then no-one other than the independently wealthy can afford to break the news. 

 

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

true benevolent dictators are in short supply

 

I'm here. Where do I apply?

[Mike Storey]

14 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Yes, population decline would be good from an ecological perspective.  You can also make a good argument that it is also necessary for the very long term good of us as a species.

 

But, and this is a very big but, it will bring about a lot of economic upheaval that would probably make the shift to China/computers/robotics look like a minor bump on the road.  Thus not only do business leaders not want it, but neither do most political leaders.

 

But if it redresses the imbalance between young and old over time, it will be welcome.

[Mike Storey]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I’d be curious to see a more detailed analysis of the nature of the traffic foreseen. 

 

It’s a general comment that in this hugely overcrowded country, any transport infrastructure will rapidly fill to capacity. I don’t doubt in the least, that within five years of HS2 opening, the powers that Be will be crying for ANOTHER one. 

 

The rail links across the economic desert East of the ECML seem to contradict this, but that area is still undergoing economic decline - and roads there are choked. 

 

It’s also a general comment that GDP is calculated by a format which translates increased population directly into increased GDP, without actually producing a bent ha’penny of anything. 

 

I’m wholly unconvinced that HS2 will do anything except generate more debt. 

 

 

The methodology for the CBA for HS2 (and all other major infrastructure schemes in the UK) is under severe criticism currently, for grossly underestimating the benefits. The equivalent for most major schemes in Western Europe involves far greater assumptions about economic, societal and environmental gains, especially over a much longer timescale. Hence, for example, the LGV Atlantique could be justified with just 19 train-pairs per day, the equivalent of about 1.5 hours use of HS2. Other HS schemes across Northern and Western Europe, and to a lesser extent, Italy, have had similar justifications at similar usage expectations. 

 

This is not to open up the "us and them" argument once more, but to illustrate the, comparatively, very narrow and constrained limits to the allowable gains in a business case in the UK. Not sure how you could narrow it further, nor why you would wish to?

 

The 2015 BC currently stands at 2.3, with a cost base of c.£56 billion. Increasing the cost base to c.£80 billion, reduces the BC to around 1.7 (unadjusted). That is still a good use of the money and still exceeds the parameters required of many schemes already authorised. If the Review incorporates a revision to the 2015 figures, I doubt there will be much concern, other than a top speed reduction to eliminate most slab track and some tunnelling dimensions. But this is politics.....

 

 

[rockershovel]

I can’t help noticing that none of the above answers attempt to explain how HS2 will serve economic development by moving raw materials, finished goods or anything in between. 

 

How does constant movement of population, generate wealth? 

 

The claim that the country is not overcrowded, because only 8% is built on, is egregious nonsense. Try looking at the percentage of the total area which is in use, for a more accurate idea. Britain, especially England, is one if the most intensively farmed countries in the world. Whole counties contain virtually no natural landscape. Take out the areas which are not realistically habitable and the percentage of available land is frighteningly small 

 

Our water supply is stretched to its limits. Our power supply suffers regular breakdowns. We lost the ability to feed ourselves, long ago. Our roads are choked with lorry traffic. 

 

Not overcrowded? 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by rockershovel

[letterspider]

Isn't all about creating existing railways to allow greater freight movements by rail?

[phil-b259]

20 minutes ago, letterspider said:

Isn't all about creating existing railways to allow greater freight movements by rail?

 

Not specially - though with the alterations to the current WCML service pattern post HS2 it is expected there will be some additional freight paths available as a result.

 

Exactly how many will depend on what happens with passenger services - the Government have made it clear that even in a post HS2 world it will still be necessary for their to be some fast express services on the WCML serving the likes of Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Tamworth etc.

[phil-b259]

35 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

I can’t help noticing that none of the above answers attempt to explain how HS2 will serve economic development by moving raw materials, finished goods or anything in between. 

 

How does constant movement of population, generate wealth? 

 

The claim that the country is not overcrowded, because only 8% is built on, is egregious nonsense. Try looking at the percentage of the total area which is in use, for a more accurate idea. Britain, especially England, is one if the most intensively farmed countries in the world. Whole counties contain virtually no natural landscape. Take out the areas which are not realistically habitable and the percentage of available land is frighteningly small 

 

Our water supply is stretched to its limits. Our power supply suffers regular breakdowns. We lost the ability to feed ourselves, long ago. Our roads are choked with lorry traffic. 

 

Not overcrowded? 

 

 

While I agree with your sentiments (and indeed observations as regards land usage), scraping HS2 will make zero difference to the issues you have outlined.

 

There is a perfectly valid debate to be had on the UKs long term economic strategy / rebalancing economic activity / rebalancing the population / etc. - but this is not the thread to do it.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, changes to things like land use of economic activity are the result of Government tax and regulatory measures - not transport links.

 

For example the city of London didn't became the powerhouse it is today because of its transport links - it was Mrs Thatchers sweeping derogation of financial rules, plus generous tax breaks which turbocharged the banking industry. Transport issues in fact were pretty much ignored in all this promotion of 'free market economics -only to be revisited very much as an afterthought, which is partly why the likes of Crosrail is only now being built many years after the need for extra capacity was proven.

 

Like many others, you are imbuing HS2 with magical powers it doesn't have, scraping it will NOT change economic, tax or regulatory rules and as such will make ZERO difference to achieving what might be called a 'lifestyle revolution' amongst UK citizens / businesses / subsidiaries  of international corporations / etc. Furthermore short of the UK entering a dictatorship (complete with secret police, etc) any change will take decades to translate into a reduction in the need to travel and the uplift in capacity HS2 provides is needed now!

 

 

 

 

[lmsforever]

I  would like to know if there is any idea of the number of expresses on the wcml after hs2 as at the moment the market is very boyant providing  much needed links for people north of London.

[pete_mcfarlane]

10 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

Unfortunately, the only scenario where one might get such an overall policy approach is a dictatorship and true benevolent dictators are in short supply.

 

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus is the man you need. 

[royaloak]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I can’t help noticing that none of the above answers attempt to explain how HS2 will serve economic development by moving raw materials, finished goods or anything in between. 

By getting most of the 125mph express trains off the WCML allowing more freights to run on there, 125mph passenger trains eat paths like nothing else, by getting them off the WCML you have many more (100mph or 75mph) paths for the stopping trains and freights. It will also allow the freights to keep moving rather than being looped every 5 minutes so they will be more competitive in this 'just in time' World because they can offer faster transit times than at present.