RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said: Maybe but one thing none of the doubters have yet been able to offer is a logical and readily achievable alternative to solving the line capacity situation on the WCML as it is now and will be in several years time and the line capacity problems which will develop on various other routes that the whole HS2 network should eventually relieve . It is all well and good to shout to the rooftops that HS 2 should not be built but to shout tahh without offering a sensible alternative is rather daft to sat the very least. If it isn't built what should be done instead - pleasde tell us. Oh and don;yt forget that in order to have any validity the alternative will have to cost less than any of the estimated costs of HS2. As this would all appear to some to be incredibly simple perhaps they will let us into the secret? Missing the point entirely I'm afraid. You are looking at this as a railway project and perhaps if it had been managed competently then it might remain so. However we are well past that point. It is now whether unlimited amounts of taxpayers' money should be poured into a project with no clear cost or delivery date and an economic case with more holes in it than the average sieve. That is the decision that is required. It is not for those who are challenging a national infrastructure project to set out alternatives, that is government's job. There is near endless list of things that need addressing in the UK with major investment - lack of capacity on the WCML is just one and arguably not that critical outside the world of transport. That's the bigger picture, not the narrow focus on railways. The simple fact is HS2 supporters are struggling to explain a positive and viable case for the project. If the best they can do is say that HS2 has to go ahead unless critics come up with an alternative then the argument is already lost. And like the election it's now the media's fault - everyone's fault except HS2's management! Hilarious. The public aren't that gullible any more. The point remains in the bigger picture the case for HS2 is very weak. And responsibility for that rests with those running it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
runs as required Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 Mmm ... ... looks like HS2 decision time - all the rage yesterday - has been overtaken in No, 10’s 24 hr strategic decision cycle by Wuhan, Huawei (and scary Mike Pompeo). Just time for some last minute lobbying from rmweb to tip the balance ? 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Popular Post The Stationmaster Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Popular Post Share Posted January 27, 2020 2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said: Missing the point entirely I'm afraid. You are looking at this as a railway project and perhaps if it had been managed competently then it might remain so. However we are well past that point. It is now whether unlimited amounts of taxpayers' money should be poured into a project with no clear cost or delivery date and an economic case with more holes in it than the average sieve. That is the decision that is required. It is not for those who are challenging a national infrastructure project to set out alternatives, that is government's job. There is near endless list of things that need addressing in the UK with major investment - lack of capacity on the WCML is just one and arguably not that critical outside the world of transport. That's the bigger picture, not the narrow focus on railways. The simple fact is HS2 supporters are struggling to explain a positive and viable case for the project. If the best they can do is say that HS2 has to go ahead unless critics come up with an alternative then the argument is already lost. And like the election it's now the media's fault - everyone's fault except HS2's management! Hilarious. The public aren't that gullible any more. The point remains in the bigger picture the case for HS2 is very weak. And responsibility for that rests with those running it. I don't know whether to laugh or cry reading that response - I really don't. There is no 'narrow focus on railways' - the focus is on the ability to move people and goods between the south/London (including various ports) and the Midlands/north. There are two ways of moving those things - either by train or by road, and if one mode cannot accommodate them access to its capacity has to be controlled by price which will also probably encourage modal shift. But there is also a social element in this with many people - usually car drivers - screaming 'more freight should be put on the railways'; commuters needing to get from where they live to the places where jobs exist; and people travelling for social reasons needing or wanting to move around for a whole wealth of reasons. Some of those forms of traffic will not be suitable for modal shift for very obvious reasons such as do you want hundreds of container carrying lorries every hour going up & down the M1 or is there sufficient parking within central London for everybody to commute in their car, or is the road journey quick enough buy 'bus or coach? Or will we move from building HS2 to the need to double the width of the M1 instead? So nationally and socially the capacity problems of the WCML can - and probably will - extend beyond the railway network into wider everyday life in all sorts of ways. There is then the 'carbon neutral' future which politicians seem currently to be very fond of and undoubtedly electric rail transport will have to be an important component of that in order to reduce rad traffic. Battery powered road vehicles are one thing but their technology involves both scarce resources and an as yet unclear extra demand for electricity at night to recharge the batteries. So rail transport would appear to be needed, and that means capacity will be needed. Incidentally I have been listening to stories about the death of the office and the death of the need to travel to work for several decades and I have yet to see any real change. As it happens my son is working from home today because he has a bad cold - he can communicate as easily as from his office with his boss in Geneva and with people in Paris, Austria, and Madrid he is doing work for . But none of that removes the need for face-to-face meetings in those places every now and then or the need for interaction with various people in his normal office base. Modern comms undoubtedly makes things easier but there is often still a need to discuss and agree matters with others and walking across the floor to their office and invoving others is simply not possible using video conferencing facilities that would cost a huge amount of money. Travel to work isn't going to change very much for a long time to come. Then we come to your rather dismissive comments about no clear cost and no clear delivery date. Both can be easily answered with a pretty high degree of accuracy should anybody actually bother to ask the right questions instead of launching off into rant mode or trying to paint the blackest picture they can conjure out of the void. For example nobody, in the mass of quoted headline figures, has actually asked where the money will be, or has been, spent. What it will actually buy and when it will buy it seems to have been totally lost in a race to come up with ever bigger numbers. Nobody has even asked the very basic question of how much all this delay and shilly-shallying is adding to the cost! Civil engineers and railway engineers if asked can no doubt give some fairly accurate answers about when various stages of the HS2 network could be completed, commissioned, and become operational assuming funding is available to proceed at that pace. True there are always unforeseen problems with any civil engineering project which could delay that stage but 'float' can be incorporated for that - the rest is almost a straight line progression from getting the basic infrastructure in place and all that needs is a proper project planning process - not some idiot politico or objector spouting off about this that and everything else. Judging by various comments I see on message boards and in the 'papers I am in no doubt whatsoever that the public areas gullible as they ever have been and are cheerfully believing without question the nonsense about HS2 being fed to them by the likes of of 'The Daily Telegraph' (which alas has managed to print some totally irrelevant nonsense) and 'The Daily Mail' where it only reports what suits it's agenda and then does so in some extremely poor english. So the media is very much playing its part and there are still plenty of people around who believe what they read in their favoured newspaper or what a particular MP or tv personality tells them - if that isn't gullible I really don't know what is. My point still remains absolutely valid - nobody is asking what happens, or doesn't happen, if it isn't built. Regrettably the real purpose of the line became lost the instant stupid politicos leapt onto the 'bigger willy' very high speed element without paying any attention to the critical element of the proposal and the media also ignored it because they didn't have the knowledge to explore that area. And of 7 15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-CRS Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 3 hours ago, ruggedpeak said: Missing the point entirely I'm afraid. You are looking at this as a railway project and perhaps if it had been managed competently then it might remain so. However we are well past that point. It is now whether unlimited amounts of taxpayers' money should be poured into a project with no clear cost or delivery date and an economic case with more holes in it than the average sieve. That is the decision that is required. It is not for those who are challenging a national infrastructure project to set out alternatives, that is government's job. There is near endless list of things that need addressing in the UK with major investment - lack of capacity on the WCML is just one and arguably not that critical outside the world of transport. That's the bigger picture, not the narrow focus on railways. The simple fact is HS2 supporters are struggling to explain a positive and viable case for the project. If the best they can do is say that HS2 has to go ahead unless critics come up with an alternative then the argument is already lost. And like the election it's now the media's fault - everyone's fault except HS2's management! Hilarious. The public aren't that gullible any more. The point remains in the bigger picture the case for HS2 is very weak. And responsibility for that rests with those running it. The case has been put so many times, but those opposed just don't listen or in this case read. The amount per year is small, it creates high skilled jobs for future generations (which can move on to other projects), deliveries capacity increase required for future (actually needed now) and does not effect current capacity. We, I believe struggled for qualified workers on the Great Western lines upgrade that caused cost and time over runs, which is why HS2 is training staff. How demoralising for this new generation of railway engineers that we are already training to say we are scrapping your future with no plan for you to move on to. Nothing oven ready. 2 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 23 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said: Personally I'd abandon the Leeds phase, go "look, we assessed HS2 and cancelled a bit. Happy now?". And then commission as study on future highspeed lines that recommends a HS4 that looks very much like the cancelled bit of HS2 (and will face very little opposition on its own, as it's all up north) which can be constructed to a schedule only a year or two behind what was originally planned. Jeez, I thought I was cynical. I absolutely agree 100% with you and it was my first thought after hearing the announcement that they would cancel a bit not due to be built for 10 years or so (and hasnt had any money spent on it yet) so they can be seen to be doing something, then in 4 years time (just before the next General Election) announce a 'Northern' project to connect Leeds, York and Doncaster to the New HS2 to improve connectivity with the South. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said: Personally I'd abandon the Leeds phase, go "look, we assessed HS2 and cancelled a bit. Happy now?". And then commission as study on future highspeed lines that recommends a HS4 that looks very much like the cancelled bit of HS2 (and will face very little opposition on its own, as it's all up north) which can be constructed to a schedule only a year or two behind what was originally planned. Jeez, I thought I was cynical. I absolutely agree 100% with you and it was my first thought after hearing the announcement that they would cancel a bit now that wasnt due to be built for 10 years or so (and hasnt had any money spent on it yet) so they can be seen to be doing something, then in 4 years time (just before the next General Election) announce a 'Northern' project to connect Leeds, York and Doncaster to the New HS2 to improve connectivity with the South. Edited January 27, 2020 by royaloak 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 3 hours ago, ruggedpeak said: Missing the point entirely I'm afraid. You are looking at this as a railway project and perhaps if it had been managed competently then it might remain so. However we are well past that point. It is now whether unlimited amounts of taxpayers' money should be poured into a project with no clear cost or delivery date and an economic case with more holes in it than the average sieve. That is the decision that is required. It is not for those who are challenging a national infrastructure project to set out alternatives, that is government's job. There is near endless list of things that need addressing in the UK with major investment - lack of capacity on the WCML is just one and arguably not that critical outside the world of transport. That's the bigger picture, not the narrow focus on railways. The simple fact is HS2 supporters are struggling to explain a positive and viable case for the project. If the best they can do is say that HS2 has to go ahead unless critics come up with an alternative then the argument is already lost. And like the election it's now the media's fault - everyone's fault except HS2's management! Hilarious. The public aren't that gullible any more. The point remains in the bigger picture the case for HS2 is very weak. And responsibility for that rests with those running it. Like Stationmaster I didn't know whether to laugh or cry on reading the above. In the end I decided to find a brick wall to bang my head against. 1 3 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 Sir Keir Starmer, on BBC Breakfast this morning, when asked whether HS2 should go ahead, and without actually using the word 'yes' (why do politicians find that so hard ?) agreed that is should, although he also stated that construction should have started in the north; However he did not say, nor was he asked, how traffic would be accomodated on the already at-capacity southern WCML. 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 7 minutes ago, caradoc said: Sir Keir Starmer, on BBC Breakfast this morning, when asked whether HS2 should go ahead, and without actually using the word 'yes' (why do politicians find that so hard ?) agreed that is should, although he also stated that construction should have started in the north; However he did not say, nor was he asked, how traffic would be accomodated on the already at-capacity southern WCML. It's not like him to criticise the Government without offering a viable solution. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdvle Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 5 hours ago, ruggedpeak said: The public aren't that gullible any more. There is ample evidence that the public is just as gullible as it has ever been, if anything more so, as new methods of pushing propaganda in the modern Internet connected world have flourished. 1 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 2 hours ago, caradoc said: Sir Keir Starmer, on BBC Breakfast this morning, when asked whether HS2 should go ahead, and without actually using the word 'yes' (why do politicians find that so hard ?) agreed that is should, although he also stated that construction should have started in the north; However he did not say, nor was he asked, how traffic would be accomodated on the already at-capacity southern WCML. Just as muddled as his party's pre-election Brexit position, that he was the main architect of. All hot air and no answers. Goes for most politicians across the UK political spectrum, these days. . 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 3 hours ago, mdvle said: There is ample evidence that the public is just as gullible as it has ever been, if anything more so, as new methods of pushing propaganda in the modern Internet connected world have flourished. Can you direct us to the 'ample evidence ' please? Evidence with a bit of rigour behind it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class26 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said: Can you direct us to the 'ample evidence ' please? Evidence with a bit of rigour behind it. Just about everywhere I would say led by the national newspapers who are still peddling 100 billion to save 20 minutes to Birmingham .It`s a simple headline but totally misleading but it sticks. Never a mention about all the capacity freed up and how it will benefit places miles away from Hs2. I hear all the time people saying "but it will not benefit us as we are 50 miles from HS2" etc, etc The public swallow sound bites. Every politicians knows this 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 1 minute ago, class26 said: Just about everywhere I would say led by the national newspapers who are still peddling 100 billion to save 20 minutes to Birmingham .It`s a simple headline but totally misleading but it sticks. Never a mention about all the capacity freed up and how it will benefit places miles away from Hs2. I hear all the time people saying "but it will not benefit us as we are 50 miles from HS2" etc, etc The public swallow sound bites. Every politicians knows this When I said 'evidence' I meant actual evidence. Something with a bit of intellectual rigour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class26 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 1 minute ago, ruggedpeak said: When I said 'evidence' I meant actual evidence. Something with a bit of intellectual rigour. I know exactly what you meant but i don`t see why I should spend all night trawling through the internet to satisfy your lack of trust. Its everywhere., trust me. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said: Can you direct us to the 'ample evidence ' please? Evidence with a bit of rigour behind it. Can you provide proof, again with rigour, that the public aren't gullible? There seems to be plenty of evidence from a variety of sources that 'fake news' is repeatedly believed. For example one survey in Britain found that those aged under 24 are four times more likely to believe online political advertising than those aged over 55. The extent to which people fact check news varies considerably with their viewpoint as a survey of Brexit voters found although the worrying feature was that whatever their viewpoint over 70% didn't check the facts. Which brings us back to those ever growing HS2 cost numbers none of which are being explained. if those quoting the numbers can't be bothered, or aren't able, to explain why and how the figures have increased then to what extent are the numbers accurate reflections of the costs and what they will or won't buy.? Simple one really when you think about - all relatively simple numbers albeit with the word 'billion' following them (presumably that being the US definition of a billion which is nowadays in common usage). Distinct lack of rigour there when it comes to explanations of where the money will go and has been spent but taht should be easy to bottom - so why don't teh objectors tackle it? 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 25 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said: Can you direct us to the 'ample evidence ' please? Evidence with a bit of rigour behind it. People voting Labour on account of all the 'free' stuff they promised! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said: When I said 'evidence' I meant actual evidence. Something with a bit of intellectual rigour. Well that certainly doesn't apply to those bandying round the £106 billion figure because they haven't even explained how that figure changed from £35 billion to £106 billion - all they do is parrot the number, with about as much rigour as a dead cat. And you for example very clearly blamed HS2 management for the increase which again is a major lack of rigour because you very obviously failed to address why the numbers have increased but simply fell back on a bit of overworked rhetoric. It should be plainly obvious to anybody that HS2 management is not responsible for some of the increase - which producing the actual numbers would immediately prove to be the case. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 24 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said: Can you direct us to the 'ample evidence ' please? Evidence with a bit of rigour behind it. Are you serious??? You ask for evidence that the public are gullible just days before the UK leaves the EU - with no deal in sight, no guarantees for the Brits living in Europe nor Europeans living in the UK and so forth. Rigour? Forty plus years of anti-EU propaganda, how's that. 2 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 14 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said: When I said 'evidence' I meant actual evidence. Something with a bit of intellectual rigour. I've asked my mate Igor, he said 'Da, eto pravil'no. Vy vse yeshche doverchivy' 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
number6 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said: When I said 'evidence' I meant actual evidence. Something with a bit of intellectual rigour. Sorry: forgot to say - might as well mention this again. Seeing as its quite rigourous. Edited January 27, 2020 by number6 Forgot to speak. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 Just now, The Stationmaster said: Can you provide proof, again with rigour, that the public aren't gullible? There seems to be plenty of evidence from a variety of sources that 'fake news' is repeatedly believed. For example one survey in Britain found that those aged under 24 are four times more likely to believe online political advertising than those aged over 55. The extent to which people fact check news varies considerably with their viewpoint as a survey of Brexit voters found although the worrying feature was that whatever their viewpoint over 70% didn't check the facts. Which brings us back to those ever growing HS2 cost numbers none of which are being explained. if those quoting the numbers can't be bothered, or aren't able, to explain why and how the figures have increased then to what extent are the numbers accurate reflections of the costs and what they will or won't buy.? Simple one really when you think about - all relatively simple numbers albeit with the word 'billion' following them (presumably that being the US definition of a billion which is nowadays in common usage). Distinct lack of rigour there when it comes to explanations of where the money will go and has been spent but taht should be easy to bottom - so why don't teh objectors tackle it? So the public aren't gullible, only sections of the public. As for the costs, it is clear no one credible has confidence in the costs for HS2. Why should objectors have to provide a level of detail that HS2 itself can't do? Frankly laughable even before the sustained criticism of the cost management of HS2 and the culture of secrecy for a project funded by the public. All documented in detail by the NAO on various occasions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 10 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said: Are you serious??? You ask for evidence that the public are gullible just days before the UK leaves the EU - with no deal in sight, no guarantees for the Brits living in Europe nor Europeans living in the UK and so forth. Rigour? Forty plus years of anti-EU propaganda, how's that. Funny, all the evidence is that the disasters that were supposed to befall us after the referendum were wrong. Consistently wrong. Still wrong. Very wrong. Documented and wrong. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 27, 2020 16 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said: - all relatively simple numbers albeit with the word 'billion' following them (presumably that being the US definition of a billion which is nowadays in common usage). "Billion" as 1,000 x 1,000,000 is (AFAIK) now the internationally accepted term for monetary values. "Billion" as in 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 is still (AFAIK) the correct mathematical term. Maybe we should start denoting values in "Lakhs" 1 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ruggedpeak Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, number6 said: Sorry: forgot to say - might as well mention this again. Seeing as its quite rigourous. So you don't have any evidence then? The evidence that is apparently 'everywhere' but takes all night to find trawling the internet Anything to avoid providing anything credible to support the assertion about public gullibility. The harsh reality is that HS2 has consistently failed to act on NAO and other reports since it started, and is plagued by secrecy so no wonder it's credibility is in tatters. Anyone actually know what the cost of HS2 is officially? To finish it? HS2 certainly don't. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts