HS2 under review

[pete_mcfarlane]

15 minutes ago, caradoc said:

And if changing between local train and express at New St the interchange time will not be a great deal less (assuming a proper link is built) than getting from New St to Curzon St, especially if they arrive at the Midland side of New St and as well as negotiating narrow platforms, congested stairways and unreliable escalators, have to pass through two ticket barriers.

That's a very good point. Getting off the platforms at New Street is never quick - it only takes one or two groups of slow moving people to grind the process to a crawl. 

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

Surely if the trains go faster, whilst you can have a smaller and therefore cheaper fleet, they accumulate mileage faster and therefore wear out quicker, so you have to spend money replacing the fleet sooner.

 

As my old physics teacher said, "You don't get summat for nowt".

As I mentioned previously there are all sorts of things ,including maintenance costs (and that's not just train maintenance) to be taken into account.  Simplistically if you reduce the journey time (by going faster) you reduce the cycle time within all the resource diagrams (i.e trains and people) if everything else such as turnround times is unchanged.  You can of course also reduce the cycle time by reducing turnround times if your station design is correctly predicated - for example a Class 373 Eurostar could be turned round at Waterloo International in 35 minutes because of the design of the terminal; it was impossible to turn one round at Gare du Nord in that short a time and SNCF people were only convinced it was possible at Waterloo when they watched it happening and being timed with a stop watch.

 

If you can reduce your cycle time, and depending on the frequency of the service, you can reach a point where you save resources - fewer trains, fewer people to man them so your initial capital cost is reduced and your manpower costs are also reduced.  And as it happens your maintenance and consumable spares costs might also be reduced because there are fewer trains to maintain.

 

But your wear and tear costs will probably increase - for example  track wear will be at a different rate because trains are running faster, deeper ballasting will be required and will cost more to provide and sustain/maintain and more frequent attention and inspection of the track might well be needed.  So there is a potential cost increase compared with lower line speeds.  Train maintenance costs work slightly differently because if you have fewer trains there will be some decrease in certain costs - for example train cleaning costs will reduce because there aren't so many trains to clean every night.  But speed related impact on the mechanical and electrical components of the train might will increase costs - whether or not they rise in a straight line or geometric progression depends on all sorts of things.  For example pantograph carbons will probably wear more quickly - but there will be fewer of them in a smaller train fleet.

 

So overall there are a wide range of factors to take into consideration - hence my earlier comment about where a line might be drawn in respect of train speeds because it needs all these factors to be taken into account.

[96701]

35 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

As I mentioned previously there are all sorts of things ,including maintenance costs (and that's not just train maintenance) to be taken into account.  Simplistically if you reduce the journey time (by going faster) you reduce the cycle time within all the resource diagrams (i.e trains and people) if everything else such as turnround times is unchanged.  You can of course also reduce the cycle time by reducing turnround times if your station design is correctly predicated - for example a Class 373 Eurostar could be turned round at Waterloo International in 35 minutes because of the design of the terminal; it was impossible to turn one round at Gare du Nord in that short a time and SNCF people were only convinced it was possible at Waterloo when they watched it happening and being timed with a stop watch.

 

If you can reduce your cycle time, and depending on the frequency of the service, you can reach a point where you save resources - fewer trains, fewer people to man them so your initial capital cost is reduced and your manpower costs are also reduced.  And as it happens your maintenance and consumable spares costs might also be reduced because there are fewer trains to maintain.

 

But your wear and tear costs will probably increase - for example  track wear will be at a different rate because trains are running faster, deeper ballasting will be required and will cost more to provide and sustain/maintain and more frequent attention and inspection of the track might well be needed.  So there is a potential cost increase compared with lower line speeds.  Train maintenance costs work slightly differently because if you have fewer trains there will be some decrease in certain costs - for example train cleaning costs will reduce because there aren't so many trains to clean every night.  But speed related impact on the mechanical and electrical components of the train might will increase costs - whether or not they rise in a straight line or geometric progression depends on all sorts of things.  For example pantograph carbons will probably wear more quickly - but there will be fewer of them in a smaller train fleet.

 

So overall there are a wide range of factors to take into consideration - hence my earlier comment about where a line might be drawn in respect of train speeds because it needs all these factors to be taken into account.

 

Fewer trains = fewer sidings, so less land to purchase at depots?

 

[runs as required]

1 hour ago, Flittersnoop said:

Yet another HS2 PR car crash on the Today Programme on Radio 4 this morning.

 

I thought Sarah Smith dealt very calmly with the undeniably disastrous trail of DAFT/HS2 Ltd project management decisions.

 

Prof Tony Travers is the Generalist I have come to trust on macro infrastructural issues.  Listen to his summation here on R4 Today at 2hrs.38 into the recording that it has now to be a political decision between HS2 and its extensions with its known faults and other yet to be projected infrastructural investment. 

------

My bet is that BJ will opt for a fudge political Decision, rather than have another kick at the can . 

Might it be an 'Announcement' stressing how 'green' he is with:

• a go-ahead for a pruned down HS2 (satisfying the Victoria Prentis MPs) that slows down the first Bucks/Oxon stretch to Bhm  International;
• substitutes Euston and Curzon St terminal stations with multi-use city centre Property developments that offset the cost of clearance and site works already carried out. (cutting back to cheapo portal frame sheddery at Old Oak Common ).
• strengthens West Midlands Conurbation transport linkages (London style from his mayor days)
• passes control of HS2a etc. to a renamed Northern Powerhouse regional governance - north from Bham to Manchester/Liverpool, Leeds - and the rest of us.

On 22/01/2020 at 13:09, Phil Parker said:

Personally, I expect HS2 to be cancelled. 

(not only is PP a Mod - but also a Journalist!)

 

 What do others think will be the decision?

 

[Mark Saunders]

15 minutes ago, 96701 said:

 

Fewer trains = fewer sidings, so less land to purchase at depots?

 

 

In a similar vane there should be no laybys to accommodate vehicles at the side of roads or parking at services as they cost money to provide!

[Ian Hargrave]

2 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

That's a very good point. Getting off the platforms at New Street is never quick - it only takes one or two groups of slow moving people to grind the process to a crawl. 

 
Finding your way out of or in to John Lewis Central is an act of blind faith. It suffers from a crisis of functional identity...the epitome of confusion. A new start at Curzon Street would be a breath of fresh air. 
Reurning to what Phil Parker posts about the walking distance between the two points,he’s quite right.How many miles have any of you walked at an airport terminal recently ? My all time record holder is  Madrid.( British architect btw...)

Edited January 24, 2020 by Ian Hargrave
omit superfluous word

[Phil Parker]

I'm curious why @runs as required thinks either my role as a Mod or (apparently) "a Journalist!" has any bearing on this. Possibly I'm not allowed an opinion is his/her opinion. Tough.

 

I still think there is a good chance of cancellation. It would please a lot of MPs and free up lots of lovely cheap land in London that I'm sure will find easy buyers. We can then get on with a few years wrangling and throwing money at consultants to come up with a replacement, the original problem not having gone away. After that, the whole thing can start again. Repeat ad-infinitum.

 

I hope to be proved wrong. Those station artist impressions look amazing and I'd like to think that we can still build something as impressive as St Pancras, York or other trainshed termini.

[Mark Saunders]

13 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

I'm curious why @runs as required thinks either my role as a Mod or (apparently) "a Journalist!" has any bearing on this. Possibly I'm not allowed an opinion is his/her opinion. Tough.

 

I still think there is a good chance of cancellation. It would please a lot of MPs and free up lots of lovely cheap land in London that I'm sure will find easy buyers. We can then get on with a few years wrangling and throwing money at consultants to come up with a replacement, the original problem not having gone away. After that, the whole thing can start again. Repeat ad-infinitum.

 

I hope to be proved wrong. Those station artist impressions look amazing and I'd like to think that we can still build something as impressive as St Pancras, York or other trainshed termini.

 

No matter what the outcome it will all end in tears, with everyone blaming everyone else!

 

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

Yet another HS2 PR car crash on the Today Programme on Radio 4 this morning. HS2 advocate, Professor Steve Brittan (professor of International Business Development, and authentic Brummie) was asked the simple question, "How much would be too much?" [money to build HS2]. He seemed totally flummoxed by this; the best he could come up with was the usual, "We can't afford not to". I know that seems like a perfectly acceptable answer to all the HS2 faithful on here, but to ordinary people, and especially politicians, that lame response opens up the nightmare scenario of giving a blank cheque to a load of rail engineers who have over the last decade demonstrated an almost unfailing ability to spend huge sums of money delivering less than was asked for years late. Not at all what would make any politician connected with the project look good, which, thanks to our system of democracy, is what they really care about.

 

HS2 deserves to be cancelled, if the way it conducts its business and PR is anything to go by.

 

 

Except for the rather important detail that Professor Brittan does not appear to officially represent HS2.

 

If an official representative of HS2 had that response you would be somewhat correct, but there is / should be no expectation that a 3rd party businessman with no apparent official connection to HS2 can answer questions about the project.

[John Tomlinson]

"Runs as required" asks what others think will be the decision. Having read and learnt a lot on here from those in the industry and technically competent to comment, which I am not, my only assessment can be a political one, which is something all of us can make. So as you asked, my bet would be for complete cancellation.

 

Neither Oakervee nor the NAO report deliver a silver bullet either way, the latter says that if it is approved there is significant scope for better management, and the former almost damns with faint praise. So if Shapps and Johnson were hoping to be bailed out, they're out of luck. Moreover, as Tony Travers said on R4, the scope and breadth of the decision is so large, it does eventually become a political rather than a technical one.

 

So, the politics. In the political sphere, it is a great deal of dosh, moreover may end up being a lot more than presently envisaged by the time it is complete, decades hence. Put simply, no one knows. Which means it hangs around any government going forward, even if the annual outgoing/amortisation is relatively small. Moreover if the go-ahead is given now, it isn't really going to be rescindable, and even if you do some in progress tweaks they're unlikely to make much of a dent in the bill.

 

Given the last election result, the Tories would be mad to just do the Southern part, even if in capacity terms it has the strongest and most pressing case. They would be wide open to claims of favouring the South, and selling the Midlands and North short yet again. This despite Johnson's strategic promise to "rebalance" the country. They have to keep the newly won seats next time round, probably in 2024, so if the project goes ahead it has to be most or all. Can you just do the northern bits? Folk on here seem to think it nonsensical, and basically forfeiting much of the benefit from doing the whole. So it's looking like an "all or nothing".

 

Given the risks and reservations in the official reports, and the scale and longevity of the project, the path of least resistance then becomes a complete cancellation. They'll have to promise lots and lots of dosh for small scale schemes, new stations, road bypasses, new rolling stock etc. etc., the kind of things two new northern Tory MP's (Leigh and ?) were listing on R4 earlier in the week, but which will be deliverable relatively quickly and can be targetted on the North and Midlands. Expect also a big boost for housing in London on the land already bought/ earmarked, and particularly if this can be targeted at social/ affordable schemes that should nullify a lot of dissent in the capital. The environmental campaigners aren't going to be complaining either, as we discussed a little while ago.

 

Midlands and Northern business leaders may complain, as will the CEO's of the big construction companies, but so what politically with a Tory government. The likes of Andy Burham will also be disappointed, but given a list of new goodies published at the same time won't really have that strong a ground either. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the decision hasn't already been made, and we are simply waiting for the ducks to be in a row on the compensating packages of investment to be offered.

 

As I said, you did ask.

 

John.

[Mike Storey]

13 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

I deliberately said CENTRAL Birmingham. The city limits extend out to Frankley, Kingstanding, Walmley and other places that are a very long and tedious bus ride from Curzon Street station, O Ye non-Expert on the English language and Geography. 

 

So you cannot answer the very simple question I posed in relation to your comment?

 

If c.48 million journeys are already starting from or ending at New Street  (and growing fast), and far, far fewer anywhere else in the entire area, how can you justify your original statement that few people travel from the centre of Birmingham?

[Mike Storey]

5 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

 

Given the risks and reservations in the official reports, and the scale and longevity of the project, the path of least resistance then becomes a complete cancellation. They'll have to promise lots and lots of dosh for small scale schemes, new stations, road bypasses, new rolling stock etc. etc., the kind of things two new northern Tory MP's (Leigh and ?) were listing on R4 earlier in the week, but which will be deliverable relatively quickly and can be targetted on the North and Midlands. Expect also a big boost for housing in London on the land already bought/ earmarked, and particularly if this can be targeted at social/ affordable schemes that should nullify a lot of dissent in the capital. The environmental campaigners aren't going to be complaining either, as we discussed a little while ago.

 

 

 

Beyond the existing orders for additional trains and a few new stations, there is NOTHING that can be delivered relatively quickly. That is the point.

 

More new trains - there's nowhere to use them as the tracks are full and the platforms too short.

 

Small scale schemes - all the low hanging fruit is being picked already - some big decisions are awaited on the rest. The "relatively quick" NR scheme for limited additional electrification, some speed upgrades and and some additional track mileage, has already been given the raspberry as being totally inadequate, and may indeed actually slow down the creation of the badly needed NP scheme. It has anyway been stuck in the revolving door of the DfT for several years now in its various guises.

 

Northern Powerhouse Rail - even if DfT, NP and the Regional govts had actually agreed yet on what this should be, it has already been stated that it would take until at least 2040 to build it. It would also have to pick up £ several tens of billions from HS2 Phase 2B, which would not be built but which NP relies on for its own relatively small £39 billion (and watch that number grow exponentially too). 

 

So whilst I can certainly see your point about total cancellation, politically, there would be little that HMG could offer in return that would survive first contact with daylight.

 

As someone else has already said, it would be ironic that the first act of a post-Brexit government would be to cancel the one big infrastructure project set to seriously change the way the UK does business.....

 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

... meanwhile, on the Midland Mainline.  Sheffield Derby Nottingham and Leicester still won't be getting electric trains any time soon.  

 

I suspect that British 'business' is actually a front for diverting huge amounts of money from getting things done into the pockets of 'consultants'.

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

And your post is typical of the example of the famous problem of people who dismiss large chunks of the UK population for not being as clever as them (or as clever as they think they are).

 

Nope - he does make a very valid point.

 

Why do you think everything from cars and sofas to houses are sold on a 'only xx per month basis'?

 

The answer is because the cost of buying outright is far too daunting for most folk to contemplate being able to afford and it seems perfectly sensible to apply such thinking to infrastructure projects.

 

[phil-b259]

43 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

... meanwhile, on the Midland Mainline.  Sheffield Derby Nottingham and Leicester still won't be getting electric trains any time soon.  

 

I suspect that British 'business' is actually a front for diverting huge amounts of money from getting things done into the pockets of 'consultants'.

 

Electric trains on the MML won't magically create any extra platforms at St Pancras, provide extra tracks south of Bedford or somehow scale back Thameslink. As such they are no substitute for HS2 with its East Midlands leg which can solve all these issues.

 

Thats not to say that there aren't benefits to electrifying the rest of the MML of course - but it has to be said that they aren't really relevant to the HS2 debate.

[phil-b259]

6 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

Yet another HS2 PR car crash on the Today Programme on Radio 4 this morning. HS2 advocate, Professor Steve Brittan (professor of International Business Development, and authentic Brummie) was asked the simple question, "How much would be too much?" [money to build HS2]. He seemed totally flummoxed by this; the best he could come up with was the usual, "We can't afford not to". I know that seems like a perfectly acceptable answer to all the HS2 faithful on here, but to ordinary people, and especially politicians, that lame response opens up the nightmare scenario of giving a blank cheque to a load of rail engineers who have over the last decade demonstrated an almost unfailing ability to spend huge sums of money delivering less than was asked for years late. Not at all what would make any politician connected with the project look good, which, thanks to our system of democracy, is what they really care about.

 

HS2 deserves to be cancelled, if the way it conducts its business and PR is anything to go by.

 

 

Its a bit of an unfair question in the sense of trying to get someone to come up with an absolute figure on the spot for such a complex project.

 

Yes, in outline terms there is obviously a point at which HS2 represents poor value and should be stopped BUT its not as simple as the anti brigade seem to think.

 

The 'value' of HS2 to the nation covers numerous areas - some very difficult to put a precise monetary figure on. ranging from environmental to new services which can make use of the freed up capacity as well as 'direct' benefits like shorter journey times.

 

Furthermore with railway assets having very long lives (signalling kit and trains tend to work on a 40 year lifespan) such benefits will accrue over many decades - not in the limited 5 to 10 year time frame most voters (let alone politicians) usually use.

 

Finally 'doing nothing' or 'limited scope' alternatives also come with reduced benefits even though they may 'cost' less in strict construction terms. The loss of those benefits needs to be recognised and thus the professors statement 'we cannot afford not too' has more truth to it than some like to admit for fear of undermining their anti message.

 

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

22 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Electric trains on the MML won't magically create any extra platforms at St Pancras, provide extra tracks south of Bedford or somehow scale back Thameslink. As such they are no substitute for HS2 with its East Midlands leg which can solve all these issues.

 

Thats not to say that there aren't benefits to electrifying the rest of the MML of course - but it has to be said that they aren't really relevant to the HS2 debate.

 

Going off at a bit of a tangent here. But as soon as we mention destinations like Sheffield and Nottingham, does it make sense to get to London via Birmingham? Not really.

 

Better to leave all of HS2 capacity for Liverpool, Manchester & Scotland and construct an HS3 to relieve the East Coast Mainline and serve Nottingham and Sheffield.

 

Note that HS2 (1st phase) has now slipped to 2031. That will neatly be 50 years after the French opened the first part of P-SE. Crossrail is even further behind RER A.

[phil-b259]

10 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Going off at a bit of a tangent here. But as soon as we mention destinations like Sheffield and Nottingham, does it make sense to get to London via Birmingham? Not really.

 

Better to leave all of HS2 capacity for Liverpool, Manchester & Scotland and construct an HS3 to relieve the East Coast Mainline and serve Nottingham and Sheffield.

 

Note that HS2 (1st phase) has now slipped to 2031. That will neatly be 50 years after the French opened the first part of P-SE. Crossrail is even further behind RER A.

 

Questioning whether its better off going via Birmingham is rather pointless if thats the ONLY realistic option available!

 

While the headline focus of HS2 is rightly the WCML, the brutal truth is since the St Pancras rebuild which shoehorned all MML trains into just 4 platforms at the London terminus plus ever more Thameslink trains running up to Bedford there simply isn't any more space for extra trains on the classic MML.

 

Using the large HS2 station at Euston and going via Birmingham on a faster line is thus a very sensible move - particularly as you can also provide relief to the core section of the cross country network at the same time.

 

As I have said many, many times (in invisible ink it would seem given some of the posts made in the past few weeks) HS2 is a PACKAGE of measures which individually seek to address different needs, but which can be made to come together for the mutual benefit of getting something built.

 

Without using HS2 you are faced with LOTS of expensive property demolition to double the number of MML platforms at St Pancras and install 6 tracks as far as Luton (if not Bedford).

 

As for a HS3 ECML / MML relief line - given the amount of political heat and the numbers campaigning to get the first bit scrapped I'm amazed you think that the nation will somehow permit a second HS line north of London to be built for decades.

Edited January 24, 2020 by phil-b259

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Questioning whether its better off going via Birmingham is rather pointless if thats the ONLY realistic option available!

 

While the headline focus of HS2 is rightly the WCML, the brutal truth is since the St Pancras rebuild which shoehorned all MML trains into just 4 platforms at the London terminus plus ever more Thameslink trains running up to Bedford there simply isn't any more space for extra trains on the classic MML.

 

Using the large HS2 station at Euston and going via Birmingham on a faster line is thus a very sensible move - particularly as you can also provide relief to the core section of the cross country network at the same time.

 

Without using HS2 you are faced with LOTS of expensive property demolition to double the number of MML platforms at St Pancras and install 6 tracks as far as Luton (if not Bedford)

 

But that's my point. I don't think that the East Midlands branch of HS2 is a realistic option.

 

I accept your point that there is no easy access into Central London in that direction and still less an easy station location. But I don't believe it to be completely impossible.

 

And, as Stationmaster has often written, Euston looks somewhat inadequate to handle traffic from all these locations that HS2 is supposed to serve. Eighteen trains an hour to service and turn round would seem to need more platforms.

[caradoc]

16 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

Surely if the trains go faster, whilst you can have a smaller and therefore cheaper fleet, they accumulate mileage faster and therefore wear out quicker, so you have to spend money replacing the fleet sooner.

 

As my old physics teacher said, "You don't get summat for nowt".

 

The same thing could be said about the last major uplift in UK rail speeds (other than HS1), from 100mph to 125mph in 1976; The trains introduced then are only being replaced now, more than 40 years later, and some will in remain in (admittedly less arduous) service for years to come !

 

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

But that's my point. I don't think that the East Midlands branch of HS2 is a realistic option.

 

I accept your point that there is no easy access into Central London in that direction and still less an easy station location. But I don't believe it to be completely impossible.

 

 

Nothing is impossible if you throw enough money at it - but as the whole HS2 debate shows there are still plenty of folk opposed to radical infrastructure plans and demolishing large bits of what is now quite an upmarket area of Kings Cross / St Pancras is not a battle you will win at this stage.

 

In any case a Birmingham - Derby HS line still performs an important function for relieving XC so wouldn't be waisted even if a further HS line was out of London built along the ECML / MML axis.

 

Thats why its important Hs2 is supported - if it gets built then hopefully it will show up the anti brigade as being wrong and thus pave the way for further routes. Let HS2 fail now and you will never get the more extensive network our country needs (primarily because of capacity needs rather than outright speed I hasten to add)

[Dava]

The East Midlands in common with much of the rest of England has been subjected to massive housebuilding targets from the govt, as you will see all the way up to Sheffield. So all these new residents need to travel to work, college, leisure etc. We continue to see predicted population growth and towns and cities along the way have full road networks, Loughborough being an example.

 

The MML is pretty full and congested now - not only the line to London but Leicester to Sheffield and Nottingham too. By 2030 let alone 2040 it will be more so unless B****T permamently stuffs the economy and everyone who can emigrates. The same factor could make HS2 'unaffordable'.

 

Current govt seems to have been elected mainly by an elderly electorate. The rail capacity increase from HS2 really will be essential for future demand and actually too late. HS2 might not be the ideal solution but the time to select that, if something different, was about 10 years ago.  

 

I still favour full MML electrification for capacity, environmental and other reasons. We were stuffed by Grayling and look likely to be stuffed by the Johnson/Shapps/Cummings gang now. Its just not acceptable.

 

The builders of all the 19th century main lines from London to the Midlands and North did not accept the argument that the turnpikes and canals could be widened as an alternative. We need a 21st, not 19th century rail infrastructure. 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

28 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

.....But as soon as we mention destinations like Sheffield and Nottingham, does it make sense to get to London via Birmingham? Not really.......

Via Birmingham as in passing close by. They won’t be calling at Curzon St.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

.....Better to leave all of HS2 capacity for Liverpool, Manchester & Scotland and construct an HS3 to relieve the East Coast Mainline and serve Nottingham and Sheffield........

Look at all the fuss and opposition over building one HS line.

Apart from the huge extra cost, do you expect an overwhelming welcome for such such a proposal?

 

14 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

....as Stationmaster has often written, Euston looks somewhat inadequate to handle traffic from all these locations that HS2 is supposed to serve. Eighteen trains an hour to service and turn round would seem to need more platforms.

I assume you are suggesting that more platforms are needed, in addition to all the new HS2 platforms being added in the Euston rebuild and extension?

 

Ron

[phil-b259]

12 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

I assume you are suggesting that more platforms are needed, in addition to all the new HS2 platforms being added in the Euston rebuild and extension?

 

Ron

 

The Stationmaster does make a valid point - please remember that the assumption is that eventually HS2 will require double deck Eurostar length trains. These can accommodate vast numbers of people all of whom have to alight, then the train be serviced (litter picked, buffets restocked, water tanks potentially topped up, etc) before a new batch of travellers can board the mammoth train. Doing all that in under 40 minutes (18tph on HS into 11 platforms) will be challenging to say the least...

 

However given the difficulties in getting the current HS2 plan past the naysayers going for even more platforms wasn't a practical option even though operationally it would have made things much easier.

Edited January 24, 2020 by phil-b259

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Nope - he does make a very valid point.

 

Why do you think everything from cars and sofas to houses are sold on a 'only xx per month basis'?

 

The answer is because the cost of buying outright is far too daunting for most folk to contemplate being able to afford and it seems perfectly sensible to apply such thinking to infrastructure projects.

 

I think you reinforced my point by suggesting that HS2 should be sold to the public like a DFS sofa. That really is assuming people are stupid.

 

By the way what are the monthly repayments on a £100bn train project and do I get 4 year's interest free credit? Will it affect my credit score if I apply? Is my home at risk if it's not completed on time?

 

More importantly should I hold out for a 1 day only half price HS2 clearance sale?

Edited January 24, 2020 by ruggedpeak