HS2 under review

[phil-b259]

53 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

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?

 

Well people ARE being stupid!

 

Obsessing about the time saving on going to Birmingham.

 

Making dire predictions about current WCML service patterns.

 

Pretending that you can magically increase capacity of existing rail corridors with no disruption / demolition.

 

Claiming HS2 will ruin the environment when a significant chunk of the projects spend is actually going into environmental mitigation measures which far exceed ANYTHING that is done for new roads.

 

 

Yes HS2 will cots a massive amount of money - but once in service the multitude of benefits accruing to vast numbers of people - including those who have no need to use HS2 or even the railways altogether are far grater! The inability to see the big picture (still less present it in an honest fashion) in the media in favour of stupid headlines rather suggests a new strategy is needed.

Edited January 24, 2020 by phil-b259

[ruggedpeak]

48 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Well people ARE being stupid!

 

Obsessing about the time saving on going to Birmingham.

 

Making dire predictions about current WCML service patterns.

 

Pretending that you can magically increase capacity of existing rail corridors with no disruption / demolition.

 

Claiming HS2 will ruin the environment when a significant chunk of the projects spend is actually going into environmental mitigation measures which far exceed ANYTHING that is done for new roads.

 

 

Yes HS2 will cots a massive amount of money - but once in service the multitude of benefits accruing to vast numbers of people - including those who have no need to use HS2 or even the railways altogether are far grater! The inability to see the big picture (still less present it in an honest fashion) in the media in favour of stupid headlines rather suggests a new strategy is needed.

So anyone who disagrees can't see the big picture that only HS2 true believers can see the "Truth" and the "big picture"? Right, whatever. Whether HS2 is or is not a good thing and should or should not proceed is a judgement call. It is not a scientific fact.

 

When people start to believe in things with a religious fervour, can't comprehend why others may have another viewpoint and resort to calling things "stupid" etc then that is a good indicator that there is something seriously wrong. May be worth learning the lessons from recent political events about what happens when people become intolerant of other's viewpoints and assume only they know the "truth" and the right answer - they lose.

 

HS2 is just a poorly run infrastructure project.  But whether to cancel or not is a judgement call taking into account many variables beyond mythical benefits and "environmental mitigation". There is no right or wrong answer - anyone who thinks there is needs to get the bigger picture.

 

 

 

[Northmoor]

Thought I'd look at a bit of history.  Wikipedia isn't an infallible source but I like this paragraph on building the Liverpool & Manchester Railway:

"The survey was presented to Parliament on 8 February 1825, but was shown to be inaccurate. Francis Giles suggested that putting the railway through Chat Moss was a serious error and the total cost of the line would be around £200,000 instead of the £40,000 quoted by Stephenson. Stephenson was cross examined by the opposing council led by Edward Hall Alderson and his lack of suitable figures and understanding of the work came to light. When asked, he was unable to specify the levels of the track and how he calculated the cost of major structures such as the Irwell Viaduct. The bill was thrown out on 31 May".

 

Why can't we do engineering and infrastructure projects on time and budget any more, like we used to, says everyone.  Except that they have always run over, because there are ALWAYS unknowns.  Good job we didn't just give up in the 1820s and decide to widen the canal or wait for wider cart tyres to be invented instead.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

So anyone who disagrees can't see the big picture that only HS2 true believers can see the "Truth" and the "big picture"?

 

Yes

 

Look how many times do I have to say this - HS2 taken simply as a London to Birmingham ONLY rail project is quite clearly very poor value for money.

 

Problem is HS2 is NOT and has never been such a project, so quite clearly you cannot use figures / studies / opinions which only relate to the former to apply to the whole scheme.

 

THAT is the fundamental problem - its got nothing to do with whether you are a 'believer' as you put it and everything to do with using your brain in a logical manor.

 

To effectively judge the worth of anything it is necessary to use the appropriate criteria.

 

You wouldn't go round proudly proclaiming that a successful 1st date means you have found your life partner would you?  but conversely you wouldn't feel afraid of expressing an opinion that you had spent a pleasant evening. In making the assessments you are taking a factual event (you went on a date) but applying different criteria to draw very different conclusions about said event.

 

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

Whether HS2 is or is not a good thing and should or should not proceed is a judgement call. It is not a scientific fact.

 

 

Utter rubbish!

 

We are not in the realms of the spiritual - HS2 will involve the spending of cash. Money is something which can be measured - which is why we do things like put a monetary value on the life of a person and use the monetary value of 'lives saved' as part of the cost benefit process for approving new roads.

 

It is therefore very possible to apply such a 'scientific' process to HS2. For example if xx percentage of road users decide to take the train (which could include someone making a local journey on a local train now running in the path of one that has been transferred to HS2) then not only will train revenues increase, but there should also be a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries (statistically road transport has one of the highest casualty statistics of any transport mode). That reduction in death and injuries means a monetary saving for the NHS and grater economic activity which can also be given a financial value.

 

Furthermore as we have not yet developed time travel, it is necessary to develop many, many mathematical or statistical models to test various scenarios - and you don't get more 'scientific' than that.

 

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

When people start to believe in things with a religious fervour, can't comprehend why others may have another viewpoint and resort to calling things "stupid" etc then that is a good indicator that there is something seriously wrong. May be worth learning the lessons from recent political events about what happens when people become intolerant of other's viewpoints and assume only they know the "truth" and the right answer - they lose.

 

But so far your viewpoints (as far as I can tell) have been blinkered by this obsession HS2 is all about London to Birmingham Only! Only a few posts ago I highlighted several areas which are legitimate aspects of HS2 to question - they key being they respect the integrity of the project and do not try and pretend its something else entirely so as to make arguments stack up.

 

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

HS2 is just a poorly run infrastructure project.  But whether to cancel or not is a judgement call taking into account many variables beyond mythical benefits and "environmental mitigation". There is no right or wrong answer - anyone who thinks there is needs to get the bigger picture.

 

Yes I agree its a judgement call - but one that has be be made on a factual, scientific bases that does not selectively pick out individual bits of the project for special attention.

 

As I have already pointed out HS2 provides many benefits to many people (train and no train passengers) in many locations across the UK (not just London or Birmingham) and as such the eventual judgement needs to reflect ALL of them. One element that scores poorly to one group (e.g. reduced journey time to Birmingham - because its too small to be useful) will be balanced by another (reduced journey time to Manchester which is of benefit).

 

One hopes that unlike many in the media or some of the blinkered posts on here (i.e. we don't need to get to Birmingham any faster, Wolverhampton trains will be decimated, etc), the Governments review has properly considered all this and the next gains from HS2 as a complete project justify continuing to push forward with it broadly intact.

Edited January 24, 2020 by phil-b259

[PhilH]

I find it a shame that this thread is short on fact (as far as I can see there are no facts, will it go ahead, when, cost,will it go anywhere north of Birmingham, etc.) and so high on opinion,and derogation of those with different opinions. And there's me thinking it's a forum...

 

Perhaps the only fact is that probably by the time anything gets done, if it does get done, a lot of us will be pushing up daisies (which is why I don't understand people getting hot under the collar as much as they do)

 

 I hear yes, but legacy. Unfortunately I think that certainly our grandchildren and their children, (which will be the generations to 'benefit' from this if it gets built) will have a darn sight more to worry about in the world than if the WCML has sufficient capacity or not.

[Ravenser]

3 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

 

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?

 

1. Monthly repayments? - lots

2. If they are smart in selling gilts to funds it , you should get 25 years at 0.5% pa finance

3. Probably. But so will the NHS and  Brexit

4. No, but Boris' home might be

5. Will your garden take 1:1 scale Pendolino?

 

[Pandora]

Found this  as a comment  on Lord Berkely's Report

 

The true nature of how and why taxpayer funded projects get the 'money does not matter' treatment from the overseers and consultants, is down to the simple fact that the project is not - as far as the proponents are concerned - about giving value for shareholders money. Taxpayer funded major works typically attract cost multipliers of between three and twelve over the original budget. So HS2 now nudging 3x the original £32bn, has just crept onto the graph of normality. It has some way to go before it gets towards the top, where its cost will compare with Borders Rail and Edinburgh tram, and given the alleged complexity, the Humber Bridge record of 11x is probably in range at this point. So my original QS-hatted out-turn of £100bn as a minimum has already been broached, and there is little point at this stage in denying that a doubling of the project cost in the construction phase - to £200bn - looks very likely indeed (see Crossrail for details). The reality of course is that it is a project without purpose, unless of course that purpose is to add to inequality of transport provision, and to increase transport carbon emissions; these two things it will do very well indeed. Those of you who favour a rail-based alternative spend would do well to consider hmg's transport energy statistics, while pondering the root of this project; the failed WCML upgrade of the 1990's, a snip at 3-5x the original £5bn budget (I used to work for the 'cost consultants' who ran that, and getting to the bottom of what it actually cost proved impossible). Consider also that rail energy use on passenger trains is (mostly) a function of the square of the speed; a train in the early 1960's did very well with 1MW at the front end. Current TGV's have 18MW for a full set. To get to 400kmh that will have to go to 30MW. With upwards of twenty drawing power at any one time, that's 600MW at the drawbar - at least 1.2GW at the power station - about 5% of our current generating output of c55GW. Makes even electric cars look potentially environmentally friendly.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, PhilH said:

I find it a shame that this thread is short on fact (as far as I can see there are no facts, will it go ahead, when, cost,will it go anywhere north of Birmingham, etc.)

 

Erm, exactly what planet have you been living over the past decade!

 

Governments and indeed HS2 themselves have this thing called a map (along with reams of supporting documents) which quite clearly show HS2 stretching from London to near Warrington and York with branches to Leeds and Manchester (plus I do grant you a place called Birmingham also features.

 

There are many other facts which can be obtained by studying said documents including:-

 

HS2 is a project to complete the network of lines described above - It DOES NOT refer to just a Euston to Birmingham (or Litchfield) railway. The will / mission / plan is for this network to be built in its entirety (not just the London to Birmingham bit)

 

That is a fact.

 

Of the entire HS2 scheme, the first piece of the project to be built and for which the necessary parliamentary acts have been obtained is from Euston to Litchfield and the spur into Birmingham. Construction is underway on said first phase and lots of money has already been spent preparing the way which will not be recovered even if you did sell off the land

 

That is a fact.

 

The overall cost of HS2 will be high and an estimate has been provided.

 

That is a fact.

 

The costs of building phase one have increased and that part will cost more (and the same is true of subsequent sections)

 

That is a fact.

 

HS2 will be fully integrated into the national rail network with through trains (and ticketing maintained to destinations beyond the HS2 network itself)

 

That is a fact

 

HS2 when fully complete will bring many benefits to current rail travellers and non rail users. In the shorter term the benefits are naturally less, but not insignificant. Some of these will also have risen in terms of value just as construction costs have.

 

That is a fact.

 

HS2 has done an enormous amount of analytical work in the past which has previously demonstrated a good business case for the project.

 

That is a fact.

 

The basic assumptions (other than construction cost) have not materially changed (e.g. congestion on the conventional rail network, poor value for money of enhancing the classic network to provide the extra capacity HS2 does)

 

That is a fact.

 

I could go on....

 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

25 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Found this  as a comment  on Lord Berkely's Report

 

The true nature of how and why taxpayer funded projects get the 'money does not matter' treatment from the overseers and consultants, is down to the simple fact that the project is not - as far as the proponents are concerned - about giving value for shareholders money. Taxpayer funded major works typically attract cost multipliers of between three and twelve over the original budget. So HS2 now nudging 3x the original £32bn, has just crept onto the graph of normality. It has some way to go before it gets towards the top, where its cost will compare with Borders Rail and Edinburgh tram, and given the alleged complexity, the Humber Bridge record of 11x is probably in range at this point. So my original QS-hatted out-turn of £100bn as a minimum has already been broached, and there is little point at this stage in denying that a doubling of the project cost in the construction phase - to £200bn - looks very likely indeed (see Crossrail for details). The reality of course is that it is a project without purpose, unless of course that purpose is to add to inequality of transport provision, and to increase transport carbon emissions; these two things it will do very well indeed. Those of you who favour a rail-based alternative spend would do well to consider hmg's transport energy statistics, while pondering the root of this project; the failed WCML upgrade of the 1990's, a snip at 3-5x the original £5bn budget (I used to work for the 'cost consultants' who ran that, and getting to the bottom of what it actually cost proved impossible). Consider also that rail energy use on passenger trains is (mostly) a function of the square of the speed; a train in the early 1960's did very well with 1MW at the front end. Current TGV's have 18MW for a full set. To get to 400kmh that will have to go to 30MW. With upwards of twenty drawing power at any one time, that's 600MW at the drawbar - at least 1.2GW at the power station - about 5% of our current generating output of c55GW. Makes even electric cars look potentially environmentally friendly.

 

Energy consumption is easily remedied without the need to scrap the project (or indeed do much as regards construction of the trackbed).

 

Chop the maximum speed of HS2 back to the French norms of 186mph or 200mph tops and you make big savings across the board when it comes to fitting out said trackbed without compromising any of the benefits HS2 brings.

 

Simples!

[APOLLO]

Oh! Mister Porter, what shall I do?

I want to go to Birmingham And they're taking me on to Crewe,

Send me back to London as quickly as you can,

Oh! Mister Porter, what a silly girl I am!

 

Brit15

[Ohmisterporter]

Why not go from Crewe to Birmingham then?

 

 

[billbedford]

56 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Consider also that rail energy use on passenger trains is (mostly) a function of the square of the speed; a train in the early 1960's did very well with 1MW at the front end. Current TGV's have 18MW for a full set. To get to 400kmh that will have to go to 30MW

 

That needs an awful lot of windmills....

[mdvle]

59 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Found this  as a comment  on Lord Berkely's Report

 

The true nature of how and why taxpayer funded projects get the 'money does not matter' treatment from the overseers and consultants, is down to the simple fact that the project is not - as far as the proponents are concerned - about giving value for shareholders money.

 

Not said, by implicit in this statement, is that somehow the private sector and its projects always delivery on budget and on time.

 

This is of course entirely false, and examples have already been given in this thread.

 

It is also should be considered that the private sector wouldn't take on a project of this magnitude today, and certainly not a 20 year project.

 

59 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Taxpayer funded major works typically attract cost multipliers of between three and twelve over the original budget.

 

Conveniently excluding all the taxpayer funded projects that aren't "major", and thus are able to be delivered on budget.

 

The reality (and one of the reasons the private sector no longer touches projects like these) is that projects of this magnitude simply come with to many unknowns at the beginning, and the time scales can render initial budgets meaningless.

 

59 minutes ago, Pandora said:

The reality of course is that it is a project without purpose,

 

False, and already dealt with many times in this thread.

 

59 minutes ago, Pandora said:

Those of you who favour a rail-based alternative spend would do well to consider hmg's transport energy statistics, while pondering the root of this project; the failed WCML upgrade of the 1990's, a snip at 3-5x the original £5bn budget

 

Again false.  Yes, the previous WCML upgrade failed.  But that has nothing to do with the reason for HS2, which is capacity - even if the previous WCML upgrade had been a success the railways would still be facing the same capacity problem that HS2 is to solve.

 

59 minutes ago, Pandora said:

 Consider also that rail energy use on passenger trains is (mostly) a function of the square of the speed; a train in the early 1960's did very well with 1MW at the front end. Current TGV's have 18MW for a full set. To get to 400kmh that will have to go to 30MW. With upwards of twenty drawing power at any one time, that's 600MW at the drawbar - at least 1.2GW at the power station - about 5% of our current generating output of c55GW. Makes even electric cars look potentially environmentally friendly.

 

Either a deliberate sleight of hand to deceive, or a misunderstanding of how trains and physics works.

 

The trains don't draw that power at all times, only while accelerating - and that is a small fraction of the day for each train.  Maintaining speed uses much less energy, and obviously stopping can return a percentage of that power used to accelerate back into the grid.

 

So not anywhere as bad as claimed.

 

Summary - a bunch of lies and exaggerations.

[melmerby]

IMHO I reckon top speed will be 320kph or maybe a little higher, I can't see the projected 400kph being stuck to.

Off the shelf trains capable of 350/360kph are available now.

As a comparison a 400m Eurostar class 374 has 16MW installed power for a projected top speed of 320kph

 

24 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

That needs an awful lot of windmills....

Use all the poltician's hot air to drive them.

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Either a deliberate sleight of hand to deceive, or a misunderstanding of how trains and physics works.

 

The trains don't draw that power at all times, only while accelerating - and that is a small fraction of the day for each train.  Maintaining speed uses much less energy, and obviously stopping can return a percentage of that power used to accelerate back into the grid.

 

 

You do have to be careful of being so dismissive of his point on energy use.

 

While steel on steel may well be a low friction setup - friction is still present and trains will always require a certain amount of power to be consumed to overcome it on level track - not to mention when going uphill. The faster the maintained speed the greater the energy due to air resistance......

 

.... with aerodynamics, it can be proved that at speeds grater than 200mph the energy required to go an extra 1mph increase exponentially (even with ponty nosecones) . Similarly even ‘coasting’ at 250mph will require disproportionately more energy to maintain that speed than at 200mph. That’s before you start getting into the non-power related issues of very high speed running where the danger of ballast being sucked up from the track means expensive slab track is needed at 250mph.

 

 

Oh, and for the benefit of those I have heavily criticised over the past few pages - please take note of this post!

 

(It shows its perfectly possible to come up with valid criticisms of HS2 if you actually do a little bit of study and stop being fixated on stupid stuff like getting to Birmingham 20 mins quicker).

[royaloak]

10 minutes ago, melmerby said:

IMHO I reckon top speed will be 320kph or maybe a little higher, I can't see the projected 400kph being stuck to.

Off the shelf trains capable of 350/360kph are available now.

I never understood the reason for going for such a high speed as 400kph as the distances involved dont warrant it except as a bit of a willy waving exercise for our Continental cousins.

[letterspider]

11 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You do have to be careful of being so dismissive of his point on energy use.

 

While steel on steel may well be a low friction setup - friction is still present and trains will always require a certain amount of power to be consumed to overcome it on level track - not to mention when going uphill. The faster the maintained speed the greater the energy due to air resistance......

 

.... with aerodynamics, it can be proved that at speeds grater than 200mph the energy required to go an extra 1mph increase exponentially (even with ponty nosecones) . Similarly even ‘coasting’ at 250mph will require disproportionately more energy to maintain that speed than at 200mph. That’s before you start getting into the non-power related issues of very high speed running where the danger of ballast being sucked up from the track means expensive slab track is needed at 250mph.

 

 

Oh, and for the benefit of those I have heavily criticised over the past few pages - please take note of this post!

 

(It shows its perfectly possible to come up with valid criticisms of HS2 if you actually do a little bit of study and stop being fixated on stupid stuff like getting to Birmingham 20 mins quicker).

 

By this logic the motorway top speed should be reduced to save energy consumption and pollution, wear on the tarmac, dangers of death from high speed accidents compared to slow.

I suppose you could fly London to Edinburgh in 45 minutes (assuming HS2 will get that far one day), in which case we should go for turbo prop aeroplanes - less speed is less energy consumption and pollution, shorter runways would be cheaper.

 

You have to propose a viable alternative for rapidly and safely moving people between large population centres in a way desirable by the consumer and which is at least possible in theory to achieve with a zero carbon footprint and which is also sustainable economically. It will also allow scope to get more lorries off the roads by freeing other lines.

What would YOU suggest as an alternative?

Edited January 25, 2020 by letterspider

[mdvle]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You do have to be careful of being so dismissive of his point on energy use.

 

While steel on steel may well be a low friction setup - friction is still present and trains will always require a certain amount of power to be consumed to overcome it on level track - not to mention when going uphill. The faster the maintained speed the greater the energy due to air resistance......

 

Absolutely.

 

But.

 

First, unlike the claim of the person being quoted by Pandora, HS2 is not planned to be running trains at 400km/h (250mph) - the plan is for 320 km/h (200mph) *

 

So already the numbers are off.

 

Then, as you stated earlier, based on the math, each train will spend 40 minutes drawing next to no power at Euston.

 

The BBC says Birmingham - London is planned to be 52 minutes.

 

So already we are at almost half the day not drawing power.

 

Add in the reduced frequency of service overnight, and we are at less than half the day moving.

 

As for that 52 minutes, how much is spent at full speed?  Euston - Old Oak won't be, you spend at least a minute idling at Old Oak, and another minute lost at Birmingham Interchange and again unlikely to go full speed from Interchange to Curzon Street. 

 

Then time spend idling at Curzon Street, though presumably not as much as Euston.

 

So in terms of the 24 hour day, a lot is spent not moving at all, and then a bit at moving slower than top speed.

 

London - Manchester doesn't change things significantly with a 67 minute journey.

 

So yes, acceleration will draw lots of power, and a reasonable amount to maintain speed but some given back with stopping.

 

But nothing like what the person who was being quoted claimed given that at best only half the day the trains will be drawing any significant amounts of power.

 

 

* - https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-how-does-hs2-compare-to-other-bullet-trains

[david.hill64]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Energy consumption is easily remedied without the need to scrap the project (or indeed do much as regards construction of the trackbed).

 

Chop the maximum speed of HS2 back to the French norms of 186mph or 200mph tops and you make big savings across the board when it comes to fitting out said trackbed without compromising any of the benefits HS2 brings.

 

Simples!

Moreover noise mitigation measures become less costly. I remember the head of the aerodynamics team at BR Research telling me that aerodynamic noise (admittedly only a proportion of noise generated) is proportional to the ninth power of velocity. Just think about that for a moment: running at 225mph rather than 186mph (100m/s rather than 83m/s) increases the aerodynamic part of the noise generated by 500%. Whereas noise generated by the wheel-rail interaction can be absorbed by low level barriers, upper body noise is much more difficult to contain.

[runs as required]

9 hours 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'm very sorry that my quoting you about Cancellation gave you that impression - I meant just the opposite!

You have an elevated monitor status role as an rmweb Mod keeping an eye on us name-calling Standard class oiks. 

Also as editor of a rail periodical, you are indeed a "Journalist"- and despite a good many posters abusing mere "journalists" in the preceding 200 pages, I believe you must have 'a late night in the bar' sense for the current rail consensus on HST’s chances.

 

I still think it interesting to see where the most prolific posters on this thread would put their money about rail’s future within the government’s policy for its new post-election Britain. 

Is Cancellation and Do Nothing really the majority view about the political outcome?

dh

 

[runs as required]

6 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Thought I'd look at a bit of history.  Wikipedia isn't an infallible source but I like this paragraph on building the Liverpool & Manchester Railway:

"The survey was presented to Parliament on 8 February 1825, but was shown to be inaccurate. Francis Giles suggested that putting the railway through Chat Moss was a serious error and the total cost of the line would be around £200,000 instead of the £40,000 quoted by Stephenson. Stephenson was cross examined by the opposing council led by Edward Hall Alderson and his lack of suitable figures and understanding of the work came to light. When asked, he was unable to specify the levels of the track and how he calculated the cost of major structures such as the Irwell Viaduct. The bill was thrown out on 31 May".

Why can't we do engineering and infrastructure projects on time and budget any more, like we used to, says everyone.  Except that they have always run over, because there are ALWAYS unknowns.  Good job we didn't just give up in the 1820s and decide to widen the canal or wait for wider cart tyres to be invented instead.

 

I found Northmoor's  L&M quote very thought provoking particularly about the HS2 eastern extension on to Leeds (by 2040 !).

The York & North Midland was of course where the Stephensons made their fortune and where George died in retirement as a country squire. And they made their money from the mines they happened upon and opened up in excavating the line past Ambergate - and by developing further the Butterley Company.

 

That whole tract of land east of the Pennines through past Sheffield to Leeds will be unstable geologically and made more so due to mining history. The Midland was always hampered by speed restrictions and subsidence. 

Will such terrain present a huge engineering challenge in delivering High Speed track?  

 

Or can there be  a realisation that actually such 'difficult' terrain will be the norm when threading new alignments right across the northern counties: Lancashire/Cheshire  and Yorkshire - from Liverpool to the line of the A1M and north from Runcorn to Preston and Hellifield to Harrogate then up through County Durham and Cleveland to Tyne and Wear.

 

I wonder whether it could not be possible (thinking Chat Moss) to devise some kind of pw that could be 'floated' across terrain that would also deliver noise control and protection against winter exposure - a sort of 3D skeletal Bailey Bridge sequence to support OHL and create a visual line through northern landscapes (which, bear in mind, will be heavily forested as well as more urbanised within 29 years).

As a precedent: Italian construction technology has evolved very characteristic post-stressed concrete post and  beam elevated systems that thread new railway lines many kilometres through some of their most treasured Tuscan and Umbrian landscapes.

dh

"Well folks, thats all - back to the Asylum" (Reginald Gardiner 1937) 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by runs as required

[Joseph_Pestell]

12 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

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?

 

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?

 

 

 

Most of that "fuss and opposition" comes from a very vocal and well-organised minority who live on/close to HS2 but get no benefit from it. A sensibly designed new high speed line for the East Midlands and Yorkshire might not attract anywhere near the same opposition.

 

I was not really suggesting that more platforms can be shoehorned in at Euston (which would not have been my destination of choice) but that, given the limitations of platform capacity, 18tph is probably not going to be possible if the service is to be reliable. At anything much less than 18tph, there may not be enough capacity to be taking trains from the East Midlands and Yorkshire.

 

Taking someone else's point about lack of space at St Pancras, that is only significant if one insists that because the East Midlands has always been served by a terminus at St Pancras, the new station would have to be there too. That's the same woolly thought process that has brought HS2 to Euston at huge extra cost (probably 30% of the budget that could have been saved).  There are other options for a London terminal.

[Pandora]

A link to the National Audit Office Report for HS2

 

http://stophs2.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/NAO-report-HS2-a-progresss-update.pdf

 

From the report,  the public have beem kept in the dark for some time on costs and late delivery,  I have heard enough,  I have no issues if HS2 is cancelled provided the  £56 bn goes to    rail and public transport projects  in the North

[Phil Parker]

9 hours ago, runs as required said:

I'm very sorry that my quoting you about Cancellation gave you that impression - I meant just the opposite!

You have an elevated monitor status role as an rmweb Mod keeping an eye on us name-calling Standard class oiks. 

Also as editor of a rail periodical, you are indeed a "Journalist"- and despite a good many posters abusing mere "journalists" in the preceding 200 pages, I believe you must have 'a late night in the bar' sense for the current rail consensus on HST’s chances.

 

I still think it interesting to see where the most prolific posters on this thread would put their money about rail’s future within the government’s policy for its new post-election Britain. 

Is Cancellation and Do Nothing really the majority view about the political outcome?

dh

 

I can assure you that editing a magazine about garden railways does not give me special insight into the inner workings of HS2 or the higher echelons of government - and I struggle to understand why you think it would. I've never claimed as much, all those cynical opinions are my own.

 

My opinion, and they of some on here, is that this will be a political decision, not one based on facts or evidence. If it were the later, we wouldn't (IMHO) be messing around, we'd be building.

[Ravenser]

12 hours ago, Pandora said:

Found this  as a comment  on Lord Berkely's Report

 

The true nature of how and why taxpayer funded projects get the 'money does not matter' treatment from the overseers and consultants, is down to the simple fact that the project is not - as far as the proponents are concerned - about giving value for shareholders money. Taxpayer funded major works typically attract cost multipliers of between three and twelve over the original budget. So HS2 now nudging 3x the original £32bn, has just crept onto the graph of normality. It has some way to go before it gets towards the top, where its cost will compare with Borders Rail and Edinburgh tram, and given the alleged complexity, the Humber Bridge record of 11x is probably in range at this point. So my original QS-hatted out-turn of £100bn as a minimum has already been broached, and there is little point at this stage in denying that a doubling of the project cost in the construction phase - to £200bn - looks very likely indeed (see Crossrail for details). The reality of course is that it is a project without purpose, unless of course that purpose is to add to inequality of transport provision, and to increase transport carbon emissions; these two things it will do very well indeed. Those of you who favour a rail-based alternative spend would do well to consider hmg's transport energy statistics, while pondering the root of this project; the failed WCML upgrade of the 1990's, a snip at 3-5x the original £5bn budget (I used to work for the 'cost consultants' who ran that, and getting to the bottom of what it actually cost proved impossible). Consider also that rail energy use on passenger trains is (mostly) a function of the square of the speed; a train in the early 1960's did very well with 1MW at the front end. Current TGV's have 18MW for a full set. To get to 400kmh that will have to go to 30MW. With upwards of twenty drawing power at any one time, that's 600MW at the drawbar - at least 1.2GW at the power station - about 5% of our current generating output of c55GW. Makes even electric cars look potentially environmentally friendly.

 

That is a tissue of negative speculation. "Think of a number . Double it. Double it again . Throw in an arbitrary fiddle factor you've plucked out of the air. Add a bit on for luck and to further discredit the project"  There is now some evidence that the figure of £106 billion is not - and never has been - in the Ockervee report, and has been "introduced" from the hostile Berkeley Report by the project's political opponents. And his overspend factor is in cash terms (after inflation) , not real terms. The Humber Bridge looks particularly affected by that - it was built in an era (1973-80) when inflation was running at 20-30% per annum. Of course the final cash spend was far higher than the 1974 estimate

 

I agree with the (implied) comment that 240mph is excessive in terms of the current draw. But the logic is that scaling back to 190-200mph - similar/slightly higher than TGV Nord/CTRL - brings this down to about 20MW and allows you to use proven OHLE and trackwork, removing a large slice of risk.

 

At least he concedes that the last upgrade of the WCML  ran wildly over budget and "failed" - so much for the "upgrading the existing routes" theory. 

 

But these are elegantly phrased counsels of despair, claiming that nothing should ever be done to build anything. If he dismisses increased rail capacity - in any form - which seems to be his real position, is he proposing we double the motorway network instead, to accommodate traffic growth on road? Or that we build extra runways in the South East and the North and accommodate traffic growth by air? I seriously doubt that is what he means . I'm no friend of the Greens but even I have to concede there are serious potential problems , at least politically, in planning for a large increase in fossil-fuelled internal combustion engine transport as the solution to the country's future transport needs. And at least he flags that electric cars aren't a serious credible means of transportation outside major cities

 

The underlying argument seems to be that travel between the southern and northern parts of Britain is socially undesirable , and all transport projects of all kinds are simply a waste of money and should always be blocked. Give me strength. If those are the fundamental arguments against HS2 - rev up the bulldozers

Edited January 25, 2020 by Ravenser