Jump to content

HS2 under review


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
On 24/01/2020 at 20:21, 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"? 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.

 

 

 

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?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
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.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by royaloak
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. 

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
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

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 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
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

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
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?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
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.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by number6
Forgot to speak.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
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

  • RMweb Gold
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.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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":jester:

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AY Mod locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...