HS2

[pete_mcfarlane]

5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Going way OT, sorry, my son has been working from home for just over a week but is in touch regularly by Skype with all his regular contacts in the company in various other countries so nothing different there although the company cancelled all international travel about a month back so face-to-face meetings have had to end.  But he is having to take a walk every day just to get out of the house for a while and he did dig part of the veg patch yesterday (first time ever!).

 

14 hours ago, Zomboid said:

4 days into indefinite working from home, and whilst I technically can work from home, as soon as commuting is a responsible thing to do I'll be back in the office almost every day. How home workers cope with the isolation I really don't know.

 

Personally, I think the forced home working for 3+ months is going to kill off a lot of these ideas about large chunks of the population working from home all the time. It's really hard being stuck in the house all day with no (non-virtual) human contact. 

 

 

[black and decker boy]

I think it will drive a change to MORE home working but not ONLY home working.

 

Many large corporates such as Unilever already insist on 2 days home working per week and I can see that going more widespread across employers.

 

Around where I live there are plenty of places to home work whilst not in the house, community business hubs, library, COSTA coffee etc. If there is WiFi then I can work remotely. I also work from parents houses when the need arises. I’m lucky that my employer made this policy decision 2 years ago and equipped all staff (10,000 or so) with the necessary IT.

 

Flexible working is good, not possible for all jobs & roles but can and should be encouraged more than it is 

[mdvle]

16 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

I think it will drive a change to MORE home working but not ONLY home working.

 

Around where I live there are plenty of places to home work whilst not in the house, community business hubs, library, COSTA coffee etc. If there is WiFi then I can work remotely.

 

The problem with that (not that it will stop businesses from attempting it) is that shifts the costs of employment onto the employee (if paying to use community spaces), or on the community (to provide more of those spaces - libraries aren't "free" in as much as taxpayers pay to build and maintain and staff them.

 

Now if the said businesses were willing to pay substantially higher taxes to pay for those facilities...

 

[Mark Saunders]

16 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

 libraries aren't "free" in as much as taxpayers pay to build and maintain and staff them.

 

 

Libraries are the favorite quick fix for cuts and several that are left only survive by using volunteers!

 

Therefore policy should be reversed to promote them! 

[jjb1970]

I am not a fan of home working. I have had the necessary It to do it for years, as every role I have had since 2008 required flexibility to work remotely and expected me to be available out of hours. I don't mind logging on at home and do that anyway but I don't really like home working as a default. I think aside from the obvious dislike of being in the house all day there is business value in professional interaction and benefits for staff development etc. 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, mdvle said:

 

The problem with that (not that it will stop businesses from attempting it) is that shifts the costs of employment onto the employee (if paying to use community spaces), or on the community (to provide more of those spaces - libraries aren't "free" in as much as taxpayers pay to build and maintain and staff them.

 

Now if the said businesses were willing to pay substantially higher taxes to pay for those facilities...

 

But forget ye not that if you are working from home there are certain tax rebates you can claim (if you can prove it has involved you in additional expense such electricity or heating costs -  but I bet it isn't simple to claim them!).  For much of my final paid employment years I worked from home because there wasn't really any alternative as the people I worked for were at the opposite end of the country and there was no office space for me anyway.  True I got out to meetings and site visits etc plus any investigative work I did such as audits had to be largely done on site but all the paperwork and reports, project write-up, etc had to be done at home. 

 

But it is not an ideal way for everyday working even if there is a room or workspace you can set aside and the likelihood of interruptions can be quite high requiring considerable discipline at times to actually get on with work.  But the big thing is the loss of human interaction and the opportunity to discuss ideas etc with colleagues in a work orientated environment.  Sometimes 'they' might be able to come round (on one occasions I had two chaps from SNCF and one from Eurotunnel meeting at my home because I was off sick and the only way I could get to an important planning meeting was to move the meeting to me.  My employer reimbursed the cost of the buffet lunch my wife provided for us - but that is hardly a day-to-day occurrence when working from home).

 

Overall I suspect that once things are back to 'normal' thousands of people will be equally glad t get back to their normal work environment where they can more easily interact with colleagues.  So, to get back on topic - we will still need HS2 

[Phaeton]

On 22/03/2020 at 18:43, The Stationmaster said:

we will still need HS2 

We have never needed HS2, what we need a new Freight line running straight up the backbone of the UK with terminus's at each port & large freight yards just outside strategic cities, with a ban on movement of anything via HGV over a certain distance.

 

Taking the people to the jobs to the work is madness, the work needs to go to the people, get away from this London Centrist mentality, despite what they believe it is not the centre of the universe.

[Mike Storey]

5 hours ago, Phaeton said:

We have never needed HS2, what we need a new Freight line running straight up the backbone of the UK with terminus's at each port & large freight yards just outside strategic cities, with a ban on movement of anything via HGV over a certain distance.

 

Taking the people to the jobs to the work is madness, the work needs to go to the people, get away from this London Centrist mentality, despite what they believe it is not the centre of the universe.

 

London-centricity is an oft-cited complaint, yet the staunchest supporters of HS2 are in the North (and the Midlands) - go figure?

 

Fact is, the nation's commerce simply does not work like that, nor do its employees. And neither does that of any other nation, including China. China, incidentally, has built seven HS2's whilst we have been faffing about with one, and none of them for freight.

 

The excitability of a freight only line remains in the world of economic fantasy, for a good while yet, anyway.

[Coryton]

48 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

The excitability of a freight only line remains in the world of economic fantasy, for a good while yet, anyway.

 

How about the Betuweroute?

[Edwin_m]

Just now, Coryton said:

 

How about the Betuweroute?

Has the advantage of connecting one of the world's largest ports to a hinterland that extends several times further than any rail journey possible within the UK.  We just don't have the volume or the distance to make that sort of investment in rail freight viable.  

[Northmoor]

19 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Has the advantage of connecting one of the world's largest ports to a hinterland that extends several times further than any rail journey possible within the UK.  We just don't have the volume or the distance to make that sort of investment in rail freight viable.  

Agreed, the economics of freight means that Load (tonnes) x Distance hauled (miles) needs to be greater than a threshold figure.  It's why MGR coal was economic (and profitable) over even very short hauls of less than 20 miles but container traffic rarely worked financially in the UK at less than about 250 miles.

[billbedford]

6 hours ago, Lantavian said:

 

How would you set that distance, and how would you enforce it?

 

 

Shorten the driver's permitted driving time?

[runs as required]

17 hours ago, Phaeton said:

 ....  with a ban on movement of anything via HGV over a certain distance.

These recent posts about limits on road distribution reminds me of the late 1940s early 1950s.

If you can remember, it was one the greatest reasons why a whole lot of interests (including a substantial aspirational blue collar/working class vote) turned against the post war Atlee government and brought back Churchill in the 1952 election.

The destruction of the 1951 Festival of Britain and the construction of the Shell Centre tower symbolised that in the capital.

National integrated transportation potential died with that election.

It gave a lorry driver the chance to raise a bank loan to acquire a Bedford Diesel and within 5 years he would own half a dozen. Such a lorry driver might own a Champion First Division football team like Derby County within a decade!

dh 

[Mike Storey]

12 hours ago, Coryton said:

 

How about the Betuweroute?

 

That was indeed economic fantasy. It cost four times the original estimate, attracted no private funding, and was severely criticised by the Dutch National Audit Office as unnecessary, there being ample spare capacity in the river and canal system, at competitive transit times, and much cheaper to arrange.

 

I have no idea whether it has ever paid for itself (given the strange track access charge arrangements), but at 5 billion euros plus interest, I suspect it will be a long time before it does. Certainly, its main beneficiaries, Rotterdam Port and two private operators, paid nothing towards it.

 

But it did create extra paths on existing tracks, even though only one third of the original number planned, due to two of the routes being cancelled.  They are now planning to add a third track to accommodate passenger trains - go figure!

[runs as required]

This the wiki on the Betuweroute

A much greater project is the Chinese "Silk Road" railway - with politico/economic Imperilist overtones. I think I read the first container train had reached Lisbon from Quango sometime last autumn.

dh

[Coryton]

13 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Has the advantage of connecting one of the world's largest ports to a hinterland that extends several times further than any rail journey possible within the UK.  We just don't have the volume or the distance to make that sort of investment in rail freight viable.  

 

Because given the comment about China and other countries, I (mis?)took this as a general comment on building new freight-only lines anywhere.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Agreed, the economics of freight means that Load (tonnes) x Distance hauled (miles) needs to be greater than a threshold figure.  It's why MGR coal was economic (and profitable) over even very short hauls of less than 20 miles but container traffic rarely worked financially in the UK at less than about 250 miles.

As far as Southampton is concerned it isn't just distance which helps decide mode.  As I found some years back when involved in a multi-mode study of routes between the Midlands and Southampton the biggest problem for road hauliers was getting containers on and off their vehicles at the port.  In one of the worst examples the road investigators came up with there had been an instance of a lorry arriving from somewhere in the Portsmouth are to load a container and taking over 8 hours to complete its out (from Portsmouth are) and back journey.  Delays of as much as 2 or 3, or more, hours waiting to load were more the norm than an exception so depending on road traffic a driver coming from the Midlands could easily run out of hours before getting back there.

 

Which suggests there is justification for the container services between Lawley Street and Wentloog  and Southampton Docks.

 

[Mark Saunders]

3 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

That was indeed economic fantasy. It cost four times the original estimate, attracted no private funding, and was severely criticised by the Dutch National Audit Office as unnecessary, there being ample spare capacity in the river and canal system, at competitive transit times, and much cheaper to arrange.

 

I have no idea whether it has ever paid for itself (given the strange track access charge arrangements), but at 5 billion euros plus interest, I suspect it will be a long time before it does. Certainly, its main beneficiaries, Rotterdam Port and two private operators, paid nothing towards it.

 

But it did create extra paths on existing tracks, even though only one third of the original number planned, due to two of the routes being cancelled.  They are now planning to add a third track to accommodate passenger trains - go figure!

Sounds like the Tyne Tunnel that would never pay for itself but not that long ago they built a second one! 
The phrase, there are those who know the Cost of everything and value of nothing.

 

 

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

That was indeed economic fantasy. It cost four times the original estimate, attracted no private funding, and was severely criticised by the Dutch National Audit Office as unnecessary, there being ample spare capacity in the river and canal system, at competitive transit times, and much cheaper to arrange.

 

Saw that on the Wikipedia entry, and on the face of it the river/canal option looked to be a better choice.

 

But I seem to recall serious river problems with low water one summer in the last couple of years, which resulted in serious cargo moving problems when barges either couldn't move or could only carry partial loads.

 

Did that effect that part of Europe, and does that risk perhaps change the benefit calculation of the line (not that it was a reason for building it)?

Edited March 25, 2020 by mdvle

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

As far as Southampton is concerned it isn't just distance which helps decide mode.  As I found some years back when involved in a multi-mode study of routes between the Midlands and Southampton the biggest problem for road hauliers was getting containers on and off their vehicles at the port.  In one of the worst examples the road investigators came up with there had been an instance of a lorry arriving from somewhere in the Portsmouth are to load a container and taking over 8 hours to complete its out (from Portsmouth are) and back journey.  Delays of as much as 2 or 3, or more, hours waiting to load were more the norm than an exception so depending on road traffic a driver coming from the Midlands could easily run out of hours before getting back there.

 

Which suggests there is justification for the container services between Lawley Street and Wentloog  and Southampton Docks.

 

Indeed with containers it is actually the time rather than the distance which is often more important.  I'm reminded of an Australian who commented how odd it was that us Brits always referred to the distance to somewhere in miles, while Aussies always quote a time.  In most circumstances, that is actually a more useful measure; growing up in West Wales the local town was 10 miles away and normally took about 18-20 minutes using mostly unclassified roads.  Around here in Surrey, 10 miles in most directions could easily take 30 minutes.

[lmsforever]

I was looking at pictures and a video of HS2 workers at Calvert clearly ignoring the rule by standing and working closely together .Seems as if HS2 LTD are just passing the buck  the pictures are available on the Bucks Herald news web site.

[jjb1970]

Time is the real measure of distance in terms of connectivity. A hundred years ago Japan was a long sea voyage lasting several weeks away, now it is 12 hours by air. Before the railways getting around even the South of England (never mind the UK) was not something to do lightly, now many rail routes that were once inter-city type long distance routes are pretty much commuter routes (e.g. London - Bristol) because journey times are short. 

[jjb1970]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

As far as Southampton is concerned it isn't just distance which helps decide mode.  As I found some years back when involved in a multi-mode study of routes between the Midlands and Southampton the biggest problem for road hauliers was getting containers on and off their vehicles at the port.  In one of the worst examples the road investigators came up with there had been an instance of a lorry arriving from somewhere in the Portsmouth are to load a container and taking over 8 hours to complete its out (from Portsmouth are) and back journey.  Delays of as much as 2 or 3, or more, hours waiting to load were more the norm than an exception so depending on road traffic a driver coming from the Midlands could easily run out of hours before getting back there.

 

Which suggests there is justification for the container services between Lawley Street and Wentloog  and Southampton Docks.

 

 

Southampton is a terrible place for a container port, right in the centre of a City (although good for shore leave). The number of containers entering and leaving even a modest container terminal like Southampton is huge and it adds an awful lot of truck movements to the local road system. A few European box terminals have the same problem, newer terminals tend to be built in the middle of nowhere partly because it tends to be cheaper but more importantly for easy of the land side logistic chain. Not much good for crews going ashore though. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Southampton is a terrible place for a container port, right in the centre of a City (although good for shore leave). The number of containers entering and leaving even a modest container terminal like Southampton is huge and it adds an awful lot of truck movements to the local road system. A few European box terminals have the same problem, newer terminals tend to be built in the middle of nowhere partly because it tends to be cheaper but more importantly for easy of the land side logistic chain. Not much good for crews going ashore though. 

 

Excellent location for a container port. It's the city that is in the wrong place.

 

Seriously though, access to the port from the M27 is pretty good. Not much impact at all on "local" roads. 

[lmsforever]

Go to the Bucks Herald news website and look at the activity by HS2 workers not abiding by the guidelines on being outside  a gathering of above five of them and one of them sneezing and coughing caught on camera.Not good and what do HS2 say not our problem very bad guidelines must be obeyed.