Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

In order to work, HS2 needs to serve a small number of hubs from which other towns-cities have access. The fewer hubs, the faster & more frequent the services can be.

 

Fewer stop and limiting the line to core services, was the original concept.

HS2 was conceived as a point-to-point route, specifically aimed at serving links between the 4 main population centres, with limited IC service extensions onto the classic network. 

Unfortunately "mission creep" has added a lot more to the original idea behind HS2.

 

The Network Rail study that preceded and led to the HS2 programme, looked at all the options for resolving the future capacity problems, including various route enhancements, realigning sections of existing track, bypasses, etc; and came the conclusion that a  new route would be the most pragmatic, efficient and cost-effective solution.

A new route was also believed to provide the greatest capacity uplift.

 

The study went on into looking at several route options and the markets that they would be required to serve.

The market analysis was quite detailed and drew largely on a wide range of external transport research, looking at future transport requirements and empirical evidence.

 

The recommendation was for the Y route, that the HS2 programme adopted from day 1.

It also suggested the option of building the line to allow HS operations...for reasons well known.

 

However, the conclusion of the study was that HS2 should be a point-to-point route, specifically linking the centres of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, with the addition of only the Manchester and Birmingham "parkway"/airport stations, plus a west London station, linked into the London transport network.

 

The recommendation was that HS2 should not be part of a wider network, nor be aimed at connecting passengers from other population centres.

The only exception being, "classic-compatible" links to Liverpool and via the WCML to Scotland, in order to divert IC trains serving those destinations, onto the new line, south of Lancs/Cheshire.

 

What later transpired to be stops, hubs or links at Crewe, Toton, Sheffield and extensions to York and the NE were specifically excluded for a number of very good reasons.

 

As we know, the HS2 programme that followed, has deviated from that concept, by including additional connecting links and "hubs".

Political lobbying by local and regional bodies and the need to get wider backing for the scheme have been a significant driver behind the "mission creep".

It was also part of the wider fudging of the business case, to enhance the BCR.

 

Therefore, it's debatable if any delaying or cancelling of the eastern arm of the Y, would actually be a rather sensible move.

The only real loser, as far as links to/from London are concerned, will be Leeds; but as pointed out already, the "speed benefits" of HS2 between London and Leeds are almost marginal, as it stands.

Some major work on the ECML and MML, might be the better solution for providing capacity and enhanced journey times.

 

Another problem is addressing the Birmingham to E Midlands, Yorkshire and NE corridor.

Loss of the eastern arm of HS2 would be a major setback.

 

It also means the capacity provided by Phase 1 and Curzon Street station will be under-utilised, which would give further ammunition to the "white elephant" and "waste of money" brigade. 

 

Who knows?

A modified HS2 scheme to allow better integration and benefits from links into NPR, could be a sensible change of direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ron Ron Ron
  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Only Florence was mentioned on the news on the radio this morning. What has Cecelia done to offend?

Jonathan

Nothing, she is just the second one to be assembled so they have started Florence first. I suspect that they wouldn't want the two macines to be digging out the same area of ground at the same time. Froom the time that Florence has taken to reassemble it should be between 2 and 3 months before Cecelia sets off and grout round the first tunnel will have hardened. However I'm a failed chemical engineer rather than a Civil, so may well be wrong.

 

Jamie

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

4 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

In order to work, HS2 needs to serve a small number of hubs from which other towns-cities have access. The fewer hubs, the faster & more frequent the services can be.

That was the original concept, although it was always intended to run through to Liverpool, Preston, Scotland and Newcastle.  With the Higgins review and more recently NPR and the latest rail review, it's got rather more integrated with more off-route destinations (Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield and Sheffield in current plans and possibly others to come), and particularly NPR services that plan to use bits of HS2 where there is spare capacity.   So adding Derby and Nottingham would be in line with this, though it still creates the problem I mentioned above.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Who knows?

A modified HS2 scheme to allow better integration and benefits from links into NPR, could be a sensible change of direction.

 

 

Phase 2B has been delayed (by about five years) exactly because that is what they are doing (they say). No Phase 2B, no NPR, because it would have to carry all the costs - I am sure BoJo or others will find ways of cancelling that as well, leaving just the incremental improvements being thrashed out by NR over the next 6-8 years, as the "big levelling up".

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

So once again, West Yorkshire  misses out. Manchester got the huge tram system expansion, allegedly to keep one MP in her seat and Leeds had Supertram cancelled.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any cut back in the scope of HS2 will be driven by the Treasury and the need to find savings, in light of the massive debt created by the pandemic. The government are behind full completion, but their hand may be forced.

Back bench MP’s and others are reported to be urging BoJo and his government to set aside the pressure coming from the Treasury and their lap-dog, the DfT and press on with the scheme.


There are press stories of leaks from the DfT, saying that lots of road building and improvement projects will be canned, using the false justification that road traffic won’t get back to pre- pandemic levels, due to the reduced need for road travel.

This is obviously a pile of rubbish, as road traffic is already back to, or close to, the levels prior to last March.

That’s without the last lot of people coming off furlough.


Many congested roads, or traffic hot-spots, were way over capacity in the first place.

Even if traffic levels in those places fell, they’d still be congested and the need for improvements would still stand.

 

So expect a load of double talk, or BS from the DfT if the eastern leg of HS2 is postponed or cancelled. or if other rail projects get the axe.

Some poor minister ( not that I have sympathy for them) will have to make the announcement and carry the can for such a poor decision.

 

 

.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Spending on further HS2 extensions is a long way in the future, so shouldn't really be impacted by shorter-term issues.  A relatively small spend now on design work, consultation, legal powers etc helps to get the schemes shovel-ready in a few years time, and the decision can be made then on whether to proceed with the big spend on construction.  

 

As to roads, there is also the incompatibility of spending  £27bn (in a much shorter timeframe than HS2) with the government's decarbonisation agenda, which most experts agree won't be achieved by simply replacing all vehicles with electrics and otherwise continuing with business as usual.  They may see that as a more eco-friendly way of reducing spending.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

.....As to roads, there is also the incompatibility of spending  £27bn (in a much shorter timeframe than HS2) with the government's decarbonisation agenda, which most experts agree won't be achieved by simply replacing all vehicles with electrics and otherwise continuing with business as usual.  They may see that as a more eco-friendly way of reducing spending.  


The problem with that, is that by not spending the money, it won’t contribute one iota towards reducing traffic generated emissions, as the traffic will still be there and congestion will continue or grow, itself leading to an increase in emissions, due to ICE powered cars causing more pollution in those circumstances.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Any cut back in the scope of HS2 will be driven by the Treasury and the need to find savings, in light of the massive debt created by the pandemic. The government are behind full completion, but their hand may be forced.

Back bench MP’s and others are reported to be urging BoJo and his government to set aside the pressure coming from the Treasury and their lap-dog, the DfT and press on with the scheme.


There are press stories of leaks from the DfT, saying that lots of road building and improvement projects will be canned, using the false justification that road traffic won’t get back to pre- pandemic levels, due to the reduced need for road travel.

This is obviously a pile of rubbish, as road traffic is already back to, or close to, the levels prior to last March.

That’s without the last lot of people coming off furlough.


Many congested roads, or traffic hot-spots, were way over capacity in the first place.

Even if traffic levels in those places fell, they’d still be congested and the need for improvements would still stand.

 

So expect a load of double talk, or BS from the DfT if the eastern leg of HS2 is postponed or cancelled. or if other rail projects get the axe.

Some poor minister ( not that I have sympathy for them) will have to make the announcement and carry the can for such a poor decision.

 

 

.

 

The whole post. When will (modern) government ministers realise that it's infrastructure projects, like HS2, like Werrington Junction, like East - West Rail, like road improvements, that can keep the economy moving during a downturn? Apart from anything else, it puts money into the pockets of those doing the work, which is spent into the economy; and the treasury will get returned to them a sizable chunk of the money spent by them in the form of taxes and revenue. The investment usually returns greater sums than the money spent in the long term, as well, even if it's in intangible ways, such as reducing road congestion costs.

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
11 minutes ago, 62613 said:

 

The whole post. When will (modern) government ministers realise that it's infrastructure projects, like HS2, like Werrington Junction, like East - West Rail, like road improvements, that can keep the economy moving during a downturn? Apart from anything else, it puts money into the pockets of those doing the work, which is spent into the economy; and the treasury will get returned to them a sizable chunk of the money spent by them in the form of taxes and revenue. The investment usually returns greater sums than the money spent in the long term, as well, even if it's in intangible ways, such as reducing road congestion costs.

 

 

The gains are long term - after the next election - so the current mob have the pain and their successors the gains. Those against infrastructure projects are only think of their short term gain. Government ought to indulge in long-term strategic planning, but since the country is now run by the City and 24-hour news media, those days are long gone.

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

1 minute ago, 62613 said:

 

The whole post. When will (modern) government ministers realise that it's infrastructure projects, like HS2, like Werrington Junction, like East - West Rail, like road improvements, that can keep the economy moving during a downturn? Apart from anything else, it puts money into the pockets of those doing the work, which is spent into the economy; and the treasury will get returned to them a sizable chunk of the money spent by them in the form of taxes and revenue. The investment usually returns greater sums than the money spent in the long term, as well, even if it's in intangible ways, such as reducing road congestion costs.

 


In essence you are correct and “government ministers “ will in the main, be fully aware of those facts.

However it’s not so simple . When it comes to government spending and wider economic activity, there are other fiscal and monetary mechanisms at play, that most mere mortals, like me, haven’t got a Scooby Doo about.

That’s what the Treasury  (and central banks like the BoE) are also concerned about.

The UK, like many western democracies, maxed out the credit card long before COVID hit.
The doo doo has got deeper and stickier.
Everything is a delicate balance and it’s not always possible to get the priorities right.

 

 

.

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

16 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

The gains are long term - after the next election - so the current mob have the pain and their successors the gains. Those against infrastructure projects are only think of their short term gain. Government ought to indulge in long-term strategic planning, but since the country is now run by the City and 24-hour news media, those days are long gone.


It’s not just the “ current mob” though is it Phil?  (as in the present day lot).

It’s the current mob, whoever they are at the time.

We have “ policies” and not national strategic plans.

Short term’ism, dressed up as long term goals or solutions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Ron Ron Ron
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

There are press stories of leaks from the DfT, saying that lots of road building and improvement projects will be canned, using the false justification that road traffic won’t get back to pre- pandemic levels, due to the reduced need for road travel.

This is obviously a pile of rubbish, as road traffic is already back to, or close to, the levels prior to last March.

 

Which is a joke given that in parts of London road traffic is now 25% higher than pre-pandemic levels as a result of the huge and sustained campaign telling people to avoid public transport at all costs, resistance to mask wearing etc, and the closure of numerous rat runs and introduction of more cycle lanes.  Classic case of unintended consequences which will probably distort transport planning in the capital for quite a while.

Edited by DY444
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:


It’s not just the “ current mob” though is it Phil?  (as in the present day lot).

It’s the current mob, whoever they are at the time.

We have “ policies” and not national strategic plans.

Short term’ism, dressed up as long term goals or solutions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

That's why I pluralised "Governments". I suppose a big problem is that a government might come up with a long - term plan (such as HS2), but that plan might not accord with the point of view of the following government; the great example being the change of direction in 1979. And again in 2010.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:


It’s not just the “ current mob” though is it Phil?  (as in the present day lot).

It’s the current mob, whoever they are at the time.

We have “ policies” and not national strategic plans.

Short term’ism, dressed up as long term goals or solutions.

Not helped when almost all politicians refer to "investment" when they describe any form of spending, most of which is best described as Operational Costs.  Helped even less when inarticulate (and even more often, innumerate) journalists don't challenge them.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:


The problem with that, is that by not spending the money, it won’t contribute one iota towards reducing traffic generated emissions, as the traffic will still be there and congestion will continue or grow, itself leading to an increase in emissions, due to ICE powered cars causing more pollution in those circumstances.

That ignores the fact, well-known by specialists in the field, that roadbuilding generally increases traffic, reduces the number using public transport and transfers the congestion from the bottleneck just addressed to the next most serious one along the route.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:


It’s not just the “ current mob” though is it Phil?  (as in the present day lot).

It’s the current mob, whoever they are at the time.

We have “ policies” and not national strategic plans.

Short term’ism, dressed up as long term goals or solutions.

 

That's what I meant. The current mob whoever is in power. A good example if Beeching - the Conservatives commissioned the report, but lost power and Labour who enacted much of it. None of them can do long-term planning.

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

And a Treasury which can't look beyond the end of the financial year, so local authorities end up spending money in February and March on low priority projects because they can't carry it over and will then lose that amount the next year if they are unlucky. So what hope of long term thinking?

Jonathan

  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just applicable to the Treasury and local authorities though. Most private companies I worked for had the same policy. If your department did not spend its allocation for one year it was given less the next; probably at the same time as being asked to do more. Then if they ran short of funds and asked for more they became a bunch of incompetent managers. The ghost of the exit door loomed large. For that reason everybody goes along with it.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Not just applicable to the Treasury and local authorities though. Most private companies I worked for had the same policy. If your department did not spend its allocation for one year it was given less the next; probably at the same time as being asked to do more. Then if they ran short of funds and asked for more they became a bunch of incompetent managers. The ghost of the exit door loomed large. For that reason everybody goes along with it.

It’s like watching council workers doing lots of little jobs during March to spend the remaining money in the budget!

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

It’s like watching council workers doing lots of little jobs during March to spend the remaining money in the budget!

 

'Twas ever thus - and I speak after starting in local government highway service some fifty years ago!

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Not just applicable to the Treasury and local authorities though. Most private companies I worked for had the same policy. If your department did not spend its allocation for one year it was given less the next; probably at the same time as being asked to do more. Then if they ran short of funds and asked for more they became a bunch of incompetent managers. The ghost of the exit door loomed large. For that reason everybody goes along with it.

We had some interesting years when our manager would announce at the beginning of March that we need to put together a “shopping list” to be handed to the buyers before the end of March......or our budget for the next year would be cut, this is after all bloody year asking/begging for bits of equipment needed to do the job.

 

Best year of all was about 1980 odd, I put together a list of Hasselblad equipment (all the department had was old Mamiya TLRs and Plate/sheet film cameras) the total back then came to about £70K.....we literally cleaned out Hasselbald U.K. and became best buddies with their sales manager :lol:

  • Like 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Any cut back in the scope of HS2 will be driven by the Treasury and the need to find savings, in light of the massive debt created by the pandemic.

 

 

.

I live in London and the number of people I meet whose employers have  abandoned the traditional office  workplace and their staff working from home is quite staggering.

Network Rail are predicting  a scenario of a 40% fall in passenger numbers compared to pre-pandemic numbers, those cutbacks by the Treasury are not simply  lack of money,  but also lack of a requirement for spending the money. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...