"We need to kick-start HS3"!

[Christopher125]

This WYCA committee paper from a few weeks back gives some clues about the emerging plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail aka 'HS3'.

 

(credit to cheguevara for the link).

 

 

 

It is a critical time in NPR’s development over the next few months, with decisions being taken now around touchpoints with HS2 and the inclusion of these in HS2’s Phase 2b Hybrid Bill design work. Also, a preferred, single option for the NPR network is being decided upon, as part of the development of a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) to be completed later in 2018.

 

At its recent Partnership Board meeting, TfN confirmed that its emerging vision for the NPR network is:

 

- A new line between Liverpool and the HS2 Manchester spur via Warrington;

- Capacity at Manchester Piccadilly for about 8 through services per hour;

- A new Trans Pennine rail line that connects Manchester and Leeds via Bradford;

- Significant upgrades along the corridor of the existing Hope Valley from Sheffield to Manchester line via Stockport;

- Leeds to Sheffield delivered through HS2 Phase 2b and upgrading the route from Sheffield;

- Leeds to Newcastle via HS2 junction at Garforth and upgrades to the East Coast Mainline; and

- Significant upgrades to existing line for Leeds to Hull (via Selby) and Sheffield to Hull (via Doncaster).

 

An immediate priority for the TfN Partnership Board is ensuring that Northern Powerhouse Rail is fully integrated into the planning of Phase 2B of HS2, to ensure both maximum value for money and that NPR can be developed without delay.

 

The Board is calling on the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that six vital touchpoints are included in the HS2 Phase 2B Hybrid Bill:

 

- Provision for a junction between HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail east of Leeds at Garforth to create capacity for NPR services from Leeds to York and beyond. This would enable faster Leeds – York – Darlington – Durham – Newcastle services, and release capacity for more local and commuter services east of Leeds.

- A connection south of Leeds at Stourton between the HS2 Eastern Leg and existing line into Leeds, enabling NPR trains to run from Sheffield to Leeds and on to York and the North East, thus connecting Leeds from north and south.

- A connection north of Sheffield at Clayton, enabling trains to run through Sheffield and rejoin the HS2 line to Leeds.

- Provision for a junction between HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail on the HS2 Manchester Airport spur south-west of the airport, allowing construction of a new line to serve Liverpool-Manchester Airport-Manchester.

- Provision for a junction on the HS2 mainline north of Crewe, allowing for HS2 services to Liverpool.

- Realignment of the HS2 route on the approach to Manchester Piccadilly to enable either an underground Northern Powerhouse Rail through station adjacent to the HS2 Manchester Piccadilly station or a surface turn-back station that supports delivery of higher level NPR service frequencies

Edited October 28, 2017 by Christopher125

[lmsforever]

I would wait and see how much spare cash is around after the  budget think that there are better claims on taxpayers money.

[paulbb]

" A new line between Liverpool and the HS2 Manchester spur via Warrington;
...
- A new Trans Pennine rail line that connects Manchester and Leeds via Bradford"

 

Really this is dreamware, anyone starting to build new routes between Liverpool and Leeds will attract every NIMBY,tree hugger, and professional objector in the UK

and will take , well several years, of enquiries, meetings etc.

Why not simply electrify what is there with some tilty trains so we can get to places 10-15 minutes quicker without using gas guzzling diesels all over the shop

[jjb1970]

No doubt some of the protesters would split their time between demanding a ban on car use and demanding an end to any ideas to build new railways with the odd excursion to demand that the global shipping industry be closed down. In between spending every other weekend flying around Europe for 5p courtesy of Ryanair. Not that I am cynical.

[Christopher125]

I would wait and see how much spare cash is around after the  budget think that there are better claims on taxpayers money.

Hammond has already committed the £300m required for the connections with HS2, politically the government have to deliver on it.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Christopher125

[pete_mcfarlane]

No doubt some of the protesters would split their time between demanding a ban on car use and demanding an end to any ideas to build new railways with the odd excursion to demand that the global shipping industry be closed down. In between spending every other weekend flying around Europe for 5p courtesy of Ryanair. Not that I am cynical.

 

I gather from my policeman Brother that pretty much the same set of people turn up to every demo. It also apparently depends on what's the 'fashionable' thing to protest about this week, so it could be that HS3 sails through without a placard being waved, because they're all off protesting about Trump or Brexit or the RAF bombing bad people somewhere (normally the ones they themselves were protesting about until the RAF started bombing them). 

[jjb1970]

I gather from my policeman Brother that pretty much the same set of people turn up to every demo. It also apparently depends on what's the 'fashionable' thing to protest about this week, so it could be that HS3 sails through without a placard being waved, because they're all off protesting about Trump or Brexit or the RAF bombing bad people somewhere (normally the ones they themselves were protesting about until the RAF started bombing them).

I found it to be both hilarious and telling that when I worked in electricity generation the most vocal opponents of coal were the loudest voices whingeing about every other form of generating electricity and with a complete aversion to nuclear energy. The question of how we keep the lights on never troubles such people as they live in a place where the concept of compromise is anathema and hide from difficult decisions. Unfortunately I see a similar body of opinion with loud voices on the subject of transport.

Edited October 29, 2017 by jjb1970

[Reorte]

What I mostly see here is sneering against people who (very understandably in many cases) really don't like the proposed changes to the country they live in, rather than valid criticisms. The people being criticised aren't the only ones who find compromise an anathema. This happens time and time again and with the sort of things it's being used to support I find it all very depressing, considering the results of these things getting built I tend to find rather unpleasant and life that little bit worse for their existence (even if some cases it might be more a case of the lesser evil in managing the decline, which is why for example I'm grudgingly pro nuclear). No doubt this post will attract a slew of holier than thou "I'm right and you're an ignorant treehugger" type replies too, and probably a bunch of very tenuous at best comparisons with other things. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a "if you don't like this then the only logical conclusion is that you should want to live in a cave" response too.

 

Now I've got that off my chest I'll try to have a cup of tea and calm down

Edited October 29, 2017 by Reorte

[billbedford]

What I mostly see here is sneering against people who (very understandably in many cases) really don't like the proposed changes to the country they live in, rather than valid criticisms. The people being criticised aren't the only ones who find compromise an anathema. This happens time and time again and with the sort of things it's being used to support I find it all very depressing, considering the results of these things getting built I tend to find rather unpleasant and life that little bit worse for their existence

 

 

I'm sure this is only natural:-

 

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”     

[Southernman46]

Kick start HS3 ??  ................... yes of course - we also plan to fly to Mars at some point too  

[pete_mcfarlane]

What I mostly see here is sneering against people who (very understandably in many cases) really don't like the proposed changes to the country they live in, rather than valid criticisms. 

But we aren't talking about people with valid criticisms, just the people who object to everything for the sake of it. 

[The Stationmaster]

I gather from my policeman Brother that pretty much the same set of people turn up to every demo. It also apparently depends on what's the 'fashionable' thing to protest about this week, so it could be that HS3 sails through without a placard being waved, because they're all off protesting about Trump or Brexit or the RAF bombing bad people somewhere (normally the ones they themselves were protesting about until the RAF started bombing them). 

 

Sounds like Goring (On Thames) where the bunch who protested about GWML electrification 'furniture' also moaned about a Tesco local being established in a former pub building and  turbines being installed in the Thames to generate electricity - which means their success rate in protesting about those three things amounts to 0%.

[jjb1970]

Sounds like Goring (On Thames) where the bunch who protested about GWML electrification 'furniture' also moaned about a Tesco local being established in a former pub building and turbines being installed in the Thames to generate electricity - which means their success rate in protesting about those three things amounts to 0%.

Sounds like a good result to me! I've never quite understood why Tesco and Mcdonald's are like magnets for the swampy's of the world. If people are so oppressed and downtrodden that the greatest threat they face is a supermarket and a hamburger shop then I'm guessing several billion people around the globe would happily swap places.

[peanuts]

But we aren't talking about people with valid criticisms, just the people who object to everything for the sake of it. 

previous job was delivering white goods nationwide lost count of the villages we only had one way into usualy entailing a 30-50 mile circuit to complete due to   7.5t weight restrictions all over the place to stop those "thundering juggernauts " getting through funny how they wanted something bigger than a washing machine delivering how much they moaned about any extra cost . usualy find its the retired with all else to do who take the lead with this sort of thing 

[jjb1970]

What I mostly see here is sneering against people who (very understandably in many cases) really don't like the proposed changes to the country they live in, rather than valid criticisms. The people being criticised aren't the only ones who find compromise an anathema. This happens time and time again and with the sort of things it's being used to support I find it all very depressing, considering the results of these things getting built I tend to find rather unpleasant and life that little bit worse for their existence (even if some cases it might be more a case of the lesser evil in managing the decline, which is why for example I'm grudgingly pro nuclear). No doubt this post will attract a slew of holier than thou "I'm right and you're an ignorant treehugger" type replies too, and probably a bunch of very tenuous at best comparisons with other things. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a "if you don't like this then the only logical conclusion is that you should want to live in a cave" response too.

 

Now I've got that off my chest I'll try to have a cup of tea and calm down

 

If people object to something then they have every right to protest. Whether their protest has any basis in evidence or fact is irrelevant to that right.

 

What irritates me, and I think others, is that there is a type of person who protests EVERYTHING, and end up contradicting themselves by objecting to stuff which would address other stuff they are complaining about. I am a bit of a tree hugger and personally I welcome the end of coal power generation, but if we end coal generation (which like I say, I support) then something has to replace it. Don't like coal, OK we'll build wind farms - oh no no no no no, we're not having any of that. How about biomass - nay nay and thrice nay as is not sufficiently eco friendly and we don't want truck loads of biomass driving past the end of our driveway. CCGT then, that's cheap, reliable and a lot cleaner than coal - never, never, never, gas makes carbon dioxide and we might buy it from those ghastly chaps that live somewhere East of Berlin. Hydro then? How dare you, buiding dams harms fishes and interferes with our fishing. Nuclear? Have you seen what happened to Hiroshima? How dare you suggest such a thing!!! Ad infinitum as you work through all options. Righty ho then, perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell us how to keep the lights on? That's your job, you do it.

 

Whether we like it or not we have a growing population, and people in the developing world quite rightly want access to the same sort of life we take for granted. We need to reduce carbon emissions, we need to find food for more people, we need to provide economic opportunities for more people, move millions of people around on a daily basis etc etc. You cannot do that by avoiding difficult choices and hoping problems go away. There is a deeply sinister undertone to some views on these issues that say's we need to reduce the number of people with an implied suggestion that we control breeding, the logical conclusion of that argument is evil. If people do not like the choices being made then that's fair enough (I don't like a lot of them myself) but I cannot respect those people who protest EVERYTHING and hide from difficult decisions.

[Reorte]

I'm sure this is only natural:-

 

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”     

An oversimplification IMO. There's sometimes new stuff that I love, and a lot that was around that was before I was born that I despise. Such hard and fast rules hinder rather than help I think.

[Foulounoux]

Maybe we should do what I do when an employee objects to everything proposed

 

I then present them the choice of one of three options with the guidance that either they choose or I will have to manage it and impose and I really don't want to end up choosing something they don't like

 

So of course option one is the actual plan. Options two and three are something far worse

Strangely option one gets the agreement every time. They feel empowered as they chose the plan, they stopped me doing 2 or 3 and I congratulate them on making such an inspired choice

 

 

Should have done this to the Bournemouth NIMBY's who got the offshore wind farm rejected.. New Gas Power Station in the Winter Gardens anyone

[Reorte]

If people object to something then they have every right to protest. Whether their protest has any basis in evidence or fact is irrelevant to that right.

 

And that's a fair enough point I think, up to a limit. Which is why I'm pro nuclear, albeit in a gruding "I think this is the least bad choice" way, even though I'd like to see coal trains running up and down the country for the forseable future. Facts are a dangerous thing to concentrate on though, since the importance of them is highly subjective. They shouldn't be used to decide what's desirable - thinking they do is a big mistake. They're there for working out how viable what is desirable is and how to go about getting it.

[Reorte]

Maybe we should do what I do when an employee objects to everything proposed

 

I then present them the choice of one of three options with the guidance that either they choose or I will have to manage it and impose and I really don't want to end up choosing something they don't like

 

So of course option one is the actual plan. Options two and three are something far worse

Coming up with something bad and just offering worse is no choice, that's a fairly transparent attempt at pushing something unpleasant, which is a path that leads to a more unpleasant world full stop.

 

Should have done this to the Bournemouth NIMBY's who got the offshore wind farm rejected.. New Gas Power Station in the Winter Gardens anyone

But new gas power station in somewhere that's already an industrial estate? What you say sounds little better than saying "I did offer your money or your life."

 

Second edit: the aforementioned cup of tea changed into spending the afternoon in the pub, which tends to leave me a little more sanguine about things.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Reorte

[Foulounoux]

But as you said it's a question sometimes of taking the least bad option

 

The rest of my team will come up with better options of Their own accord but one will always object and provide no suggestion of his own so for him forcing the choice works.

[Edwin_m]

But as you said it's a question sometimes of taking the least bad option

 

The rest of my team will come up with better options of Their own accord but one will always object and provide no suggestion of his own so for him forcing the choice works.

You're not by any chance a property developer?  The usual technique is to submit a planning application for something really horrible and then pull it and substitute something only fairly unpleasant, at which point everybody sighs with relief and accepts it.  Politicians do this too. 

[Foulounoux]

No just a successful team manager ;-)

 

I actually work for a global manufacturing company that upholds very high ethical standards so maybe my worst options are good when compared to others

 

 

I have worked for hire and fire outfits so do know what bad looks like

 

 

 

Back on topic

 

I do hope HS3 doesn't suffer from the professional objectors

[Arpster]

What irritates me, and I think others, is that there is a type of person who protests EVERYTHING, and end up contradicting themselves by objecting to stuff which would address other stuff they are complaining about. I am a bit of a tree hugger and personally I welcome the end of coal power generation, but if we end coal generation (which like I say, I support) then something has to replace it. Don't like coal, OK we'll build wind farms - oh no no no no no, we're not having any of that. How about biomass - nay nay and thrice nay as is not sufficiently eco friendly and we don't want truck loads of biomass driving past the end of our driveway. CCGT then, that's cheap, reliable and a lot cleaner than coal - never, never, never, gas makes carbon dioxide and we might buy it from those ghastly chaps that live somewhere East of Berlin. Hydro then? How dare you, buiding dams harms fishes and interferes with our fishing. Nuclear? Have you seen what happened to Hiroshima? How dare you suggest such a thing!!! Ad infinitum as you work through all options. Righty ho then, perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell us how to keep the lights on? That's your job, you do it.

 

Whether we like it or not we have a growing population, and people in the developing world quite rightly want access to the same sort of life we take for granted. We need to reduce carbon emissions, we need to find food for more people, we need to provide economic opportunities for more people, move millions of people around on a daily basis etc etc. You cannot do that by avoiding difficult choices and hoping problems go away. There is a deeply sinister undertone to some views on these issues that say's we need to reduce the number of people with an implied suggestion that we control breeding, the logical conclusion of that argument is evil. If people do not like the choices being made then that's fair enough (I don't like a lot of them myself) but I cannot respect those people who protest EVERYTHING and hide from difficult decisions.

All very good points and an important discussion to be had. The imperative to act on climate change, and the fact that every one of the world's governments signed up to the Paris Agreement, means that such difficult decisions are now looming large. Agreeing to keep global warming below 2 degrees and "pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees" means a complete rethink of how we do things, in terms of energy generation, transport provision, planning policy, and our way of life. We essentially have less than 20 years to completely remove carbon dioxide from our economy in order to stick to that budget.

 

All of the forms of electricity generation available to us have their drawbacks (which is kind of the point some environmental campaigners are trying to make) meaning that removal of CO2 is particularly difficult if you take into account other problems. To that end, and given that there'll be a huge increase in electricity demand from transport due to the elimination of the internal combustion engine in coming years, what is vital is demand reduction. This is the only real way to address the problem, to keep the lights on, and avoid all of the nasty side effects of massive generation requirements. Demand reduction in the electricity sector has been happening for years (unplug your phone charger, only boil enough water as you need, insulate your home) but we now need the same from the transport sector.

 

The problem with solutions like HS2 or HS3 is that they don't address this demand problem at all, instead carrying on the old 'predict and provide' model that's been used for 50 years with ever expanding CO2 emissions. We need to turn it all on its head and say "what does a transport system in keeping with the Paris Agreement look like?" We are still looking for tiny savings in time at great economic and environmental cost, still trying to provide increasing mobility instead of looking to demand reduction. The idea of "transport demand management" has been around for a long time and, alongside energy demand management, is vital to ensure we can meet our climate change obligations and ensure we don't run out of energy for all the other things we need to do!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_demand_management

 

Arp

 

 

[chrisf]

BANANA - build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone

 

Chris

[Reorte]

BANANA - build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone

 

Chris

And we're back to the sneering.