Northern Powerhouse? Unlikely if this is true.

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, locoholic said:

It comes to something when a person's passion for anything that runs on rails means they endorse the working practices of a repressive communist one-party state.

 

I didn't say I endorsed it, I said that they would have a no-nonsense approach. It all depends on whether you think infrastructure building is important. If you do, then get on with it. If not, then don't bother. What we do is say it's important and then faff around trying to keep everyone happy even when this requires taking diametrically opposed positions at the same time resulting in delays and massive extra expense.

 

History note: To build the railway through Leamington Spa, one of the buildings demolished was the orphanage. The Victorians took a very similar approach to the Chinese when getting things done. Was this also a " repressive communist one-party state" ? 

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, lmsforever said:

You are correct this project is purely London centric and it will destroy the connectivity available on the wcml  and replacement of intercity by local services is not good for passengers.

 

Evidence please.

 

There is zero evidence that InterCity trains will be withdrawn en-mass from the current WCML and its scaremongering of the highest order to pretend they will.

 

Yes some of the fastest (i.e. non stop services between London and Liverpool / Manchester / Preston / Scotland will transfer to HS2 - but in case you hadn't noticed a glance at the current timetables show that these don't make that many calls on the current WCML anyway (even though this would actually be welcomed by passengers at intermediate stations) due to capacity restrictions plus the need to keep end to end timings competitive.

 

In a post HS2 world, all previously released official documentation (such as this https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628501/F5_Future_train_service_patterns_on_the_WCML_corridor_v1.0.pdf) makes it very clear that "The DfT has set out the following high level principles to be used in order to ensure that service development makes best use of the released capacity that HS2 Phase One and Phase 2a deliver: an aim that, wherever it is feasible, all places with a direct London service retain a broadly comparable or better service after Phases One and 2a open;

 

In other words:-

 

London - Coventry - Birmingham - Wolverhampton services stay at current levels and with broadly the same stopping patterns as now due the needs of places likes Coventry that are not be served by HS2 and will demand a fast, frequent London service.

Around  half the current London - Manchester / Liverpool / Scotland services will still run via the WCML. with broadly the same stopping patterns as now and those services that do transfer will have suitable replacements (e.g. a Euston - Crewe limited stop WCML service connecting in with a HS2 Liverpool or Manchester service at Crewe.

 

Nowhere is there any intention to turn everything on the WCML into an all stations stopper or force everyone to change trains multiple times.

 

 

[locoholic]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I didn't say I endorsed it, I said that they would have a no-nonsense approach. It all depends on whether you think infrastructure building is important. If you do, then get on with it. If not, then don't bother. What we do is say it's important and then faff around trying to keep everyone happy even when this requires taking diametrically opposed positions at the same time resulting in delays and massive extra expense.

 

History note: To build the railway through Leamington Spa, one of the buildings demolished was the orphanage. The Victorians took a very similar approach to the Chinese when getting things done. Was this also a " repressive communist one-party state" ? 

Silly - communism hadn't been invented. You now instead seem to be praising a time when most people weren't allowed to vote - a small price to pay for getting infrastructure projects bulldozed through without opposition! The point is that you seem to be irritated by the fact that the UK has progressed to a stage where ordinary people have a voice and don't just have to mutely accept things. HS2 isn't funded in the Victorian way, by gullible shareholders voluntarily buying shares. Taxpayers have no option but to cough up and to most, HS2 looks increasingly like very bad value for money.

[Tricky-CRS]

HS2 should be built quicker, we need to think bigger and start building for tomorrow instead of self obsessing with today. We have become to self important to the point of every individual is more important than the community, state or society. 

[phil-b259]

31 minutes ago, locoholic said:

Taxpayers have no option but to cough up and to most, HS2 looks increasingly like very bad value for money.

 

Such a statement depends on what you mean by value.

 

There is a saying first used in the 1890s which stated a cynic was 'a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

Far too many of those stating HS2 is 'bad' value for money seem obsessed with monetary value - when as with all such large projects money only tells a small part the story. many of the things we treasure these days like the NHS are actually very poor momentary value (its far more cost effective to let terminally ill people die as soon as possible rather than try and prolong their life with expensive drugs) - yet as a society we deem this as a desirable thing.

 

Similarly its poor monetary value to try and prevent people acquiring motor cars (all that money which has to be spent taxing, insuring, repairing them generates large amounts of business activity / tax receipts) yet if we want to try and help curtail pollution and the need to build ever more roads preventing motor car acquisition is the way to go).

 

HS2 provides essential capacity which has the potential to allow for large modal shift to take place - it might well look poor to the Been counters - but when approached from a holistic angle, it actually comes out rather well.

 

 

[locoholic]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Such a statement depends on what you mean by value.

 

There is a saying first used in the 1890s which stated a cynic was 'a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

Far too many of those stating HS2 is 'bad' value for money seem obsessed with monetary value - when as with all such large projects money only tells a small part the story. many of the things we treasure these days like the NHS are actually very poor momentary value (its far more cost effective to let terminally ill people die as soon as possible rather than try and prolong their life with expensive drugs) - yet as a society we deem this as a desirable thing.

 

Similarly its poor monetary value to try and prevent people acquiring motor cars (all that money which has to be spent taxing, insuring, repairing them generates large amounts of business activity / tax receipts) yet if we want to try and help curtail pollution and the need to build ever more roads preventing motor car acquisition is the way to go).

 

HS2 provides essential capacity which has the potential to allow for large modal shift to take place - it might well look poor to the Been counters - but when approached from a holistic angle, it actually comes out rather well.

 

 

I'm afraid that's just meaningless waffle, and a very woolly  justification for spending billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

[lmsforever]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Evidence please.

 

There is zero evidence that InterCity trains will be withdrawn en-mass from the current WCML and its scaremongering of the highest order to pretend they will.

 

Yes some of the fastest (i.e. non stop services between London and Liverpool / Manchester / Preston / Scotland will transfer to HS2 - but in case you hadn't noticed a glance at the current timetables show that these don't make that many calls on the current WCML anyway (even though this would actually be welcomed by passengers at intermediate stations) due to capacity restrictions plus the need to keep end to end timings competitive.

 

In a post HS2 world, all previously released official documentation (such as this https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628501/F5_Future_train_service_patterns_on_the_WCML_corridor_v1.0.pdf) makes it very clear that "The DfT has set out the following high level principles to be used in order to ensure that service development makes best use of the released capacity that HS2 Phase One and Phase 2a deliver: an aim that, wherever it is feasible, all places with a direct London service retain a broadly comparable or better service after Phases One and 2a open;

 

In other words:-

 

London - Coventry - Birmingham - Wolverhampton services stay at current levels and with broadly the same stopping patterns as now due the needs of places likes Coventry that are not be served by HS2 and will demand a fast, frequent London service.

Around  half the current London - Manchester / Liverpool / Scotland services will still run via the WCML. with broadly the same stopping patterns as now and those services that do transfer will have suitable replacements (e.g. a Euston - Crewe limited stop WCML service connecting in with a HS2 Liverpool or Manchester service at Crewe.

 

Nowhere is there any intention to turn everything on the WCML into an all stations stopper or force everyone to change trains multiple times.

 

 

It has been stated many times by HS2 especially at roadshows plus many supporters have stated this ,go to a roadshow and ask them.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, lmsforever said:

It has been stated many times by HS2 especially at roadshows plus many supporters have stated this ,go to a roadshow and ask them.

 

If the roadshow representatives have been saying different things to the official documentation then it should be challenged. Detailed questioning will soon show up whether there is any substance behind the statement or its just spin. I would do so myself but seeing as I am a supporter of the project, I naturally do not have the incentive to pick up on such apparent conflicts.

 

Those who are hostile to HS2 are of course welcome to share the results of their endeavours on here (preferably with images of literature or significant quotes from the personnel present) - they can even present the linked document to those staff saying WCML services will be cut and ask them to explain who is lying?

 

It should also be noted this sort of thing is not confined to HS2 - over the years there have been plenty of roads schemes where interested parties have had wrong / inaccurate responses from 'consultation' roadshows.

 

A common problem with these 'roadshow exercises is the lack of qualified engineers / designers - as a result many of the folk who on the front line are not as clued up on the specifics as they should be which results in them coming unstuck when questioned about specific details.

 

Finally, even I accept that there can be a big difference between what a Government organisation says it plans to do and what eventually emerges when something actually gets completed*. As such, we (the electorate) have a duty to hold them to task. Whatever service pattern emerges for the WCML in a post HS2 world will be shaped by what transport campaigners, councils, current commuters want - not just what is most convenient for the rail industry.  While obviously not in the same league size wise you need to remember that it was pressure from users which saw Thameslink loop services retained (by ministerial decree) even though from an operational point of view it made more sense in every way for them to be terminated at Blackfriars.

[locoholic]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Whatever service pattern emerges for the WCML in a post HS2 world will be shaped by what transport campaigners, councils, current commuters want - not just what is most convenient for the rail industry.

But there are many, many examples where convenience for the rail industry or the DfT completely overrule what passengers and other stakeholders want.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, locoholic said:

I'm afraid that's just meaningless waffle, and a very woolly  justification for spending billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

 

Its not meaningless - it goes to the very heart of what society at large is. Your interpretation of it (which is a common reaction I admit) is a symptom of an over focus on the individual rather than considering society as a whole. Humans fundamentally social beings - we have evolved to live in communities that are dependent on members coming together. Its very easy to hunker down and dismiss these thoughts - but doing so is to deny who we really are.

 

If you examine the entirety of human history you will find countless examples where things were done not because it made people rich or to save them money - it was done for the grater good.

 

This principle is what lies behind most religions - what you gain in the afterlife far exceeds the costs of contributing (be it putting a few coins in the collection bag on a Sunday or erecting giant stone circles).

 

I have no children so in theory should begrudge state spending on schools  - but I don't because I can see the benefits which mostly accrue to others.

 

I have never needed to claim benefits so in theory I should regard them as a frivolous expanse - but I don't because I support the principle.

 

When my employer tried to get me to sign up to a SMART pension - I declined on the basis it meant less money for essential services and continued to pay more National Insurance.

 

Thus it is very dispiriting when the main gripe folk have about HS2 is money! Unless there is a significant change in how UK citizens collectively wish to run things (economy, education trad, etc) then the provision of increased transport capacity is necessary to meet the expectations of society at large - virtually all of which increase the demand for travel. Providing the infrastructure costs money - and although I am most unlikely to travel very much on HS2, I see (and other transport projects) as a very necessary and am happy to contribute.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

34 minutes ago, locoholic said:

But there are many, many examples where convenience for the rail industry or the DfT completely overrule what passengers and other stakeholders want.

 

Which suggests that the DfT is defective (quite why some folk want to hand them even more power is beyond me).

 

There are however plenty of legal options available to challenge them - IIRC the only reason the Fort William sleeper service survived is its withdrawal is a court ordered it had to stay running until consent for withdrawal of passenger services over a short chord in Glasgow was obtained and the resulting delay gave time for campaigners to mobilise.

 

Similarly the Penzance sleeper was in the firing line - yet sustained pressure from all sorts of bodies forced a rethink.

 

So yes, while there have obviously been cases where the DfT has prevailed its not as one sided as you portray - and the likes of Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Tamworth etc are not sleepy little villages with a handful of rail users - decimate the service too much and the political consequences will be significant and it would take a extremely stupid / suicidal bunch of politicians to not take heed

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by phil-b259

[royaloak]

So can all the anti HS2 posters please explain how you are going to relieve the congestion at the Southern end of the WCML and accommodate all the extra freights that the FOCs want to run! as there is a lot of suppressed demand at the Southern end of the WCML.

 

I await your viable alternatives with baited breath.

[jjb1970]

I think that the objection of many is not so much the principle of tax payers funding infrastructure development, social services, health, education etc but rather a desire for the money allocated to be spent efficiently and to good effect and for some accountability. 

[locoholic]

6 hours ago, royaloak said:

So can all the anti HS2 posters please explain how you are going to relieve the congestion at the Southern end of the WCML and accommodate all the extra freights that the FOCs want to run! as there is a lot of suppressed demand at the Southern end of the WCML.

 

I await your viable alternatives with baited breath.

The demand can stay suppressed - "do nothing" is a viable option, just as should be the case at Heathrow.

 

I would prefer the addition of a new conventional rail line (with intermediate stations) from Old Oak Common to Rugby, and the quadrupling of the line from Coventry to Birmingham.

[rodent279]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

it would take a extremely stupid / suicidal bunch of politicians to not take heed

Fortunately, we don't have many of those.....

[Wheres_Wally]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I think that the objection of many is not so much the principle of tax payers funding infrastructure development, social services, health, education etc but rather a desire for the money allocated to be spent efficiently and to good effect and for some accountability. 

 

Not necessarily. If you are against something you overplay spending inefficiencies. You skip the detail that a lot of the extra costs are due to local demands, each a small amount but adding up to a big bill.

 

No-one is neutral in this, especially the Taxpayers Alliance, or most of the House of Lords.

 

For most people, efficient spending is spending on something they want and approve of.

[Mark Saunders]

14 minutes ago, Wheres_Wally said:

 

Not necessarily. If you are against something you overplay spending inefficiencies. You skip the detail that a lot of the extra costs are due to local demands, each a small amount but adding up to a big bill.

 

No-one is neutral in this, especially the Taxpayers Alliance, or most of the House of Lords.

 

For most people, efficient spending is spending on something they want and approve of.

 

Currently managing a little building job for my Mam, job is over budget and time as replastering is having to cover a larger area and door reversed to open out over!

 

In the end the extra spend is required otherwise it would have been a right bodge.

 

Mark Saunders 

[woodenhead]

2 hours ago, locoholic said:

The demand can stay suppressed - "do nothing" is a viable option, just as should be the case at Heathrow.

 

I would prefer the addition of a new conventional rail line (with intermediate stations) from Old Oak Common to Rugby, and the quadrupling of the line from Coventry to Birmingham.

Having recently experienced Platforms 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly and been engulfed in the zombie hordes that are the people waiting to board at Euston - doing nothing doesn't suppress demand it just makes the whole situation intolerable.

 

We have to recognise that London is a magnet for people - business, pleasure or simply as a means of getting somewhere further afield - transport systems need to be able to cope.

 

But it shouldn't be a the expense of the North, well the bit between Manchester and the Scottish border as our Scottish cousins seem to be doing a grand job of delivering extra capacity.

[jjb1970]

2 hours ago, Wheres_Wally said:

 

Not necessarily. If you are against something you overplay spending inefficiencies. You skip the detail that a lot of the extra costs are due to local demands, each a small amount but adding up to a big bill.

 

No-one is neutral in this, especially the Taxpayers Alliance, or most of the House of Lords.

 

For most people, efficient spending is spending on something they want and approve of.

 

No, that is conflating two entirely separate matters. The question of whether we support a particular spending proposal in no way affects the position that should such a proposal go ahead then it should be efficiently delivered with the money being spent to good effect and accountability if we end up in a situation where spend escalates massively and program delivery nose dives. I support HS2, I don’t support issuing a blank cheque to fund it and would hope that it will be efficiently delivered within a realistic budget. One of the problems with many things is that a standard kneejerk response to many problem services and programs is to blame lack of funding, but it is often difficult to assess how much truth there is in such a response and how much of the problem is down to poor management and delivery.

[corneliuslundie]

I would like to believe that it will come in on budget, as I strongly support HS2. However, I have little optimism that it will as large infrastructure projects have been coming in over budget ever since the start of the railway system. One reason for those proposed by government in recent years has been a complete inability to grasp realities. One of the main reasons the GW electrification has escalated in cost is because the government took no notice of those who pointed out that the skills base had been destroyed by first a lack of electrification skills because of the long hiatus in projects and secondly because of the farce that was Railtrack which believed that engineers were not needed. The trouble is that there are far too many similar examples, showing that the politicians never learn.

Add to that the dead hand of the Treasury which seems to think that long term planning covers the next six months, complete uninterest by politicians in anything which may happen after the next general election and as mentioned above the fixation on price rather than value, and I am not optimistic.

And then we seem to love making things complicated. Was it really necessary to have three separate signalling systems for Crossrail? Especially when one was completely untested?

Mind you there is a long history of that too; Brunel is famous for the atmospheric caper but he also cost railways a lot of money by specifying Barlow rail which then had to be replaced.

And as a parallel to the orphanage destruction, Telford happily demolished part of Shrewsbury Abbey because it was in the way of the A5.

Jonathan

[locoholic]

6 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Having recently experienced Platforms 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly and been engulfed in the zombie hordes that are the people waiting to board at Euston - doing nothing doesn't suppress demand it just makes the whole situation intolerable.

 

We have to recognise that London is a magnet for people - business, pleasure or simply as a means of getting somewhere further afield - transport systems need to be able to cope.

 

But it shouldn't be a the expense of the North, well the bit between Manchester and the Scottish border as our Scottish cousins seem to be doing a grand job of delivering extra capacity.

The situation is "intolerable" on the M25. In fact the situation is intolerable on most roads. Why should drivers have to scan the road ahead to avoid potholes damaging their cars? The housing situation is intolerable. I could go on. It is typical uncritical rail enthusiast thinking that a crowded platform means we need a new high speed railway. Railways soak up public money like nothing else except the NHS, and the benefits the NHS delivers are much greater and more useful to society as a whole. 

[Zomboid]

Nobody is saying that no other investment in transport infrastructure is needed. There's loads of money also being spent doing things like making the M3 worse.

 

The state of the M25 is neither here nor there as far as the need for HS2 goes.

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, locoholic said:

The situation is "intolerable" on the M25. In fact the situation is intolerable on most roads. Why should drivers have to scan the road ahead to avoid potholes damaging their cars? The housing situation is intolerable. I could go on. It is typical uncritical rail enthusiast thinking that a crowded platform means we need a new high speed railway. Railways soak up public money like nothing else except the NHS, and the benefits the NHS delivers are much greater and more useful to society as a whole. 

Nice of you to throw insults, you don't know me but I now know what sort of person you are.

 

Housing, roads, railways, health, food and communications are all part of the UK infrastructure and all need ongoing maintenance and development.

 

People have to be able to get to work and many choose railways so why can't they expect a decent deal out of it, they certainly pay for it nowadays as subsidy reduces.

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, locoholic said:

The demand can stay suppressed - "do nothing" is a viable option, just as should be the case at Heathrow.

 

I would prefer the addition of a new conventional rail line (with intermediate stations) from Old Oak Common to Rugby, and the quadrupling of the line from Coventry to Birmingham.

Which would do not a lot to resolve the existing, and worsening, line capacity problems on the WCML south of Rugby.  Most people seem to associate the word 'capacity' with the number of seats taken or not taken on trains. (hence some idiot commentator talking about 'half empty trains from Euston to Birmingham' ) but on the WCML that is not the problem - the problem is a very simple one, line capacity.

 

Various ideas have been looked at for improving WCML capacity and to date all have foundered in the dust as far as the route south of Rugby is concerned.  In fact the only one which has got anywhere, fortunately and like it or not, is what was seen as the cheapest option - construct a new route.  But the cost of that has escalated as the nimbys and whingers have weighed with now mile after mile of it having to be put in tunnel when the logical engineering solution (as originally cost estimated no doubt) was not to minimise tunnelling (because of the cost).   But in the end in one respect it doesn't matter if it is in a tunnel or not because the need is for line capacity with the side add-on that if you are going to build a new railway you might as well build it for higher line speeds as not because the cost difference (except in tunnels) is minimal.

 

I happen to think the target linespeed is too high and 190 - 200mph is plenty enough because above about 190mph energy consumption can increase markedly  (depending on train design in terms of power consumption).  But maybe somebody has done the necessary trade-off calculations between linespeed and number of trains required and maybe keeping it down to LGV maximum speeds was going to be more expensive overall across the lifetime of the train fleet?

[phil-b259]

21 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

I happen to think the target linespeed is too high and 190 - 200mph is plenty enough because above about 190mph energy consumption can increase markedly  (depending on train design in terms of power consumption).  But maybe somebody has done the necessary trade-off calculations between linespeed and number of trains required and maybe keeping it down to LGV maximum speeds was going to be more expensive overall across the lifetime of the train fleet?

 

I think its more the case that the extra costs of going up to 250mph are minimal - its not as though a modest reduction in speed will allow significantly sharper curves is it?

 

In fact going for a 250mph design speed has some benefits even if trains run slower - the larger tunnel diameters will decrease wind resistance - i.e. a 200mph train in a 250mph tunnel will use significantly less energy than a 200mph one in a 200mph tunnel.