HS2 under review

[Ohmisterporter]

I do get fed up with the gleeful way the media portray the objections to just about everything in this country. Then if big schemes are cancelled they bemoan the fact that we don't have trains as fast as elsewhere, our gas supplies are about to run out, Heathrow airport is at maximum capacity, our nuclear power stations will be life expired before replacements are built, and so on. 

[melmerby]

Taken with the alarmist article that I gather leads today's Mail on Sunday, the next thing to appear should be a robust rebuttal from HS2 Ltd and DfT.  Hmmm.  Quiet, isn't it?

 

Chris

"A forty mile wide swathe of destruction" or something similar!

Mind you it is the 'Mail, only slightly less sensationalist in it's reporting than the Express.

 

Makes it sound as if it's going to be nuclear powered and leaking radiation as it goes on it's way, rather than electrically powered and quieter than the infernal din from the 6 lane motorway that carves it's way through the same countryside and has already caused more destruction than a railway line would.

 

Keith.

Edited August 18, 2013 by melmerby

[phil-b259]

 

 

There's no guarantee that HS will be part of the national network either; apart from it naturally being segregated infrastructure.

There is every possibility that it will be franchised off to a standalone infrastructure operator, just like HS1.

 

 

 

.

 

HS2, from a passengers point of view will be part of the national rail network - it will have some through services from the 'classic' network, through ticketing will be maintained for all services, etc

 

However as regards the infrastructure - because the Government regards competition as the holy grail for all things and is inherently distrustful of Network rail (believing their costs are far too high and far too much like a 'nationalised' industry for their liking), as with HS1 I'm sure it will be flogged off to some overseas pension fund / venture capitalist with no engineering knowledge who will then sub contract out the operation and maintenance to someone else - and that doesn't necessarily mean Network Rail

 

As regards the service provider then that will again be franchised off as with all rail operations although what happens with services going beyond HS2 onto the 'classic' network remains to be seen. Do they become part of the HS2 franchise thus simplifying operating arrangements i.e. one operator one terminus idea (note that a rebuilt Euston will function much like Victoria does today with a 'Kent' and 'Sussex' side) or do they keep such services with the current WCML franchise and having two operators on HS2 (which would please those in the conservative party who think competition is the be all and end all of everything even if it does cost more in the long run)

[jjb1970]

Today's £80 billion story from a right wing think tank could be paraphrased as:

 

We'll protest at every opportunity, this will inflate the cost, it will no longer make sense, stop the program now and save a lot of grief

 

Which strikes me as tantamount to blackmail. Don't get me wrong I do not criticise NIMBY's out of hand as I'm honest enough to recognise there are circumstances where I'd be a NIMBY, but stuff like this is political lobbying at its worst.

[PhilH]

Why is it political lobbying at its worst? Why can't it be an objective appraisal of known fact?

 

I know there is great support for this on here, but has anyone considered that the objectors and doomsayers might actually be raising valid points?

 

What is fact, based on historical data, is that the cost of a project such as this will undoubtedly rise out of all proportion to the original estimate.

 

Whether that final cost, in environmental, human and financial terms, will be worth the perceived benefit of this project will be for a future generation to decide.

 

Edit for iffy punctuation.

Edited August 18, 2013 by PhilH

[jjb1970]

What I object to is protesting, using these protests to inflate cost (eg. extra tunneling, route management etc) and then using the fact that HS2 is being re-routed, going into tunnels etc exactly to appease these protests then becoming an argument to cancel the program. I am not a mindless supporter of HS2 and in particular think the business case is a crock, but this report is political spin and lobbying and the whole argument it represents is thinly disguised blackmail. If we don't get our way we'll protest more, inflate the costs more and eventually you'll either pay £80 billion and "prove we were right" or walk away. I find that an appalling mindset, albeit politically effective.

[PhilH]

Surely, given that you seem to agree that the business case doesn't stand up, the way this project has been sold to the country in the first place amounts to no more than 'political spin, lobbying' and 'blackmail'?

[jjb1970]

I certainly agree there is a huge amount of political spin on both sides and think the business case is a joke. To point that out is entirely legitimate. To protest is fair enough too and I actually have some respect for honest NIMBY's. However I have no time for those wresting concessions out of the route then using these concessions as a reason to cancel the whole thing.

[jjb1970]

To look at this another way, what would be the reaction if HS2 took the attitude of "that is the route, we government has agreed to it, if you don't like it you have a vote at the next election, find or start a party that will scrap us"? I imagine many, perhaps most, certainly me, would find that an arrogant and reprehensible position. However because HS2 is actually making a major effort to appease people who don't like aspects of the program this is now being turned into yet another weapon against it by some protesters.

[lmsforever]

The press, think tanks, politicos all are stating to cancel each out and no one has an idea what is going on ,the speed will probably be slowed down to save electricity (If we still have any left)and the service dropped down to one train each way every two hours,me I am getting a horse and cart by the time this line is built it will be the only way to travel.

[JohnR]

The IEA report also seems to get to its inflated cost by adding in the cost of the Tram extension, CrossRail2, new infrastructure in Liverpool etc. 

 

However, it then suggests that HS2 should be cancelled, and some of the money spent on projects such as CrossRail2, the Nottingham Tram extension, new infrastructure in Liverpool etc.

[Christopher125]

Why is it political lobbying at its worst? Why can't it be an objective appraisal of known fact?

 

...because it's a right-wing think tank pushing the view's of it's founders and funders, who are ideologically opposed to a scheme like HS2 regardless of it's merits. 

 

Why do you think they sent out the summary in time for the Sunday papers, but held back on the actual report until today? Now we can see how they've arrived at £80bn it's quite clearly nonsense.

 

There's a great blog from Zelo Street which sums up their laughable maths quite succinctly:- HS2 IEA report one high turkey

 

But the way in which the £80 billion figure has been arrived at can be summarised very easily: the cost of the HS2 “Y Network” is increased to £50 billion (no citation is given), and then has, for starters, the whole cost of Crossrail 2 added to it. The only difference between the TPA and IEA is that the latter have taken the TPA number (£10 billion) and doubled it, to make it twice as scary.

 

That is plainly fraudulent, and twice over, but, as the man said, there’s more. A spur from HS2 to Liverpool is added in (not part of the project) because it is held that more of those vested interests will successfully lobby for it. That the city will see journey times to London cut to little over one and a half hours under the current proposals is not mentioned.

 

More transport schemes are added to get to the £80 billion figure: as I expected, all the cost of extending the Nottingham tram system to Toton figures, as does a tram extension west to Derby, the business case of which would stand on its own, thanks. Railway electrification in West Yorkshire – already planned – is similarly held to be part of the HS2 cost. And the benefits are talked down to a mere £30 billion.

 

City AM have their own story Why HS2 won't cost £80bn as does the International Rail Journal The IEA assesment of HS2 is pure fantasy

 

HS2 Ltd have released a couple of statements.

 

“HS2 Ltd is still developing transport routes for the construction of the line; accordingly it is not possible to definitively say

how the road network will be used. The information supplied to the CPRE is based on the most accurate assessment given

the progress of the line’s design at the time. The routes highlighted in the information provided to CPRE show all roads that

might be used for the construction of HS2 including those travelled by people working on the line and therefore driving by car.

HS2 Ltd is working to ensure that over 95% of excavated material is beneficially reused for the construction of the railway, 

including noise and visual screening, therefore reducing the need for long distance transportation.”

 

 

“The IEA report is extremely speculative and completely lacking in concrete facts. The headline £80bn figure appears

to have been arrived at by lumping together transport schemes that are not part of HS2 and in some cases are many

miles from the line. The report claims a theoretical and unsourced cost of £30bn for these projects, although elsewhere

admits many will never be built. The IEA also fails to show how a myriad of piecemeal incremental transport schemes

would address the capacity and connectivity issues that we face or how they would even come close to providing the

opportunities that HS2 as an Engine for Growth will bring to the national economy. The fact is HS2 is absolutely vital for this country.  Without it the key rail routes

connecting London, the Midlands and the North will be overwhelmed. This report does nothing to challenge these undeniable facts.

 

Chris

Edited August 19, 2013 by Christopher125

[PhilH]

...because it's a right-wing think tank pushing the view's of it's founders and funders, who are ideologically opposed to a scheme like HS2 regardless of it's merits. 

 

Why do you think they sent out the summary in time for the Sunday papers, but held back on the actual report until today? Now we can see how they've arrived at £80bn it's quite clearly nonsense.

 

There's a great blog from Zelo Street which sums up their laughable maths quite succinctly:- HS2 IEA report one high turkey

 

 

 

 

 

City AM have their own story Why HS2 won't cost £80bn as does the International Rail Journal The IEA assesment of HS2 is pure fantasy

 

HS2 Ltd have released a couple of statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

Guess we are all entitled to our opinions, the one true fact is that NOBODY knows how this will turn out.

 

As I said before this will in all probability be a matter of judgement for a future generation, not us.

[Christopher125]

Guess we are all entitled to our opinions, the one true fact is that NOBODY knows how this will turn out.

 

As I said before this will in all probability be a matter of judgement for a future generation, not us.

 

Of course, but nobody knows how anything will turn out in advance unless they happen to posses a time machine - what no-one should do is base their opinion on a hatchet job of a report by a right-wing think tank funded by people who are ideologically opposed to such a scheme. What we do know is that this country can deliver a high speed line on time and on budget and that the risks, delays, disruption of trying to make-do with the existing network can only ever be a short term solution, and that any cancellation or deferral of HS2 will, as with Crossrail and Thameslink, only delay the inevitable and ratchet up the costs yet further.

 

Chris

Edited August 19, 2013 by Christopher125

[GoingUnderground]

The IEA report also seems to get to its inflated cost by adding in the cost of the Tram extension, CrossRail2, new infrastructure in Liverpool etc. 

 

However, it then suggests that HS2 should be cancelled, and some of the money spent on projects such as CrossRail2, the Nottingham Tram extension, new infrastructure in Liverpool etc.

 

I live on the eastern side of Nottingham, so the new tram works are of no use to me, just like our existing line, though they are desirable for the City as a whole. Much as I love trams, i still think they would do better to replace diesel buses with trolleybuses, but trolleybuses aren't as sexy to the politicos as trams. 

 

I still want to see HS2 built as that will benefit many more people and the country as a whole than a lot of small infrastructure projects dotted around the countryside.

[Re6/6]

 i still think they would do better to replace diesel buses with trolleybuses, but trolleybuses aren't as sexy to the politicos as trams.

 

I do agree Keith. It escapes me why the trolleybus option has not been considered as a more cost effective option in certain cases, as opposed to the more expensive light rail.

 

I would've thought that with today's battery technology and some sort of automatic pan/trolley poles,  short 'off the wires' routings would be possible, thus increasing flexibility.

 

Looks like the Leeds example is finally going to be realized. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-23129739

 

 

I still want to see HS2 built as that will benefit many more people and the country as a whole than a lot of small infrastructure projects dotted around the countryside.

 

 

 

The government and HS2 ltd still aren't pressing their case in the media. I have only heard the words 'future capacity' used once by a spokesman (govt or HS2?) during this latest debate on the report by the IEA.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Re6/6

[lmsforever]

Agree about trolleybuses they are a good solution to town transport in London they were great until the powers that be decided they were not the sexy method of transport,the Leeds project has taken so long to happen it has gone through the roof with regard to cost .Our local paper has a news item about construction traffic blighting surrounding towns and villages something the road shows never covered, this will cause further worries in out area as we are going to be seeing hundreds of milk lorries passing through the town in the next couple of months going to europes largest dairy.

[Edwin_m]

Don't forget that we have built HS1 in the UK within the past decade so we should have a pretty good idea of the costs of high-speed infrastructure in an area of countryside that is relatively densely populated and sensitive. 

 

Let's not get started on trolleybuses again! 

[lmsforever]

Yes lets get started on trolleybuses again!

[JohnR]

Don't forget that we have built HS1 in the UK within the past decade so we should have a pretty good idea of the costs of high-speed infrastructure in an area of countryside that is relatively densely populated and sensitive. 

 

Let's not get started on trolleybuses again! 

 

HS1, delivered on time, and on budget.

 

I believe (from the top of my head) that HS1 came in at something like £34.5m/km and HS2 is priced at £60m/km (thats the £33bn for the full Y network price).

 

Considering that HS1 was driven through the Kent countryside (every bit as nice as the Chilterns) and through to Central London, that should be reasonable.

[chrisf]

Alastair Darling has now come out against HS2 because of the increased cost.  It is a pity that one of the longer serving Secretaries of State for Transport seems to have so little understanding of the issues.

 

Chris

[Enterprisingwestern]

Alastair Darling has now come out against HS2 because of the increased cost.  It is a pity that one of the longer serving Secretaries of State for Transport seems to have so little understanding of the issues.

 

Chris

 

Reading his piece in The Times today I think he's got an excellent understanding of the issues personally.

 

Mike.

[Christopher125]

Alastair Darling has now come out against HS2 because of the increased cost.  It is a pity that one of the longer serving Secretaries of State for Transport seems to have so little understanding of the issues.

 

Chris

 

It's even more disappointing that a former Chancellor doesn't recognise that the actual cost has remained broadly the same, what increased (thanks to the treasury) was the amount of contingency. As for the old chestnut about diverting funding from the existing network, I seem to remember the same argument being levelled at Crossrail with regards to the Tube - the answer is to fund both.

 

 

 

Reading his piece in The Times today I think he's got an excellent understanding of the issues personally.

 

Mike.

 

He certainly understands political reluctance to spend money on the conventional rail network going by his record as Transport Secretary and later Chancellor, he was a complete waste of space. I think his real motivation is exposed by the following quote: "Certainly if we spend £50 billion on HS2, there will be no money for transport links to the proposed Boris Island or to any other new airport.”

 

Chris

Edited August 23, 2013 by Christopher125

[Re6/6]

Reading his piece in The Times today I think he's got an excellent understanding of the issues personally.

 

Mike.

 

I don't take The Times but heard his interview on R4 'Today' and he was epitome of evasion when questioned about 'alternatives'. Also perhaps he might be briefed better as to what upgrades he thinks that should be invested in instead. He mentioned London>Bristol as needing upgrading......hello......GW electrification.....

 

What he didn't mention was that between 2015> 2020 (IIRC) NR are investing an earmarked £38b approx in such improvement schemes that he talks about.

 

Just why we should believe a 'has-been' chancellor who was in control of the nations finances in the period preceding the slump. (Political references not intended)

 

On R4 'World-at-One' The current Secretary of State for Transport gave a robust response, I thought.

[GoingUnderground]

Ah, Part 2 of my prediction is starting to come true. The politicos running away from HS2 because of the cost.

 

I deeply regret the extreme short sightedness and road transport bias of politicians of all colours, but with the stampede away from HS2 by the political parties can only get worse as the next election approaches. My conclusion is that it will not get built. Yet another fine example of the UK becoming preserved in ice - unable to move forward because the cost of buying off the objectors makes the cost of these essential infrastructure projects too high.