HS2 under review

[chrisf]

They've missed out the usual rabid frothing from the stop HS2 people. Shurley shome mishtake?

 

Give them time ...

 

Chris

[Re6/6]

Just listened to Humphries on 'Today' interviewing the KPMG representative. He repeatedly asked "how were your figures arrived at?" No such question was ever asked of the IOD and the IED 'anti' representatives about their calculations. Comments like "Ah, but you're employed by the government", again no enquiries as to how/who sponsored the 'antis' reports.

 

It just makes you think about any 'anti' bias that there may be at the BBC. Humphries' (or was it Vine?) manner was dismissive and a little bit sneery . Having just heard Naughtie's report on the Presidential speech where he gave a reasoned report, perhaps he would have made a better job of it.

 

Anyway, it's good that HS2 has gone on the offensive, particularly stressing the capacity issue, and not on the silly argument of speed and 'working on the train'.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Another ant- article in today's Grauniad.....

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/hs2-domestic-afghan-war

[Re6/6]

Another ant- article in today's Grauniad.....

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/hs2-domestic-afghan-war

 

A pathetic piece of nonsense. One would've expected better from Simon Jenkins

[DavidH]

Alas, not really - I know already that he doesn't like it, so he's probably not likely to write a balanced article.

 

Of course, it's probably anathema to say it on here, but ... does he have a point? If costs continue to increase, and the cost-benefit ratio declines, is there a point at which the project has to be cancelled? Look at the Edinburgh trams ... 

Edited September 11, 2013 by DavidH

[mcowgill]

If costs continue to increase, and the cost-benefit ratio declines, is there a point at which the project has to be cancelled? Look at the Edinburgh trams ... 

I'm sure there would be a point at which it should be reconsidered, but where is the evidence that the costs are actually increasing?  What's going up is the contingency part of the budget, not the actual cost.    Comparing the original projected cost with HS1's actual costs (£86.5m / mile), the cost per mile of phase 1 at £17.4bn is £146m / mile, allowing for inflation since HS1 was built these figures based on the budgeted costs seem realistic, what pressures are going to cause them to become vastly inflated above this and go way above even the contigency allowance?

 

By the way, it still seems cheap at about one quarter of the cost per mile of Crossrail...

 

Martin

Edited September 11, 2013 by mcowgill

[Christopher125]

A pathetic piece of nonsense. One would've expected better from Simon Jenkins

 

He's totally opposed to Crossrail and I believe thinks that coaches would be a better investment than rail, so it's more of the same unfortunately.

 

Chris

[Fenman]

In recompense for the Simon Jenkins opinion piece, some more balanced reporting from today's Guardian:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/11/hs2-rail-project-economic-boost

 

And a pro opinion piece from a Westminster councillor and Yorkshireman(!):

 

http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2013/sep/11/london-and-north-benefit-hs2

 

Paul

[The Stationmaster]

A pathetic piece of nonsense. One would've expected better from Simon Jenkins

I agree absolutely John - that article only goes to make Simon Jenkins look like some sort of half-baked village idiot especially when he quotes a 3 car dmu as an example of Britain's most overcrowded train (which it is but surely the £50bn won't be diverted to re-doubling the Henley branch and upping the train to 6 cars.  I despair when allegedly responsible and respected journalists such as Jenkins can't even be bothered to properly research their own 'articles'.

 

And I find it in the top drawer of journo hypocrisy that someone who opposes Crossrail should actually omit to mention that it would solve some of the very overcrowding he mentions.  Alas the sort of invective he deserves is best not used in a public place for fear it might not only cause his ears to burn but would reduce them to ashes.

[QWILPEN]

does anyone actually understand what Robert Peston is on about here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24047047 makes no sense to me

[The Stationmaster]

does anyone actually understand what Robert Peston is on about here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24047047 makes no sense to me

Maybe it would be clearer if he spoke it out loud (sorry, thought not!).  The daft thing in all of this is that the media goes round questioning the basis of the 'pro' figures but doesn't do the same for the 'anti' figures - just goes to show that we don't have an independent 'free' media in Britain but just a bunch of thought benders.  I'm still waiting for the antis to bring in a  human rights issue such as disturbing their right to a home life or something equally barmy.

[Christopher125]

does anyone actually understand what Robert Peston is on about here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24047047 makes no sense to me

 

I think he's referring to the following passage of the report:

 

"The methodology employed makes the implicit assumption that transport connectivity is the only supply-side constraint to business location.

In practice, there could be other constraints that could inhibit the potential location effects, such as the availability of skilled labour and land

in a given location.

 

Therefore, in order to realise the potential forecast impacts on business location across Britain, there may be a need for complementary

changes to create an environment in which businesses can develop.

 

However, the analysis assumes that the overall gains in output come from more efficient use of resources, rather than the use of new resource

inputs, so the increased need for investment in areas to which businesses move is balanced by a reduced need for such investment in areas

that they move from."

 

Peston is pointing out that the report doesn't take into account other factors which impact where businesses locate - however it does say that 'complimentary changes to create an environment in which businesses can develop' will be needed.

 

In other words, the government will have to do more than simply improve transport to attract business to the regions and maximise the potential benefits, which I don't think anyone is surprised by.

 

----

A strong speech from the SoS today, it seems they've finally got the message about stressing the need for extra capacity. Here's a few choice quotes...

 

 

 

So I ask now: are we sure that the call for retreat amounts to anything more than a repetition of a national loss of nerve? One that in the past has seen British governments cancel things like the Channel Tunnel, road and rail upgrades only to see them reinstated expensively many years later while our competitors race ahead?

 

The key challenge is this. Since 1970 the total distance we travel in Britain has more or less doubled. In coming decades that travel will go up again. Because there should be no doubt - the world is going to travel more.

 

 

 

But people ask: Do you really need a new line to get the capacity benefit? It’s a sensible question. We asked it too - before deciding HS2 was right. Independent studies have looked at the alternatives. Yet another upgrade to the West Coast line. Or new motorways through the countryside. Or more air travel. None of them stack up in terms of cost or capacity or environmental effect. 

 

We’ve already spent £9 billion on the last West Coast upgrade but that didn’t finish the job. The overhead wiring is getting on for 50 years old. The bridges and tunnels are Victorian monuments and I’ve been out with the track workers to see them.

 

Pouring billions more in widening it and accelerating it would be like trying to run the M1 up the Old Kent Road. Already the line is operating close to the limit. That’s why when Virgin wanted to run new direct trains this year to Shrewsbury and Blackpool, Network Rail said point blank: no there isn’t the space.

 

That’s why commuter trains into London from places like Milton Keynes are some of the most crowded in Britain we can’t fit enough in. That’s why trucks have to use the M1 and M6 because we need more room for freight trains. In fact one estimate says HS2 will mean half a million fewer lorry trips a day on our main motorways.

 

Without the capacity provided by HS2 the main road and rail lines linking eight of our 10 largest cities will quite simply be overwhelmed. And by the way to those who won’t accept this we really do deserve better than anecdotes about spare room at off-peak hours.

 

You might as well argue that Britain doesn’t need new power stations because we’ve got more electricity than we can use at one am. Or that Heathrow isn’t full because planes land there every day with empty seats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opponents of the scheme have focussed on a debate about the value of time business people spend working on trains. That’s madness. Some people work on trains. Some sleep - like me, at times. The numbers we use reflect this. And either way it doesn’t decide whether HS2 is a good idea or not.

 

So yes, later this year we will publish a new cost benefit analysis as part of the wider Strategic Case - and it will be positive. But don’t think the cost benefit analysis is the whole case for the line or captures the whole benefit. It is a narrow estimate on a narrow range of factors.

 

For instance the current cost benefit ratio caps growth in demand for High Speed Two after 2036. It assumes - for the sake of calculation because that’s how the standard model of assessment works that the line won’t get any busier after that. But of course it will.

 

And if – instead - in the model we capped the number of passengers using HS2 in 2059 which would be perfectly reasonable the benefit cost ratio would effectively double.

 

The model also more or less omits because of the way its rules are written the broader gain from infrastructure investment. As if growth happens by default. As if there’s no economic difference between a good modern train and a horse and cart. But the real world just isn’t like that.

 

 

Chris

Edited September 11, 2013 by Christopher125

[lmsforever]

What about bringing forward cab signalling on the WCML and running at 140mph on EC all promised but not achieved,if they can run on short headways in Japan why not here?

[scorpion]

and reduce capacity because the slow stuff will still be sharing the same route

[Clay Country]

ERTMS would provide limited additional capacity on the WCML but it's not a solution to the north-south capacity problem. As for 140mph running, it might yield a few extra paths if everything on the fast lines runs at that speed, but if you want some of those trains to stop at places like Milton Keynes, that will have an impact on the number of paths per hour.

 

Many opponents of HS2 claim to dislike the idea of whipping out intermediate stops for services on the WCML to accommodate more fast trains, but that is effectively what would have to happen if the existing infrastructure is left to shoulder future demand.

 

Even with everything modern technology has to offer, there are limits to what can be achieved on a 175-year-old railway.

[The Stationmaster]

What about bringing forward cab signalling on the WCML and running at 140mph on EC all promised but not achieved,if they can run on short headways in Japan why not here?

Cab signalling anywhere in Britain is really dependent on both getting the relevant version of ERTMs up and running reliably and then on the far more difficult task of integrating it with the trains involved.  With IEP it will at least have the advantage of being - hopefully - an almost ground-up integration into a new design of train, with Pendolino it will be the far more difficult task of integrating it into an existing, and ageing, design - never an easy task.

 

But as already noted any move towards higher speed on existing routes, but especially the WCML, is going to have an impact on line capacity and probably stopping patterns as well.  On a route which already has capacity problems it would seem to me to be rather counter productive to worsen speed differentials as I doubt liner trains will be running at 100mph+ in the near future and I suspect closing intermediate stations, even on the Slow Lines, would raise even more objections than the plans for HS2.   In simple terms increasing capacity means additional infrastructure if existing capacity is very heavily utilised, which is the case with the WCML.

Edited September 11, 2013 by The Stationmaster

[Re6/6]

http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2013/sep/11/london-and-north-benefit-hs2

 

An excellent piece.

 

Perhaps the individual arguments put should be seized on by HS2 and the Government to make their case.

[roythebus]

It never cease to amaze me that in the time it took UKplc to build HS1, the French and Germans built almost their entire high speed networks!

 

For once the government seems to have foresight in planning and hopefully building this line. Had their forerunners had similar foresight in the early 1960's, then we would not now have capacity problems as major routes like the GC,Oxford-Cambridge, Uckfield-Lewes would still be there to take some of the additional traffic.

 

The nimbys living on the route of HS1 a few years back are amongst the first to use Eurotunnel to get abroad without the hassle of going by air! And the noise of the E* trains isn't anywhere near as deafening as they made out. The only major problem I'm aware of with HS1 is that of groundwater drainage.

[GoingUnderground]

So far the incrementalists looking for a bit of nip and tuck to existing lines have not had to justify their arguments with business cases containing detailed figures to back up the costs and benefits to allow us to assess whether their arguments are valid and represent better value for money than HS2. I suspect the hidden additional costs caused by the inevitable disruption and delays to existing services during the upgrade/improvement works would undermine much of their business cases.

 

Also the nip and tuck works would also need some sort of contingency, especially where you are dealing with changes to infrastructure that goes back to the start of the rail era. So any talk of "look what we could do elsewhere with £80bn" gives a false sense of how much is available to be spent on the alternatives to HS2.

 

There was a nicely biased but of reporting on East Midlands Today last night where they focussed on complaints from Leicestershire that HS2 would not benefit Leicester and Leicestershire. I couldn't help thinking that they'd totally missed the point - fre

[The Stationmaster]

It never cease to amaze me that in the time it took UKplc to build HS1, the French and Germans built almost their entire high speed networks!

 

For once the government seems to have foresight in planning and hopefully building this line. Had their forerunners had similar foresight in the early 1960's, then we would not now have capacity problems as major routes like the GC,Oxford-Cambridge, Uckfield-Lewes would still be there to take some of the additional traffic.

 

The nimbys living on the route of HS1 a few years back are amongst the first to use Eurotunnel to get abroad without the hassle of going by air! And the noise of the E* trains isn't anywhere near as deafening as they made out. The only major problem I'm aware of with HS1 is that of groundwater drainage.

HS1 seemed to consume more time in arguing the toss about where it should be built rather than actually building it!  For international comparisons there is no doubt that the very worst example for showing up the UK is Crossrail - in the time it took this country to actually get round to building it Paris had been crisscrossed by 4 or 5 RER lines which weren't even on the 'think about it' list when Crossrailwas a pretty firm idea, and as for the Hackney - Chelsea line (first proposed I believe in 1947 and still not built).

 

I'm sorry but when it comes to national infrastructure development we are all the slaves of the short termism of our totally inept political 'leaders'.

[martin_wynne]

I'm sorry but when it comes to national infrastructure development we are all the slaves of the short termism of our totally inept political 'leaders'.

 

Isn't HS2 equally short-term? How do we know that everyone will still want to go to Birmingham in 50 years time? Or 25 years?

 

By all means build a new railway network, but to places that haven't got one. Birmingham already has two railway lines and a motorway. It can't make sense to concentrate everything in one narrow corridor.

 

Why should someone wanting to go from London to Birmingham have 40 billion pounds spent on them, while someone wanting to go from Cardiff to Aberystyth has to book a B&B in Shrewsbury? How about 20 billion each?

 

Martin.

[Waverley West]

Isn't HS2 equally short-term? How do we know that everyone will still want to go to Birmingham in 50 years time? Or 25 years?

 

By all means build a new railway network, but to places that haven't got one. Birmingham already has two railway lines and a motorway. It can't make sense to concentrate everything in one narrow corridor.

 

Why should someone wanting to go from London to Birmingham have 40 billion pounds spent on them, while someone wanting to go from Cardiff to Aberystyth has to book a B&B in Shrewsbury? How about 20 billion each?

 

Martin.

 

 

Research generally suggests that electronic communication is leading to people travelling more, not less.

 

As to why London to Birmingham and not Cardiff to Aberystwyth, I'd say the answer was pretty simple... the numbers of people wanting to travel between those places.

 

A high-speed link from my house to my local town of Cockermouth would be nice though, although on reflection I'd probably prefer a heritage line.

[Waverley West]

HS1 seemed to consume more time in arguing the toss about where it should be built rather than actually building it!  

 

I believe the original London to Birmingham line took five years to build. 

 

Isn't it wonderful that with all the benefits of nearly 200 years of advances in cost-, labour- and time-saving technology and engineering, we can now look forward to HS2 London to Birmingham being built in a mere, errrr... nine years? If we're lucky.

[The Stationmaster]

Isn't HS2 equally short-term? How do we know that everyone will still want to go to Birmingham in 50 years time? Or 25 years?

 

By all means build a new railway network, but to places that haven't got one. Birmingham already has two railway lines and a motorway. It can't make sense to concentrate everything in one narrow corridor.

 

Why should someone wanting to go from London to Birmingham have 40 billion pounds spent on them, while someone wanting to go from Cardiff to Aberystyth has to book a B&B in Shrewsbury? How about 20 billion each?

 

Martin.

 

But HS2 isn't just about going to Birmingham is it - it's about going to Manchester and Leeds (and elsewhere further north) as well.  But you do identify, starkly I think, a major flaw with the promotion and construction of this line with the heavy emphasis on Birmingham when it should be heavily promoted for what it will achieve further north.  I would go so far as to suggest that logically construction should proceed simultaneously both south and north of Birmingham in order to secure the advantages of the northern sections as soon as possible.

 

 

 

I believe the original London to Birmingham line took five years to build. 

 

Isn't it wonderful that with all the benefits of nearly 200 years of advances in cost-, labour- and time-saving technology and engineering, we can now look forward to HS2 London to Birmingham being built in a mere, errrr... nine years? If we're lucky.

I think the big delay in modern construction is because of all the hedging it round with 'environmental' controls and all sorts of planning and working hours etc restrictions.  In fact it's a miracle in this country that we manage to build anything other than houses.

[martin_wynne]

But HS2 isn't just about going to Birmingham is it - it's about going to Manchester and Leeds (and elsewhere further north) as well.  But you do identify, starkly I think, a major flaw with the promotion and construction of this line with the heavy emphasis on Birmingham when it should be heavily promoted for what it will achieve further north.

 

Hi Mike,

 

The point I'm trying to make is whether it is a fair use of the nation's resources to spend so much on one route which has already had billions spent on it recently?

 

How does someone in Exeter wanting to get to Lincoln benefit from HS2? It's their money too.

 

Martin.