HS2 under review

[Mike Storey]

http://railcolornews.com/2016/01/31/uk-hitachi-rail-at400-the-uk-bullet-train/

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/joint-venture-to-bid-for-hs2-rolling-stock-contract.html

 

 

 

.

 

http://railcolornews.com/2016/01/31/uk-hitachi-rail-at400-the-uk-bullet-train/

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/joint-venture-to-bid-for-hs2-rolling-stock-contract.html

 

 

 

.

 

Quite so. No mention of Bombardier by Hitachi in 2016, but suddenly in July 2018, there they are.

[locoholic]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hs2-government-funding-benefits-43-billion-benefit-tsar-infrastructure-commission-sir-john-armitt-a8478586.html

 

A familliar pattern is emerging...

 

The UK simply doesn't have the money for HS2. The "we can't afford not to" argument is just nonsense.

 

I do wonder whether this spate of stories in the media is a sign that we're being softened up for the cancellation of HS2.

[Dava]

The Indy link crashed my iPad, whether due to the eyewatering 43bn cost or the Russian ownership I don't know.

 

Part of the problem is that the costs of integration with existing and necessary local/regional transport systems are only now being worked out. Surprisingly, they are much higher than expected. An example is the Supertram link at Toton Fields which no-one wants to pay for. Meanwhile projects needed now, such as MML electrification, are cancelled as HS2 is apparently the solution. - it's not.

 

We will hear a lot more about this. We do need the extra rail capacity. But there are other 'vanity' projects to pay for, such as 2 aircraft carriers & US planes, 4[!!!] new Trident replacement subs etc. And that's before the costs of expanding health and social care for the ageing population, whatever the 'Brexit bonanza' lands us with, etc.

 

I look forward to the discount on HS2 fares with my Senior Citizen railcard in 203? If I'm still around!

[phil-b259]

We will hear a lot more about this. We do need the extra rail capacity. But there are other 'vanity' projects to pay for, such as 2 aircraft carriers & US planes, 4[!!!] new Trident replacement subs etc. And that's before the costs of expanding health and social care for the ageing population, whatever the 'Brexit bonanza' lands us with, etc.

 

 

This is an important point - lots of critics waffle on about it being a 'vanity project' while studiously ignoring several other things I would consider as far bigger vanity projects*

 

 

* Like Trident - based on the real historical evidence of the past two decades having a decent strength regular military to support our missions is far more important than a few nukes.

[locoholic]

The pattern continues - another negative HS2 story in the media.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/quarter-of-hs2-workers-on-pay-deals-over-100k-11465148

 

I really do wonder if this is a coincidence.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I really do wonder if this is a coincidence.

 

Nope, it's not a coincidence. There's clearly a carefully orchestrated campaign against HS2. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

And, of course, we are in "silly season". No HoC to report on and most serious journalists on holiday in Tuscany. It's a great time for any campaign to get their stories printed in the absence of any serious stuff to report about.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 The "we can't afford not to" argument is just nonsense.

 

 

 

No, it isn't.

 

We can all see for ourselves the ongoing disaster for the UK economy of failing to invest adequately in infrastructure. Brexit will have, potentially, negative consequences for our economy. But they pale into insignificance by comparison with the damage already done by the annual costs of congestion which run into many billions. It has resulted in an uncompetitive economy, overly dependent on services instead of manufacturing, and vulnerable to external forces. This country is not independent in any meaningful sense of the word. How much of our industry, our land,, our buildings is now owned by foreign interests who have been able to buy cheap as we resorted to cheating aka devaluation of the currency?.

[Dava]

One of the very disappointing facts which has emerged from HS2 in recent weeks is that they are opposed to including safe standards for cycle ways to enable communities affected [some would say blighted] by HS2 to cycle safely. They just argue there's no demand and won't include them. The cost of doing so at the design stage is minimal; once the line is built without them it will be unaffordable for ever.

 

If we are genuinely interested in safe, sustainable and healthy local alternatives to car use, this is just unacceptable from a public body where apparently their staff are picking up 100-150k per year.

 

So children around Waddesdon, Bucks will be unable for ever to cycle safely to school 2 miles away, for example.

 

there is more evidence here https://www.citymetric.com/transport/parliamentary-meeting-cycling-provision-route-hs2-showed-me-mps-just-don-t-get-4113

 

John Grimshaw is the UK's most experienced cycle way designer [since 1979] and has documented what could be done - the question is whether it will be. London-Birmingham is now effectively too late without a rethink.

 

http://www.johngrimshawassociates.co.uk/

 

Dava

[frobisher]

So children around Waddesdon, Bucks will be unable for ever to cycle safely to school 2 miles away, for example.

The more relevant question to ask is can they currently do so and does the building of HS2 change that status?

[Mark Saunders]

The more relevant question to ask is can they currently do so and does the building of HS2 change that status?

 

and if so would many parents allow their children to cycle to school even if they had a choice?

[APOLLO]

Meanwhile over in Bangkok

 

 

Not just an artists dream - I drove past the huge construction site last week

 

 

They have not started their high speed lines yet - this station, the largest in SE Asia will hub all the existing & proposed new HS Thai railways with local existing and new elevated railways, bus station, metro & underground - it's on 3 levels and is as big as an airport. They are building railways like mad over there.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is Donmuang, the old airport.  I was here last week staying with my wife's family. The overhead (local) line now finished, track laid and stations being fitted out. The metre gauge line below is the main line to the north. A new high speed elevated line is planned here also.

 

 

 

 

The old station

 

 

Frantic building going on over there - roads, railways, buildings, sewers you name it. Puts the UK to shame - They're not skint like we claim to be !!!!!

 

At least they will have built their fancy new capital city station before work starts on the HS lines (to China - where else !!!!). Map Ta Phut is the port - easy for both Thai & Chinese exports !! Work to start soon so I was told.

 

 

Other lines also planned.

 

 

All this going on NOW while we, the UK, who invented railways fart about and faff around, we can't even organise a timetable change !!!!!

 

Brit15

Edited August 8, 2018 by APOLLO

[Joseph_Pestell]

I will have to Google it, but I rather doubt that the per capita income in Malaysia is greater than ours. So, if they can afford to do it.....

[APOLLO]

The proposed route south from Bangkok will go to Singapore passing through Malaysia. I don't think Malaysia will pay for this, (nor will Laos for the line from Thailand through Laos to China). I reckon the Chinese will cough up most, along with Thailand & Singapore. These proposed lines will benefit these three the most.

 

From what I've seen around Thailand in the last 4 weeks shortage of money seems to be no problem. Everywhere is doing well / booming.

 

Brit15

[Dava]

and if so would many parents allow their children to cycle to school even if they had a choice?

These are micro questions on one specific example I gave - they don't alter the much bigger question of why safe cycling has been designed out of the local HS2 infrastructure.

[locoholic]

No, it isn't.

 

We can all see for ourselves the ongoing disaster for the UK economy of failing to invest adequately in infrastructure. Brexit will have, potentially, negative consequences for our economy. But they pale into insignificance by comparison with the damage already done by the annual costs of congestion which run into many billions. It has resulted in an uncompetitive economy, overly dependent on services instead of manufacturing, and vulnerable to external forces. This country is not independent in any meaningful sense of the word. How much of our industry, our land,, our buildings is now owned by foreign interests who have been able to buy cheap as we resorted to cheating aka devaluation of the currency?.

Three issues:

 

1. The UK government is already massively in debt, a debt which is still growing, so there is no money to invest in infrastructure. Any rise in tax revenues arising indirectly from infrastructure spending would take years to come through, so there is no incentive for government infrastructure spending.

 

2. No modern country is independent, thanks to globalisation. Maybe Google or Amazon will pay for HS2?

 

3. Since most journeys in the UK are made by road, if there is money to be spent on infrastructure, it will be spent on roads. Recent events must mean that railways are a pretty toxic subject both in Westminster and with the general public. Certainly, where I live there are plans for new roads, but no plans for any rail enhancements at all.

[APOLLO]

And by 2040 (so we are told) all new cars will be electric and we are not upgrading / renewing / building anywhere near enough additional generating capacity to cater for it - let alone the massive charging / electrical feeder upgrades required from the grid right down to individual housing. Hence the push for smart meters and smart pricing undoubtedly  to follow !!!!

 

Every government is in massive dept, USA, China, even Thailand above - Debt is just zeros and ones on a computer these days - yet these countries seem to manage new infrastructure on vast scales.

 

Quite simply our country is badly managed, from the top (all political parties) right down. Money (that should be tax revenue and invested in infrastructure here) is siphoned off in vast quantities and either held in tax havens - ££ hundreds of billions of it or goes to pay the grossly inflated salaries pensions and perks of top management etc.

 

Brit15

[Mike Storey]

Three issues:

 

1. The UK government is already massively in debt, a debt which is still growing, so there is no money to invest in infrastructure. Any rise in tax revenues arising indirectly from infrastructure spending would take years to come through, so there is no incentive for government infrastructure spending.

 

2. No modern country is independent, thanks to globalisation. Maybe Google or Amazon will pay for HS2?

 

3. Since most journeys in the UK are made by road, if there is money to be spent on infrastructure, it will be spent on roads. Recent events must mean that railways are a pretty toxic subject both in Westminster and with the general public. Certainly, where I live there are plans for new roads, but no plans for any rail enhancements at all.

 

Great stuff, again.

 

The annual spend on HS2 (assuming it sticks to around £60 billion, and ignoring, for now, the additional works suggested by John Armitt - much the same cry is made about the poor connectivity of the existing network, and very little of that, where it has actually happened, is centrally funded) is about £3.5 billion over c.20 years, with wide variation at certain key stages obviously. That is roughly one quarter of annual overseas aid spending (which I fully support) and less than 10% of current defence spending, and is separate from and less than one quarter of current UK rail investment, which is not even coming close to meeting demand.

 

It is less than 3% of current NHS expenditure, or less than 1.5% of NHS and Social Care costs combined.

 

That much is lost in roundings in govt accounts. It is a myth that it is "unaffordable". The argument over whether it is the right transport solution, if such money would be otherwise spent (which I doubt) is more valid. Transport professionals (of which I was one and have a Masters to demonstrate my academic as well as practical expertise) virtually all agree that HS2 (or something like it) is the most cost effective solution to the UK's (or at least England's) forward needs, but obviously experts aren't much valued these days. Insinuation, declaration and "common sense" all seem to count for an awful lot more, and evidence is an outmoded concept.

 

There has not been a single new road (or by-pass) business case that has passed the standard Treasury requirements minima, in the past 20 years, since the obligation to include additional fuel tax benefits was removed. All such decisions have been political. What is different?

[The Great Bear]

There has not been a single new road (or by-pass) business case that has passed the standard Treasury requirements minima, in the past 20 years, since the obligation to include additional fuel tax benefits was removed. All such decisions have been political. What is different?

 

Could you care to explain, please? Having spent he last 2 years working on a £500m plus road scheme with a BCR betweeen 3 and 4 that comes as a surprise.

Edited August 8, 2018 by The Great Bear

[Joseph_Pestell]

Three issues:

 

1. The UK government is already massively in debt, a debt which is still growing, so there is no money to invest in infrastructure. Any rise in tax revenues arising indirectly from infrastructure spending would take years to come through, so there is no incentive for government infrastructure spending.

 

2. No modern country is independent, thanks to globalisation. Maybe Google or Amazon will pay for HS2?

 

3. Since most journeys in the UK are made by road, if there is money to be spent on infrastructure, it will be spent on roads. Recent events must mean that railways are a pretty toxic subject both in Westminster and with the general public. Certainly, where I live there are plans for new roads, but no plans for any rail enhancements at all.

 

There is always money available to make good investments. Just needs the return (yield) to be greater than the cost of servicing the loan (interest). Whether that is "private" or "public" investment matters little except that private investors will usually be more greedy about the returns they want which, in a rail context, will mean higher fares. We have been there for the last 25 years.

 

As to the recent stories, while there is justifiable criticism of the way that the rail industry has handled this, it's really a pretty small story in global news terms. So why so much noise in the media? You don't think that it might be influenced by the road-building lobby?

[locoholic]

There is always money available to make good investments. Just needs the return (yield) to be greater than the cost of servicing the loan (interest). Whether that is "private" or "public" investment matters little except that private investors will usually be more greedy about the returns they want which, in a rail context, will mean higher fares. We have been there for the last 25 years.

 

As to the recent stories, while there is justifiable criticism of the way that the rail industry has handled this, it's really a pretty small story in global news terms. So why so much noise in the media? You don't think that it might be influenced by the road-building lobby?

Is there really a "road-building lobby" these days? Civil engineering firms tender for any big project, road or rail. I expect they view HS2 as a major cash cow and would be eager for it to go ahead.

 

Anyway, recently the rail industry has done an excellent job of promoting the case for new roads - all those Rail Replacement Buses have to drive somewhere!

[locoholic]

Transport professionals ... virtually all agree that HS2 (or something like it) is the most cost effective solution to the UK's (or at least England's) forward needs

Well they would say that, wouldn't they, seeing as quite a few of them stand to make money from it in one way or another?

 

There are plenty of other "professionals" with less of a vested interest who think that HS2 will end up being very poor value for money.

 

When we have county councils in the UK having to cut pretty much everything in order to stave off bankruptcy, HS2 starts to look like an unjustifiable luxury which, I suspect, is why the public seem to be being softened up to hear of its cancellation. That's the reality in the UK these days. We could argue over how we've got to this sorry state, but that won't alter the lack of money.

 

By the way, I'm glad your masters degree is such a comfort to you. I have one too, somewhere. I must dust it off and see how I feel about it.

[frobisher]

These are micro questions on one specific example I gave - they don't alter the much bigger question of why safe cycling has been designed out of the local HS2 infrastructure.

Can you cite any actual instances where HS2 is making cycling unsafe compared to the pre-HS2 situation?

[Trog]

One of the very disappointing facts which has emerged from HS2 in recent weeks is that they are opposed to including safe standards for cycle ways to enable communities affected [some would say blighted] by HS2 to cycle safely. They just argue there's no demand and won't include them. The cost of doing so at the design stage is minimal; once the line is built without them it will be unaffordable for ever.

 

 

Dava

 

If it is true that there is no demand providing the facility would be a waste of money, and I very much doubt that making bridges wider etc to allow cycling is a minimal cost. Are there hordes of cyclists using these roads, or is it just pressure groups wanting public money spent on their particular hobby horse?

 

In my local town the council put up loads of direction signs for cyclists giving the direction and riding time to local schools etc. Which given that 99.999% of people cycling to these places would do it every day and know exactly where they are going is a total waste of money. When I challenged a local Councillor about this I was told that it did not matter as they had got a grant for it and it was done with non council public money. 

[Covkid]

Can anyone please point me in the direction of the latest plans regarding construction sites ?

 

Plans were placed online a year or two ago by Warwickshire Council for a large yard at Kingsbury, located between the Birmingham-Derby main line and the M42, with a link swinging round off the Network Rail lines into the yard.  The facilities included a ballast dump, concrete sleeper plant and a rail storage (possibly welding) area.

 

I was told earlier this year that this plan is cancelled, so I wondered where the same facilities might be planned to be built if not here.

 

TIA.