HS2 under review

[locoholic]

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.

 

I think the point is that communities along the route are paying a price so that others can get from London to elsewhere more rapidly. Therefore, if there are opportunities to benefit those communities they should be taken. Your attitude seems to be "Put up and shut up", which isn't how it ought to be.

[pete_mcfarlane]

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?

 

And then there would be howls of anguish about the extra cost of these works. Probably from the same people. 

[Trog]

I think the point is that communities along the route are paying a price so that others can get from London to elsewhere more rapidly. Therefore, if there are opportunities to benefit those communities they should be taken. Your attitude seems to be "Put up and shut up", which isn't how it ought to be.

 

If it is a facility they will not use what benefit is there in making them and everybody else pay to provide it.

 

I take it that as I live within hearing distance of the WCML, the inhabitants of rural Buckinghamshire will not mind being forced to have a whip round to pay for me to have some new double glazing regardless of if I need it or not.

[APOLLO]

Living here in Wigan we have an almost hourly service down to London, fastest train being one hour and fifty minutes, stopping only at Warrington then direct to Euston. Good enough for most folks.

 

What I and everybody else up here (and no doubt many other places also) want / need is ALSO frequent, affordable and reliable services to nearby towns and cities. We are going backwards with the recent timetable fiasco.Perhaps it will sort out I don't know.

 

What I DO NOT WANT is an expensive HS2 service to Londinium at the expense of other lines and services.

 

Why is rail investment so London centric ? 

 

Brit15

[Trog]

Living here in Wigan we have an almost hourly service down to London, fastest train being one hour and fifty minutes, stopping only at Warrington then direct to Euston. Good enough for most folks.

 

What I and everybody else up here (and no doubt many other places also) want / need is ALSO frequent, affordable and reliable services to nearby towns and cities. We are going backwards with the recent timetable fiasco.Perhaps it will sort out I don't know.

 

What I DO NOT WANT is an expensive HS2 service to Londinium at the expense of other lines and services.

 

Why is rail investment so London centric ? 

 

Brit15

 

I don't think the choice is between HS2 and local improvements, as the two draw on different resources. Different skill sets and training being needed to work on upgrading an already open line, than to build a new line through a field. Also recent events seem to show that Network Rail can not cope with its current upgrade workload, so if HS2 is cancelled you probably will not get your local upgrades either.

[Fenman]

...

Why is rail investment so London centric ? 

...

 

 

Isn't it because something like 90% of rail tickets are for journeys either to, from, or wholly within London?

 

In addition, London's population is growing at a staggering rate - something like 100,000 people a year. Every year. The sheer scale of overcrowding that already exists on London's trains is - to me, as someone who lives and mostly works in rural Norfolk - horrifying. The problems are an order of magnitude worse than anywhere else.

 

It seems to me perfectly reasonable that London should therefore get what otherwise looks like a disproportionate share of spending.

 

Paul

[locoholic]

Isn't it because something like 90% of rail tickets are for journeys either to, from, or wholly within London?

 

In addition, London's population is growing at a staggering rate - something like 100,000 people a year. Every year. The sheer scale of overcrowding that already exists on London's trains is - to me, as someone who lives and mostly works in rural Norfolk - horrifying. The problems are an order of magnitude worse than anywhere else.

 

It seems to me perfectly reasonable that London should therefore get what otherwise looks like a disproportionate share of spending.

 

Paul

Catch 22, isn't it? Most train journeys are in/to/from London because that's where most of the trains are.

[Fenman]

Catch 22, isn't it? Most train journeys are in/to/from London because that's where most of the trains are.

 

But the alternative =- to build lots of brand-new railway lines joining places with little traffic - doesn't seem to make sense, does it?

 

I'd think railway network capacity ought to have some sort of relationship to the geography of the motorway network. Unsurprisingly, it does seem to.

 

Paul

[Glorious NSE]

It seems to me perfectly reasonable that London should therefore get what otherwise looks like a disproportionate share of spending.

 

There is also the reality that many actual, real, capacity improvements outside London (not just in the North, everywhere 'not London' is pretty similar) are effectively invisible due to their nature.

 

If a line with a half-hourly Sprinter needs to double it's passenger capacity, making the train 4 cars instead of 2 cars, or making it quarter hourly fulfils that, likely with no infrastructure work. Most folk will regard their morning train as not having changed though.

 

Doubling the capacity of a line that is already running max-length trains at minimum headways and loaded to capacity is going to involve new infrastructure, will be more visible, and will cost lots, lots more.

 

 

 

[caradoc]

Catch 22, isn't it? Most train journeys are in/to/from London because that's where most of the trains are.

 

And because London is a) the biggest city in the UK and b) the capital of the UK. Anyway, a major justification (in theory at least) for HS2 is that removing the longer distance trains frees up the WCML for improved services to the intermediate towns and cities. 

[Mike Storey]

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.

 

Nice try, but many of the transport professionals supporting it are retired or are hardly in need of further work and/or nearing retirement.

 

Over the past five or so years in following this, have struggled to find more than a handful of (significantly recognised and with significant experience in actually delivering schemes, as opposed to individuals with an axe to grind, or who have been employed to lobby or some "interesting" but otherwise marginal individuals) transport experts who have opposed the project. Those that have tend to argue for a different route or philosophy over interchanges etc, which are valid points of view. But even they recognise a step change is far superior over incremental change.

 

The argument that regional improvements will be lost is so contrary to the facts, it is risible. The CP6 settlement appears to involve a 20% increase in NR investment in the existing network, albeit much of this is catch-up on much work that should have been done in CP5, but also includes most schemes already earmarked for CP6. Whether NR can deliver it is another matter. But this is in parallel to the planned ramp up of expenditure on HS2 Phase 1.

 

The non-aligned professionals you cite, who argue that the HS2 BC may not be met, are almost certainly correct. It will either be a gross over-estimate or a significant undershoot. In any event, these "objective" assessors all seem to agree that something should be done, and then proceed to argue for the very solutions that almost all rail professionals (yes, those self-serving, deep state implants) know will cost much, much more, take far, far longer, cause massively more disruption to existing users, and not deliver anything like the capacity benefits across the network that a new build will do.

 

You may be right that the "public" is being prepared for some major announcement. I am not sure it is the one you think.

[The Great Bear]

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.

 

 

 

Some back of the fag pocket costs:

Typical length of bridge over hs2 - say 60m

Width between parapets no cycling faciltites - 7.3m carriageway + 2 x 2m verges = 11.3m

Deck area - 678m2

Bridge works cost - say £2700/m2

Cost = £1.83m

 

Width between paraperts with cycling facilities = 2m verge + 7.3m carriageway + 1.5m separation to cycletrack + 3.5m combined cycletrack/footpath + 0.5m allowance for edge shyness = 14.8m

So extra width = 3.5m

Extra bridge cost = £0.567m

 

Now that's just the cost of the physical works. To get a total budget cost say multiply by 2 (it can be more, probably is on hs2!) so thats £1.13m for the bridge alone. Add in a bit for the extra earthworks and bits and bobs either side so you're looking at £1.2m extra per bridge crossing or thereaouts.

 

Now on a project this size even with well over 100 bridges I'd guess arguably that's not significant but neither would I say it's "minimal".

 

I

[locoholic]

I wonder if the subject of HS2 will crop up at the Tory Party conference? There's a piece in today's Sunday Torygraph saying the Andrea Leadsom is the latest senior Tory to advocate scrapping HS2.

 

Then there is the fact that Chris Grayling supports HS2 - his support for anything usually guarantees it fails spectacularly.

[Kris]

 

Width between paraperts with cycling facilities = 2m verge + 7.3m carriageway + 1.5m separation to cycletrack + 3.5m combined cycletrack/footpath + 0.5m allowance for edge shyness = 14.8m

So extra width = 3.5m

Extra bridge cost = £0.567m

 

 

 

I suspect that the width would have to be significantly more than you have allowed for here. You'd want to be some distance from the track on a bike to avoid being bounced about by the air displaced by the train doing nearly 200mph. 

[The Great Bear]

I suspect that the width would have to be significantly more than you have allowed for here. You'd want to be some distance from the track on a bike to avoid being bounced about by the air displaced by the train doing nearly 200mph. 

 

Those dimensions were for road bridges over the railway based on what I've done on recent road schemes. From my time on hs2 working on roads for the Warwickshire section I only recall one section where cycletrack ran parallel to the railway, that was at Burton Green, where it was on top of a retained cutting IIRC.

[phil-b259]

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.

 

So you seriously think that HM Government will move the money allocated to HS2 to top up the Revenue Support Grant it gives to all local authorities if HS2 is cancelled do you?

 

Get real HM Treasury will NEVR do that - certainly with a Conservative Government wedded to austerity and shrinking the state wherever possible.

 

If HS2 is cancelled the 'savings' will simply be banked and used to pay off the national debit. As far as the Treasuary are concerned any local council that is struggling to make ends meet has nobody other than itself to blame - and they will cite any number of reasons ('overspending' on new council offices, not outsourcing enough to bring in private sector efficiencies, not banding together with other local authorities to achieve savings in bulk buying, undertaking things that should be left to the private sector to provide etc.)

 

Its delusional to think that HS2 monies will be passed on to any other organisation if HS2 does not proceed, just as its delusional to think that the WCML corridor does not require significant additional capacity. As others have said while there are valid questions over the exact details of the HS2 scheme, the general principle that a brand new line is needed remains sounds.

[locoholic]

So you seriously think that HM Government will move the money allocated to HS2 to top up the Revenue Support Grant it gives to all local authorities if HS2 is cancelled do you?

 

Get real HM Treasury will NEVR do that - certainly with a Conservative Government wedded to austerity and shrinking the state wherever possible.

 

If HS2 is cancelled the 'savings' will simply be banked and used to pay off the national debit. As far as the Treasuary are concerned any local council that is struggling to make ends meet has nobody other than itself to blame - and they will cite any number of reasons ('overspending' on new council offices, not outsourcing enough to bring in private sector efficiencies, not banding together with other local authorities to achieve savings in bulk buying, undertaking things that should be left to the private sector to provide etc.)

 

Its delusional to think that HS2 monies will be passed on to any other organisation if HS2 does not proceed, just as its delusional to think that the WCML corridor does not require significant additional capacity. As others have said while there are valid questions over the exact details of the HS2 scheme, the general principle that a brand new line is needed remains sounds.

Well, we shall see, won't we?! Considering all the recent negative rail-related news stories, I bet there aren't too many at the Tory conference who would admit to being train enthusiasts.

[Trog]

There are no HS2 monies to pass on as the government would be borrowing the money to build it. While this is OK to build infrastructure that will earn money and create other taxable economic activity to pay back the loan. It is madness for day to day expenditure as in the future some time you will end up paying for both then and today at the same time.

[lmsforever]

Do I detect a change in attitude to this white elephant ,don't be fooled by the free up lines to enable more trains between towns it will not happen due to the owners of HS2 needing every passenger to make it pay.HS2 will dominate travel by train from London and the traditional lines will merely be surburban lines with slow trains and many changes to reach towns previously easy to get to.People in the the northern reaches of Bucks Herts will not want to pay extra fares into Euston and then an extorniate fare to the north and north west, we are not all as rich as is made out by many people on here.At the moment we have several hub stations where fast trains to the north are available at reasonable fares.                                                                                                              HS2 is not good for travel opportunities for average passengers it will be interesting to see just what is the intended market of passengers on this divisive railway will be. Hopefully sense will prevail and it will be stopped and as for austerity its making sure that money is spent sensibly on things that matter.Plus if a certain party gets into power the country will be bankcrupt in a very short time and  and investment in transport will not happen.

[phil-b259]

Do I detect a change in attitude to this white elephant ,don't be fooled by the free up lines to enable more trains between towns it will not happen due to the owners of HS2 needing every passenger to make it pay.HS2 will dominate travel by train from London and the traditional lines will merely be surburban lines with slow trains and many changes to reach towns previously easy to get to.People in the the northern reaches of Bucks Herts will not want to pay extra fares into Euston and then an extorniate fare to the north and north west, we are not all as rich as is made out by many people on here.At the moment we have several hub stations where fast trains to the north are available at reasonable fares.                                                                                                              HS2 is not good for travel opportunities for average passengers it will be interesting to see just what is the intended market of passengers on this divisive railway will be. Hopefully sense will prevail and it will be stopped and as for austerity its making sure that money is spent sensibly on things that matter.Plus if a certain party gets into power the country will be bankcrupt in a very short time and  and investment in transport will not happen.

 

Please show me documentary proof (NOT written by campaign groups by the way) that:-

 

(I) Existing trains will be massively slowed down to force folk onto HS2

(ii) Fares on HS2 will be significantly higher than on the conventional network

 

Suggestions that this will be the case are total speculation by those with an axe to grind and not backed up by any official proposals.

 

What we do know is that the removal of some London - Manchester / Liverpool / Scotland services from the WCML will allow for more semi-fast / suburban stops - however as Coventry & Wolverhampton will not be served by HS2, the need for some fast services will remain.

 

As regards fares, it is likely that a modest premium will be placed on HS2 fares - just as has been done with HS1 for domestic services from Kent. To suggest this premium will somehow make HS2 fares unaffordable to most is total scaremongering. Given the need to ensure the trains are as full as possible then its most likely that the model in use on the rest on the national rail network will be followed - discounts for early booking / off peak travel, etc)

 

Finally whilst we don't do politics on this forum (for very good reasons) it does not automatically follow that what a party says in opposition (or indeed the campaign trail) is not necessarily what will happen if it gains power. In any case I would wager that the consequences of Brexit will have far more effect on the prosperity of this country than anything a potential Labour Government might do.

Edited September 30, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

Well, we shall see, won't we?! Considering all the recent negative rail-related news stories, I bet there aren't too many at the Tory conference who would admit to being train enthusiasts.

 

Things are not as straightforward as you assume! You don't need to be a rail enthusiast to appreciate that the crapness of roads entering London (particularly from the south) means that railway commuting is here to stay regardless of the chaos of recent years.

 

While it is true that many Conservative members have been highly critical of the way central Government has behaved, they are equally aware that Labour party economic policies are extremely unpopular with their electorate and when push comes to shove, most of their constituents will still vote Conservative in any general election to keep the 'reds' out.

 

Already we see signs that Thameslink is recovering from the timetable meltdown and if things continue the crisis will largely be over in a years time. Come the next general election it will be the fall out from Brexit and economics that will be of primary importance to the electorate - not railway policy

[pete_mcfarlane]

As far as I can tell from the coverage of the Tory conference, the anti-HS2 sentiment is largely just grandstanding by Boris Johnson. This is probably more related to his having a massive Ted Heath style sulk, and opposing all current Government policies, than anything else. 

[hayfield]

Please show me documentary proof (NOT written by campaign groups by the way) that:-

 

(I) Existing trains will be massively slowed down to force folk onto HS2

(ii) Fares on HS2 will be significantly higher than on the conventional network

 

Suggestions that this will be the case are total speculation by those with an axe to grind and not backed up by any official proposals.

 

What we do know is that the removal of some London - Manchester / Liverpool / Scotland services from the WCML will allow for more semi-fast / suburban stops - however as Coventry & Wolverhampton will not be served by HS2, the need for some fast services will remain.

 

As regards fares, it is likely that a modest premium will be placed on HS2 fares - just as has been done with HS1 for domestic services from Kent. To suggest this premium will somehow make HS2 fares unaffordable to most is total scaremongering. Given the need to ensure the trains are as full as possible then its most likely that the model in use on the rest on the national rail network will be followed - discounts for early booking / off peak travel, etc)

 

Finally whilst we don't do politics on this forum (for very good reasons) it does not automatically follow that what a party says in opposition (or indeed the campaign trail) is not necessarily what will happen if it gains power. In any case I would wager that the consequences of Brexit will have far more effect on the prosperity of this country than anything a potential Labour Government might do.

 

 

Phil

 

You have hit the nail on the head, both east and west coast main lines are full to bursting and if we can have a dedicated high speed north out of London which will A) free up space on the existing main lines for additional commuting trains, and B) make journeys even faster and more convenient to other cities then its a win win. Whatever is said the country requires more commuter and also city to city services. Railways must go where the travelers (people pay a premium to be near a station) are and where they want to go. Therefore it stands to reason some will be disturbed. Care should be given to resolve problems of blight as quickly as possible

 

Anyone suggesting that some existing commuters could swap to cars for their journeys must be totally unaware of the traffic issues in London and its suburbs, Commuting in outer London  8 miles took on an excellent day took 20 mins, on a bad day 60+ mins (no public transport on the journey I had to make) . I understand South London is worse.

 

Whilst jobs stay in and around the capital and workers want to live in either suburbia or the country an efficient public transport system is required, changing ones working hours may ease the individuals problems, but this is not possible with some jobs, or workers do not want to work outside what is seen as the normal working day. 

[jjb1970]

As far as I can tell from the coverage of the Tory conference, the anti-HS2 sentiment is largely just grandstanding by Boris Johnson. This is probably more related to his having a massive Ted Heath style sulk, and opposing all current Government policies, than anything else. 

 

What he said, I fear he will be the next Ted Heath, appearing to take shots at whoever is leader of the Tories for the next several decades and peddling ever more bizarre ideas. That's assuming there isn't a real disaster and he doesn't end up as leader of the party.... You can see the same attitude in Osborne, his vendetta against Theresa May has devalued the London Evening Standard as any news on a certain subject is written off as just part of his sulk at the way he was "let go".

[locoholic]

Please show me documentary proof (NOT written by campaign groups by the way) that:-

 

(I) Existing trains will be massively slowed down to force folk onto HS2

(ii) Fares on HS2 will be significantly higher than on the conventional network

 

Suggestions that this will be the case are total speculation by those with an axe to grind and not backed up by any official proposals.

 

What we do know is that the removal of some London - Manchester / Liverpool / Scotland services from the WCML will allow for more semi-fast / suburban stops - however as Coventry & Wolverhampton will not be served by HS2, the need for some fast services will remain.

 

As regards fares, it is likely that a modest premium will be placed on HS2 fares - just as has been done with HS1 for domestic services from Kent. To suggest this premium will somehow make HS2 fares unaffordable to most is total scaremongering. Given the need to ensure the trains are as full as possible then its most likely that the model in use on the rest on the national rail network will be followed - discounts for early booking / off peak travel, etc)

 

Finally whilst we don't do politics on this forum (for very good reasons) it does not automatically follow that what a party says in opposition (or indeed the campaign trail) is not necessarily what will happen if it gains power. In any case I would wager that the consequences of Brexit will have far more effect on the prosperity of this country than anything a potential Labour Government might do.

One person's "modest premium" is another person's "significant increase".

 

And as for fast services for Wolverhampton and Coventry etc, won't all the extra semi-fast services on the WCML get in the way?