HS2 under review

[Guest dilbert]

Shorter journey times, less overcrowding and more services arent tangible?

 

If thats the case, what on earth is? Providing more capacity while reducing journey times are the most compelling reasons for investing in any transport infrastructure.

Chris

 

No there is not IMO - soft benefits, but nothing concrete. If this is such a sure fire project then the private sector would be queueing to invest... all there is at the moment are very generalised comments to the effect that it should be good for business.

 

The reason I refer to this is that way back in the 19c it was private investment that developed the railway system - and regulated by Parliament thru various Acts that were passed. Now we're seeing the opposite and a private sector that seems very reluctant to blow the trumpet... dilbert

Edited January 10, 2012 by dilbert

[S.A.C Martin]

The argument about capacity is a compelling one. No one against HS2 has offered a solution to the problems of capacity. Not one.

 

Christian Woolmar's comments were "interesting", given his background.

 

I'd love to know, by the way, what electric train produces sounds to the same decibel level as these generic jet engines people keep using as comparison for 200mph trains...!

 

Rolls Royce, can we borrow one of your Trent engines please? First to prove the sound argument wrong, then to push all the lazy researchers for the anti HS2 brigade into it.

 

Problem solved.

[Christopher125]

No there is not IMO - soft benefits, but nothing concrete. If this is such a sure fire project then the private sector would be queueing to invest... all there is at the moment are very generalised comments to the effect that it should be good for business.

 

The reason I refer to this is that way back in the 19c it was private investment that developed the railway system - and regulated by Parliament thru various Acts that were passed. Now we're seeing the opposite and a private sector that seems very reluctant to blow the trumpet... dilbert

 

I'll say it again - if significantly shorter journey times, capacity for more local, commuter and regional services on existing mainlines and not having to stand south of Crewe arent 'concrete' benefits im not sure what are!

 

I dont really see the relevance of private investors, they arent interested in building this kind of long-term, politically controversial and very expensive project and i cant see why they would - HS2 is as much, if not more about indirect benefits to existing lines and services and its effect on local and regional economies.

 

Chris

Edited January 11, 2012 by Christopher125

[Guest Max Stafford]

 

I'd love to know, by the way, what electric train produces sounds to the same decibel level as these generic jet engines people keep using as comparison for 200mph trains...!

 

Rolls Royce, can we borrow one of your Trent engines please? First to prove the sound argument wrong, then to push all the lazy researchers for the anti HS2 brigade into it.

 

Problem solved.

 

Just as long as it doesn't blow the ballast away like last time!

 

Dave.

[Ron Ron Ron]

The argument about capacity is a compelling one. No one against HS2 has offered a solution to the problems of capacity. Not one.

The case for a capacity increase is indeed a compelling one and must be addressed, but some of the alleged economic benefits being touted consist of a number of facile and vacuous arguments.

 

Lots of talk of various anti-HS2 and NIMBY people talking rubbish, but today there have been a number of people speaking against HS2 on both radio and TV who have much more down to earth and better informed opinion.

When Norman Baker, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, was challenged on the claimed financial benefits largely consisting of theoretical cost savings from businessmen spending less time on the train (in the belief that a 30 minute time saving = £20 or thereabouts p/passenger saved for business), he declined to respond and defend it.

The guy from 51m, the association of local authorities along the route, on Newsnight make some very compelling and lucid points against.

A couple of spokesmen from economic policy groups have also made some goods points.

 

One detailed analysis has alleged that the official estimated cost of £33 billion by 2033 (Manchester and Leeds) was at 2010 prices and that with the current rate of inflation at todays prices (i.e. no cost over-run), by 2033 it would cost over £50 billion. The government are talking about the financing being recovered over 60 years, by which time the cost could be over £120 billion at 2012 prices !!

Now I've no idea if these sort of figures are anywhere near correct, or a work of total fiction, but remember the massive cost over-run and huge debt with the Channel Tunnel. The bulk of the debt was caused by financing it, not the cost of building the thing.

 

For me, Pete Waterman summed it up very well at lunchtime.

Earlier in the day he was popping up all over the place on TV and Radio and to be perfectly frank he mostly came over, as he usually does to me, as a bit of a Loon, especially on the 5 Live phone-in where all you could hear in the background while he was still on the phone line, was him wheezing and panting between his contributions.

 

However, on TV at lunchtime he appeared with Adonis and a guy from an economic policy review body (might have been from the CBI?), outside of Westminster.

Naturally Pete was making the case for HS2 and the railways in general, this time in a much better and convincing manner. When put to him, the economists view that the numbers just didn't stack in any way, Pete agreed.

He said something along the lines of.... "....of course it makes no economic sense, no railways ever did. But we need to build this line regardless".

Whether he realised it or not, this was about the truest statement in favour that I've heard all day.

 

Pete also ended by telling the tale how improvements on the WCML over the years had enabled him in an earlier life to commute from Coventry to London and earn quite a lot more money than he could of done working in Coventry; and in more recent times to commute from Warrington to London. He suggested that HS2 would in future allow people in the Midlands and North to commute to London for better paid work.

That again appeared to undermine one of the governments other arguments; this time the one that says benefits will be going in the other direction !

 

As a pure layman observer, all I can see is that there is an urgent need for this much needed capacity; but there isn't any convincing economic argument to back that up.

My feeling is that we need the new line, but I can't stand some of the bu****it being used to justify it.

I'm glad the politicians are finally biting the bullet, but whether it's the right bullet, I'm yet to be convinced.

There is also the question about the rest of the railway network. £33 billion would buy an awful lot of improvement to the railways and would benefit many times the number of people than will benefit from HS2 and its knock on effects.

 

 

.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Ron Ron Ron

[Allegheny1600]

The reason I refer to this is that way back in the 19c it was private investment that developed the railway system - and regulated by Parliament thru various Acts that were passed. Now we're seeing the opposite and a private sector that seems very reluctant to blow the trumpet... dilbert

Yes!

Back in the very early days of railways, it was indeed private investment (in this country!) that built the railways - and those investors sometimes made a lot of money! The (main?) reason you don't see private investors queueing up to invest right now is that this is a 'mega-project' that simply has to have government backing

With government backing, when the project gets off the ground - then you may well see the private investor following, only it won't be Joe Bloggs with a grand here and there, it will be your major corporations and your pension fund's etc.

Also, experience in other countries teaches us that;

a: other countries railways were always state owned & run

b: AFAIK every other HS line in the world is state owned & run. Why? They are simply too expensive!

Sure! They will make money but the pay-back period is so long (many decades) that only governments/nations can truly recieve the benefits of investing in them.

And that is the crux of the matter: Railways are still tightly entwined in the socio-economic fabric of society and our societies cannot grow without them.

The fact that some individuals cannot see any benefit (for themselves!) is irrelevant.

Governments build things like this for the greater benefit.

Cheers,

John E.

[Christopher125]

There is also the question about the rest of the railway network. £33 billion would buy an awful lot of improvement to the railways and would benefit many times the number of people than will benefit from HS2 and its knock on effects.

 

If the WCML capacity crisis goes away so will the argument for spending an extra couple of billion on the rail network per year, if it doesnt then short term measures to try and mitigate it before HS2 is back on the table again will still need to be paid for.

 

Remember, HS2 wont be paid for out of departmental funds - is it really likely the Treasury would give the DfT £1-2bn per year for over a decade to spend on alternative rail projects? Without the 'transformative effects' of a project like HS2 on the nations economy and the north-south divide it would be a hard sell.

 

Finally, i dont see how you can spend the same sum elsewhere to benefit more people - HS2 will free up the WCML, MML and ECML for more and better regional and commuter services, speed up services to a huge range of destinations while cause far less disruption than squeezing more out of the current network could ever achieve.

 

Chris

Edited January 11, 2012 by Christopher125

[Glorious NSE]

The bulk of the debt was caused by financing it, not the cost of building the thing.

 

Unfortunately the same seems to be true of just about everything we do, including current "conventional" rail projects and even rolling stock purchase - not just this one...

 

And that includes major projects on schools, hospitals, yadda yadda yadda too...

 

That again appeared to undermine one of the governments other arguments; this time the one that says benefits will be going in the other direction !

 

Even in that scenario benefits do go in that direction - assuming the whole of the better salary doesn't all go on a season ticket (which would negate the point of doing it!) then they will be spending most of those additional earnings in the area where they live, not in London, bringing business to local businesses in that area.

[edcayton]

.

 

Pete also ended by telling the tale how improvements on the WCML over the years had enabled him in an earlier life to commute from Coventry to London and earn quite a lot more money than he could of done working in Coventry; and in more recent times to commute from Warrington to London. He suggested that HS2 would in future allow people in the Midlands and North to commute to London for better paid work.

 

 

 

.

 

I really hope not! It seems to be accepted that if you build a new road it just generates new traffic to the extent that it becomes just as congested as the old ones, does this happen with rail too? The European experience would suggest it does.

 

BUT, surely we should be encouraging people to travel LESS by whatever means? The lemming-like idiocy of commuting is no good for anyone. I know people have to do it, but what a waste of time, energy and resources!

 

I really do think that a fundamental re-think is needed for this (and for new roads too before you shoot me down).

 

Ed

[S.A.C Martin]

[re Commuting] I know people have to do it

 

Then that's as good a reason as any. Whether we like it or not you have to go where the jobs are, and that's why my day starts at half 5 in the morning, followed by a one to two hour drive from Sidcup along the M25 and I'm in High Wycombe to open the office for everyone else by half 8.

 

HS2 is necessary for capacity problems - nobody disagrees with that - and if it gives scope for people to commute and make it into work in London/Birmingham/Leeds/etc quicker then it benefits the commuters on both the high speed line and the "slow" line by freeing up slots for more trains.

 

The age of the internet has not seen the rise of video conferencing many people said it would, particularly amongst smaller businesses as it is still too expensive to set up a half decent conferencing system. Many companies could have their employees work from home using a "road to work" system but then you wouldn't have the atmosphere of an office and perhaps not the same level of commitment to doing any work.

 

Therefore you need to improve transport for the commuter, all levels of them. If you remove the high end business users who will be able to pay for the new line, you free up space on the actual trains on the older, slower lines. That's the argument which seems to be presented by the pro-HS2 side and one I find logical. The question I would have, is this argument proven elsewhere in the world?

[Re6/6]

I really can't see what the views or opinions of those who live "somewhere near a proposed line" matter particularly -This isn't about them or what they may gain or lose; Its about widening the scope for economic development of the country away from the already (generally) affluent South East towards the North and the Midlands where it is desperately needed, as much as anything.

 

Right on the money there Mickey.

 

Without wishing to stereotype the individuals that were to be seen on TV last night, they all seemed well heeled and monied sitting in their Chilterns pub being asked simplistic questions by the reporter. With responses like "one wouldn't want this sort of thing in near one's property" says it all. Tough, sh*t happens as they say. If it didn't come now something similar would have to happen at some time in the future.....The expression 'the greater good' comes to mind.

 

Let's hope that this is the end of it. I somehow doubt it with the threat of judicial revues etc...

[Chris Higgs]

Dont these people realise how High speed has revolutionised travel not just in Europe but all over the world including morocco ( which has commited to more mileage that we have) & the argument that the WCML could be up graded to except the capacity and to upgrade line speed to any where near HS2 have obviously no clue about Railways.

 

Well, yes and no. They have built a high speed route from Brussels to Liege (near where I live). It is little used by high speed trains, a bit more so by conventional trains using a non-stop route which cut half and hour off the trip. Even these only run twice an hour each way, so hardly releasing loads of extra capacity on the conventional route. The extra 15 minutes reduction in travel time by going in the Thalys just isn't worth the extra money they want. I cannot see that it has paid for itself, or ever will.

 

So NIMBys or not, these thing do actually have to make economic sense. To be honest the minutes saved London-Birmingham really don't impress me that much, It is when you start to talk about Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow it begins to add up. So if they only intend to build to Birmingham I would forget it. It needs to be part of an overall strategic vision for a national network, as it was in France. I somehow wonder if that is really the case in the UK. It certainly won't help anyone in Caridff or Exeter.

 

Chris

[devondynosoar118]

 

 

Well, yes and no. They have built a high speed route from Brussels to Liege (near where I live). It is little used by high speed trains, a bit more so by conventional trains using a non-stop route which cut half and hour off the trip. Even these only run twice an hour each way, so hardly releasing loads of extra capacity on the conventional route. The extra 15 minutes reduction in travel time by going in the Thalys just isn't worth the extra money they want. I cannot see that it has paid for itself, or ever will.

 

So NIMBys or not, these thing do actually have to make economic sense. To be honest the minutes saved London-Birmingham really don't impress me that much, It is when you start to talk about Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow it begins to add up. So if they only intend to build to Birmingham I would forget it. It needs to be part of an overall strategic vision for a national network, as it was in France. I somehow wonder if that is really the case in the UK. It certainly won't help anyone in Caridff or Exeter.

Chris

 

Or the south west in general, where we have some of the lowest wages in the country and continuing housing issues caused by affluent speculators and second homers from the south east.

[jonhall]

 

If this is such a sure fire project then the private sector would be queueing to invest... all there is at the moment are very generalised comments to the effect that it should be good for business.

 

The reason I refer to this is that way back in the 19c it was private investment that developed the railway system - and regulated by Parliament thru various Acts that were passed. Now we're seeing the opposite and a private sector that seems very reluctant to blow the trumpet... dilbert

 

The problem is that the builder (and probably operator) won't actually make any money, even in the long run - the economic benefit to the UK comes from the users of the line (and users of the capacity freed eleswhere WCML or M1/M40) become more economically active, and consequently the level of unemployment benefits is reduced, and the tax take is increased - the beneficiary will ultimately be the government (and hopefully you and I the British taxpayers), but quantifing the 'return' is going to be tricky.

 

Jon

[Glorious NSE]

Well, yes and no. They have built a high speed route from Brussels to Liege (near where I live). It is little used by high speed trains, a bit more so by conventional trains using a non-stop route which cut half and hour off the trip. Even these only run twice an hour each way, so hardly releasing loads of extra capacity on the conventional route.

 

I don't know the line in question or what the case for building it was, but if you take for example a theoretical mixed traffic line with a couple of stopping passengers averaging 40mph, a couple of freights which can cruise at 60mph and a couple of 100mph express passengers an hour, removing the two express passenger trains might free up space for maybe 8(*) additional freights which run at 60mph...

 

(*depends on a lot of things - how long is the line, are there loops, how many, how far apart etc etc etc)

[spamcan61]

This article sums up my concerns about assumtpions made in the business case:-

 

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-why-the-numbers-dont-add-up-on-hs2/9048

 

A multi multi billion pound project needs a more robust business case, or at least an admission that most of the numbers are guesses, expensively taxpayer funded ones at that.

[Jamie]

While Ch.4 is one of the more respectable news organisations in my estimation, I'd far rather see the original DfT or consultant's report. I'll need to look to see what's available.

 

Ch.4 seem to be determining only the validity of the Minister's statement - not checking the soundness of the underlying study.

 

Politicians' quotes, along with 'think-tank' commentary, are all very well, but I trust neither set of soundbites to correctly and clearly represent the findings (and basis) of the economic study.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Post-1955 English thinking is famous for finding an entire raft of excuses not to do something before considering one good reason to do it. It seems that something happened about then that caused most of the 'can do' spirit to vanish in the face of an obsession with cost at the expense of an appreciation of value.

Many arguments have been made concerning costs (inevitably) and suggested better use of the funds.

If we are serious about using state money more wisely, perhaps we should think twice before bankrolling nuclear powers with indigenous space programmes and trying to maintain at great cost the delusion that we are still a global power.

 

As the song went; "...there's no future when England's dreaming..."

 

Dave.

[298]

I really can't see what the views or opinions of those who live "somewhere near a proposed line" matter particularly -This isn't about them or what they may gain or lose; Its about widening the scope for economic development of the country away from the already (generally) affluent South East towards the North and the Midlands where it is desperately needed, as much as anything.

 

They really shouldn't take it so personally, if it wasn't "near" their house, it's be close to somebody else's and they'd be the ones hunted out by the media to express their sorrow at the decision that they'd be ignorant to regard as anything but inevitable. I only hope that someone points out to them that any money spent on expensive lawyers fighting a judicial review will come out of the enviromental budget for the line.

 

As for WCML upgrades, I'd like to see how any more can be done without additional serious disruption to the existing railway, as there aren't any more "easy wins" such as the Milton Keynes Down Fast platform avoider, and converting just the 18 mile Coventry-Proof House line to 4 tracks will disrupt more private property than the entire HS2 route.

[lmsforever]

I live less than half a mile from this line in Aylesbury,I am not rich,dont live in a mansion ,the construction work is going to add a couple of miles on the journey to Oxford as they want to shut the road whilst the line is built.This diversion will also stay after its open and will take traffic through a tiny hamlet and across green feilds which doubtless will have houses built there.The promised export of work to the north will not happen as businesses want to be in or near London and I doubt that government will want to spend money on grants ,and I dont think that employers will countance expendeture on tickets the price equivalant of bussiness class airline seats. We have a right to speak our minds on this project and maybe the powers that be will listen ,and yes our thoughts do matter ,in the 1960,s we stopped an airport being built at Wing and that was announced as a done deal by the government of the day so watch this space.

[Supaned]

As others have commented , the anti-HS2 claims of alternatives to increase capacity clearly haven't been thought out either.

 

Longer trains on the WCML - the platforms are being lengthened where required to accomodate 11 car Pendolinos , if the trains were to be made even longer , some station layouts would need massive remodelling to allow for this , which as can be imagined doesn't come cheap. As a colleague who is a signaller at Rugby pointed out recently , the WCML is not pretty much at capacity , there really isn't the pathing to run any more trains with the system as it stands , longer trains wouldn't really solve the issue.

Regarding the Coventry- Birmingham corridor , as 298 has pointed out , the engineering required to quadruple the line (and shift the NEC or Airport to do this) again would be immense , and far more houses would be disrupted than the entire HS2 route , for negligible overall benefit. I'm sure others could cite areas local to them where some capacity changes could be made , but it doesn't solve the overall issue.

 

I think the announcement has been a little bit mis-managed , HS2 to Birmingham alone is not a particularly marketable idea - with the extensions to Leeds and Manchester and the journey savings (and hoped for reductions in air and road travel as a result) , then that would hopefully be far more broadly welcomed.

[JeffP]

Has anyone else mentioned the JOBS that would be created, were it to be built? Over quite a long period?

 

I WOULD like to know why it's going to take us 14 years to build 100 miles while it took the French around 6years to build around 250 miles....across FAR more difficult terrain?

 

Probably for the same reason theat the A1(M) near Peterborough took nearly FOUR years to build TWELVE miles, in which time the French shoved the A75 through hills, across valleys etc a total of nearly 50 miles.

[frobisher]

I WOULD like to know why it's going to take us 14 years to build 100 miles while it took the French around 6years to build around 250 miles....across FAR more difficult terrain?

 

I think the French authorities have a slightly more robust attitude in regards compulsary purchase orders...

 

The population density of the UK is a lot higher than France, so hence the number of landowners per square mile you have to deal with is higher in he UK as well, all of which slows the process down.

[Glorious NSE]

I live less than half a mile from this line in Aylesbury,I am not rich,dont live in a mansion ,the construction work is going to add a couple of miles on the journey to Oxford as they want to shut the road whilst the line is built.This diversion will also stay after its open and will take traffic through a tiny hamlet and across green feilds which doubtless will have houses built there.

 

Erm - where are you talking about? I'm making the assumption you're talking about the A418, and whilst there's a small divergence to build a bridge where none exists now the route of the road is pretty much the same as it is at the moment. Looking at that whilst you might need the road closed (unless they can fit in a temporary one next to it) whilst the bridge is built you won't need the road closed right through construction either...

[Edwin_m]

The lower population density also means that France has a lot more empty space where railways can be built without upsetting people. Also the distances between cities are greater so the journey time saving is more signficant.