HS2 under review

[rockershovel]

 

Re Duncan, above, Germans have a flourishing rental sector because they have a regulated rental sector with clearly defined goals. They also have a social care system which recovers very high percentages of accrued wealth against social care costs. If they think our rental sector looks bad from Germany, they should see it closer up... I’ve lately been renting a flat in Plymouth for work reasons, for the first time in almost twenty years, and it has been a very rude shock to the system.

 

Our rental system is chaotic and utterly dysfunctional, precisely because it is designed to prioritise rent-seeking, quick returns, pursuit of agency fees and minimum involvement by landlords who in many cases are under-capitalised, absentee or simply disinterested. This isn’t new; George Orwell offered a similar analysis of a rental sector containing high demand and a high proportion of small landlords (Road to Wigan Pier). 

 

[rockershovel]

Regarding the hypothetical French tourist wishing to travel to the Midlands by train, why does he not simply fly to Birmingham or Manchester? However if he is REALLY determined to travel by train, it’s worth pointing out that it’s only a few minutes’ walk from St Pancras to Euston....

 

[Mike Storey]

2 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Re Mike Storey, above, pressure on housing and services tends to lag behind population growth from “natural causes” (for want of a better term) for the simple reason that as people grow up, they require homes and other facilities. This is pretty much how demographic predictions work, and the planning based upon them, work. 

 

Population  growth by mass immigration is demographically different to population growth by “natural causes” because it admits population who require homes and facilities immediately, not in 18 or 23 years’ time. 

 

Dont overlook also that percentage growth rates from a higher base point, are numerically larger than growth rates from a lower one, or that they occur IN ADDITION TO growth already in the system. No, the present growth is very different from the growth of the 60s and 70s. 

 

“Safe bricks and mortar syndrome”  was also a quite simple phenomenon to understand. People easily understood that in a high inflation economy, where saving is pointless and the current value of borrowing repayments are rapidly eroded relative to income, the most logical thing to do is accrue fixed assets, which rise in nominal value as inflation continues. It’s also quite easy to understand the concept that every penny you DON’T pay in rent, is a penny to your advantage - because you haven’t given it to someone else. 

 

 

 

 

Completely agree. However, the baby boom of the 60's would have caused that pressure in the 1980's, not the 1970's, which is when house prices started to accelerate faster than ever before. Which is why I stand by my point that house prices are affected by more matters than just demographic change.

 

Nonetheless, the point you make about immigration affecting population growth, is also more nuanced than you suggest. It is the children of those immigrants, two thirds of whom are non-EU (so this will not change with Brexit unless there is a dramatic, unforecasted change,) that have been a substantial cause of growth in demand, not just immigration de facto (many T2 EU immigrants have been prepared to accept grossly overcrowded or unregistered accommodation, largely off the grid, and more of them are now leaving than arriving, ref ONS Feb report) , alongside a very significant life expectancy improvement over the past 20 years (but not last year apparently).

 

But I agree that additional provision, for normal wage earners, has been woefully inadequate in the last thirty plus years, and the policies of all governments since then have been detrimental. What worries me now, whatever the situation as regards foreign ownership, is that, if prices are falling on average, developers will be less inclined to build more houses, and we neither have a government that is willing to inject more than a token gesture into such provision, or an opposition, that would probably do it on a grand scale, that is able to gain government, because too many voters have too much at stake against falling house prices, or even if they don't, still seem to think that their relative poverty will not be resolved by anybody doing anything differently to what they do now. Strange, and perhaps irreconcilable in the current voting arrangements.

 

[mikejames]

seems to be quite a way away from HS2

[Mike Storey]

50 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

Re Duncan, above, Germans have a flourishing rental sector because they have a regulated rental sector with clearly defined goals. They also have a social care system which recovers very high percentages of accrued wealth against social care costs. If they think our rental sector looks bad from Germany, they should see it closer up... I’ve lately been renting a flat in Plymouth for work reasons, for the first time in almost twenty years, and it has been a very rude shock to the system.

 

Our rental system is chaotic and utterly dysfunctional, precisely because it is designed to prioritise rent-seeking, quick returns, pursuit of agency fees and minimum involvement by landlords who in many cases are under-capitalised, absentee or simply disinterested. This isn’t new; George Orwell offered a similar analysis of a rental sector containing high demand and a high proportion of small landlords (Road to Wigan Pier). 

 

 

Hmmm, whilst I agree with that in relative terms, Germany's current housing crisis suggests they are facing much the same problems now as the UK, with fast rising prices and a shrinkage of social housing provision, primarily in their cities. It has just lagged the UK's problems, that's all. Rent controls have also expired by now for many people, and they are not proposed as part of the new tax incentives to get the private sector to build more appartments and houses.

 

They have had a large, sudden influx of refugee immigrants (but far less in total than normal, permanent immigration to the UK over the past 15 years, mostly from non-EU countries, primarily India), and have long had a policy of guest workers on temporary visas "gastarbiter" (mainly from Turkey). But these workers tend to be housed outside the main city limits. My personal experience is of Munich, where BMW required large numbers of such immigrants, just to stand still, because of a falling birth rate and an ageing population. Each morning they arrived in buses, and each evening they caught buses out, from/to an old military barracks in the foothills, and whilst staying out for the night in Munich itself was not illegal, woe betide any that did so, as I saw for myself. I am not suggesting the UK should adopt these, frankly disturbing, practices. But the German housing crisis is apparently driven overall by much the same factors as in the UK - increasing reliance on private developers, private landlords and a woeful new build programme. Yet again, as in the UK, there are calls for relaxing planning and building regulations and controls.

 

Incidentally, there is no restriction on foreign ownership, and that is becoming a problem in Berlin, much like London.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-soaring-housing-prices-spark-calls-for-reform/a-45595777

Edited March 3, 2019 by Mike Storey
forgot attachment

[Mike Storey]

20 minutes ago, mikejames said:

seems to be quite a way away from HS2

 

You are right of course. But I guess it is stimulated by the proposed benefits of HS2. If people do not feel it will benefit them, because recent economic stimuli have tended to benefit only those who are relatively well off already, then HS2 has a problem. The property ownership/rental market is a key aspect of that disatisfaction. If people believe HS2 will cause house prices to rise further north, but will not necessarily generate the extra, well paid jobs that are suggested, then they will naturally be agin it.

 

What does surprise me though, is the rising popularity of the claim that HS3 / Northern Powerhouse, should be built instead (rather than as well), because that will benefit more people.  Will it?  Why would the economic stimuli of that be any different, for the average person, than HS2? We have already seen local people pushed out of longstanding communities at Hebden Bridge, Todmorden, Halifax, and large parts of Leeds and Manchester, because of newcomers arriving for new jobs in the media, certain govt departments and the ancillary service sectors to support them,  They are the loudest in demanding improved commuting to their jobs in Salford, Leeds central or other parts, where they would rather not live.

 

The housing sector is particularly relevant to transport improvements.

 

[mikejames]

The problem with 'popular' treads is they become overloaded with

side issues that are sort of relevant but distract from the main 'theme'-

the hs2/hs3 either/or/both is a good example for this thread.

Housing policy and its effect on hs2 is another.

The problem is that it is difficult to 'split off' a side topic

once a tread is running.

To a reader it is often obvious that material about xx should separated but linked

but I wouldn't know how to accieve this.

Can the 'mods' think how this might be accieved with only a small amount of work?

 

regards

mike j

 

 

 

[locoholic]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Where exactly does it say Section 16 is supposed to be used only for that purpose???

 

It isn't true (did you bother reading the documents I have recently attached?). The Safeguarded Zones are just that, and can be used for any purposes pursuant to the eventual construction and (to a lesser extent) maintenance of the railway route and ancillary works. Whether the large extent of those Zones is entirely necessary must have been covered during consultation and parliamentary process. It is redundant to go over all that again.

 

 So it is all about non-payment or late payment. I would entirely agree that is unfair. Please don't attack me personally for asking what the key issue was. But do we know why that is happening, from that programme? Was "we must do better" or similar, HS2's or DfT's only comment? Was the Independent Commissioner for Construction, whose only responsibility is to keep an eye on, and resolve this stuff,  interviewed?

 

 

You have avoided the central issue: the final design for HS2 has not been agreed, but they are acquiring access to vast amounts of land using Schedule 16, even though they cannot use most of the land until the design has been finalised. In the mean time, the landowners are suffering financial losses, and for HS2 the costs of compulsory purchase are delayed, to the benefit of their balance sheet. It is encumbent upon HS2 to use their powers responsibly, which they are patently not doing. 

[rockershovel]

Re Mike Storey and Mike James, above, it seems to me that the key question is WHAT, in fact, is the ACTUAL purpose of HS1,2,3 and so ad infinitum? 

 

One thing which became quite obvious in 2016, was that an unmanageably large block of voters voted against a situation which seemed to have no relevance to their lives and problems. I can’t see how HSx changes that, because it seems to create movement without creating wealth. 

 

Jaguar are paid substantial sums to relocate to Slovakia, and we are prevented from matching the offer. Airbus seems to be going the way of Concorde; production will stop in 2021, because it simply doesn’t meet market demands. Nissan only actually make one model in Sunderland, and that’s its biggest seller in the U.K. market. Siemens seem to be able to secure their pick of rollingstock contracts. 

 

I simply can’t follow the logic of why facilitating movement of people from London to Birmingham or Manchester, addresses those issues. 

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by rockershovel

[adb968008]

Connecting HS1 to HS2 would make sense if it were in Stratford, so as to facilitate through london Crossrail running and hence an onward domestic termination in Kent, and perhaps off to Anglia.

 

services such as Dover to Manchester, stopping at Crossrails central london stops is far more useful to avoiding unneccessary connecting trains and negates any need for a Euston Palatial station as is being proposed.

 

it would also give some purpose to Old Oak Common, as connections here offer ease of transfer from Anglia / Kent to GWML and Chiltern destinations.

 

A nice commonsense add on could be a Clapham Junction, to Tottenham court road line, to give accessto HS2 from the south.

[rockershovel]

NRe Mike Storey, above; irreconcilable by current voting arrangements? Why, yes. Watch the chaos in Westminster .... there’s a fundamental problem, in that the EU doesn’t work in the interests of persons moving between high-cost local economies, and isn’t intended to do so. This is most true of individuals moving from low-tax, low-benefit, low-pension regimes to high-tax, contributory-benefit regimes, which have no functional interconnection. 

 

 I realised this a long while ago, which is why I’ve done almost no work in Europe over the years. It simply doesn’t work, in purely practical terms. The plain fact is that working in Germany or Holland, and there are few other places in Europe that are financially attractive, substantially reduces my nett income and increases my costs. I had other options, so I did that instead.

 

Watch daytime tv, and you’ll see at least one programme about emigrating to Australia; the skilled trades’ and middle-grade professionals’ abiding enthusiasm for emigration within the English speaking world, Australasia, Canada and the US, remains as strong as ever.

 

But you can’t build a voting consensus based on those who have never engaged in the situation, those who given it up and turned elsewhere, plus those who see no value in the project...

 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by rockershovel

[adb968008]

27 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

NRe Mike Storey, above; irreconcilable by current voting arrangements? Why, yes. Watch the chaos in Westminster .... there’s a fundamental problem, in that the EU doesn’t work in the interests of persons moving between high-cost local economies, and isn’t intended to do so. I realised this a long while ago, which is why I’ve done almost no work in Europe over the years. It simply doesn’t work, in purely practical terms. 

 

I have options. Watch daytime tv, and you’ll see at least one programme about emigrating to Australia; the skilled trades’ and middle-grade professionals’ abiding enthusiasm for emigration within the English speaking world, Australasia, Canada and the US, remains as strong as ever.

 

But you can’t build a voting consensus based on those who have never engaged in the situation, those who given it up and turned elsewhere, plus those who see no value in the project...

 

 

HS2 isnt going to do anything for the north, except make the train time faster.

30 minutes is hear nor there, when you lose what you save in delays getting to / from the stations.

It fills a capacity need, which environmentally it could allow the government to tax unneccessary northbound road freight onto the WCML in the capacity paths HS2 creates by removing passenger services.

 

but the trains will go back empty as long as we continue to import more than we make. Leaving the EU or building HS2 wont make us more competitive against China.

Ultimately  we need a 21st century opium to sell, that doesnt require machinery and people to make, as China will win every time on that level. Knowledge and Education is the obvious one, China craves this, however when our citizens tend to leave, they first stop paying tax here, and secondly tend not to return to this country until medical needs require it.

Edited March 3, 2019 by adb968008

[Northmoor]

14 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

but the trains will go back empty as long as we continue to import more than we make. Leaving the EU or building HS2 wont make us more competitive against China.

Ultimately  we need a 21st century opium to sell, that doesnt require machinery and people to make, as China will win every time on that level.

Going further off topic (I have form at this, sorry) but I confidently predict China is NOT going to be the big winner this century; that prize goes to India and could go to the whole subcontinent - combined pop. equaling China - if Pakistan and Bangladesh reform (i.e become considerably less corrupt) fast enough.  China abolished the 1-child policy a generation too late, it has too few (even well-educated) young people to earn enough to fund the pensions of the ageing population.  India has a young population and produces more STEM graduates each year than the UK produces graduates in all subjects.  They are well-educated, have a Western outlook and are normally English-speaking.  

[adb968008]

20 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Going further off topic (I have form at this, sorry) but I confidently predict China is NOT going to be the big winner this century; that prize goes to India and could go to the whole subcontinent - combined pop. equaling China - if Pakistan and Bangladesh reform (i.e become considerably less corrupt) fast enough.  China abolished the 1-child policy a generation too late, it has too few (even well-educated) young people to earn enough to fund the pensions of the ageing population.  India has a young population and produces more STEM graduates each year than the UK produces graduates in all subjects.  They are well-educated, have a Western outlook and are normally English-speaking.  

Its more simple than that..

who has the lowest combination of salary, lowest manufacturing and lowest logistical costs, whilst maintaining the minimum viable quality to serve the target market will win in manufacturing... it isnt us when it comes to global scale.

reducing the £ and encouraging low salaries help make marginal import products more viable to produce domestically and limited local exports. But its r&d into new ideas and leading that effort that creates a global industry, unfortunately our r&d is limited, expectations too high and successes are sold overseas before incubation ends.

 

A good example is the APT, and why Pendolino is Italian, and the only mainline locomotive built in Britain since privatisation is 60163.. and its boiler is German.

[rockershovel]

It’s even simpler than that. The population of India is so huge that it is an enormous marketplace, and if you are producing at local cost, in country, no one else can approach you. Hence Triumph and Harley Davidson, to name only two, are gearing up to manufacture in Thailand and India to sell in India. 

 

Harley Davidson, particularly, have previous for this. They had a thriving business in the 20s and 30s, manufacturing under licence in Japan for the Japanese and Chinese markets. 

 

China, good question. We hear much about “trade deals with China” but the Germans, in particular, are already there - selling technical expertise. If we could do good business there, we’d be doing it already. 

 

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Re Mike Storey and Mike James, above, it seems to me that the key question is WHAT, in fact, is the ACTUAL purpose of HS1,2,3 and so ad infinitum? 

 

 

The purpose of HS1 was pretty clear and still is - reduced journey time between London and the Channel Tunnel and also taking Eurostars away from 'classic' routes out of London and into the South East.  Plus the add-on benefit of faster journey times to/from London for various places in Kent.

 

The purpose of HS2 has alas become somewhat hidden by the widely spouted red herrings about higher speeds and all that sort of stuff.  Speed has its place but is a secondary consideration against the primary one - dealing with the increasingly overcrowded nature of the WCML which is rapidly approaching, and at times exceeding, capacity - that will only get worse.  HS 2 will thus free paths for other traffic, such as commuters, on the WCML.

 

HS3 is a bit different because Trans- Pennine rail routes don't seem to be hitting any sort of real capacity problems outside the conurbations.  But journey times are unattractive so an improved route with quicker journeys will attract traffic from other modes plus encouraging travel and hence business development.

 

They're probably called 'High Speed' because that is exactly what they are (officially a line speed in excess of 100mph counts as high speed on the British network) and also it's good PR to show we keeping up with the French and Germans let alone those folk round the other side of the globe.

Edited March 4, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[Richard E]

I've now viewed the 'report' screened by the BBC. Very one sided with tales of 'land grab' for compounds etc being extended to cover areas that are said, by the land owners, to be the actual trackbed areas. HS2 were not represented, nor was anything said about an approach to them for an explanation.

 

Plenty of surmise that this tactic is being used to 'protect' land that will be required for the trackbed itself once the final alignment is known, the item suggests that the actual route of the trackbed has yet to be decided, it is only the general route that has been agreed and that could be varied due to geological issues. Certainly gripes about lack of compensation payments to date to farmers (I'm not sure if what I have read is correct in that the landowner has, under section 16, to claim compensation, it isn't paid automatically) despite the NFU having been instrumental in drafting section 16.

 

Local MP's join the debate, one is pro HS2 but 'disgusted' by the way his constituents are being treated by his government whilst the other is anti (and a member of the Opposition) but also unhappy about the back door 'nationalisation' process being used to get the land without paying for it.

 

Seems as if it is more a lack of explanation and understanding of the process rather than underhand tactics being used.

[adb968008]

I understand HS2 staff working alone in the Chilterns area have been advised to remove all branded PPE when out and about for their own safety, supposedly following a lynch mob.

[lmsforever]

I wonder just how many leisure passengers will use the line it seems that it is being marketed at the business community and will the numbers justify the service levels predicted.I think that BCC staff should be wary the way the roads services are run puts them more at risk than HS2 staff.

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

The purpose of HS1 was pretty clear and still is - reduced journey time between London and the Channel Tunnel and also taking Eurostars away from 'classic' routes out of London and into the South East.  Plus the add-on benefit of faster journey times to/from London for various places in Kent.

 

The purpose of HS2 has alas become somewhat hidden by the widely spouted red herrings about higher speeds and all that sort of stuff.  Speed has its place but is a secondary consideration against the primary one - dealing with the increasingly overcrowded nature of the WCML which is rapidly approaching, and at times exceeding, capacity - that will only get worse.  HS 2 will thus free paths for other traffic, such as commuters, on the WCML.

 

HS3 is a bit different because Trans- Pennine rail routes don't seem to be hitting any sort of real capacity problems outside the conurbations.  But journey times are unattractive so an improved route with quicker journeys will attract traffic from other modes plus encouraging travel and hence business development.

 

They're probably called 'High Speed' because that is exactly what they are (officially a line speed in excess of 100mph counts as high speed on the British network) and also it's good PR to show we keeping up with the French and Germans let alone those folk round the other side of the globe.

 

Absolutely, except that it isn't just about the WCML but also the ECML. That too is full along several key sections, and whilst things like Werrington dive-under and four tracking part of the Fens, plus others done and planned, will add the odd path or two, you eventually run out of capacity, as well as at termini, and at some through stations. Restoring the "Six-tracking" back into Kings Cross does not really add significant capacity, just reliability and flexibility, as the turnaround times are a fixed constant. One could also argue that the MML is full, primarily because of St Pancras.

 

Capacity problems for train paths, across the Pennines are not as acute as the ECML and WCML, yet. Re-signalling is progressing, and that adds some, but the essential pinchpoints at (and east of) Leeds, Bradford and Manchester, plus other sections in between, are barely coping now, so any growth is stymied. Longer trains, slowly, too slowly being introduced now, will pick up some of that, but that will merely make the conditions slightly more tolerable for existing passengers, and will not necessarily help with unreliability.

 

The question now being proposed, I see, is what is the point in spending large sums to move more people, faster, (and more reliably - my addition because that is rarely mentioned) between various locations, and who will benefit? Very good question - because it kind of sums up the need for any transport whatsoever, beyond the horse and cart. Indeed, you and I spent a career trying to allow that to happen. 

 

Hmm, need to ponder that. Were our lives completely wasted, and should everyone just have stayed at home and weaved or grown potatoes? 

 

[black and decker boy]

3 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

I wonder just how many leisure passengers will use the line it seems that it is being marketed at the business community and will the numbers justify the service levels predicted.I think that BCC staff should be wary the way the roads services are run puts them more at risk than HS2 staff.

You do like trotting our the same tired and unreasearched waffle don’t you.

 

as has been explained ad infinitum on here, existing long distance fasts will be diverted off the ECML, MML and WCML onto HS2 therefore all the current passengers will too. The existing lines will then see an increase in semi fast and commuter services plus freight.

 

HS2 needs few new long distance passengers but more services & higher speed will generate plenty and the untapped potential along the southern lengths of existing mainlines offers plenty of growth opportunities there too

[Mike Storey]

7 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

I wonder just how many leisure passengers will use the line it seems that it is being marketed at the business community and will the numbers justify the service levels predicted.I think that BCC staff should be wary the way the roads services are run puts them more at risk than HS2 staff.

 

About 20 million passenger journeys a year on HS1 as of 2018, about 50% on domestic Javelin services (roughly double that from the first year). They can't be all business users. Much the same arguments were used about HS1, as to how premium fares would deter travellers. It turned out not to be true, as many of us knew from experience elsewhere.

 

Does that help you?

 

[Mike Storey]

19 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I understand HS2 staff working alone in the Chilterns area have been advised to remove all branded PPE when out and about for their own safety, supposedly following a lynch mob.

 

That's sad, but entirely equivalent to when the first railway surveyors went out to plan the first railways in the 19th Century. Seems we have not really progressed as much as we thought, and there are clearly a substantial number of people who long for a return to those days, apparently, in many aspects of life.

 

[Davexoc]

5 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

I wonder just how many leisure passengers will use the line it seems that it is being marketed at the business community and will the numbers justify the service levels predicted.I think that BCC staff should be wary the way the roads services are run puts them more at risk than HS2 staff.

By the time it has been finished we'll be glad it was built, because the on going rise of the pothole and limited range of electric vehicles will make train travel far more attractive to everyone.

HS2 will get take the inter city traffic, while the WCML and the reinstated EWR serves to take the shorter journey traffic and freight off the crumbling road network. It's all about disincentivising people off the roads, whether that be potholes or conjestion, or both...

[Mike Storey]

7 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

By the time it has been finished we'll be glad it was built, because the on going rise of the pothole and limited range of electric vehicles will make train travel far more attractive to everyone.

HS2 will get take the inter city traffic, while the WCML and the reinstated EWR serves to take the shorter journey traffic and freight off the crumbling road network. It's all about disincentivising people off the roads, whether that be potholes or conjestion, or both...

 

Oh, come on. You're forgetting that all these new cars will hover, and we won't really have to leave our houses at all, because Amazon and QVC will provide for our every need. Work, for those who can't cope with video-conferencing, will be for wimps and robots.

 

Apparently.

 

Seriously, it is quite strange that the Highways Agency have been allocated a far greater increase in road enhancement and maintenance expenditure, than the the railways, and yet Local Authorities have recently been allocated far greater responsibility for A roads maintenance, which were a HA remit, but have had their budgets cut (apart from the recent one-off bribe at the last election). Conspiracy theory could be nearer the truth, but it does not seem to make sense with the present party of government. Oh, hang on. Yes it does. I just remembered that the vast majority of their constituencies are rural, or outside Metropolitan Authority conurbations, where such changes have little effect. Silly me.