HS2

[jjb1970]

HS2 is like a lot of things. The idea can be good but implementation poor. I still think HS2 makes perfect sense and is necessary but the way it has been implemented is hardly impressive.

[woodenhead]

4 hours ago, locoholic said:

Excellent article on the Spectator website today by Sean Thomas, detailing the "comprehensive" Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policies of HS2 - nice to know that they've got EDI all sewn up, although perhaps if they concentrated on building the railway, the costs might not have spiralled out of control so spectacularly.

Being a good employer is not expensive and actually increases the potential pool of people you can employ because your net is well spread.  In some respects this will drive down labour costs because if your employees come from a very small pool then competition for them will be fierce leading to spiralling wage costs as you pay more and more to attract and retain from that small pool.

 

Companies that focus on EDI find a more motivated workforce who feel valued.

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Most of that was exactly what the business case was.

 

 

But the PR from the Government has focussed elsewhere losing the original reason for a vanity project, and vanity projects never come in on time and budget.

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

1) Sales of UK government bonds (borrowing from investors)

2) The Treasury

And the treasury repaid those bonds, government debt reduced back below 2008 levels.. yes ?

 

 

This.. before covid.

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/10-years-have-we-recovered-financial-crisis

 

tax receipts doubled..

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284298/total-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/

 

yet debt doubles..

https://www.statista.com/statistics/282647/government-debt-uk/
 

and then the losses, which are being hidden, and avoid being reported in the uk news.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/30/bank-of-england-bond-losses-to-cost-government-20b-more-than-expected.html

 

Quote

“On the other hand, though, while QE gilts are not sold, the BoE pays Bank Rate on the ~£900bn reserves it created to buy them. The higher Bank Rate rises, the more costly this interest expense becomes.”

This could throw a wrench into the government’s ability to offer public spending or tax-cutting pledges ahead of a general election slated for 2024.

Any profits the Bank of England generates on printing banknotes or buying and selling bonds, beyond its required capital buffers, is passed to the Treasury to be repurposed for public spending.

 

Quote

“The good news is that with government revenues running a lot stronger — due to a stronger economy these last few months — overall borrowing will still likely undershoot the OBR’s forecasts heading into the autumn fiscal statement, masking the ballooning cost of the Bank’s APF bill.”

Lets not pretend were in a good way, the population is being fleeced to pay back this lot, and some.

 

which rounds us back to HS2… Rishi though everyone hated this project and he found a-get rich quick scheme, by kicking Hs2 he’d have an extra credit card to blow ahead of the election…, but now he’s learning protest votes and protest voters are not the same person and what they do in anger doesnt reflect what they actually want.

 

$4bn would build 400 miles of HS in Argentina…, they couldnt afford it either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buenos_Aires–Rosario–Córdoba_high-speed_railway

 

 

What I like about the rail renovation in Mexico is the transparency of funds… every peso is publically down loadable…

 

https://www.ferroistmo.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/PROGRAMA-ANUAL-ADQUISICIONES-2023.pdf
 

 

Does HS2 publish details of each acquisition, down to clothing ?.. it would be interesting to see how £100bn is being spent… I didnt spot any bird watchers on the Mexican railways list.

Edited September 26, 2023 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

On 21/09/2023 at 15:36, Rugd1022 said:

 

Alas we rarely go west of Acton Mainline at the moment Mike as the Reading mob cover most of the work down that way, but I know what you mean about crawling along the Thames Valley on the relief lines. Things may change though as there's talk of some of us signing down to Theale, which a few of the lads already do.

 

 

 

 

Easy road to learn Nidge although the real skill nowadays (more so than in the past) is speed matching on the Reliefs and knowimg when to open up (plus knowing you braking points of course).  

 

I was fascinated to note on a recent trip to London that the Driver of a 387 at maximum speed on the Up Relief was very near the braking point you needed to stop at Maidenhead from 95mph on the Up Main with a 47 on a Thames Valley commuter train

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

The idea is that better transport links encourage economic growth, which should in general improve prosperity for all and increase the government's tax take to repay the borrowing.  This is what the HS2 business case is intended to assess.  

But how does that generate prosperity and tax, if we now all wfh and are being encouraged to give up travelling ?

Edited September 26, 2023 by adb968008

[ess1uk]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

My little one was amazed to be hearing bells in a signal box on the GWML in Cornwall…

For how much longer?

[DK123GWR]

37 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

But rail is only ever a natural monopoly in a trivial sense. In reality, railways have lots of competition.

 

If I want to go from London to Edinburgh I could walk, cycle, take a coach, drive my car, sail my yach, hire a taxi, or fly. Etc.

 

 

Water can be moved in tankers, but tankers aren't an appropriate subsitute for water mains. Walking is clearly not an appropriate substitute for inter-city rail travel in any case, and in many cases none of the options you have listed are. There is no way that another mode of transport could move large quantities of stone from the Mendips to London as efficiently as the railway does. There are markets that only railways can serve. In many cases, these markets are not large enough to justify the enourmous cost of building a new, competing, rail line to serve them. Even in those markets where a second line is viable, a third and a fourth will not be. Many of these rail routes are natural monopolies. Others are at best natural oligopolies. Even allowing for the fact that air travel is a close substitute in certain markets (e.g. London-Edinburgh passenger transport) this does not take us out of natural oligopoly territory. Planes and landing slots are very expensive, so the cost of entry into the market remains high even when you have the option of setting up an airline instead of building a railway. These markets require, at the least, heavy regulation of fares and service levels, if not government ownership.

 

I introduced natural monopoly as an example of a class of cases where government-run industries were more economically efficient than markets. Another point worth considering here is the complexity of the allocative problem. Economic efficiency is a bit of a vauge term and can be broken down into two distinct parts. One kind of economic efficiency is productive efficiency, how much stuff you can make from a certain amount of input. This probably has more to do with capital investment, worker training and motivation, and logistical optimisations than anything else. The other is allocative efficiency.

 

Allocative efficiency concerns allocating resources to particular people or industries in the 'best' way (it's impossible to say what this is without knowing more about individual preferences and societal values, but an uncontroversial example is that if I like apples and you like pears, giving me an apple and you a pear is more allocatively efficient than giving me a pear and you an apple). If a lot more people like pears than apples, then it is allocatively efficient to use resources in a way that allows us to grow more pears than apples. In some markets, the allocative problem is quite simple. It should be possible to estimate the demand for water based on good high-level data about population size, the economy, and the climate. This is a task government should be able to acomplish fairly easily. Now consider the food market, where people have diverse, constantly changing preferences. It would be nearly impossible for a government to work out what food to produce, and when, and where to send it, in order to satisfy people's preferences. Competetive markets are very good at solving complex allocative problems like this through the price mechanism. Predicting demand for rail is probably closer to predicting demand for water than planning food production, which means that one of the biggest (in my opinion the biggest) benefit of competetive markets wouldn't really apply to the rail industry, and certainly not to the same degree that it does in the food market.

 

I had already stated that there are other reasons that government involvement in economic activity might be appropriate. One of these is to encourage transactions with positive externalities, which are positive effects on third parties not involved in the transaction. It is well established that businesses benefit from 'clustering' - locating themselves among other similar firms. This often takes place in cities (and is part of the rationale for them). Clearly, not everybody who works in a city can live in the city centre (at least not in pleasant conditions). Therefore, to enable the clustering of firms in cities, you need people to be able to commute. If the government subsidises rail fares, then more people will be able to commute. If our assumption that businesses being able to cluster in cities leads to wider economic benefits is true, then enabling commuting will not just benefit the commuters, but all those who receive benefits from clustering. A similar argument can be made for cutting fares for any journey which enables benefits to people other than the passenger (essentially any journey other than a sightseeing trip fuelled by packed lunches).

 

Deciding how a particular industry should be run involves balancing multiple considerations. I discussed one in my previous post and have set out some more here. The point that I was trying to make before is that there are some industries where it is fairly clear that they ought to be run as government-owned monopolies (e.g. water). There are others where it is clear that some kind of market mechanism would be beneficial (such as the UK's food supply). It is true that rail is not a clear cut natural monopoly, as water is. But even the most competetive routes are natural oligopolies, which is scarcely better for passengers. And there are other reasons to think that the government should seek to reduce rail fares, since transport often facilitates economic activity and as a result has significant positive externalities. Furthermore, the allocative problem faced by the rail industry is less complex than in many other markets (it is clear, for example, that there will be more demand for travel between commuter towns an nearby cities at around the times people start and finish work, for seaside holiday towns in the summer, etc.). This weakens the case against government control. Overall, I believe it is clear from the above arguments that government should own at least the rail infrastructure, and if it does not operate the trains then it should ensure that those who do are acting in the public interest. It should also be willing to subsidise rail fares quite significantly. And I've only looked at arguments to appeal to the coldhearted economist. There are additional moral reasons that I think low fares are desireable, but as they will not find traction with those whose moral intuitions differ from mine I doubt it is worth adding them to this already long post.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

For how much longer?

 

The original idea (to eliminate all signal boxes in Cornwall) was junked some time back as unafordable and replaced with a 'do minimum' scheme where only the worst affected bits would be resignalled.

 

Block bells may however still be going in favour of track circuit block but several signal boxes themselves will remain open instead of being shut.

[adb968008]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The original idea (to eliminate all signal boxes in Cornwall) was junked some time back as unafordable and replaced with a 'do minimum' scheme where only the worst affected bits would be resignalled.

 

Block bells may however still be going in favour of track circuit block but several signal boxes themselves will remain open instead of being shut.

A tale of mice and men, from 6th September 2011..

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/wholesale-closure-of-almost-every-signal-box-on-the-network/

Edited September 26, 2023 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

13 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

For how much longer?

A few more months at the most according to my latest information - most of the 'boxes on the Cornish mainline will be closing in November or December and control will be transferred to a workstation at Exeter.    So clearly the idea of a Cornish power 'box which was conceived back in the 1980s (the structure was actually built and still exists) hasn't reached the Network Rail generation.

 

From what I saw over this weekend just past lineside work is well advanced with the contemporary equivalent of location cupboards installed in many places plus a number of signals lying on the ground ready to be erected in the Lostwithiel and Par areas and signal bases visible in the vicinity of Truro.

Edited September 26, 2023 by The Stationmaster

[black and decker boy]

57 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

But how does that generate prosperity and tax, if we now all wfh and are being encouraged to give up travelling ?

In your narrow world, that might be the case but there are millions who are not WFH full time (or even part time).

 

I get the opportunity to WFH 1 or 2 days a month. I did so before covid too. Most of my life is in the road or railway, seeing people, seeing work in progress, talking, rewarding, guiding people in their day to day roles.

[black and decker boy]

7 hours ago, locoholic said:

Excellent article on the Spectator website today by Sean Thomas, detailing the "comprehensive" Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policies of HS2 - nice to know that they've got EDI all sewn up, although perhaps if they concentrated on building the railway, the costs might not have spiralled out of control so spectacularly.

It’s a public sector organisation, it is set rules it has to follow. Low carbon, clean air, safety, EDI are all part of those rules.

[lmsforever]

Nice to see Black and Decker Boy posting again 

[Mark Saunders]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The original idea (to eliminate all signal boxes in Cornwall) was junked some time back as unafordable 

It will happen eventually just look a how far York ROC has spread it tentacles recently and even then it doesn’t need to be joined up!

[Rugd1022]

3 hours ago, ess1uk said:

For how much longer?

 

Liskeard and St.Erth are safe for a while yet.

[Foulounoux]

4 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

In your narrow world, that might be the case but there are millions who are not WFH full time (or even part time).

 

I get the opportunity to WFH 1 or 2 days a month. I did so before covid too. Most of my life is in the road or railway, seeing people, seeing work in progress, talking, rewarding, guiding people in their day to day roles.

Agreed

 

In fact our company like many is now strongly suggesting that we minimise WFH and get people back in the office to the same level as pre covid.  It was pointed out that some new staff may not have even met colleagues and developing new products and technology etc needs that in person chemistry 

 

We have just implemented a new ERP system and training users is so much easier face to face than virtual training.

 

 

[melmerby]

14 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Not HS2 but here in Bolton, Wigan, and parts of Bury, Salford and Manchester, the BEE bus network went live yesterday. 

 If you travel on a bus in Greater Manchester you’ll never pay more than: 

£2 for an adult single fare, £1 for a child. 

£5 to travel all-day by any bus, £2.50 for a child. 

£21 to travel by any bus for seven days, £10.50 for a child. 

Fares valid until September 2024.

 

https://tfgm.com/the-bee-network

 

A start at least. Not sure as to Trams and Trains fares etc, I believe it's being planned.

 

Brit15

It's cheaper in the West Midlands for an adult

All day nBus ticket, use on any bus in the West Midlands* area, is £4.50, (an increase of 50p from 3rd July, the first increase since 2017) you can travel from the eastern boundary of Coventry to the NW boundary of Wolverhampton (if you so desire!) and return.

£4.20 max tap and go cap.

The £2 adult single & £1 child are Government capped fares.

 

Adult Train, Bus & Tram is £7.80

For £10.70 you can include Stratford upon Avon,  Lichfield, Warwick, Leamington & Kenilworth

 

The Max fares for all bus operators in the area have been set by TfWM for years.

(* the TfWM area does include a few areas outside the West Midlands County)

 

(And for Andy Burnham's benefit, the BEE isn't the first new local authority run bus service since deregulation.

West Midlands Bus, part of TfWM/WMCA have been running 3 services as an experiment for several years. The buses are under contract and run by either Rotala or NXWM but carry WM bus branding and are painted the same colour.)

 

 

 

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, Foulounoux said:

Agreed

 

In fact our company like many is now strongly suggesting that we minimise WFH and get people back in the office to the same level as pre covid.  It was pointed out that some new staff may not have even met colleagues and developing new products and technology etc needs that in person chemistry 

 

We have just implemented a new ERP system and training users is so much easier face to face than virtual training.

 

 

That would bring much of the norths new found IT salary wealth crashing down… they might have had a 30% salary uplift since covid, but commuting from Manchester to London will eat the finances and socials.

 

As a Londoner, I think that would level the south back up once more, its suffered a lot of IT salary loss since covid, but still yet saddled with the costs of living in London, for those who remained.

 

but tbh I dont see it happening, businesses have banked the salary profit, reduced their office overheads, and changing employment contracts will be expensive. IT industry, and those professions heavily reliant on it, is inherently flexible in implementation…lawyers, finance, management etc they wont be heading back to the office and they probably were the groups that could afford HS2. Sandwich sellers, doormen and delivery guys were never going to commute on HS2 from Brum to London.

 

 

 

 

[MidlandRed]

Many firms (including the one I worked for until retirement) and Govt departments (or arms length parts) have actually downsized on office space and cannot accommodate all of their employees at once any longer so full time office work for many is out of the question - a rota of part time attendance in the office is in place - the employers are reaping the benefits of reduced rent and other overheads for office space and are very unlikely to re let office space, one would imagine. 

On that subject I recall that a certain Minister used to be in the habit of leaving notes on civil servant’s desks bemoaning their absence when he called to speak to them, because they were working from home at the time (he may not have had access to a phone possibly) - that person seems to have discovered an entirely new way to work away from the office, spending lots of time broadcasting on GB News - makes you wonder how such sitting MPs find time to perform the task they have been elected for and are being financed to do so by taxes…. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by MidlandRed

[25901]

7 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

It will happen eventually just look a how far York ROC has spread it tentacles recently and even then it doesn’t need to be joined up!

Funny that, York ROC couldn't control a point in plain view of their windows on Sunday lol

 

Back on track, if HS2 to Mannchester is killed who pays contractors who have invested in equipment and in one case I know of locos

[locoholic]

14 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Being a good employer is not expensive and actually increases the potential pool of people you can employ because your net is well spread.  In some respects this will drive down labour costs because if your employees come from a very small pool then competition for them will be fierce leading to spiralling wage costs as you pay more and more to attract and retain from that small pool.

 

Companies that focus on EDI find a more motivated workforce who feel valued.

The cost of EDI is not trivial, and neither is the demoralising effect of being lectured and browbeaten about stuff that denies reality. It's quite insulting to the vast majority of a workforce to be treated as unconsciously bad people whose redemption is only brought about by brownie points from Stonewall and the like.

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, locoholic said:

The cost of EDI is not trivial, and neither is the demoralising effect of being lectured and browbeaten about stuff that denies reality. It's quite insulting to the vast majority of a workforce to be treated as unconsciously bad people whose redemption is only brought about by brownie points from Stonewall and the like.

The really instructive thing about EDI was actually working for BP (an achingly PC company) in a place like Azerbaijan, where it isn't even a concept. 

 

The local staff watched the antics of the BP expat management with undisguised amusement. 

 

Azerbaijan is a Former Soviet country, typical of "the Stans" in that it integrated women in the workforce long ago, and has no "positive discrimination" nor particular qualms about sacking or re-deploying any who don't actually do their jobs. The USSR was never a place where failure was rewarded. 

 

There is more-or-less overt political infighting between the secular and Muslim wings of the government. 

 

Identity politics really aren't a "thing". You are expected to be a good citizen, not unduly offend the Muslim community and otherwise, generally mind your own business. 

 

Marital law is very strong there, forming the basis of the inheritance and tenancy court cases which are a regular feature of local life. 

 

Women with children habitually cease working for long periods in mid-life, which is often marked by a celebration at work. There is no maternity leave, as such. Professional women often return in later life, manual workers not so much - they are more likely to become child carers and home makers in the extended family. 

 

Essentially, Soviet life with a strong Islamic tinge. 

 

 

[62613]

On 26/09/2023 at 09:01, APOLLO said:

Not HS2 but here in Bolton, Wigan, and parts of Bury, Salford and Manchester, the BEE bus network went live yesterday. 

 If you travel on a bus in Greater Manchester you’ll never pay more than: 

£2 for an adult single fare, £1 for a child. 

£5 to travel all-day by any bus, £2.50 for a child. 

£21 to travel by any bus for seven days, £10.50 for a child. 

Fares valid until September 2024.

 

https://tfgm.com/the-bee-network

 

A start at least. Not sure as to Trams and Trains fares etc, I believe it's being planned.

 

Brit15

Tram and train free are £10 a year on my TfGM old fogey's travel pass. Paid for itself in one trip to Atherton for a football match!

Edited September 27, 2023 by 62613

[corneliuslundie]

Re LA run bus services, does the Traws Cymru network count? Organised and subsidised by the Welsh Assembly but run under contract by local companies usually with buses in Traws Cymru livery (when the new ones bought to run the service don't break down - and then spare parts cannot be obtained).

Newtown to Cardiff 3 hours 40 minutes but still counts as a "local bus" rather than a coach service so free to old fogeys like me.

(not sure this isn't a little off topic for a railway forum but less depressing than discussing HS2)

Jonathan