jjb1970

Good point, I'll retract the operator bit. Engineers (and I am an engineer!) are terrible if given the toy box and left to themselves. In electricity I was involved in a major project that was cancelled after it became this gold plated masterpiece to end all masterpieces, the system involved was superb in every way apart from being completely unaffordable and not what was wanted (think of it as being the equivalent to give deliver a Rolls Royce when you'd been told to deliver a Ford Focus). When I was given the job of starting a second project to deliver the same capability it was made very clear what the budget was and that on no account was it to become another engineers play ground like the first attempt.

The energy demand associated with very high speeds is what concerns me too. Especially in a small country there is a balance to be sought between speed and cost as the time savings aren't that great. You can make trains lighter but at high speeds weight isn't the problem. You can improve aerodynamics but that is a mature science and if there are big gains to be made from aerodynamic optimisation in the future it is a pretty sad reflection on current high speed trains. Given that one of rails political weapons is environmental impact as it is the cleanest way to move large volumes of people around quickly and with electric power emissions free at the point of use (which is totally different from being emissions free!!). If we increase the energy demand hugely for limited benefit it does raise a lot of questions, especially when there is an elephant in the room in that the UK doesn't have a sensible energy policy other than an attempt to offer an electoral bribe (bit of politics there, sorry). Of course energy demand will be a lot higher for a 225kph, 250kph, 300kph railway than for a 160kph or 200kph railway, but it is a question of balance and since the speed - power curve is non linear you risk going into the realms of diminishing returns. There is the capacity argument too, however again it is about an optimum balance and it is also worth remembering that HS2 will not be the only North - South railway, I'm guessing the operators on the legacy routes between London and Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds etc will offer some pretty aggressive pricing and marketing relative to HS2 and retain a pretty good market share. To be clear I support HS2, but it should be based on what the UK needs and not just an engineers and operators play ground and keeping up with the Jones's.

If we build a new railway then it may as well be built with modern train control systems and high speed running capability. And I believe we do need additional capacity on that corridor. Yes they could try and re-build the WCML again and add more track, quadruple more of it and fit new train control to increase speed and capacity but that will not be cheap and will cause huge disruption. Ditto upgrading the chiltern line. There are other alternatives I'm sure but I think there is one question and one statement that can sum up the arguments involved; Question - do we think the rail route(s) from London to the Midlands and North need extra capacity, yes or no? If the answer is no then fine but that assumes there will be limited future traffic growth given the utilisation of the existing routes. Statement - if you want extra capacity then it doesn't matter how you try and do it, it won't be cheap. My own view is that if we're going to spend billions then it is better to buy new and do it right. The WCML went massively over budget and suffered a lot of capability cuts to try and make the upgrade finally delivered fit what was considered to be affordable. I really have no confidence that another attempt to transform the WCML would be the answer. In a sense I do feel the focus on speed is counter productive and I certainly think there is an argument over the best compromise between cost and speed and that the very high speed proposals will take the line into that area of diminishing returns that makes it less sensible for a small country. If HS2 is built then it will free up enough paths on the existing WCML that new freight lines will be in effect delivered by the back door. And it is not an HS2 or new freight line argument as I believe it is more an HS2 or spend the money on something else entirely (roads? airports? other government departments?). I think the government cancelling HS2 but saying to the rail industry "well, it was a bad idea but there you go, spend the money on something else like freight lines" is minimal to zero. None of which is to say the project should have a blank cheque or ignore concepts such as value for money and I do worry at the cost escalation and the levels of contingency being built into the budget. And some of the pro-HS2 propaganda I find just as cringe inducing as the anti-HS2 stuff.

If the government did get serious about an electric spine could they force operators to invest in electric traction by applying emissions taxes? That has been very effective in pushing people to more efficient cars, linking VED and company car tax to emissions as well as fuel prices. Or alternatively hammer diesel engines with more stringent emissions regulations on those routes with wires? Don't know if stuff like that would be legal or anything but if the government wants to they do have a lot of tools for coercing the market.

Indeed, alas sadly it is not just the Olympics. What is really frightening is that some politicians and large parts of the media swallow such claims..

Certainly if a project team submitted a proposal for a company funded project with the sort of contingency now being talked about for HS2 they'd be told to go away and come back with something sensible and if they couldn't do that they'd be replaced. I don't want to repeat arguments discussed a few pages earlier in this thread but the levels of contingency being built into HS2 are virtually a self fulfilling prophecy of cost over runs.

Lord Adonis was one of the very few transport secretaries of my life time who really seemed to be both competent and committed to rail. He wasn't perfect but HS2 desperately need a guy like him in Whitehall to steer the program through it's approval phase into construction I think.

This may be cynical but I see this as a piece of political positioning on fiscal responsibility. Rightly or wrongly (and I'm not trying to make this a party political post) Labour are struggling to shake off an image of being fiscally irresponsible and being the party of spend and spend some more. I think AD is part of a move to say "look at us, we'll mind the pennies if we're elected" in an effort to gain credibility.

To look at this another way, what would be the reaction if HS2 took the attitude of "that is the route, we government has agreed to it, if you don't like it you have a vote at the next election, find or start a party that will scrap us"? I imagine many, perhaps most, certainly me, would find that an arrogant and reprehensible position. However because HS2 is actually making a major effort to appease people who don't like aspects of the program this is now being turned into yet another weapon against it by some protesters.

I certainly agree there is a huge amount of political spin on both sides and think the business case is a joke. To point that out is entirely legitimate. To protest is fair enough too and I actually have some respect for honest NIMBY's. However I have no time for those wresting concessions out of the route then using these concessions as a reason to cancel the whole thing.

What I object to is protesting, using these protests to inflate cost (eg. extra tunneling, route management etc) and then using the fact that HS2 is being re-routed, going into tunnels etc exactly to appease these protests then becoming an argument to cancel the program. I am not a mindless supporter of HS2 and in particular think the business case is a crock, but this report is political spin and lobbying and the whole argument it represents is thinly disguised blackmail. If we don't get our way we'll protest more, inflate the costs more and eventually you'll either pay £80 billion and "prove we were right" or walk away. I find that an appalling mindset, albeit politically effective.

Today's £80 billion story from a right wing think tank could be paraphrased as: We'll protest at every opportunity, this will inflate the cost, it will no longer make sense, stop the program now and save a lot of grief Which strikes me as tantamount to blackmail. Don't get me wrong I do not criticise NIMBY's out of hand as I'm honest enough to recognise there are circumstances where I'd be a NIMBY, but stuff like this is political lobbying at its worst.

I can actually understand the argument "there is nothing in it for us so why should I support it", we may not like it but it is a normal human reaction. I also think it is all too easy to dismiss NIMBYism out of hand without stopping to think what our own reaction would be if somebody plonked something we didn't want or like next to our home (just for example, one day the other side of your fence is a waste incineration plant full of garbage). This is not to agree or support those objecting to HS2 and I certainly don't think we should abandon the project on such reasons but I do have some sympathy for those protesting on the grounds that I can quite easily imagine various scenarios where I'd be objecting to new developments. My feeling is that HS2 has tried to engage with local communities and one of the reasons for cost escalation is increasing tunneling etc to reduce local impact. A lot of the cost escalation due to pandering to local communities in some ways is a political cost for buying agreement in what is supposed to be a country with representative government. However, personally I do think there is a good argument for a Bucks Parkway. My worry is not NIMBYism but rather that the wider political and financial argument is losing momentum, the political consensus is cracking and that there is a danger the political will to push it through to completion may be lost.

The funds being set aside for HS2 will just disappear into other government spending if HS2 is shelved, I really do not believe most of it would be reallocated to alternative rail projects. If that was the case then personally I would still favour HS2 providing it can be delivered without turning into some bottomless pit of spending. On the business case, whilst all the adjustments to the route are not helping it, nor the massive jump in contingency, it is also true that there were already major problems with it prior to these factors. What HS2 badly needs is our political leaders to maintain a consensus where party politics are put aside and to show leadership and sell the vision of HS2 and just make it happen. Although I'm not a Labour fan (nor a Lib-Dem or Tory) I have to say the rail industry could really do with somebody like Lord Adonis at the helm to steer HS2 through approval and construction. Whilst not perfect he was one of the few politicians of my life time that really threw himself into promoting rail.

That some contingency is needed is fair but the amount they're allocating to HS2 is excessive. Contingency should be there for unforeseen problems and cost escalation beyond the control of the project. What is actually becomes when allocated on this scale is general project funding and it leads to poor cost control and a mind set that an overspend is not an overspend because it has already been budgeted for. Projects and politicians genuinley believe a project has been delivered under budget nowadays if it does not spend all of its contingency (or I should say, government projects) despite being way over the stated budget without contingency. This affects behaviours and attitudes to a remarkable degree. I work with both government contracts which invariably have large contingency and commercial projects with very small contingency which very often involve the same suppliers and sometimes even the same engineers. In the low contingency projects if they overspend they're held to account and have to justify the need for additional funding to be released. The funds are released but the fact that the process of doing so shines a light on how the project is being managed and may influence future prospects tends to encourage the teams to make a real effort to stay within cost. Where the contingency is a genuine unforeseen issue or beyond their control it is not a problem, if it was just shoddy cost control or inept planning then people are held to account. Conversely I look at major government programs where the attitude is "don't worry, its contingency" and there is an attitude for that actually they're not really over spending as the money is already there. If HS2 has spent hundreds of millions on a detailed analysis then there is no way they should need contingency on this scale.

The level of contingency appears excessive to me, especially when HS2 has spent a lot of money and effort to prepare a detailed analysis of the proposed route. One of the more sensible things they have done with this program is invest up front in a detailed engineering assessment which should reduce risks later in the project. Which should reduce contingency as there should be a very robust project plan and well developed engineering and commercial risk assessment informing the planned budget. My experience of contingency in government projects is that the cost people work to is inclusive of contingency and that far from being a reserve fund it becomes part of the planned spend effectively as nobody ever gives money back. And whether it is called contingency or not, if the funds are made available then the project views it as "their money". I really do worry about the business case. That is so full of holes that you don't need to be a genius to take shots at it. To me that doesn't matter as I think it is a waste of effort and not worth worrying about. Unfortunately the HS2 program has placed a lot of importance in it and it is held up to support the necessity of HS2. If it is full of holes and yet supposedly a key part of the justification for building HS2 then we can't really complain when holes in it undermine the credibility of building HS2. The government should come clean now and drop their adherence to building the case for HS2 on the back of it. I also worry that squalid party politics and maneuvering for votes at the next election will be elevated above national interest by some politicians. We are already seeing it with the intervention of Peter Mandelson and others last week breaking a remarkable cross party consensus that HS2 is necessary and affordable and should be built.

The main editorial article in tonight's Evening Standard is by Christian Wolmar with a negative piece on HS2. Wolmar hasn't really been a cheerleader for HS2 (in that I respect his willingness to stand apart from most of the rail orientated media) and he is seizing on the cost escalation to make hay while the sun shines so to speak. Unlike the inverted conversions on the road to Damascus last week from paragons of virtue like Peter Mandelson (at the risk of going political I have no idea why anybody would take anything from that quarter seriously given his track record) I don't think Wolmar is just spinning the politically advantegeous nonsense of the moment in the way last weeks political statements are so I don't dismiss him and he does make some valid points and I do think the HS2 lobby needs to get their act together quickly as unless they start getting their act together the political momentum will change direction and they'll be on the defensive in trying to save HS2. In particular they really do need to persuade people that they can control costs to a reasonable degree and answer the criticisms of the business case. I am not really of the opinion that the business case should actually have that much importance but unfortunately the HS2 program has placed a lot of the arguments in favour of proceeding on that business case so if it is a bit flakey they can't really whinge if it is found wanting with a consequence that it is used to undermine support for the program. And whilst we all know (realistically) the costs will escalate, it costs are escalating by this much already it is no wonder people are questioning the whole idea. If this sounds negative I am still a supporter of HS2 and believe it should go ahead, but there are legitimate questions that the program has to answer from those opposed to it I think.

The main demand is going to be Manchester and Leeds and Southwards due to simple demographics unless there is a paradigm shift in the UK population distribution, Manchester/Leeds - London (let alone Birmingham - London) isn't that long in terms of route length and the difference in journey times between running at 300kph or 400kph won't be that great, especially not compared to the step change compared with existing services. The increase in energy demand will however be significant, and given that one of the very real positive virtues of rail travel is it is has a lower environmental impact than most other forms of transport and that this is one reason the political wind is blowing with rail it is not something that should be lightly dismissed. HS2 will shrink the country and create demand but some of the business case assumptions and modelling seem to be on the optimistic side to put it mildly and there will still be modal competition, sectors like low cost air lines shouldn't be under estimated on Anglo-Scottish routes. Personally I hate flying with a passion but the success of Ryan Air and others indicates an awful lot of people aren't really bothered about service and enjoying the journey if the fares are cheap. And I really can't see HS2 being the bargain option. Speaking personally I might be more willing to take stuff on trust if I had any confidence in DfT, lest we forget this is the department behind IEP, the WCML franchise debacle, that until not that long ago saw electrification as a waste of money etc. In some ways the debate around HS2 represents why political debate is such a mess. The debate has been polarised between yes and no. There is an element of the pro-HS2 lobby that just dismisses any criticism as the tactics of NIMBY's and luddites and ignoring the fact that a lot of the criticism is actually very nuanced and not anti-HS2 at all and comes from competent and informed people. Equally there are elements of the anti-HS2 lobby that seem unable to construct a coherent argument and resort to some silly statements. Most people I suspect are broadly supportive without being unquestioning in this support.

I used to travel on the Javelin HS1 domestic trains quite a bit and to be honest the thing that impressed me was not speed but the silky smooth ride on HS1 compared to the shake rattle and roll of London Midland 350's on the WCML which are my normal commuting ride. Ditto when I use Eurostar, true the speed is important but the reason I use it in preference to air is not about speed but journey quality and just enjoying the experience of travel rather than the nightmare that is air travel. I expect it'll be similar on HS2, in that yes the speed will be important but that the thing that will blow people away is just how nice it is to travel on trains running on new railways offering a quiet, smooth and fast ride. The other thing is that building new rather than constantly fighting to keep Victorian infrastructure in good order should produce a railway which is orders of magnitude more reliable than existing routes such as the WCML. Hopefully they will get a virtuous circle where the option of a quick, enjoyable and reliable train service attracts passengers, feeds into further investment which generates further passengers etc etc.

There is quite a good piece in the current Private Eye which basically say's the government should just abandon all this stuff about business cases and actually show a bit of leadership and say it'll be built because it'll be good for the country. One of the reasons that HS2 is taking a lot of flak is because you don't have to be any sort of financial whizzo to start scratching your head at some of the figures and assumptions supporting the business case, by nailing their pants to this business case the government have laid themselves open to a lot of the negativity I think. Just come out and sell it as a strategic infrastructure project that the country needs and business case be damned. I may be wrong but most people I know would respect and support such a position and it'd pull the rug from under a lot of the opposition I think. On access and stations, I am not an expert and do not know much about the operations of railways at all, but from a passenger perspective I think there are two critical things that determine rail use, it has to get you where you need to go and at a time that is suitable. If the train gets you there at the right time I actually think a few minutes more or less is almost irrelevant. Parkway stations are good and I regularly use Bristol Parkway but there is also a line between what works as a Parkway and when it becomes easier to just drive all the way. Another point about Parkway stations is that I find they work much better in one direction, people drive to their local parkway and take a train into the metropolis or wherever but it doesn't work anything like as well in the other direction where people end up in the middle of nowhere looking for a taxi, bus or hire car. Bristol works well in both directions as it is on the doorstep of the Filton area which has some major employers such as the MoD and Rolls Royce. Which is a very long winded and rambling way of saying that personally I think they should follow the Japanese example of shorter station spacings and bring the service nearer to people. I agree with the station master on speed too and with France, aerodynamics means that there is a massive ramping up of power demand as you increase speeds ever higher, in a country the size of the UK I think that cost/benefit would favour a more conservative high speed level (300kph?) which would still slash journey times and be as near as makes no real difference to customers perceptions as a 400kph line and looking to improve station provision rather than going for a vanity my train is faster than yours very high speed line which would produce some reductions in journey time at a huge cost in power demand. Obviously, any high speed train uses more power, it is just about balancing cost and benefit.

By far the best high speed network I've ever experienced is Japan and their Shinkansen lines do have some reasonably short station spacings and also very high intensity service. Some of the stations are basically outer suburban commuter halts for the big cities. Whilst I do support HS2 (although not unquestioningly) I tend to believe sacrificing some speed for extra stations would retain most of the speed improvement, improve access to HS2 and may help sell the route to those who are currently to be by-passed by it.

I think the reason why many did bash this release it exactly because it is so nearly there. If it was a real lemon OK people might get mad and throw insults at Hornby but they'd write the model off and move on. In this case I think almost everybody agrees there are a lot of positives, the shape especially is excellent. My own view is that with a little work they have the basis of a fist class model. The other thing that upset people was that a model which is visibly compromised relative to older Hornby models is still selling at the same premium level price. I hope this isn't seen as bashing, as I agree that in terms of the impression when the model is hauling trains on a layout, especially with a bit of weathering, it will look excellent, but I still can't help feeling disappointed. Hasn't stopped me buying though.

I know this has been discussed to death, but having now got one I have to say this is a corking model and fully deserves all the plaudits it has recieved, a solid 11 out of 10 if you ask me. Watching Dapol's steady improvement over the last few years has been one of the hobbies real success stories. Their NBL Type 2 was a great little model but this Western takes up a level further, well done.

Nothing political, it is a good debate. E.ON took huge political flak for Kingsnorth 5&6 and there was a massive campaign to stop new coal units with all sorts of stunts making life difficult. At the same time the business case was undermined by the recession. The CCS aspect was a useful face saving get out so that E.ON could deny caving in to a combination of protest movements and a change in the financial climate. Believe me, the word was very clear at that time, new coal in the UK is as dead as a dodo and since leaving that sector I haven't heard anything to suggest thatnew coal is still not considered politically suicidal. And with the major financial incentives for anything that can be called renewable that is where the money goes.

NGC is the body primarily responsible for regulating the transmission system which is what we draw power from, the generating companies feed into it and have to balance their in day generation performance against declared input. NGC is facing a problem as more and more capacity is intermittent and unreliable and the generation companies are bringing old coal plants off line due to environmenta regulations. E.ON closed Kingsnorth because the proposed new units 5 & 6 which were planned super critical coal units were too politically troublesome and more trouble than they were worth. And with the 2008 implosion the financial case and funding costs went pear shaped as the political climate was more trouble than it was worth. The current grid demand of the UK is 30-40GW varying in day, in winter it can be up to 60-65GW, the problem is that with the intermittency of wind and problems with thermal and nuclear plants grid margins can already get down to <5GW in Winter. 5MW is peak demand, class 91's will (or should) rarely draw that. If HS2 was to run say 20 trains at 12MW at any one time (10 in each direction) just for argument (no idea what they'll run) and assuming they always drew max power (which they won't) then that is 240MW or between roughly 0.4 and 0.8% of grid demand. If a load of that magnitude crashes the grid then it is already pretty well wrecked. That is less than half of a large coal unit at a plant like Ratcliffe or Drax. The UK does desperately need new power plants, unfortunately if the new nukes are not going to generate until the mid 2020's at the earliest (assuming they're built) and coal is political suicide then that leaves gas and ever greater reliance on gas supplies to prop up wind, bits of biomass and a fleet of ever older nukes soldiering on and a few coalers fitted with the necessary emissions abatement.