£96bn Integrated Rail Plan

[mdvle]

16 hours ago, fezza said:

The more you read histories written by BR managers of the time, the more you realise that the places selected for closure were more the result of internal BR politics, beady eyed officials looking to please their bosses and poorly thought out assumptions about what the future would look like than any rational plan. And that's before you look at the absurd data collecting processes behind the Breeching report...

 

Yep, BR was part of the real world.

 

Look at any business/organization - private or government - that is downsizing and watch the politics and other maneuvering happen as the people in charge try to arrange things to their liking.

 

But it doesn't change the fact that many of those branch lines were doomed because they already were losing too much money, or would be in the next X years as the modern outside world continued to march on.

 

There is commentary on RMweb regarding the Kingsbridge branch that in its final years it was in the business not of moving people or goods, but air, from Brent to Kingsbridge.

 

And even the Summer Saturday traffic was disappearing.

 

Consider Torbay - where my parents bought a B&B in the 2nd half of the 80s.  There were still Summer Saturday special trains then, but a shadow of what was run in the 50s.  But today, essentially all gone - as are all those B&B places that used to welcome all the tourists each summer.

 

And that is true across the south-west and elsewhere - times changed, people moved to cars, and those branchlines were doomed even if they weren't closed when they were.

 

Holidays to those seaside resorts changed from week long stays to day trips by car.

 

Yes, in parts of the UK population changes and road congestion mean some of those lines can now be reopened, and that is great.  But it is easy to predict the vast majority will remain closed because their remains insufficient demand for service to revive them.

 

[Mike Storey]

On 04/01/2022 at 10:21, DY444 said:

 

It's very easy to lay all of this at the feet of politicians but there's far more to it than that. 

 

If the NW in-fills, Cannock, Goblin and GWML had been delivered on time and to budget would other projects have been stopped or drastically reduced in scope?

 

If the HS2 cost had not ballooned enormously would the cost/benefit of the Eastern leg be so diminished as to cause its curtailment?

 

If Crossrail had been delivered on time and to budget then would Crossrail 2 have been scrapped?

 

If you were SoS at the DfT would you trust the industry to turn all of that round on a tranche of future projects?  Even as pro-railway I can't honestly say I would.

 

It's also often forgotten that Labour weren't exactly pro-electrification in the pre-Adonis years.  It was a Labour SoS at the DfT when the now infamous report saying electrification was no longer needed was issued and it was under a Labour administration when de-electrification of parts of the ECML was under active consideration.

 

Obviously public expenditure during Covid hasn't done the railways any favours but furlough and all the rest of it seemed to be popular with the public and plenty of politicians backed it and many wanted more.  That was always going to have to be paid for eventually and unfortunately the railway's poor track record in delivery made it a simple and obvious target for cut backs.

 

 

You seem to be adopting a point of view that rather contrasts with reality.

 

Whilst GWEP has possibly a case to make about bad project management, it is also a fact that the latter stages of the (severely curtailed) GWEP programme were delivered to budget and to a stretched degree, on time. It is also a fact that the lessons to be learned from that have, indeed, been learned, and subsequent use of the F&F-style OLE has been done rather successfully - GEFF in particular but also the new works West of York and elsewhere. The Transport Select Committee (chaired by a Tory MP), after taking a lot of evidence, especially from the rail industry, called on the Govt, in March/April, to re-instate a rolling programme of electrification, both with some confidence that costs and programme were now much better understood, and with the key element that schemes authorised so far would not meet even 50% of the requirements to meet environmental targets set by that same Govt. The Treasury finally published a response in December - No.

 

Of the other schemes you cite, the delays and cost-overruns were not primarily down to electrification issues but to other factors, particularly CrossRail.

 

So, the issue is apparently not one of disbelief or cynicism about delivery to time and budget, but one of hard cash. Whether the Pandemic Bill drives that, or something else, is up for debate. I would just say that £4billion a year over 22 years (for ALL rail enhancements) is almost chicken feed, compared to what else has been approved, and what has been wasted.

 

As for Labour's record, it is no different from what others in Europe, and the USA, believed at the time. It took ten years for reality to set in, at which point (2008) Labour radically revised its plans. But those plans, apart from HS2, were cancelled or significantly prolonged, under the next Govt's "austerity". HS2's record of costs ballooning and timescales extended were as much the fault of Govt, NIMBY's and other campaigning as they were down to HS2 behaviours - there is still no evidence of overspend on Phase 1 outside of the additional compensation arrangements, noise and nuisance abatements and some minor detours. Most of the issues cited in budget increases for the main works have concerned risk contingencies demanded by changes to DfT (and thus Treasury) demands, and have thus been reflected in contractual prices.

 

[Mike Storey]

I just attach this, which has a nice summary of the TWAO progression towards the works, at the end.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpennine_Route_Upgrade

 

[KingEdwardII]

On 07/01/2022 at 17:30, Mike Storey said:

the key element that schemes authorised so far would not meet even 50% of the requirements to meet environmental targets set by that same Govt.

Indeed, where any politician makes noises about the need for "Net Zero", I now poke them in the ribs and remind them that when the chips are down and the government is required to come up with hard cash for electrification projects that only they can fund, they are time and again found wanting. And if they try to insist that we the public should spend our money on expensive items like heat pumps and electric cars, they get a very dusty response from me.

 

It is truly shocking that so many of the main lines in the UK are still not electrified, let alone the many secondary routes.

 

Yours, Mike.

[DY444]

14 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Indeed, where any politician makes noises about the need for "Net Zero", I now poke them in the ribs and remind them that when the chips are down and the government is required to come up with hard cash for electrification projects that only they can fund, they are time and again found wanting. And if they try to insist that we the public should spend our money on expensive items like heat pumps and electric cars, they get a very dusty response from me.

 

It is truly shocking that so many of the main lines in the UK are still not electrified, let alone the many secondary routes.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

As with so many things over the years, Yes Minister is the place to look for a clue as to the approach on "net zero".  Sir Humphrey said "the less you intend to do about something the more you must talk about it". 

 

The little that is being done has that classic Whitehall bubble view of the country; essentially that the infrastructure required to use an EV to take the little darlings from Islington to their prep school in Hampstead with a detour via the vegan cake shop in Primrose Hill on the way back somehow translates to any set of circumstances in any part of the country.  What is even worse is the media are making the same mistake.  I've lost count of the number of pieces parroting press releases about charging points attached to every lamp post and all the rest of it without any critical analysis of what is actually needed to support the replacement of conventional vehicles.  

 

If you look at net-zero for transport as a pure engineering project with all that is needed to do it properly then it doesn't fly as currently constituted.  In short all the wrong things are being done in the wrong order and too many assumptions with fingers crossed against the lessons of history are being made about how quickly new technology will develop to a state of being service ready.  Unless somebody injects a huge dose of practical reality into it then it is not a question of if it will all fall apart, it's when.  In fact the only real question is how long it will take the deluded Whitehall bubble to realise that when it comes to transport, putting the cart before the horse is a particularly bad idea.

Edited April 29, 2022 by DY444

[Mike Storey]

ignoring the media attitude (I have seen and read several programmes and articles recently decrying both the lack of charging points and the state of those that do exist), I share your sentiment.

 

But, the issue is what to do and when. The problem in the 2000's was that too many people placed their faith in new battery or hydrogen etc trains (that was an international issue not just the UK), but it is now apparent that those will only partially provide an answer. Then we had the hiatus of GWEP and to some extent other schemes, but those problems seem to have been resolved sufficiently. So, electrification is back on the table, hence MML completion, NW fill-ins, Trans-Pennine all now going ahead, as well as HS2, and alongside Midland and Manchester metro extensions. The problem there is the capacity of the rail industry to undertake much more at the same time. It will be a long, slow roll-out, even assuming other schemes will get the green light. I am not sure what else you are suggesting is not being done or not done in the right order, for the railways.

 

For roads, I agree there is little evidence of any coordinated approach, let alone a wider strategy for reducing the demand for travel overall.

 

[KingEdwardII]

18 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

a wider strategy for reducing the demand for travel overall.

They seem to be running with the idea of making it all a damned sight more expensive all round.

 

However, why should we reduce demand for travel? The ready availability of the means to travel is one of the key elements of modern civilisation. I see no good reason to reduce its availability.

 

Yours, Mike.

[corneliuslundie]

Sorry, kingedward, but I have to disagree with you. We cannot plan the future based on what we have done in the past now that we know the consequences of those actions.

We have created a society where jobs and homes are separated and many people have no choice but to travel long distances by private transport between the two.

And I am not just talking about London, where many people travel more than 50 miles to commute.

We close village schools and spend a great deal ferrying children around (at least in mid Wales where it has been going on for half a century), and we also as a result destroy societies. We build new "communities" which are just dormitories. There is a village near here of about 1000 people. It did not exist 70 years ago. There is virtually no employment and most jobs are about 20 miles or so away. A result is that the majority of the residents take no part in local activities, do not use the one village shop and do not even send their children to the village school because they have to go to schools nearer their places of work (though at least it is still open). That is simply not sustainable if we are to reduce primary energy use.

I am not talking about the occasional leisure travel (which should be by public transport).

Jonathan

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

Sorry, kingedward, but I have to disagree with you. We cannot plan the future based on what we have done in the past now that we know the consequences of those actions.

We have created a society where jobs and homes are separated and many people have no choice but to travel long distances by private transport between the two.

And I am not just talking about London, where many people travel more than 50 miles to commute.

We close village schools and spend a great deal ferrying children around (at least in mid Wales where it has been going on for half a century), and we also as a result destroy societies. We build new "communities" which are just dormitories. There is a village near here of about 1000 people. It did not exist 70 years ago. There is virtually no employment and most jobs are about 20 miles or so away. A result is that the majority of the residents take no part in local activities, do not use the one village shop and do not even send their children to the village school because they have to go to schools nearer their places of work (though at least it is still open). That is simply not sustainable if we are to reduce primary energy use.

I am not talking about the occasional leisure travel (which should be by public transport).

Jonathan

 

Exactly this is going on near us in the Thames Valley - new, small, housing estates in/near a village where it will be over a mile - along a busy main road with no footpaths - to access either the village shop, the station, or the local school and where the only local employment is a pub, the school or the village shop. Utterly ridiculous and nothing can be done without a car - you can't even walk safely from any of these sites to the nearest 'bus stop.

 

The same goes for electric cars - I live in a supposedly 'wealthy' town with a population of just under 12,000, c.5,200 households - and 6,915 cars on the most recent (2021) statistics.  Almost 1,600 households have two cars plus several hundred more (including ours) with three or four cars.   Both of our offspring - still living with us - normally have to drive to work although my son is still WFH (until his employer re-opens the office where he is usually based).  The local electricity supply already occasionally cuts out due to overload so would need considerable investment in order to cater for, say, 19 0% of t an all electric car population to be recharged at once but the vast majority of cars are in any case parked on the highway.  Total lack of thought and planning when it comes to electric vehicles.

 

Oh - almost back on subject - our local branchline was due to be electrified as part of GWEP but was taken out of the scheme to save money.  Even when (if?) the 769/9 tri-modes arrive to replace the Turbos they would still be working the branch on diesel power and probably mainly on full power in order to keep time. Passenger usage of the railway is quite heavy although probably not yet fully recovered from lockdowns etc and some travel habits for commuters will obviously have changed but the basic weekday frequency is half hourly with a 3 car train.

[DY444]

3 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

Sorry, kingedward, but I have to disagree with you. We cannot plan the future based on what we have done in the past now that we know the consequences of those actions.

We have created a society where jobs and homes are separated and many people have no choice but to travel long distances by private transport between the two.

And I am not just talking about London, where many people travel more than 50 miles to commute.

We close village schools and spend a great deal ferrying children around (at least in mid Wales where it has been going on for half a century), and we also as a result destroy societies. We build new "communities" which are just dormitories. There is a village near here of about 1000 people. It did not exist 70 years ago. There is virtually no employment and most jobs are about 20 miles or so away. A result is that the majority of the residents take no part in local activities, do not use the one village shop and do not even send their children to the village school because they have to go to schools nearer their places of work (though at least it is still open). That is simply not sustainable if we are to reduce primary energy use.

I am not talking about the occasional leisure travel (which should be by public transport).

Jonathan

 

 

The travel genie has been well and truly out of the bottle for decades and there is no putting it back.  If you are going to change the whole basis of day to day transport from one based on ICEs to one based on EVs then you have to take the public with you by making it a compatible and viable alternative.  If you don't then ultimately public opinion will not let you make that change.  I am convinced that many people want something done about climate change but only if it has no material effect on the life style they have grown accustomed to especially as many other Governments are not anything like as committed to it as ours says it is.  A "sack cloth and ashes" solution for the UK in the name of the greater good whilst most of the rest of the world nods but does nothing is wholly futile.

 

As for leisure travel "should be by public transport" that surely depends on where you're going from, going to and the personal circumstances?  In August we are attending a family function in rural Derbyshire to celebrate two significant wedding anniversaries.  If I post what my disabled wife will say if I propose making that journey from here in SW London by public transport I will probably get banned.  I doubt she will be any less disabled in a decade's time and I doubt the journey on public transport will be any less difficult then either.  What I can confidently predict is that such a journey in an EV will be more difficult in a decade's time than it is now in our petrol car as I am confident rural Derbyshire will not be high on the list for charging infrastructure* which can cater for 100 guest's worth of vehicles at once.  Which is where we came in.   

 

*If you want to see what will happen in practice then look at mobile phone and broadband rollout.  20 years on some places still don't have one or the other or both.  That's what will happen with EV infrastructure and I don't see the public accepting it.     

Edited April 30, 2022 by DY444

[corneliuslundie]

You can charge your EV here. Four charging points in the public car park and I have never seen one in use.

I agree that it will be necessary for governments to take the public with them, and therefore will need to make public transport more accessible and usable.

But regretfully I agree with the comparison with internet roll-out. There is a village near here (a different one but largely similar in history and size) which has NO mobile phone reception. It was better in the mountains when I lived in Kosovo.

But there also needs to be a joined up approach to development, not allowing the free market to build where it will (where land is cheap often). And I realise that it will take a lot of effort to change a century of suburbanisation etc.

Of course when there is no more petrol those living "in the sticks" will complain that the government didn't do anything, even though up until then they didn't want anything to change.

Anyway, back on topic, what is needed is not an integrated RAIL plan but an integrated transport and development plan.

But our practice of five yearly elections mitigates against anything major happening except in the few months before elections (which of course are next month).

Except, as far as I can see, lots of money thrown at consultancy about what we should/might/can do (but not will do). How many of these new rail schemes being dreamed up at the moment will actually come to pass? Look at what is not happening in Bristol and Plymouth.

I have mentioned before on RMWeb that when I was working I knew an engineer who worked for the then DoE who told me that a lot of his and his colleagues' time was spent devising schemes which the politicians would then announce with a fanfare but never had any intention of implementing.

So I'll believe in an integrated rail plan when I see something significant on the ground.

But if anything happens it is far more likely to be  local solutions to local problems than part of an integrated plan.

Jonathan

 

[corneliuslundie]

Sorry, that last post was still too off topic.

What I meant to mention, but got carried away with my pet gripes, is that an integrated rail plan based on large scale electrification will depend on upping our construction of new generating capacity. This may actually be one reason why the government is blowing hot and cold on electrification, as it does not seem to be able to get its generation policy sorted: not exactly a wonderful story regarding nuclear; everyone wanting wind power but not near them; objections to tidal power on environmental grounds; and seemingly ignoring wave power (for about 50 years).  So an awful lot needs to be done to replace existing capacity let alone cater for electric cars and other road vehicles, more electric trains, electrification of housing etc. One can't really consider a strategic rail plan in isolation.

Jonathan

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

The travel genie has been well and truly out of the bottle for decades and there is no putting it back.  If you are going to change the whole basis of day to day transport from one based on ICEs to one based on EVs then you have to take the public with you by making it a compatible and viable alternative.  If you don't then ultimately public opinion will not let you make that change.  I am convinced that many people want something done about climate change but only if it has no material effect on the life style they have grown accustomed to especially as many other Governments are not anything like as committed to it as ours says it is.  A "sack cloth and ashes" solution for the UK in the name of the greater good whilst most of the rest of the world nods but does nothing is wholly futile.

 

 

 

I see no evidence of such a policy in the UK. In fact, there is no policy in the UK, just a set of targets, almost all of which we will not hit if nothing further is done. On your point about "no material effect", rising petrol/diesel prices are the single greatest effect on any household now (beyond heating and food). But so many households are bound to use a car to do almost anything, because of where their affordable house has been built. Is that right, and should that continue? Is the "sackcloth and ashes" actually continuing as we are?

 

We do have an Integrated Rail Plan for the North, as far as it goes. Plus support for a Tory Mayor's plans for the Midland Metro expansion, less support for the Labour Mayors' hopes for Manchester and Liverpool but still some, and some lip service to Leeds, another Labour stronghold. Forget Newcastle. But plans in Bristol are moving ahead, albeit more slowly than they should. Contractor award(s) are due soon for the Portishead branch, and the upgrade of the Avonmouth route is in progress. Scotland has progress, but London and the SE have ground to a halt, almost. Electrification beyond any of these is still undecided, but the National Infrastructure Commission has recommended a rolling programme. From when is the question.

 

 

 

 

[Mike Storey]

59 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Sorry, that last post was still too off topic.

What I meant to mention, but got carried away with my pet gripes, is that an integrated rail plan based on large scale electrification will depend on upping our construction of new generating capacity. This may actually be one reason why the government is blowing hot and cold on electrification, as it does not seem to be able to get its generation policy sorted: not exactly a wonderful story regarding nuclear; everyone wanting wind power but not near them; objections to tidal power on environmental grounds; and seemingly ignoring wave power (for about 50 years).  So an awful lot needs to be done to replace existing capacity let alone cater for electric cars and other road vehicles, more electric trains, electrification of housing etc. One can't really consider a strategic rail plan in isolation.

Jonathan

 

Sorry, but I simply do not see any suggestion that lack of generation is preventing railway electrification. Most modern schemes now include regenerative braking anyway, but the advent of static converters has enabled power upgrades across several routes, "without detriment to the local power supply". 

 

The cross-party Parliamentary Transport Commitee has recommended (in 2021) a rolling programme, after reviewing a stack of evidence. The DfT has maintained a policy of no rail diesel traction by 2040. The Network Rail-driven Rail Electrification Alliance has shown how it can be done, more cost effectively. The primary cause of a lack of railway electrification remains, as ever, the Treasury.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmtrans/876/87606.htm

 

[corneliuslundie]

I am not denying that electric trains are getting more efficient. But there is going to be much more demand for electricity from every sector. And if we double the electrified mileage, even if it means say only 25% more trains (as many trains will be much shorter than those on the currently electrified main lines) then that is going to increase electricity consumption. But you can't look at that in isolation.

But I agree that the real sticking point, other than the Treasury, would be a lack of capacity to carry out the electrification. I seem to remember that happening once before!

But let's hope that common sense prevails.

BTW I don't understand how static convertors increase the amount of electricity available. They are simply another way of changing voltage and/or frequency. Are they that much more efficient than transformers?

Jonathan

[The Stationmaster]

On 30/04/2022 at 19:53, corneliuslundie said:

I am not denying that electric trains are getting more efficient. But there is going to be much more demand for electricity from every sector. And if we double the electrified mileage, even if it means say only 25% more trains (as many trains will be much shorter than those on the currently electrified main lines) then that is going to increase electricity consumption. But you can't look at that in isolation.

But I agree that the real sticking point, other than the Treasury, would be a lack of capacity to carry out the electrification. I seem to remember that happening once before!

But let's hope that common sense prevails.

BTW I don't understand how static convertors increase the amount of electricity available. They are simply another way of changing voltage and/or frequency. Are they that much more efficient than transformers?

Jonathan

I think the really big problem will be teh sheer availability of electricity to do all the things the zealots are telling us it will do.  Ground source heat pumps and car battery charging are both major items of electrical load which have yet to emerge. Our local 6.915 cars will all need to be recharged at some time but the heat pumps will require a near continuous supply of power - and our mains failed, again, last night for around 40 minutes to my knowledge *(what happened after I went to sleep I don't know).

 

But what will happen is that there will be massively increased steady demand and the same time as - according to Govt plans - we will increasingly rely on far from steady sources of generation with no sensible a ideas yet about how to store surplus generated power to smooth supply to match demand.  Loads of targets, very few truly realistic ideas of how to reliably implement them apart from a Govt proposal now to keep all the (few) remaining coal fired power stations in commission until further notice.  

 

Against that sort of potential supply situation dual mode trains become a very good idea - provided the country can find the diesel fuel to run them on (which in  turn means new sources of supply to take over from our purchases from Russia or revision of UK refinery capacity to produce a greater percentage of diesel).

[Mike Storey]

On 30/04/2022 at 20:53, corneliuslundie said:

 

BTW I don't understand how static convertors increase the amount of electricity available. They are simply another way of changing voltage and/or frequency. Are they that much more efficient than transformers?

Jonathan

 

They (in the form of power conditioners) significantly reduce three phase imbalance and reduce voltage fluctuation, thus providing more power to the OLE, from the same origin. I used to sell something similar in the late 2000's/early 2010's for retail outlets and offices (then called Voltage Regulators, and still pretty basic), but railway take up has been much slower, originally only being installed on board electric trains (as static converters, to smooth supply). A typical saving can be around 15%-25%. Two are being installed on the York to Church Fenton scheme, which means an additional sub-station is unnecessary, so the draw on the national grid remains the more-or-less the same. I would expect to see similar elsewhere now.

 

Advances in battery storage tech is also advancing apace now (several recent, new solar panel farms now have the latest gizmos installed in parallel, meaning their overall output is fairly constant).

 

Mike the Stationmaster refers to Heat Pump and car charging demands, but again, there are mitigations for each of these (one using solar panels which can provide over 50% of the running power, the other the use of night time charging, when there is a surplus of capacity). However, I would suggest heat pumps and electric cars are still prohibitively expensive for most users at present, even where possible.

 

I repeat, and despite "common sense" suggesting the opposite, I do not see any argument put forward by the experts, that would restrain railway electrification due to lack of generation, for the foreseeable future, and some time beyond that.

 

The same cannot be said for high power usage industry, which uses both gas and electricity at peak times, and for the mass conversion of gas heated homes to electric, however.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Mike Storey

[corneliuslundie]

Thanks for the explanation. My only experience of static convertors was in Kosovo to charge a battery to cover the regular power outages (often 3 hours on/3 hours off in winter. Though that didn't supply the storage heaters!

Jonathan

[KingEdwardII]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

I do not see any argument put forward by the experts, that would restrain railway electrification due to lack of generation

I agree - the overall amount of power involved is not so large. It is a very different story with the power requirements of both EVs and home heating, which will require enormous amounts of additional electrical power to achieve the poorly thought out NetZero ambitions.

 

The limitation on railway electrification is the treasury and the inability of the politicians to make the necessary finance available.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Mike Storey]

At last, some further news on the IRP. The Transport Committee have finally released a report suggesting that, perhaps, the decisions ultimately made for the plan were somewhat devoid of evidence, particularly as to alternatives, and also that plans for HS2 to Leeds, Leeds station development and the potential for an underground link and station in Manchester, all be pursued, amongst other things....

 

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/transport-committee-calls-on-government-to-revisit-integrated-rail-plan-decisions/62204.article?ID=z9xqh~9zfhtj~ttxt~W4ik~Ky0gk&utm_campaign=RG-RBUK-FILLER -280722-JM&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=RG-RBUK-FILLER -280722-JM

 

 

[rovex]

On 18/11/2021 at 18:52, Flittersnoop said:

Why does no-one ever consider knocking Bradford down and rebuilding it somewhere more convenient?

I thought they tried that in the sixties and seventies 

[lmsforever]

On 18/11/2021 at 14:35, DaveF said:

 

HS2 was never really going to anything for us in the far north east of England (Northumberland, Newcastle etc), perhaps today's announcement will produce better train journeys one day.

 

I wonder?

 

David

Same for us in Aylesbury it passes right round the town and heads north next stop Brum which we can reach comfortably from Haddenham .Think that people will use it only when all expresses stopped on wcml.  Chris

[ess1uk]

U Turn?

[ess1uk]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/08/hs2-announced-transport-project-were-just-examples-says-minister
plan in tatters 

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, ess1uk said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/08/hs2-announced-transport-project-were-just-examples-says-minister
plan in tatters 

Well being something of a cynic when it comes to statements by UK Govts I didn't believe a word of it anyway (apart from scrapping HS2 that is).  The money hasn't been saved because it didn't exist in the first place and it can't be spent elsewhere for the same reason because you can't spend if it doesn't exist.  And you can't give tax cuts either.