The Economist : HS2 Railroad to nowhere

[Oswyntail]

The best argument for HS2 is the capacity one, so yes, another line is required.

Agreed - but I have yet to see a proper analysis of where the capacity problems are, and what has caused them. In particular, if we had a proper dedicated freight network, would the traditional passenger lines still be congested? What would be the effect on overall costs of a) building this new line to freight standards rather than HS passenger and b) linking distribution sites out of city centres, rather than having to upgrade on prime real estate? With Wi-Fi on trains and better telecomms long distance business travel will shrink, and speed will be less of an issue. I believe the rail network does need a major restructuring, with new lines, but I fear we are in danger of buying a BMW saloon when what we really need is a Transit.

 

[Snapper]

Not really. "Time served railway supporters from the North". That's me, I fit that catogary perfectly. The quote was absolutely stating that the only reason I am objecting is because of how loudly the NIMBYs are shouting. I couldn't care less what the NIMBYs think.

I note that you haven't supplied a verbatim qoute of Nigel's words for all to see...

As I pointed out before, Nigel was writing in a magazine in a general sense and using examples of types of people. He was not talking personally or directly to you, so to take any such words to mean you explicitly really is rather silly - especially as you yourself admit - the cap doesn't actually fit...

But to then say you'll 'redouble' your efforts to campaign against HS2 because of it really does your argument no favours.

Besides, as things stand now the consultation period is over. Let's remember that's all it was - it wasn't a referendum. The final decision to go ahead rests with the Government. Fortunately we have a Transport Secretary who actually understands the real issues surrounding HS2 and hasn't let himself be swayed by the siren voices of the nimbys - even though many of them will be Tory voters. Putting party politics aside, one has to admire his bravery.

Now we have to wait for the results of the consultation.

Barring a sudden loss of nerve it does sound like the project will be given the go-ahead as the economic and transport benefits far outweigh any genuine concerns and objections. In fact, the anti camp has done itself no favours by some of the lies and smears that parts of it have resorted to.

The weakness of the economy also makes the project more likely as it will create more jobs and inject a lot of money into it.

In the meantime, we'll just have to wait and see.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed - but I have yet to see a proper analysis of where the capacity problems are, and what has caused them. In particular, if we had a proper dedicated freight network, would the traditional passenger lines still be congested?

We can't afford one in the UK. We're not a transit point to other countries and the Rail freight group don't want one because they know their members simply couldn't afford to use it if one were built. It would be a white elephant. The costs would far outweigh any returns or benefits to the FOCs.

Ss for shrinking travel. It's not happening. Even in the recession passenger numbers have risen and the projections are that it's not going to slow - despite all this talk about what the internet was meant to do to business travel etc..

 

[Buttsy]

Keynesian economic theory does suggest that major infrstructure works should still take place during recession as it assists in providing jobs. Nice to see a swing back towards the Heath Goverment's style of Conservatism (Keynesian) rather than the Thatcher Conservative ideals of monetarism (Friedman).

 

[Greenback]

Agreed - but I have yet to see a proper analysis of where the capacity problems are, and what has caused them. In particular, if we had a proper dedicated freight network, would the traditional passenger lines still be congested? What would be the effect on overall costs of a) building this new line to freight standards rather than HS passenger and b) linking distribution sites out of city centres, rather than having to upgrade on prime real estate? With Wi-Fi on trains and better telecomms long distance business travel will shrink, and speed will be less of an issue. I believe the rail network does need a major restructuring, with new lines, but I fear we are in danger of buying a BMW saloon when what we really need is a Transit.

I don't think that demand for travel will fall, be it business or lesiure. In fact, I see greater demand as fuel prices increase for cars.

I don't think it is desirable, necessary or even possible to construct a dedicated freight network.

I don't think, either that a super fast HS2 to Birmingham is the right answer. Even with journeys to Leeds and Manchester there is very little air travel between these places and London. I'm not at all sure that the time savings in routeing Scottish trains via HS2 will bring down the times sufficiently to attract people from the air for that journey.

Keynesian economic theory does suggest that major infrstructure works should still take place during recession as it assists in providing jobs. Nice to see a swing back towards the Heath Goverment's style of Conservatism (Keynesian) rather than the Thatcher Conservative ideals of monetarism (Friedman).

I agree.

 

[Holly]

Wasn't suggesting it be rebuilt, just using it as an example of short term thinking, which most objectors to HS2 are doing with regard to HS2.

Yes.
Building a totally new line will have big benefits 100 years out. Although there are other similarly long term civil engineering undertakings possible, none of them are likely to receive money redirected from HS2. The main risk is building HS2 just enough for today and not anticipating the need for bigger (Chunnel-sized) trains later.

 

[Greenback]

Yes.
Building a totally new line will have big benefits 100 years out. Although there are other similarly long term civil engineering undertakings possible, none of them are likely to receive money redirected from HS2. The main risk is building HS2 just enough for today and not anticipating the need for bigger (Chunnel-sized) trains later.

That is true, and it should have four tracks from the start!

 

[Buttsy]

That is true, and it should have four tracks from the start!

Would it be necessary to have 4 tracks from the start if the formation and the various junctions were set up to take the extra track when needed? I appreciate that this might be more expensive long term, but as a short term measure; viable to keep cost down?

 

[Zoe]

You can't say for certain there will be large benefits from HS2 in 100 years time, for all we know rail itself may be redundant by then. I doubt the canal companies ever thought they would go out of business.

 

[Greenback]

Would it be necessary to have 4 tracks from the start if the formation and the various junctions were set up to take the extra track when needed? I appreciate that this might be more expensive long term, but as a short term measure; viable to keep cost down?

It's the British way to keep the cost down initially, but it only means that more money has to be spent further down the line (oops, bad pun!).

If we are going to build this line, in my opinion it should be built properly, which means four tracks to Birmingham. Does anyone know how much more it would cost to do it now, as opposed to just building in the possibility of exapnsion later?

 

[pablo]

Probably about 10 % extra ....

 

[WatcherZero]

It's the British way to keep the cost down initially, but it only means that more money has to be spent further down the line (oops, bad pun!).

If we are going to build this line, in my opinion it should be built properly, which means four tracks to Birmingham. Does anyone know how much more it would cost to do it now, as opposed to just building in the possibility of exapnsion later?

Would cost 50%* more to add the extra capacity to the same allignment later as opposed to 20% more to add it today. If you built a totally different alignment to add the extra capacity as much as 100% or even more depending on price of labour/materials/land moves over the intervening period.

*Assuming recycling the existing track capacity and keeping costs down as much as possible.

 

[Snapper]

Hmm, not sure that we'd need 4 tracks for quite some considerable time - if at all. I'd be interested to see what any proposed benefits were meant to be when twin track HS2 could operate up to 18tph.

 

[Greenback]

The idea is to build for the future rather than build for now. With all of the benefits that HS2 is meant to bring, it could be that the tracks are full within a decade or two, as long distance high speed services to Liverpool, Sheffield, Chester, Blackpool, Shrewsbury and Newcastle need to be added south of Birmingham.

 

[HSTEd]

The idea is to build for the future rather than build for now. With all of the benefits that HS2 is meant to bring, it could be that the tracks are full within a decade or two, as long distance high speed services to Liverpool, Sheffield, Chester, Blackpool, Shrewsbury and Newcastle need to be added south of Birmingham.

Operating all high speed services over one route especially ones such as Newcastle does seem a little ridiculous, surely you can find 20tph closer to the actual route?
3 Trains per hour to Manchester
3 Trains per hour to Liverpool
3 Trains per hour to Birmingham
3 Trains per hour to Glasgow
2 Train per hour to Holyhead/North Wales

That leaves a little space for peak flows, but I dont think its practical to include services to Newcastle and Edinburgh and points north in that.

 

[Greenback]

Well, we are looking to the future here. Why not have a Newcastle service every hour? It would serve the Midlands, quite a large population centre, and how long would the journey be? What if HS2 connects with Heathrow, Newcastle to Heathrow might be quicker by HS2 than by the ECML and a cross London journey? What if it conencts well with the GWML? It's not all about London is it? Or is it?

I thought that HS2 was supposed to be the start of a high speed network for the whole country. I believe this is an argument put forward to support it. If so, then perhaps trains might be using the line in thirty years on services that we can't envisage now.

 

[Snapper]

I thought that HS2 was supposed to be the start of a high speed network for the whole country. I believe this is an argument put forward to support it. If so, then perhaps trains might be using the line in thirty years on services that we can't envisage now.

It's never going to be a network for the whole country for the forseeable future. Not until the the economics change for some routes. In the future however, it may well be that more routes can be justified.

 

[A0]

Keynesian economic theory does suggest that major infrstructure works should still take place during recession as it assists in providing jobs. Nice to see a swing back towards the Heath Goverment's style of Conservatism (Keynesian) rather than the Thatcher Conservative ideals of monetarism (Friedman).

Also nice to see somebody who has taken one single point of Keynesian economic theory without reading the pre-requisites first.

Whilst it is true Keynes advocated investment to spend your way out of recession, the prerequisite to that was THAT YOU SAVE DURING A BOOM - which then funds your spending during the downturn.

The last Labour government ran a DEFICIT every year from 2002, despite the economy booming. The consequence is that the funds needed to support the investment in the downturn don't exist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

I suggest a little more research before posting on economic matters, especially when you clearly don't understand them beyond the simple, attractive headlines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The best argument for HS2 is the capacity one, so yes, another line is required.

But only if HS2 will address that capacity issue - which there seems to be some doubt about.

 

[Buttsy]

Also nice to see somebody who has taken one single point of Keynesian economic theory without reading the pre-requisites first.

Whilst it is true Keynes advocated investment to spend your way out of recession, the prerequisite to that was THAT YOU SAVE DURING A BOOM - which then funds your spending during the downturn.

The last Labour government ran a DEFICIT every year from 2002, despite the economy booming. The consequence is that the funds needed to support the investment in the downturn don't exist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

I suggest a little more research before posting on economic matters, especially when you clearly don't understand them beyond the simple, attractive headlines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But only if HS2 will address that capacity issue - which there seems to be some doubt about.

I have an A-Level in economics (albeit some years back) and as I stated, Keynesian theory SUGGESTS that you spend during recession, not that you should. In fact Gordon Brown was doing this without the savings element available during Labour's last term of office. I grant you that it was not necessarily effective. I apologise for not fully detailing the whole of it as it is a little difficult to go into a detailed analysis of Keynesian theory while I'm supposed to be working. My point was more that there has been, apparently, a shift in thinking by the Conservatives away from monetarism and back towards Keynes.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

I note that you haven't supplied a verbatim qoute of Nigel's words for all to see...

Mainly because I'm not at work(as stated in my previous post, the magazine is at work). I wouldn't dream of buying a magazine that believes my oppostion to HS2 is based on the fact that I have been seduced by the shouting of the NIMBYs in the Chilterns. If it means that much to you I will provide it when I am next in.

Anyway, we've been through this many times. In some respects I admire your tenacity, it's a very gloves off approach and you may well get your way. The end justifies the means, I guess. But discussing it with you online is a slightly unpleasant expierence. I'm well aware that with a lack of intonation online, sometimes discussions can become heated in a way that they wouldn't do in "real life". So I'm sure you don't come across in the real world as you do online. Afterall, most people haven't had YouTube skit made about them.

Whether you want to accept it or not, both yourself and Nigel Harris have both been just as guilty of ad hominem attacks as those in the anti-HS2, of which I include myself.

 

[A0]

I have an A-Level in economics (albeit some years back) and as I stated, Keynesian theory SUGGESTS that you spend during recession, not that you should. In fact Gordon Brown was doing this without the savings element available during Labour's last term of office. I grant you that it was not necessarily effective. I apologise for not fully detailing the whole of it as it is a little difficult to go into a detailed analysis of Keynesian theory while I'm supposed to be working. My point was more that there has been, apparently, a shift in thinking by the Conservatives away from monetarism and back towards Keynes.

I didn't say 'should', I actually said 'advocated'.

The fact remains from 2002-08 the economy was booming, yet a huge budget deficit was being run, which made the problems since then far worse and limited any government's room for spending.

I don't think that HS2 is being considered is an indication we're heading back to Keynesian economics. I think it's still being considered for 2 reasons, firstly the process was put in flight by the last government, so it makes sense to keep it going. Secondly, it will take at least 10 years to build and probably won't start for at least 5 years, by which time the economy should be improving.

 

[Buttsy]

I didn't say 'should', I actually said 'advocated'.

Fair point, I apologise.

 

[Snapper]

Whether you want to accept it or not, both yourself and Nigel Harris have both been just as guilty of attacks as those in the anti-HS2, of which I include myself.

Not at all. The fact that you choose to 'own' certain remarks does not mean they were made about you. As I've pointed out a number of times. Nigel was addressing his remarks to (and about) a wider, generic group of people - not a specific individual.

The only person he got personal about was the one anti who sent him a threatening letter!

I on the other hand have had that opportunity.

 

[Ferret]

Not at all. The fact that you choose to 'own' certain remarks does not mean they were made about you. As I've pointed out a number of times. Nigel was addressing his remarks to (and about) a wider, generic group of people - not a specific individual.

The only person he got personal about was the one anti who sent him a threatening letter!

I on the other hand have had that opportunity.

Crikey Snapper, doesn't it make you laugh? What in the name of hell would make you send an abusive letter to a mag editor over a bloody railway line?! I mean for goodness sake!

 

[Philip Elliott]

It's not a conspiracy, or that anyone was 'ordered' to choose through the Chilterns. It's simply the best route.

It was stated clearly in the consultation document that the Chiltern route (or more accurately via West London) because it was easier/cheaper to reach Heathrow. Without the requirement for Heathrow it would almost certainly go via the M1 corridor. The M1 corridor is clearly the better corridor for Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield etc.

If you'd check the history of HS2 you'd have noticed that it wasn't politicians who either designed it or suggested the need for it.

It was Andrew Adonis as rail minister that created HS2 ltd. to plan a 'London to Birmingham' HS line and look at 'options' for further north beyond Birmingham. HS2 were not allowed to look at a different line with Birmingham served as a branch (as per the WCML). Adonis also clearly stated on several occassions that the purpose was to decimate domestic air travel. I doubt it will take traffic from Humberside airport!

Hmm, not sure that we'd need 4 tracks for quite some considerable time - if at all. I'd be interested to see what any proposed benefits were meant to be when twin track HS2 could operate up to 18tph

The planned services on the route already exceed 18tph post phase 2. What happens during maintenance work. On the occassions where single like working is possible you would only get at best 3tph - imagine the farce on a Sunday morning at Euston. When the line is closed, the full gauge trains won't be able to divert. No intercity route in the world has 18tph, one incident and the disruption would be ridiculous.

And you don't think is a case for 4-track.:roll:

HS2 has been talked about for decades and engineers have had plenty of time to study alternative routes - including an M1 route

Decades? Get real. It's less than 20 years since the abandoned Intercity 250 project - there wasn't the hint of a high speed speed route to the north, only the CTRL. Why would engineers be studying a route during this time when no one is paying them to do it?

 

[Greenback]

The planned services on the route already exceed 18tph post phase 2. What happens during maintenance work. On the occassions where single like working is possible you would only get at best 3tph - imagine the farce on a Sunday morning at Euston. When the line is closed, the full gauge trains won't be able to divert. No intercity route in the world has 18tph, one incident and the disruption would be ridiculous.

And you don't think is a case for 4-track.:roll:?

Thank you for expressing so clearly what I failed to put over!

 

[Snapper]

It was stated clearly in the consultation document that the Chiltern route (or more accurately via West London) because it was easier/cheaper to reach Heathrow. Without the requirement for Heathrow it would almost certainly go via the M1 corridor. The M1 corridor is clearly the better corridor for Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield etc.

And your point is?

It was Andrew Adonis as rail minister that created HS2 ltd. to plan a 'London to Birmingham' HS line and look at 'options' for further north beyond Birmingham. HS2 were not allowed to look at a different line with Birmingham served as a branch (as per the WCML). Adonis also clearly stated on several occassions that the purpose was to decimate domestic air travel. I doubt it will take traffic from Humberside airport!

HS2 is only the latest (and most advanced) entity to look at a HSL. Others had begun the process long before. As for Adonis, I've spoken to him about this and his vision encompassed more than just the airlines. In fact, his focus was (and always has been) more about being the the rail version of Earnest Marples - the 'Minister of Roads'

The planned services on the route already exceed 18tph post phase 2. What happens during maintenance work. On the occassions where single like working is possible you would only get at best 3tph - imagine the farce on a Sunday morning at Euston. When the line is closed, the full gauge trains won't be able to divert. No intercity route in the world has 18tph, one incident and the disruption would be ridiculous.

And you don't think is a case for 4-track.:roll:

No, I certainly don't see a case for making it a 4-track line using the excuse of maintenance closures. How many other HSL's have been built as 4-track under that logic?

Decades? Get real. It's less than 20 years since the abandoned Intercity 250 project - there wasn't the hint of a high speed speed route to the north, only the CTRL. Why would engineers be studying a route during this time when no one is paying them to do it?

IC250 was abandoned in 1992 - almost two decades ago. By which time France had built a number of TGV routes. I've not suggested that 'engineers' were out mapping routes on the ground back in the 1980s and 90's - only that people were talking of the usefulness of HSLs in the UK. It's certainly not a new idea.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

As requested, the quote in full from Nigel Harris:

But some of [Stop HS2 Chiltern NIMBYS] mud is sticking. This helped create the ludicrous situation where even time-served railway supporters have been hoodwinked. I have been taken aback to come across committed rail supporters opposing HS2. Some of these are in the North, so if you subscribe to the view that the end justifies the means, then peverse credit to the NIMBYSs for shouting loud enough and long enough to convice those who have not yet engaged with the 'pro' campaign. This is a wake-up call to those who support HS2 to redouble their efforts. There is work to do.

 

[Tubby Isaacs]

The fact remains from 2002-08 the economy was booming, yet a huge budget deficit was being run, which made the problems since then far worse and limited any government's room for spending.
.

Government debt as percentage of GDP

2002: 30.9%
2008: 37.2%

Clearly that isn't very good, but you can over do the "huge budget deficit" stuff and how much it limits the room for spending now. The government isn't sitting there now thinking it could have done all sorts of nice things if it weren't for that extra 6.3% debt.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

True, but it really should have gone the other way, though. Instead of going up 6.3% points, if it went down 6.3% to to 24.6% then there would then be 12.6% points difference. We would then have a little bit more breathing space to kick start the economy with infrastructure investment that would prepare us for the next growth cycle. Right now we need to keep hold of our AAA credit rating. America lost theirs, and much of Europe is struggling, so we shouldn't get to carried away with our borrowing.

Obviously that is very back-of-a-fag-packet maths, but more the principle, of course.

 

[mallard]

It was stated clearly in the consultation document that the Chiltern route (or more accurately via West London) because it was easier/cheaper to reach Heathrow. Without the requirement for Heathrow it would almost certainly go via the M1 corridor. The M1 corridor is clearly the better corridor for Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield etc.

We already have a line that (generally, there is a bit of a deviation through Northamptonshire) follows the M1 corridor (or, since it was there first, the M1 follows it's corridor), it's called the Midland Main Line.

If you want to reach Manchester via that corridor you will have to (re)build the line through the Peak District National Park. If you don't like the idea of building through the Chilterns AONB, then you can't support building through the Peak District and remain logically consistent. (That's aimed more at "Zoe" than "Philip Elliott".)

It's also no good for reaching Birmingham, as previously noted. Note that reaching Birmingham from the North is just as important as reaching it from London.

Also note that passenger numbers on the MML are much lower than on the WCML or ECML, which gives an idea of how popular a HS route along the same corridor might be. It also would be far less helpful when it comes to easing capacity issues on the WCML south of Rugby and along the Coventry corridor.