High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[RichmondCommu]

So people are demanding that they should be compensated because they bought a property they freely bought at an inflated value based on a characteristic that could change at any time (and they knew could change at any time and probably would eventually) which then fell in value as a result of a change to that characteristic?

People forget that the price of housing can go down a well as up and they can't rely on their house as the sole provider of retirement income.

But you can't tell people that.

Hang on a minute, if they bought the property say 15 years a go how were they to know that the view from their garden would be affected by a railway that wasn't planned? 15 years a go nobody was discussing building a brand new railway through Bucks.

And on what basis do you suggest that a paticular property in Bucks was purchased at an inflated price, compared to a property anywhere else in the country?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So people are demanding that they should be compensated because they bought a property they freely bought at an inflated value based on a characteristic that could change at any time (and they knew could change at any time and probably would eventually) which then fell in value as a result of a change to that characteristic?

People forget that the price of housing can go down a well as up and they can't rely on their house as the sole provider of retirement income.

But you can't tell people that.

Hang on a minute, if they bought the property say 15 years a go how were they to know that the view from their garden would be affected by a railway that wasn't planned? 15 years a go nobody was discussing building a brand new railway through Bucks.

 

[CalderRail]

Hang on a minute, if they bought the property say 15 years a go how were they to know that the view from their garden would be affected by a railway that wasn't planned? 15 years a go nobody was discussing building a brand new railway through Bucks.

And on what basis do you suggest that a paticular property in Bucks was purchased at an inflated price, compared to a property anywhere else in the country?

Of course the price is inflated, it's in Buckinghamshire.

In all honesty the arguments of most of the home counties NIMBYs is "we bought our house because it's close enough to London to commute, but now other people want to commute we're opposed to a rail development near our house. And by the way, the service on our commuter train is horrible."

It's basically people wanting their own way, in a short-sighted fashion. Thankfully, the planning laws and the business analysis of DfT and NR don't take into account that sort of thing.

And you don't have any right to anything just because it wasn't planned when you bought the house. If you paid a premium, then you were paying it for something which you didn't own and can't control.

Lots of things can be considered a local premium feature, but while they will affect the property value, they aren't owned by the property and you aren't entitled to them.

Let's say (for example) that you bought a house in Shepperton. Good transport links, 2tph (6tph in rush hour). Then some latter-day beeching decides the branch isn't profitable, and there's no business case to retain it. Bomf, your nearest station is 3 miles away. Do you get any compensation for your house suddenly being less convenient to commute? Do you hell as like.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Hang on a minute, if they bought the property say 15 years a go how were they to know that the view from their garden would be affected by a railway that wasn't planned? 15 years a go nobody was discussing building a brand new railway through Bucks.

And on what basis do you suggest that a paticular property in Bucks was purchased at an inflated price, compared to a property anywhere else in the country?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Hang on a minute, if they bought the property say 15 years a go how were they to know that the view from their garden would be affected by a railway that wasn't planned? 15 years a go nobody was discussing building a brand new railway through Bucks.

One thing you have to remember is that, as you acknowledge, market forces determine the value of something, but those are determined in the cases of fixed things like houses almost entirely by demand in the short-run. Demand is almost entirely dependent on human psychology, and in almost all circumstances that means it's therefore determined by assumptions.

In other words - those people bought a house assuming the surroundings were unlikely to change. This drove the house prices up in the area because a lot of people thought the same thing, and so demand for them was higher. Unluckily for them, this didn't hold.

They don't, however, have some right to correct what they now realise was a mistake, albeit one they couldn't have predicted, because there is no obligation on the part of a government to maintain house prices at a particular level at the expense of infrastructure. They have every right to fight for it based on particular things like noise pollution above unacceptable levels and the like, but not when it comes to things that won't actually be a detriment to their day-to-day lives. That's what compensation is for.

 

[bnm]

The ever increasing upward cost of HS2 is a real cause for concern.

A 33% increase in estimated cost since February 2011 hasn't really been accurately justified by Govt. or HS2 supporters. The BCR analysis hasn't changed in that period, yet the total cost for phases 1 and 2 has jumped from £37.6 billion to £50.1 billion in 2½ years.

Those sceptical about both the costs and benefits of HS2 (among whom I count myself) really need much more convincing that UK Plc can afford it.

I'm on the fence, but recent cost increases have left me leaning toward the anti- camp. £50 billion is an awful lot of money for a country that isn't in a particularly good economic state at the moment. Yes, the cost will be spread over a couple of decades, and the economic benefits of HS2 will possibly show a return over a longer period, but with a marginal BCR I remain to be convinced, on cost grounds, that the project is a worthwhile investment.

There appears to be too much underlying emphasis on prestige and 'keeping up with the Joneses' driving the perceived need for a new 200mph+ line.

 

[AndyLandy]

Good grief! I'm amazed this is still raging on.

For the NIMBYs, I do have some sympathy. You choose your property for a whole host of reasons, and it must be very frustrating to learn that some years later, the government are going to plough a railway through your back yard.

Still, we need this railway, it has to go somewhere, and through Buckinghamshire is the most direct route. Some folks are going to have their views spoiled, or otherwise suffer from the building or the eventual running of the new railway. I don't blame anyone for asking "not in my back yard", and I applaud the efforts of the government to put more of the railway in tunnels and to have some form of compensation scheme for those who will be most disadvantaged by the railway. But at the end of the day, if it has to go through your back yard, then tough luck. Sorry.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Maria Eagle was on BBC2 Newsnight last night, and she made a spirited defence of HS2 as a cross-party project.
She didn't quite rubbish Alistair Darling's comments but she did confirm the Labour front bench was still behind the scheme.
To the question "how much is too much", referring to the £80m claimed by some, she indicated she still believed the current estimates, but it was up to the DfT to reconfirm the costs later in the year before the bill reaches Parliament.

And Alison Munro of HS2 has just been on doing much the same, essentially saying there is no alternative.

If anybody remembers the 1970s financial crisis, the Labour government faced the prospect of having three megaprojects on the go at once - the Channel Tunnel, Concorde, and a 3rd London Airport (then proposed at Wing in Bucks).
Labour decided it could only afford one project, and it had to be Concorde because we had contracted with the French not to cancel it (to prevent the French from cancelling it!).
So Concorde went ahead, for very little benefit, while the Channel Tunnel came back from the dead a decade later, and we are still waiting for a 3rd London Airport.

Somebody higher up said there were no true white elephant projects.
Concorde was one (dead and buried in a generation), and Bletchley flyover and a host of BR modernisation plan projects were others.

I think Alistair Darling is frightened of just this sort of hijack of government funds in the future.

 

[yorksrob]

Didn't Stanstead end up as the third London airport ?

 

[edwin_m]

Somebody higher up said there were no true white elephant projects.
Concorde was one (dead and buried in a generation), and Bletchley flyover and a host of BR modernisation plan projects were others.

Bletchley flyover will finally come into its own with the East West Rail project, 50 or so years after it was constructed. Who says we British don't plan ahead?

 

[Geezertronic]

However it's worth reiterating that they were there before HS2!

Plenty of housing estates have cropped up around railway lines that were there already (and had been for years) but the railway line has to quieten the noise to fit in with the housing estates rather than the residents accepting that they have purchased a house near a railway line

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Didn't Stansted end up as the third London airport ?

Not really. Stansted was never planned on the basis of being an alternative to Heathrow, just an overspill for the east really (only one runway).

Wing or the Thames estuary plans were intended to replace Heathrow.
The airlines were dead against leaving Heathrow (and still are).
Wing (Aylesbury Vale) would have pulverised Buckinghamshire far more than HS2.
.

 

[PR1Berske]

The ever increasing upward cost of HS2 is a real cause for concern.

A 33% increase in estimated cost since February 2011 hasn't really been accurately justified by Govt. or HS2 supporters. The BCR analysis hasn't changed in that period, yet the total cost for phases 1 and 2 has jumped from £37.6 billion to £50.1 billion in 2½ years.

Those sceptical about both the costs and benefits of HS2 (among whom I count myself) really need much more convincing that UK Plc can afford it.

I'm on the fence, but recent cost increases have left me leaning toward the anti- camp. £50 billion is an awful lot of money for a country that isn't in a particularly good economic state at the moment. Yes, the cost will be spread over a couple of decades, and the economic benefits of HS2 will possibly show a return over a longer period, but with a marginal BCR I remain to be convinced, on cost grounds, that the project is a worthwhile investment.

There appears to be too much underlying emphasis on prestige and 'keeping up with the Joneses' driving the perceived need for a new 200mph+ line.

A very good and considered post.

The cost benefit analysis has actually fallen, so whilst the overall cost has gone up, the advantages have fallen.

I've only just found out today that the Lancashire proposals incorporate the scrapping of direct trains to Scotland from Manchester, so that's progress :roll::roll:

 

[YorkshireBear]

A very good and considered post.

The cost benefit analysis has actually fallen, so whilst the overall cost has gone up, the advantages have fallen.

I've only just found out today that the Lancashire proposals incorporate the scrapping of direct trains to Scotland from Manchester, so that's progress :roll::roll:

I think they have said exactly where the money has gone. Alterations in design including increased tunnels to appease the Chilterns. And contingency money.


Source for lancashire proposals? (not calling you a liar i would just be interested to see them...)

 

[Carlisle]

I think they have said exactly where the money has gone. Alterations in design including increased tunnels to appease the Chilterns. And contingency money.


Source for lancashire proposals? (not calling you a liar i would just be interested to see them...)

Blimey that end of hs2 is so far off in to the future for completion those of us who are still alive should have our own personal rockets by then lol

 

[PR1Berske]

I think they have said exactly where the money has gone. Alterations in design including increased tunnels to appease the Chilterns. And contingency money.


Source for lancashire proposals? (not calling you a liar i would just be interested to see them...)

This post: http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/97264/thread

 

[ainsworth74]

So not an official source then?

 

[YorkshireBear]

So not an official source then?

There is a source within the source which i have just read. The envisage it not continuing to the airport anymore with CC services serving the airport via connection to WCML. Does not say anywhere cancel central Manchester to Scotland services.

 

[tbtc]

Oh look I completely agree but as a property owner with a decent view I have a lot of sympathy for those who will be affected. I suspect that a lot of posters who mock those affected don't have properties of their own. When you buy a house you are buying far more than just bricks and mortar.

I'd be interested to know the breakdown between the actual cost of building the HS2 infrastructure and the cost of all of the compensation (to homeowners in Buckinghamshire who don't want fast trains running non-stop through their county, apart from the hundreds a day that do run non-stop through Buckinghamshire on the WCML, compensation to councils trying to claim money for not being on the route, compensation for councils trying to claim money for actually being on the route)...

...seems like a large chunk of the HS2 bill is for compensation, and the cost keeps going up as people want more money too.

I agree with you regarding the upset to individuals, but if the population is going to go up by several million over the next twenty/ fifty years then we need more infrastructure.

Whether that's new roads/ widening existing roads/ new railways/ widening existing railways, there's going to be disruption, trucks running through villages etc.

I've only just found out today that the Lancashire proposals incorporate the scrapping of direct trains to Scotland from Manchester, so that's progress :roll::roll:

Found out where?

You don't mean the Bolton changes to the Manchester - Glasgow/ Edinburgh services do you?

 

[Bonemaster]

I'd be interested to know the breakdown between the actual cost of building the HS2 infrastructure and the cost of all of the compensation (to homeowners in Buckinghamshire who don't want fast trains running non-stop through their county, apart from the hundreds a day that do run non-stop through Buckinghamshire on the WCML, compensation to councils trying to claim money for not being on the route, compensation for councils trying to claim money for actually being on the route)...

...seems like a large chunk of the HS2 bill is for compensation, and the cost keeps going up as people want more money too.

Out of the £43bn just £1.8bn is for land costs and compensation (<5%), note that includes the purchase of land, which given the price of land I would imagine would be the lions share. I think it is disingenuous to imply those in the chilterns are only after as much money as they can get.

As an anti can you please tell me your solution to the problem of the WCML being over whelmed soon.

I find it quiet rude that you have not read my posts over the last 24 hours before coming out with such a comment. I am pro high speed rail, I strongly believe the HS2 proposal is hugely flawed, and would love to be proved wrong. Therefore I would be a sceptic rather than an anti

I notice you did not say which growth projection was most likely to be correct, DfT, Network Rail, or HS2 Ltd?

The fact that the WCML will soon be full is almost undisputable, however there are cost effective ways of growing capacity, by removing pinch points, train lengthening, and changing the amount of 1st class provision, the quick wins can produce results in a couple of years as opposed to the 20 years or so for HS2 to give any further benefits, way after the forecasts say the enhancement is required

 

[HSTEd]

Pinch point removal is not going to cut it, you will hit brick walls with regards to terminal capacity long before then.
It will also be enormously disruptive since you will have to remove dozens of them to get the required effect.

As to train lengthening.... it should be clear that we can't really push much further than 11 cars without complete reconstruction of numerous stations. (Manchester Piccadilly would require a complete rebuild of the station approach to take anything more than what it does now, and it would likely require numerous non railway properties being demolished to make the extra room in the station throat).

As to the reduction in first class provision, that is not going to make a significant difference when 11-car Pendolinos already have 3.08 standard class seats per first class seat.
The only way you could justify further downward pressure on first class provision relative to standard is to reduce journey times, which is not going to happen without HS2.

 

[jon0844]

We can't say our current economic status is reason not to build HS2, as we have to assume that things will improve by the time it is completed.

In fact, we will probably have another boom and bust before then!

 

[tbtc]

The fact that the WCML will soon be full is almost undisputable, however there are cost effective ways of growing capacity, by removing pinch points, train lengthening, and changing the amount of 1st class provision

Given that the Pendolini are up to eleven coaches long and the 350s are up to twelve coaches long (with extra units on order to lengthen services), what train lengthening is realistic?

Same with the "pinch points" - the upgrade a decade ago sorted out a number of these (four tracking etc) - a lot of the things suggested on here would just push problems a few miles along the line.

That's just my opinion, would be interested in your suggestions though.

 

[Bonemaster]

Pinch point removal is not going to cut it, you will hit brick walls with regards to terminal capacity long before then.
It will also be enormously disruptive since you will have to remove dozens of them to get the required effect.

As to train lengthening.... it should be clear that we can't really push much further than 11 cars without complete reconstruction of numerous stations. (Manchester Piccadilly would require a complete rebuild of the station approach to take anything more than what it does now, and it would likely require numerous non railway properties being demolished to make the extra room in the station throat).

As to the reduction in first class provision, that is not going to make a significant difference when 11-car Pendolinos already have 3.08 standard class seats per first class seat.
The only way you could justify further downward pressure on first class provision relative to standard is to reduce journey times, which is not going to happen without HS2.

All stations with the exception of Liverpool Lime Street are economic, the work has already been done to assess this up to 12 coach pendolinos, Lime Street would require a sub fleet of eight 11 coach trains, lengthening for modest expenditure would provide 62% extra capacity. Add into that 12% extra services can be added by pinch point removal. You speak as if the work to cost these has not been done, but it was done as part of the HS2 strategic alternatives work undertaken for DfT, along with a string of further further upgrades that could further increase capacity if required. This publication shows quiet clearly you don't really know what you are talking about. Interestingly Manchester Piccadilly is not cited as an obstacle for either 17 car or 14 car trains.

Undoubtedly HS2 will bring about greater speed, but as I will reiterate again, is the step change capacity required, I really do not think speed alone is worth £40bn of every person in the countries money, there does eventually come a point where no further capacity upgrades are available and we are not yet within 30 years of that point, and to demonstrate how much can change in 30 years, its 31 years since the Serpell Report was published and what was being proposed then.

Given that the Pendolini are up to eleven coaches long and the 350s are up to twelve coaches long (with extra units on order to lengthen services), what train lengthening is realistic?

Same with the "pinch points" - the upgrade a decade ago sorted out a number of these (four tracking etc) - a lot of the things suggested on here would just push problems a few miles along the line.

That's just my opinion, would be interested in your suggestions though.

All the alternatives are costed and assessed and the information in the public domain

 

[tbtc]

I really do not think speed alone is worth £40bn of every person in the countries money

It's not £40bn each, it's £40bn in total. No wonder it looked expensive.

To put things in context, £40,000,000,000 is £667 per person in a country of sixty million people. Over twenty years of construction, that's £33 per person per year. Suddenly these big national figures don't look quite so scary - I can see why the "anti" mob want to focus on the big figure though.

(am sure someone'll be along to correct my maths)

 

[WatcherZero]

I think the Lancashire reference is to Manchester-Scotland services not appearing in the HS2 provisional service pattern, thats because they havent currently modeled them as a HS2 service leaving the existing classic service intact, however this may well change as the development of the Scotland link continues.

 

[tbtc]

All the alternatives are costed and assessed and the information in the public domain

Fair enough if you don't want to give examples of these apparent "quick wins"

 

[Bonemaster]

Fair enough if you don't want to give examples of these apparent "quick wins"

If you cant be bothered to look at the alternatives, as you obviously have ruled them all out before you know the schemes, the costs, and the benefits these can bring, its akin to walking into a restaurant and saying I dont want to look at the menu and ordering the waiters recommendation. I cant see how someone who is unwilling to know the facts can have an informed opinion.

 

[NSEFAN]

If you cant be bothered to look at the alternatives, as you obviously have ruled them all out before you know the schemes, the costs, and the benefits these can bring, its akin to walking into a restaurant and saying I dont want to look at the menu and ordering the waiters recommendation. I cant see how someone who is unwilling to know the facts can have an informed opinion.

If you know something that others on here don't then please share it with us. Share links, ideally to the original data and not a newspaper report.

 

[tbtc]

If you cant be bothered to look at the alternatives, as you obviously have ruled them all out before you know the schemes, the costs, and the benefits these can bring, its akin to walking into a restaurant and saying I dont want to look at the menu and ordering the waiters recommendation. I cant see how someone who is unwilling to know the facts can have an informed opinion.

You're telling me that there are lots of cheaper simpler alternatives to HS2, but you won't tell me what they are?

I've looked into some of the plans for the WCML that are discussed on here like Stafford (and for similar schemes on the ECML like Welwyn) and they generally seem like a lot of disruption for little real gain - and don't add capacity at the southern end of the route.

Taking the DC services out of Euston (either diverting onto the NLL or replacing them with Bakerloo services) would add capacity at the southern end, but that's about it.

Oh well, guess you're not going to tell me then.

 

[Dave1987]

If you cant be bothered to look at the alternatives, as you obviously have ruled them all out before you know the schemes, the costs, and the benefits these can bring, its akin to walking into a restaurant and saying I dont want to look at the menu and ordering the waiters recommendation. I cant see how someone who is unwilling to know the facts can have an informed opinion.

I have seen the alternatives out forward in the 51M and none of them cure the main problem. The alternatives are a sticking plaster and a mortal wound. They may marginally increase capacity in the short term but none of them address the key capacity problems on the WCML and none of them provide a solution for the extra freight traffic. And this is the key point the anti argument might be perfectly plausible as a short term solution but what happens in ten years time when all the alternatives have been done. A lot of money has been spent but the WCML is now full and any new line would take a decade to build. HS2 doesn't just offer a solution to the problem of capacity at the current time, it gives plenty of extra capacity to ensure that we should be ok for another 40-50 years.

 

[HSTEd]

All stations with the exception of Liverpool Lime Street are economic, the work has already been done to assess this up to 12 coach pendolinos, Lime Street would require a sub fleet of eight 11 coach trains, lengthening for modest expenditure would provide 62% extra capacity.

How does adding one extra carriage upgrade capacity by 62%?
That doesn't even make any sense.

Capacity constrained services are already 11-car, even adding all the Pendolinos up to 12 cars is unlikely to increase capacity by 62%?
(9-car Pendo has 439 seats, a 12-car Pendo would have at most add 51% extra seats, and a rather large part of the fleet is already 11-car).

Add into that 12% extra services can be added by pinch point removal. You speak as if the work to cost these has not been done, but it was done as part of the HS2 strategic alternatives work undertaken for DfT, along with a string of further further upgrades that could further increase capacity if required.

12% extra services?
That comes out at 1.1 Pendolino an hour or something extra doesn't it effectively?
I have demonstrated that HS2 adds capacity of roughly 30 11-car Pendolinos per hour.
So you get 3% of the cost to pay for this entire upgrade project, which is only about a billion pounds, and the cost of the rolling stock alone would eat up a substantial portion of that. (That is going to need 7-8 extra sets of 11 cars each, which is going to be approaching a hundred vehicles, costing ~£230m by DfT figures).

So pinch point removal for £770m? Including disruption payments.
That sounds like its going to be hard to achieve.

This publication shows quiet clearly you don't really know what you are talking about. Interestingly Manchester Piccadilly is not cited as an obstacle for either 17 car or 14 car trains.

Its not cited as an obstacle if you have unlimited money to throw at it.
17 car trains lengthening is going to cost far more per additional seat than HS2 is, since it doesn't actually deliver that many additional seats.
And even if it doesn't actually cost that much it will certainly be incredibly disruptive.

Undoubtedly HS2 will bring about greater speed, but as I will reiterate again, is the step change capacity required, I really do not think speed alone is worth £40bn of every person in the countries money, there does eventually come a point where no further capacity upgrades are available and we are not yet within 30 years of that point, and to demonstrate how much can change in 30 years, its 31 years since the Serpell Report was published and what was being proposed then.

Growth is currently logarithmic which means it will eat all of these capacity gains of yours alive.
12% of capacity growth from pinch point removal gets you a handful of years at best.
The capacity is the best part, the speed is just icing on the cake.
£40bn is not that much considering its a tiny fraction of the national economy and because government debt is so absurdly cheap at the moment. (In real terms the debt would actually shrink due to inflation thanks to the low bond yields).

All the alternatives are costed and assessed and the information in the public domain

And yet the DfT pursues HS2... this tells you something.
But I think they must just all be party to the conspiracy.