High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Deerfold]

Nor am I to be honest.

I'm sceptical about who the biggest winners and losers are going to be.

I'm sceptical about the costs (not just financial).

I'm sceptical about the benefits.

What about you? For or against?

For - though I'd appreciate seing if the financial costs can be lowered at all (a general point about modern railway construction in this country, not specific to HS2).

Ideally I'd would prefer a co-ordinated network of HS lines to be started including a line to Leeds / York and beyond further East rather than the Y-shape planned but if that's not an option I'd rather we did HS2 than nothing.

 

[ainsworth74]

Worth remembering that the headline cost includes a huge amount of contingency so it's perfectly possible that the cost will actually be less than the headline.

 

[Deerfold]

Worth remembering that the headline cost includes a huge amount of contingency so it's perfectly possible that the cost will actually be less than the headline.

I'm hoping it can get lower still. But realise it may not.

 

[Spaceflower]

What worries me is that the original plan gets altered during the consultation process to the extent the benefits become negligible.
For example, re-routing the line might save strong opposition on one hand but on the other may shave off some benefits. Cumulative trade-offs like this may result in the project becoming way off course. Then there is the massive budget pressure to think about.

 

[NSEFAN]

What worries me is that the original plan gets altered during the consultation process to the extent the benefits become negligible.
For example, re-routing the line might save strong opposition on one hand but on the other may shave off some benefits. Cumulative trade-offs like this may result in the project becoming way off course. Then there is the massive budget pressure to think about.

There has already been a lot of consultation taking place. Part of the additional cost is extra measures put in place to reduce local impact of the line. To massively change the plans now will only add more cost and more delay.

 

[Kettledrum]

Worth remembering that the headline cost includes a huge amount of contingency so it's perfectly possible that the cost will actually be less than the headline.

I'm uneasy about the current emphasis on cost. Low cost can sometimes be a false economy. Remember the East Coast Main Line Electrification?? It was done on the cheap, and we've suffered reliability issues since. I'm also keen to make sure proper compensation is paid to those on the route of the line, and this might be more limited if excessive cost cutting is undertaken.

 

[Metrailway]

Why don't we rework the timetable so that the WCML south of Birmingham effectively has the same service pattern as it does now, only the express trains to destinations further north are now running on HS2 instead? The trains calling only at Coventry, Milton Keynes etc would instead start at Birmingham rather than Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, etc.

But what about poor MK which loses all its connections to the major cities such as Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool etc? I don't think MK based NR will like that

I'm uneasy about the current emphasis on cost. Low cost can sometimes be a false economy. Remember the East Coast Main Line Electrification?? It was done on the cheap, and we've suffered reliability issues since. I'm also keen to make sure proper compensation is paid to those on the route of the line, and this might be more limited if excessive cost cutting is undertaken.

The ECML electrification was considered at the time a world record in terms of how cheap electrification was on a per mile basis. I believe in real terms it was half the cost of the WCML electrification in the 1960s.

HS2, with it's current budget, will be the most expensive high speed railway in the world on a per mile basis (surpassing HS1 which is the current holder). We have a lot of cost cutting to do to reach ECML electrification levels!

 

[Bonemaster]

Worth remembering that the headline cost includes a huge amount of contingency so it's perfectly possible that the cost will actually be less than the headline.

All government projects include contingency because you don't know what is going to happen, or what lurks 2 foot below the surface of the land, or a sudden change in COPI, and invariably it gets spent because things do happen that require the contingency to be spent. That is why its there.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm uneasy about the current emphasis on cost. Low cost can sometimes be a false economy. Remember the East Coast Main Line Electrification?? It was done on the cheap, and we've suffered reliability issues since. I'm also keen to make sure proper compensation is paid to those on the route of the line, and this might be more limited if excessive cost cutting is undertaken.

There is nothing wrong with the ECML electrification.
It is not significantly less reliable than the WCML. Despite what a certain boss said to shift the blame for his company's awful punctuality

 

[Moonshot]

Worth remembering that the headline cost includes a huge amount of contingency so it's perfectly possible that the cost will actually be less than the headline.

Which is still a huge amount of money regardless of contingency. I ve been involved with debating HS2 on another site for the last 2 years plus, and despite me being a supporter of it , those that are against on that site have put up some very credible arguments - including a very talented professor from the IEA who really blew away some of the wider benefits arguments.....

 

[AndyLandy]

and despite me being a supporter of it , those that are against on that site have put up some very credible arguments

That's about where I'm at. As someone who'll benefit from it, I'm stil fairly pro-HS2, but there are some pretty credible arguments against it here at the moment. Makes a change from the "What's the point in saving 15 minutes to Birmingham?" nonsense!

 

[HowardGWR]

Which is still a huge amount of money regardless of contingency. I ve been involved with debating HS2 on another site for the last 2 years plus, and despite me being a supporter of it , those that are against on that site have put up some very credible arguments - including a very talented professor from the IEA who really blew away some of the wider benefits arguments.....

Which site is that?

 

[YorkshireBear]

The wider benefits are often overstated, i am not convinced how great they are but the basic fact is unless we want everyone stood up on trains and people being turned back to cars quickly, we need it, there isn't really another option.

 

[Spaceflower]

The wider benefits are often overstated, i am not convinced how great they are but the basic fact is unless we want everyone stood up on trains and people being turned back to cars quickly, we need it, there isn't really another option.

Basically, its limiting Londons' growth if we don't?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Basically, its limiting Londons' growth if we don't?

That is a way to get people outside London to support it :P
I understand the economic importance of London but many don't.

 

[tbtc]

Look at it from the opposite direction, can we justify running 3tph to Brum and Manchester currently if they didn't stop at Cov/Stoke/MK/Macclesfield etc.? They would be very empty trains...

And aren't we supposed to be thinking of patronage in 2033 and beyond? Quite why so many seem to think that Brum/Manc usage will boom and everywhere else will stagnate I don't know...

Simple question - would Stoke require two fast trains an hour to London (one non-stop), were it not for the number of Manchester passengers on board?

If Stoke - London doesn't have sufficient passengers to justify that level of service (better than many bigger places get), then why are we worrying if its services are slowed down a little post-HS2?

Fairness. Equitable distribution of taxpayers money so benefits are maximised amongst all groups, not just the wealthy.

What do you mean?

Why do people think that HS2 is going to only be for rich people? Would we be building 400m long trains if only the richest few people in the country could afford to use it?

But what about poor MK which loses all its connections to the major cities such as Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool etc? I don't think MK based NR will like that

We don't yet know the 2033 timetable on "classic" lines - we are still slowly finding out about the May 2014 timetable on those lines! I think we are reading far too much into a suggested service pattern based on something in twenty years time...

(and how many direct trains does Milton Keynes get to Glasgow and Liverpool at the moment?)

 

[Spaceflower]

Simple question - would Stoke require two fast trains an hour to London (one non-stop), were it not for the number of Manchester passengers on board?

If Stoke - London doesn't have sufficient passengers to justify that level of service (better than many bigger places get), then why are we worrying if its services are slowed down a little post-HS2?



What do you mean?

Why do people think that HS2 is going to only be for rich people? Would we be building 400m long trains if only the richest few people in the country could afford to use it?



We don't yet know the 2033 timetable on "classic" lines - we are still slowly finding out about the May 2014 timetable on those lines! I think we are reading far too much into a suggested service pattern based on something in twenty years time...

(and how many direct trains does Milton Keynes get to Glasgow and Liverpool at the moment?)

And by committing to such a project aren't we restricting ourselves to following the same development path of the last 30 years? Today's problems. That's if they still exist in the same form by then.

 

[HSTEd]

That argument applies to basically all infrastructure though.
So you want u to spend no money at all on anything?

 

[Spaceflower]

It's not an argument. It's a question, a concern. Hence the question mark.

 

[GatwickDepress]

(and how many direct trains does Milton Keynes get to Glasgow and Liverpool at the moment?)

I think the direct trains are currently:
Weekdays:
06:10 to Liverpool Lime Street
07:22 to Glasgow Central
10:13 to Glasgow Central
21:38 to Liverpool Lime Street

Saturdays:
06:41 to Glasgow Central

Sundays:
10:33 to Glasgow Central

 

[samxool]

That argument applies to basically all infrastructure though.
So you want u to spend no money at all on anything?

I'd argue, we need to spend the money where it is needed, ie, up north, instead of handing London and the south east yet another blank cheque.
This country is supposed to be broke, but they've magically found £80bn + down the back of a sofa for this vanity project. Sorry, I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me, but I'm a realist, and just cannot support this massive cost, and needless destruction of the chilterns, just to shave a few minutes off for millionaires going to Birmingham. I honestly find it a shocking waste of money and resources. We need to improve what we have first.

 

[HSTEd]

And now Heseltine is apparently demanding that the entire project be converted to a PFI to 'cut costs by a third'.

By which he means headline costs with no note on how it will baloon operations costs....

 

[The Planner]

But what about poor MK which loses all its connections to the major cities such as Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool etc? I don't think MK based NR will like that

Ha! like they have driven any improvements in the last 2-3 years they have been there anyway....

 

[Moonshot]

And now Heseltine is apparently demanding that the entire project be converted to a PFI to 'cut costs by a third'.

By which he means headline costs with no note on how it will baloon operations costs....

Actually what he is asking is for the private sector to bear some of the cost....

This project would never get off the ground if it was left entirely to the private sector, no rational shareholder would ever approve committing large sums of equity to a unknown return. Lets be honest here, no one is is a position to predict just how successful or not this whole project is going to be. As has been pointed out several times, no state infrastructure would ever get built if traditional accounting principles were applied.

 

[HSTEd]

Actually what he is asking is for the private sector to bear some of the cost....

Yes, and in return take a slice of any operating income, which will have to be increased to account for said slice.
I can guarantee the return they will get will be drastically higher than the yield on gilts, which means that to gain political advantage by reducing the headline cost the British public will end up paying more in the long run.

This project would never get off the ground if it was left entirely to the private sector, no rational shareholder would ever approve committing large sums of equity to a unknown return.

Which is why the private investors will demand first right to any operating income, and probably demand that the Government guarantee the rate of return.

 

[NSEFAN]

But what about poor MK which loses all its connections to the major cities such as Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool etc? I don't think MK based NR will like that

What is the main market for rail travel south of Birmingham? My guess is that as you get closer to London, an increasing share is people heading to Euston. Whilst people in Milton Keynes may no longer have direct trains to Holyhead etc post-HS2, I suspect it won't affect the majority of users of the station.

It's not an argument. It's a question, a concern. Hence the question mark.

Realistically, public transport usage is only going to increase. The population of this country is most likely going to increase (even if we had zero immigration), and making electric cars cheaper to run is still on hold until someone can make batteries cheaper, higher capacity and lighter.

As such, it makes sense to provide a long-term increase in capacity on the most important rail routes. Sure, things might well be different in 30 years but dithering and letting petty, short-term politics get in the way (as this country is wont to do) will only make the most likely outcome worse.

 

[Moonshot]

Yes, and in return take a slice of any operating income, which will have to be increased to account for said slice.
I can guarantee the return they will get will be drastically higher than the yield on gilts, which means that to gain political advantage by reducing the headline cost the British public will end up paying more in the long run.



Which is why the private investors will demand first right to any operating income, and probably demand that the Government guarantee the rate of return.

You cant guarentee anything like that......but in the event you are right, I have no issue with private equity achieving its best rate of return, its a principle that underpins pension funds, and assuming you yourself have a pension plan, you would be asking serious questions if the trustees failed to take that into account

 

[HSTEd]

You cant guarentee anything like that......

Yes I can, because otherwise they wouldn't buy into the project, they would buy gilts instead, since there is no shortage of those at the moment.

but in the event you are right, I have no issue with private equity achieving its best rate of return, its a principle that underpins pension funds, and assuming you yourself have a pension plan, you would be asking serious questions if the trustees failed to take that into account

Indeed, I agree that Pension fund managers have a duty to obtain the best returns available. Just as Tobacco company managers have a duty to do everything possible to boost profits from the sale of Tobacco.

However, I do resent this idea that the fact that it is pension schemes making huge sums from PFI schemes makes it okay.
It is still a huge waste of public money.

And not everyone has a pension scheme, Agency staff are classified as self employed and thus are not entitled to a company scheme, even if they could afford to pay into it.

 

[Moonshot]

Which is quite ironic considering that the Railway Industries own pension scheme invests in such instruments, particuarly overseas !!

Agency staff are perfectly entitled to fund their own pension pot.....though of course I ve yet to see any such staff who stay as agency for their entire careers and with the same agency !!

 

[Bonemaster]

Yes I can, because otherwise they wouldn't buy into the project, they would buy gilts instead, since there is no shortage of those at the moment.

But they are not investing and they are buying gilts, hence the issue here. Gilts provide a guaranteed income on maturity. HS2 would provide no return for many years, and is then uncertain, any guarantee of return risks being declared as a public subsidy.

Trying to compare gilts with capital investment is like trying to compare apples and bananas, totally different investments used in different circumstances.

I maintain that is HS2 was viable as a stand alone entity, ignoring any dubious and difficult to quantity social and economic benefits, finding private sector investment would be easy. But its not, this is something that no Hs2 proponent can deny.



Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk