High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Schnellzug]

But what about pricing people off the WCML as an alternative to building HS2?

Do you want people to use the railways, are is this some kind of of cunning plan on behalf of EasyAir or for the Government to make more money from revenue on Petrol?

 

[radamfi]

Do you want people to use the railways, are is this some kind of of cunning plan on behalf of EasyAir or for the Government to make more money from revenue on Petrol?

I would also advocate pricing controls on air travel and roads. To be honest, I quite like the idea of HS2, but there seems to be too many people opposed to it. So arguably the UK doesn't deserve it.

So pricing people off long distance travel seems to be the only option. If that has a negative effect on the economy then so be it. As I said earlier, the UK 'doesn't do transport'. I expect to be mostly living in a more transport minded country in mainland Europe by that point so it won't really affect me. I would advise other people who care about PT to do the same. There is no point hanging around in the UK for things to change.

 

[caliwag]

It's all beyond the wit of man. We all have our little drop in the ocean policies, which in the big picture make not a jot of difference. Everything will be driven by cost, rather than oil-saving or green initiatives. This may sound defeatest but it is the truth.

I don't run the tap when I brush my teeth, I walk everywhere as I don't have a car. I take leisure journeys by the most comfortable trains around (125s of course) regardless of speed. I also recycle as much as possible and contribute to the local communal compost heap.

I have no view on Middle East oil or any other oil for that matter...fracking and tar oil extraction do sound bollox but my view will count for nothing and as China has no oil it'll buy it all anyway if it can.

For cost reasons HS2 will not float, and frankly is not green anyway.

All the other suggestions are eminently sensible in the medium term...Chiltern, GC route reopening, in cab signalling, lengthening trains etc etc. As I say above our lifestyles, to my mind, will have changed markedly in the 20 years it'll take to build the bu++er.

Anyway I understand the Brie Louise pub next to Euston will be demolished so it definitely cannot be built.

 

[radamfi]

London-Birmingham: 120 miles, relieving most congested long-distance railway line in the country, serving the Birmingham metropolitan area, population 3.6 million.

Birmingham-Manchester: 90 miles, serves population of 2.6 million

Could you explain how you arrived at those population figures, and which areas around those cities you are including?

 

[Skymonster]

If this leads to the demise of HS2 in its currently proposed form, all well and good... The APPG may have said we need a "high speed rail network" but a line through Kent to London and a separate line from London to Birmingham do not a network make. HS2 needs to be much broader in its scope and the entire project needs commitment, rather than taking just a piecemeal approach that might never reach its ideal entirity.

I believe the UK needs a high speed rail network, and it also needs more runway capacity in the south east. The chance was missed to kill two big birds with one stone:

• Build a proper high-speed rail network - London-Heathrow-Birmingham-Manchester-Glasgow and London-Heathrow-Birmingham-EastMidlands-Leeds-Edinburgh (and connect it to HS1/CTRL)
• Ban all UK domestic flights - provide through air-rail fare, ticketing and checkin as they do in Germany and Switzerland
• Use freed up domestic flight runway slots to develop international air services - thus removing the need for a third runway at Heathrow

And to pay for it all...? Well, use the money already potentially allocated to the HS2 pot, AND abandon defence spending in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the Faulkland Islands - and don't spend any more ad-hoc money in future on foreign defence activities that don't have a direct effect on the UK (i.e. if things kick off, no meddling in Syria, Iran, etc. we should stay away). Divert overseas defence budget to useful projects like HS2+ that generate jobs, stimulate the economy, and create useful longterm domestic infrastructure

The additional net costs incurred on operations (for example in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) are not paid for from the Defence Budget, but rather by the Special Government Reserve. Between 2001-02 and 2009-10, the Reserve has provided an additional £18Bn on top of the Defence Budget to cover operational costs.

There... There's £18bn (assuming the next few years involve similar expenditure) that could be used to enchance HS2 - I don't care if its not the same pot, its money that has/is spent and its better off being spent domestically than being frittered away in the deserts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia

Andy

 

[HSTEd]

GC reopening is impractical for a couple of reasons:

1. Leicester is in the way.
2. Fitting significant numbers of additional services over the Metropolitan Line trackage in the approach will be... fun, to say the least.

Chiltern is also impractical to increase capacity on much further due to the short train lengths required by the rather anemic platofrms at Marylebone, and the fact that there aren't that many platforms available in the first place.

And any attempt to use Paddington capacity freed up by Crossrail runs into all that "forward thinking" work Chiltern had done to make the junctions favour Marylebone instead of Paddington.

 

[tbtc]

The idea of the 'national debt' and comparing it to a household budget may be politically nice, but it's nothing less than economic BS

What?

Why should we reduce it now? What we should be doing is issuing as many long term bonds as possible at this interest rate.

Remember the inflation adjusted interest rate on 30 year gilts is now negative, think about that now.

Agreed - hence recent talk of the Government issuing 100 year bonds (partly because "the market" is so keen on safe Government investments).

In fact, we can borrow at one low rate, lend it to Spain/Ireland/Greece etc at a higher rate and pocket the difference.

The thing about that is it is produced by a group calling itself All-Party Parliamentary Group for High-Speed Rail who:



A bit like the AA saying we need more motorways or BA and Virgin Atlantic saying Heathrow needs expanding. Hardly impartial or convincing.

That's modern "news" though. You'll see the National Widget Association getting a few paragraphs in the papers with their press release that says we should buy more Widgets - not news, but still gets into the press (because Journalists will copy and paste the press releases)

 

[Deerfold]

In fact, we can borrow at one low rate, lend it to Spain/Ireland/Greece etc at a higher rate and pocket the difference.

Great idea.

If they pay it back.

 

[giblets]

Some of the arguments seem very similar to those affecting the channel tunnel when it was built, costs too much, not enough traffic, easier to build up the alternative, yet just 10-15 years later it is seen as an invaluable tool that makes the naysayers look like fools, for almost all the same reasons, costs, capacity, alternatives.

HS2 is all about tomorrow, lthis is not about 5 years, or 10 years,more like 20, 30-50 years

 

[jon0844]

Ah, but think of what we can spend that £32bn sitting in the account on instead.

Wait. What? What do you mean there's not an account with £32bn lying in it to be diverted elsewhere?

You mean that not building HS2 won't guarantee any extra money going anywhere else?

And in 20 years time, when people are moaning even more about the state of the railway, we can all say 'well, if we'd built this new railway network' and laugh.

 

[Badger]

There's not £32bn sitting in an account somewhere, no... but I don't see what's wrong with saying "instead of asking the public for £32bn to build x, ask them for £32bn to build y that is better". (Assuming a y was worked out that was better). I don't see how the situation is any different, both x and y would improve the rail network as needed (again, assuming a better y was even found).

As a poor analogy:

You ask your dad to lend you £10 to go to the cinema. There's a chance he'll say yes.

You change your mind and ask for £10 to go iceskating instead; still a chance he'll say yes. But you can't say "that won't work because you don't have £10 to begin with", because that same argument could be said about the cinema scenario too; the money comes from the same place the cinema money would have come from.

We've got to be getting this £32bn from somewhere.

 

[ainsworth74]

We've got to be getting this £32bn from somewhere.

The same place that the Crossrail money is currently coming from. Theoretically as Crossrail is winding down HS2 should just be starting to spend serious money and the plan was basically to switch from spending the money on Crossrail to spending it on HS2 instead.

 

[HSTEd]

We've got to be getting this £32bn from somewhere.

This is another reason household analogies fall apart when discussing state finances.
Your parent does not have a bank charter and thus cannot create money, banks that we would, by proxy, be borrowing from do have bank charters, and thus can create the necessary money.

In essence, the money exists because it is borrowed.

 

[LE Greys]

Isn't that also an argument against HSLs? They've been able to construct them so extravagantly because the population is much more spread out, so distances are longer and there's much more room to construct elaborate civil engineering works, and High Speed lines are much more competitive over long distances. The more dense population* in the UK would make relatively short distances between stations more sensible; i.e. more like what we have now.

* geographically, not.... well, I don't know :-/

I'd say it's more of an argument that we should construct high-speed lines according to the German model rather than the French. In France, a TGV is a specific, route-dedicated train that covers lots of ground very quickly and only operates over sections of the 'classic' network if it has to. In Germany, an ICE is a bog-standard inter-city train that just happens to be able to go very fast. No advance booking needed, just turn up and go. ICE routes are effectively 'long bridges' between two parts of the classic network, and so are as integrated into it as the E/W line will be into ours. I much prefer that model.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some of the arguments seem very similar to those affecting the channel tunnel when it was built, costs too much, not enough traffic, easier to build up the alternative, yet just 10-15 years later it is seen as an invaluable tool that makes the naysayers look like fools, for almost all the same reasons, costs, capacity, alternatives.

HS2 is all about tomorrow, lthis is not about 5 years, or 10 years,more like 20, 30-50 years

Precisely.

 

[jon0844]

We've got to be getting this £32bn from somewhere.

I do get all of what you said, but we will have to start all over again with new ideas and trying to secure funding for them. How many years will this add?

And if we were silly enough to try and upgrade the WCML again, and upgrade the ECML too - with a railway continuing to operate - then I think the risks will be far higher, with a much higher chance of a massive overspend and loads of other problems. Like delays causing a hit on the economy, which can't easily be measured.

In the end, we might get a billion or two here and there - but most of the money won't appear because nobody will be able to convince anyone to go ahead. We'll just do patch repairs on our existing infrastructure and leave nothing but a headache for future generations.

 

[Badger]

This is another reason household analogies fall apart when discussing state finances.
Your parent does not have a bank charter and thus cannot create money, banks that we would, by proxy, be borrowing from do have bank charters, and thus can create the necessary money.

In essence, the money exists because it is borrowed.

Aye; my point is though that if the money can be borrowed for one thing that would do x, it can be borrowed for another thing that would do x.

If a replacement is found that is really a viable replacement, even if that's an amalgamation of different schemes, then the same money source can be used.

 

[brianthegiant]

Aye; my point is though that if the money can be borrowed for one thing that would do x, it can be borrowed for another thing that would do x.

If a replacement is found that is really a viable replacement, even if that's an amalgamation of different schemes, then the same money source can be used.

hmm dont agree, aside from all the technical & benefit-cost reasons for new line over patch up and mend, the other difference is political.

You can either ask parliament, the exchequer & ultimately the public to:

a) cough up £34 billion to do endless patch up jobs on bits of railway network that will make small incremental improvememts

or

b) cough up £34 billion to do something new which will be a step change in British public transport which will link Britains biggest cities with direct high speed links to Brussels, Paris & beyond.

which is most likely to prise open the purse strings?

 

[Ascot]

Let's not forget a nice chunk of that cash has already been spent in research and consultation. This isn't an insignificant sum in the scheme of things either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PR1Berske]

I'd love to know how the No brigade think the existing creaking infrastructure will cope in the long-term

 

[Waverley125]

Aye; my point is though that if the money can be borrowed for one thing that would do x, it can be borrowed for another thing that would do x.

If a replacement is found that is really a viable replacement, even if that's an amalgamation of different schemes, then the same money source can be used.

No, as I said earlier. Banks are very willing to lend against big, collateralisable infrastructure projects like HS2, that produce concrete end products and big new benefits. They are much less willing to lend for piecemeal improvements to infrastructure, as the benefits they create are much smaller, and, being part of existing infrastructure, they can't be collateralised against future default.

Borrowing money for the vague 'something else' would be more expensive, as the interests rate on a £32bn loan to ugrade the existing network will be a lot higher than your interest rate on a £32bn loan to build HS2.

So to answer your question, no, we can't spend the same money on something else. We have the money for HS2, we don't have the money for random other things.

 

[jon0844]

I'd love to know how the No brigade think the existing creaking infrastructure will cope in the long-term

A lot of them will not care as HS2 merely went through their town or village, so no benefit to them, and they probably don't use trains anyway.

 

[Michael.Y]

I'd love to know how the No brigade think the existing creaking infrastructure will cope in the long-term

Simple - by upgrading said infrastructure. Motorways can be widened, airports get new runways etc. The same principles should be applied to our rail network.

 

[Badger]

No, as I said earlier. Banks are very willing to lend against big, collateralisable infrastructure projects like HS2, that produce concrete end products and big new benefits. They are much less willing to lend for piecemeal improvements to infrastructure, as the benefits they create are much smaller, and, being part of existing infrastructure, they can't be collateralised against future default.

Borrowing money for the vague 'something else' would be more expensive, as the interests rate on a £32bn loan to ugrade the existing network will be a lot higher than your interest rate on a £32bn loan to build HS2.

So to answer your question, no, we can't spend the same money on something else. We have the money for HS2, we don't have the money for random other things.

Well yes, but as I said, it only applies if a "something else" was found that was viable and a perfect or better replacement for HS2. Obviously the money wouldn't be available for something worse, but if there was a solution that would work the same, and reap the same benefits, it is the same situation, just under a different name.

I'm skeptical about whether a "something else" exists which would give the same benefits. However, if a solution did exist that would bring better benefits than HS2, but would involve incremental upgrades and such, I would say it would be in the banks' interests and our interests to do that instead. If the banks would only loan based on a flashy name then maybe we deserve to be in a banking crisis...

I'm not saying if HS2 was scrapped we could slice up the money and work on other things; but, HS2 should be scrapped if an alternate better solution is found, especially one that can be done incrementally (so sections opened earlier). If.

 

[tbtc]

There's not £32bn sitting in an account somewhere, no... but I don't see what's wrong with saying "instead of asking the public for £32bn to build x, ask them for £32bn to build y that is better". (Assuming a y was worked out that was better). I don't see how the situation is any different, both x and y would improve the rail network as needed (again, assuming a better y was even found).

As a poor analogy:

You ask your dad to lend you £10 to go to the cinema. There's a chance he'll say yes.

You change your mind and ask for £10 to go iceskating instead; still a chance he'll say yes. But you can't say "that won't work because you don't have £10 to begin with", because that same argument could be said about the cinema scenario too; the money comes from the same place the cinema money would have come from.

We've got to be getting this £32bn from somewhere.

The £32bn will recoup some of its money (in fares etc) and the £32bn will save other things having to be done (airport runway expansion, railway capacity enhancements).

Unlike your cinema money, which won't earn anything back for you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Simple - by upgrading said infrastructure. Motorways can be widened, airports get new runways etc. The same principles should be applied to our rail network.

A lot of upgrades will happen across the UK (don't believe the "HS2 will take up the entire rail budget" argument) regardless.

However there are clear limits to expansion - solve one bottleneck (like Welwyn) and you just push the problem a few miles up the line to the next junction.

 

[Padav]

I'd love to know how the No brigade think the existing creaking infrastructure will cope in the long-term

They couldn't give a proverbial monkeys about the existing rail infrastructure because, as others have pointed out, most of the individuals populating the anti-HS2 camp don't have any use for railservices in the first place - the aim of the NO merchants is resolutely focused on a single outcome - removing the threat posed to their immediate environment by the approved Route3 pathway, nothing else matters!

If the Minister announced tomorrow that HS2 was going ahead but via another route, the Chilterns based activists would feign dismay whilst secretly organising a massive celebration party. Six months down the line as the communities impacted by the new route were coming to terms with their problem you wouldn't hear a peep from the Chilterns - or perhaps a massive collective sigh of relief.

One of the ironies here is that HS2 is supposed to be an alternative to the 3rd Runway at Heathrow - although I've never quite got my head round the reasoning that an extra runway at Heathrow could somehow benefit my Region, NW. England - so the logic goes that if HS2 doesn't go ahead the 3rd runway is back on. During their campaign, the anti-HS2 brigade have forged links with former anti-3rd runway campaigners in Sipson - I'd sure like to be a fly on the wall next time they met with HS2 cancelled and a 3rd Heathrow runway subsequently resurrected as a direct consequence - talk about stabbing your mate in the back!

 

[Donny Dave]

I'm in the no camp, and I live no where near the proposed HS2 route ....

Just looking at the ECML for example, there is a number of things that can be done to increase capacity and reduce journey times.

• Quadruple Welwyn (It will be expensive, but I believe it is being considered).
• Hitchin flyover (already under construction?)
• Quadruple the route all the way between Kings Cross and York
• New 125mph alignment from Northallerton - Birtley (just south of Newcastle). Cut out the tight, twisty and slow section of the ECML around Durham and Darlington.
• A new 125mph alignment between Newcastle and Edinburgh. It's currently 121 miles by rail and includes quite a few slow and twisty sections, plus goes the long way round. By road, it's 105 miles*

On the WCML you could have all trains run (semi) fast between Euston and Watford Junction, with a 10 minute frequency on the DC serving the stations between them. That would free up paths and add capacity on the Southern end of the WCML.

On the GWML, I'm sure there's room somewhere to build a new 125mph alignment between Exeter and Plymouth ....
*Distances measured from Newcastle Central to Edinburgh Waverley. it's 105 miles going via the A68 and A696 or 122 miles going via the A1.

 

[tbtc]

Simple - by upgrading said infrastructure. Motorways can be widened, airports get new runways etc. The same principles should be applied to our rail network.

I'm in the no camp, and I live no where near the proposed HS2 route ....

Just looking at the ECML for example, there is a number of things that can be done to increase capacity and reduce journey times.

• Quadruple Welwyn (It will be expensive, but I believe it is being considered).
• Hitchin flyover (already under construction?)
• Quadruple the route all the way between Kings Cross and York
• New 125mph alignment from Northallerton - Birtley (just south of Newcastle). Cut out the tight, twisty and slow section of the ECML around Durham and Darlington.
• A new 125mph alignment between Newcastle and Edinburgh. It's currently 121 miles by rail and includes quite a few slow and twisty sections, plus goes the long way round. By road, it's 105 miles*

On the WCML you could have all trains run (semi) fast between Euston and Watford Junction, with a 10 minute frequency on the DC serving the stations between them. That would free up paths and add capacity on the Southern end of the WCML.

On the GWML, I'm sure there's room somewhere to build a new 125mph alignment between Exeter and Plymouth ....
*Distances measured from Newcastle Central to Edinburgh Waverley. it's 105 miles going via the A68 and A696 or 122 miles going via the A1.

So you build all that (which primarily benefits the ECML area, so little use if you are in Manchester or BIrmingham etc) which requires months/years of closing the ECML and using rail replacement buses (what you want is a lot more ambitious than the WCML upgrade which closed that line every weekend for a couple of years)...

...whereas HS2 can be built without disrupting passengers on existing lines.

 

[Philip Elliott]

So presumbably both Thameslink and Reading re-modelling should be halted immediately then?

HS2 will cause quite severe disruption - rebuilding Euston is no easy job and may see services cut back 363 days a year. The Water Orton corridor and the southern end of the Chiltern route are also affected. Oh and HS2 means East West Rail can only be single track towards Ayeslbury...

 

[Donny Dave]

So you build all that (which primarily benefits the ECML area, so little use if you are in Manchester or BIrmingham etc).

I've listed mainly ECML projects as it's the area I know best. I'm sure there is plenty of other projects in other parts of the country that are equally worthy of consideration.

Also, Birmingham, and to a lesser extent, Manchester are well served from London already, with 3 VT services an hour from both, plus between Birmingham and London, 3 LM services and 2 Chiltern services as well. Do those cities really need the extra services a High Speed line will provide?

 

[tbtc]

So presumbably both Thameslink and Reading re-modelling should be halted immediately then?

Thanks for highlighting a couple of big infrastructure projects that are taking place despite the money being found for HS2 (to dispel the myth that HS2 is stopping such investment).

Neither are on the size of the WCML upgrade though, so neither will require months/years of replacement bus services (which upgrading the ECML as was suggested would require).