High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Badger]

On the other hand, if we decide to come up with loads of smaller projects, including bodge repair jobs on existing lines, would so many people want to invest? Would it get a good rate of return? Would it boost pension funds or be a big problem in the next recession in 10-15 years time, then the next 30-35 years or whatever?

While I'm skeptical about whether alternatives would work, I do think that with the right marketing people would be as likely to fund it as they would HS2. A catchy name, clear information highlighting all the changes and why they'd help, etc.

But that would need viable alternatives that would produce the same economic returns as HS2, and it's unlikely they exist.

 

[jon0844]

But that would need viable alternatives that would produce the same economic returns as HS2, and it's unlikely they exist.

Exactly. HS2 adds capacity (with speed benefits thrown in) but many other upgrades won't do much more than allow a few more paths - or see stations upgraded with better facilities/access etc (and I think Network Rail already has a schedule for this sort of work that will happen anyway).

I do agree that there are probably some other projects that might secure funding if HS2 doesn't happen, but without the same level of benefits for the country as a whole. HS2 to me isn't just the first stage or the second stage, but the beginning of other new lines (HS3, HS4) that will link up other cities - especially if we ever decide to build new towns/cities to take off the pressure of existing cities.

 

[aylesbury]

There will be another U turn on this link, they cannot justify spending the money and the replacement services on the WCML will invove many changes for passengers who are used to direct services ie.MK to GC and other stations that current through services run through .The passenger market in Bucks if exploited could be sizeable but all we are going to get is to see these units racing through our gorgeous scenery ,progress?

 

[brianthegiant]

If the anti crowd believe this story that it's going to be axed then let it be

Where were all the defenders of the 'gorgeous scenery' when the Wendover bypass was being planned?

 

[HSTEd]

I'm no longer sure if TSIs are good enough.... is 400m train length really enough for the kind of capacity we need on the route? Why not build even longer platforms with travellators on them? We could push for 500m or more and get a couple hundred additional seats on every train.
We would look like idiots if we built this link and then had to spent lots of money on a second because we couldn't make the platforms any longer.

 

[RichmondCommu]

If HS2 gets the go ahead, then the funding will be found. It may include a lot of private investment, and even the bonds idea mooted by the Government where you and I could invest and get a decent return. It's not money coming at the expense of new schools, police officers or hospitals.

Thats the key thing as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure that there will be a decent return. HS2 will not benefit the north; it willy only encourage people to commute to London from Manchester. Assuming that there will be a hefty premuim to travel on HS2 (like the M6 toll) leisure customers will stick to the WCML.

 

[HSTEd]

Thats the key thing as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure that there will be a decent return. HS2 will not benefit the north; it willy only encourage people to commute to London from Manchester.

I'm pretty sure that will benefit Manchester.... being able to commute to London relatively easily is better than being unemployed.

Assuming that there will be a hefty premuim to travel on HS2 (like the M6 toll) leisure customers will stick to the WCML.

I believe that fares will end up lower than the conventional route for the reasons I have already mentioned, ie. all the scarcity factors are irrelevant and ticket prices can approach the very low marginal costs.

The idea is that the only people left on the conventional trains will be people going to intermediate destinations.

 

[jon0844]

We need more capacity, not just for moving more people around but also for freight.

We therefore need to build more lines, or add more tracks to existing routes - and that's obviously not easy when you need to buy up land from all the properties nearby, and rebuild stations, and try and make new tunnels - all while keeping services going.

If HS2 can take off some of the pressure, you might then be able to do upgrade work on other lines more easily (or with less disruption) which is another bonus.

I don't think for one second that HS2 is an unsafe investment. Far from it. If I'm given the chance to invest in it as an individual, I'd sooner do that than have my money in a standard savings account.

 

[digitaltoast]

Last year, when I and many expressed a raised eyebrow at claims for HS2 based on taking air traffic from 2 cities which weren't connected by air and a premise that no-one ever does any work on the train, we got belittled, and the argument somehow degenerated into the pro-HS2 lobby posting giant pictures of Noel Edmunds, IIRC.

So, here we are a year later:

MPs warn taxpayers could be left with huge bill for HS2 high-speed rail link

Taxpayers could be left with a huge bill for the planned high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham unless lessons are learnt from costly mistakes over the Channel Tunnel link, MPs warned today.

They said wildly optimistic forecasts of passenger numbers on the HS1 London to Folkestone route had already saddled the public with debts of £4.8bn – and that these could eventually exceed £10bn. The Commons public accounts committee said the “unrealistic estimates” for HS1, which opened in 2003, must not be repeated when the economic case is made for the proposed HS2 line.

Slightly oddly, ITV break rank with every other news source and say that figures for HS1 were grossly underestimated, but I have a feeling this might be a junior editor not knowing what underestimated means.

A report for the public accounts committee claims that the new HS1 route through Kent will cost the nation billions because the number of people using it was grossly underestimated.

The government bailed out the project but lower passenger numbers are leaving the taxpayer with a bill of £10 billion .

We told you so....

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres two flaws in the Public Accounts committees report, firstly it uses the original Government projection of HS1 passenger demand when the project was first mooted, not the Dft model that was used to get approval which had much lower predictions.

Secondly it calculates all subsidy for services on the line as a capital 'loss' (it should be a revenue loss) and then adds it up for future years all the way upto 2070 as a loss today! Thats like saying, 'oh you bought a new tv? you now owe me £8439 for your license fee upto 2070.'

 

[digitaltoast]

Theres two flaws in the Public Accounts committees report, firstly it uses the original Government projection of HS1 passenger demand when the project was first mooted, not the Dft model that was used to get approval which had much lower predictions.

Secondly it calculates all subsidy for services on the line as a capital 'loss' (it should be a revenue loss) and then adds it up for future years all the way upto 2070 as a loss today! Thats like saying, 'oh you bought a new tv? you now owe me £8439 for your license fee upto 2070.'

I don't see anything that says that. EDIT: I found the numbers you were referring to. See below ; more importantly though, is whichever said of figures you use...:

1: Is it paying for itself, or not?
2: Are the passenger numbers as predicted, or not?

They failed to take account of competition and badly misjudged working / travel patterns with HS1.

With HS2, they're assuming that people will commute MORE and use technology LESS in 20 years time and be flying less between two locations which aren't connected by air anyway.

Remember, this disaster of a plan for HS2 was put together by the same government that explained that a maximum of 13,000 migrant workers would come to the UK, that the Olympics would cost £2bn, that the Millennium dome would be a success and that light touch city regulation would assist in their policy of being "intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich".

If you can't hear alarm bells ringing, I think a hearing test and lessons in economics, politics and history are in order...

EDITED TO ADD:

Channel Tunnel rail link leaves £4.8bn debt

International passenger numbers on HS1 are only a third of the 1995 original forecast and two-thirds of the level the Department for Transport (DfT) forecast in 1998, said the committee.

It went on: "Over-optimistic and unrealised forecasts for passenger demand on HS1 left the taxpayer saddled with £4.8 billion of debt."

The report added that the delivery of regeneration benefits from HS1, on which high-speed Eurostar trains travel, "suffered from a lack of effective leadership from the centre".

The committee said the department "does not have sufficient understanding of the economic impact and regeneration benefits of transport infrastructure, compared with alternatives, so is not able to make fully informed investment decisions".

The report added that the DfT "gives insufficient attention to evaluating its major projects" and should develop evaluation frameworks for all current major projects including the under-construction cross-London Crossrail scheme and HS2.

Ms Hodge said some of the DfT's assumptions about the benefits of faster travel were "simply untenable".

"For example, the time business travellers save by using high-speed rail is valued at £54 per hour yet the time commuters save getting to and from work is only valued at £7 per hour.

"It is difficult to see how this can be justified. The department also assumes that all time spent on a train is unproductive. And unrealistic assumptions about ticket prices act to exaggerate passenger demand forecasts."

 

[swt_passenger]

"For example, the time business travellers save by using high-speed rail is valued at £54 per hour yet the time commuters save getting to and from work is only valued at £7 per hour."

I can understand an MP being confused by this, because a lot of their travel is probably on expenses.

But for ordinary members of the population, there is a major difference between travel to/from work (in your own time) and travel on the employer's business while AT work - and I'm pretty sure that is the basic reason for the different valuations of time.

 

[JamesRowden]

One must also consider the congestion that HS1 relieves from the Tonbridge and Chatham mainlines. Reading the RUSs there is still going to be congestion issues on the section between Tonbridge and Orpington even with HS1 offering a superior service to someone travelling between East Kent and London during the peaks. So if HS1 had not been built money (which I doubt this report takes into account) would be needed to build/expand another line into London from Kent (and without the time savings that HS1 produces for mainline and international services).

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

Ah, get over it. HS2 will still be doing what it does when airfares and cars become hideously expensive. Think of it as an investment in future proofing our infrastructure. When the M1 and M6 were built, the massive outlays for the amount of traffic they saw would have been seen as ridiculous. Without the motorways, where would travel be now?

I was against HS2, primarily because I thought that losing the GCR alignment was wrong, but, like me, you need to look at the bigger picture.

 

[Pen Mill]

Theres two flaws in the Public Accounts committees report, firstly it uses the original Government projection of HS1 passenger demand when the project was first mooted, not the Dft model that was used to get approval which had much lower predictions.

Secondly it calculates all subsidy for services on the line as a capital 'loss' (it should be a revenue loss) and then adds it up for future years all the way upto 2070 as a loss today! Thats like saying, 'oh you bought a new tv? you now owe me £8439 for your license fee upto 2070.'

I'm pleased about that because the article (1/3rd of planned numbers) suggests to me that all trains are only 25% full !! complete poppycock surely !

My logic : original loading estimate ,let's say 75% for arguments sake.
1/3rd of that is 25%
I wish that non-accounting people had to have a licence to use numbers !

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

We told you so....

So what is your infrastructure strategy for the next generation?

The die for HS1 was cast in 1987 when the government permitted the Channel Tunnel to be built, and agreed to buy half of its capacity for rail services.
All the subsequent spend was to utilise the tunnel capacity and the HS1 line capacity after that.
And what about the regeneration benefits it has unlocked (the Olympics, say)?

The Public Accounts Committee is a post-hoc body which loves to find fault with everybody else.
I wouldn't quibble especially with the specific figures is presents, but so what?
Do we want to be an advanced nation with decent infrastructure or not?

And as for investigating Crossrail just as the TBMs get going and we are past the point of no return...

 

[deltic]

I can understand an MP being confused by this, because a lot of their travel is probably on expenses.

But for ordinary members of the population, there is a major difference between travel to/from work (in your own time) and travel on the employer's business while AT work - and I'm pretty sure that is the basic reason for the different valuations of time.

I find it rather odd and depressing that the Chair of the Transport Select Committee does not understand how the Department for Transport undertakes economic appraisals of all transport scheme. Values of time have been around since the 1960s and have been used for all road and rail schemes. The other (deliberate?) mistake made is to equate the in work value of time to the amount a person gets paid - it is in fact just over 20% higher than that as it is the cost of employing someone eg taking into account employers national insurance and pension contributions.

 

[tbtc]

Remember, this disaster of a plan for HS2 was put together by the same government that explained that a maximum of 13,000 migrant workers would come to the UK, that the Olympics would cost £2bn, that the Millennium dome would be a success and that light touch city regulation would assist in their policy of being "intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich"

To be fair to Peter Mandelson (which isn't a phrase you see very often) he said that he was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes".

For some reason everyone forgets the second part of that phrase... puts it in a different light though.

Light touch city regulation? Don't forget that during that time the Tories were complaining about too much red tape and berating Labour for not deregulating enough. Hindsight is great, but things would have been worse under the Tories (who wanted further "freedom" for bankers).

 

[HSTEd]

HS1 does not have complete control of the entire South East commuter traffic it serves, largely because it is limited to classic compatible trains and the need to share the line with freight which is moving far slower than even the Class 395s.

HS2 would in-fact have lower marginal costs than the regular railways, largely because the staffing requirements of a self contained high speed railway are far lower per seat.
A handful of people in the traffic control centre, a few staff at each of the handful of stations, and two safety-trained crew on each train with upwards of 1300 seats (assuming they don't go for DOO, as they really should for captive sets).

 

[gordonthemoron]

HS1 would have more traffic if they didn't price freight off the line

 

[Oswyntail]

....The Public Accounts Committee is a post-hoc body which loves to find fault with everybody else........

And the Chairwoman is a New Labour bimbette, who loves to sabotage any infrastructure development project.

 

[rail-britain]

If HS1 is carrying only 30% of the intended customers, then why does it still operate such long train units?
Surely these spare coaches could then be converted with new power units for domestic UK use; yes I know the coaches are articulated but the conversion shouldn't be that difficult

 

[swt_passenger]

If HS1 is carrying only 30% of the intended customers, then why does it still operate such long train units?
Surely these spare coaches could then be converted with new power units for domestic UK use; yes I know the coaches are articulated but the conversion shouldn't be that difficult

Well for a start the original CTRL projections will have included the NoL sets, currently in France, and the Nightstar sets, never used and sold to Canada. Also, the existing fleet size could either be very lightly utilised, or it might not have been designed to cope with the maximum predicted loadings - there may have been options to order more sets.

As it is, there are quite a few spare passenger paths - or else DB wouldn't be able to use them for additional services with new Simens trains as planned.

 

[Metroland]

It is a rather odd report, I looked at the evidence and most of it provided by the anti-HS2 groups.

Essentially HS1 opened fully late in 2007. Since 2008 we have been in the biggest recession since the 1930s, isn't it just a bit early to say 'This has not been a success'. Many of the regeneration benefits have not been realised because we have been in a massive property slump, this is true everywhere.

However the competition from flights and ferries is overestimated, Eurostar has 80% of the passenger market between London and Paris and rail has constantly grown market share.

Perhaps the read crux of the matter is the market for travel over this corridor just isn't that big, and that may be because of all-sorts of factors such as the Schengen Agreement.

HS2 is a different animal, it's not to say the forecasting will be right, some projects are over estimated, some are under estimated. But it was never really about reducing the number of domestic flights which is a tiny market of about 21 million people per year. To put that into context it's about the same as East Midlands Trains spread throughout the country. HS2 is more about providing extra capacity because of fast growing rail passenger numbers.

I tend to agree the DFT need to be careful about forecasting passenger numbers, but what is absent is a credible plan B is we don't build HS2.

 

[Gareth]

HS1 would have more traffic if they didn't price freight off the line

Are the old 'ro-ro' ferries still a lot cheaper for freight? If the tunnel cannot compete, then it was largely a waste of time, especially seen as it was supposed to be self-funding. Someone either clearly got the maths wrong or, more likely, it's not being managed very savily (if that's a word).

 

[gordonthemoron]

you misunderstand, SNCF wants to run TGV postal services to London but the track access charges are prohibitive

 

[Holly]

Guardian article on the Northern benefits of HS2 here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-no...chester-northern-hub-birmingham?newsfeed=true
It focuses on the local benefits by having more paths on the WCML and ECML for local trains. Northwich, Pontefract and Knottingley all get mentions.

Yes it talks about how improving Virgin Manchester-London service has caused the loss of Northwich-Manchester trains. Reminiscent of how improvements to Manchester-Altrincham service lengthened journey times for Northwich-Manchester trains a generation earlier.

A solution for Northwich is to electrify Northwich-Hartford Curve (i.e. to Acton Bridge). This would allow faster Manchester (and Liverpool) commuter trains to run via Warrington instead of Stockport. Only three miles of new knitting would be needed.

 

[ole man]

There has been talk of wiring this route for years in Network Rail, but not stopping at Northwich going all the way to Sandbach via Middlewich.

 

[Waverley125]

a better solution would be to re-open and wire Sandbach-Stockport via Altrincham, reopening Middlewich station. Wiring the Hartford curve would then allow for stopping services from Crewe-Liverpool via both Winsford & Greenbank, and would allow for Mid-Cheshire line services of greater frequency into Manchester for Northwich, as well as much improved southbound connections at Crewe.

Also, once HS2 is finished, it will be possible to stop WCML trains to the north at Winsford, both to Scotland, and into Manchester (via Newton le Willows).

 

[Holly]

There has been talk of wiring this route for years in Network Rail, but not stopping at Northwich going all the way to Sandbach via Middlewich.

That's a much bigger project though. 12 miles of new OHLE compared with 3 miles for many or most of the benefits.

Although, as we know, decisions are not made on that kind of basis.