High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Chris125]

HS2 is partly there as political 'ballast', able to be dumped at a future date either to buy popularity with voters or to save money.

I just can't see any evidence to back that up - if they were going to cancel it they would've done so after the last election, in fact they went back on their criticisms of Labour's plans and adopted them wholeheartedly.

The idea that it's 'sacrificial' just doesn't make sense politically - HS2 is not going to decide how the vast majority of people vote, but such a massive u-turn so near to the next general election would risk a far wider impact on how people view the overall competency of the government and the Conservatives in particular.

It's the need for a governing party to look competent that makes 'u-turns' so damaging regardless of how popular the decision may be - it's a lose-lose situation. Those who agree with the change of direction will see the government as incompetent for supporting it originally and taking so long to change their mind, those who don't will also see the government as incompetent.

This is one reason why major projects and policies tend to gain a momentum which only a change of government can stop - unlike ID cards however the major opposition parties are also in support of HS2.

Chris

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 chief executive Alison Munro was quoted on Radio 4 News just now refuting the accusation. I can't find any reference on the BBC website but from what I remember she was basically saying that the current budget of £40odd-billion included a lot of contgency to cover the sorts of item this thinktank were suggesting would cause an increase.

So at least they have come up with a reasonably prompt rebuttal as somebody requested back up the thread.

 

[Tobbes]

I look forward to reading the IEA's report, but it strikes me that it is likely to be a damp squib if it keeps lumping costs in to come to a convenient figure of "doubling" the £42bn cost for Stages 1 & 2.

More sensibly, we should be asking why is it taking so long to get to Manchester, and could the taxpayer get better value by building the line more quickly - IIRC, the pace of the expenditure is predicated on the capital budget released from DfT's budget after Crossrail is finished in 2018. If this is correct, then DfT and Treasury should have another look at whether this is the optimal rate of investment - I'd guess it probably isn't. With luck they'd hurry it up!

Tobbes

 

[jon0844]

HS2 chief executive Alison Munro was quoted on Radio 4 News just now refuting the accusation. I can't find any reference on the BBC website but from what I remember she was basically saying that the current budget of £40odd-billion included a lot of contgency to cover the sorts of item this thinktank were suggesting would cause an increase.

So at least they have come up with a reasonably prompt rebuttal as somebody requested back up the thread.

It wasn't even that long ago that the £30/32bn was increased to allow for various things.. so for someone else to come along and turn £30-odd billion into £80bn is quite some feat!

I mean, we might as well just say it could even go beyond £100bn, perhaps a trillion or three, and carry on going.

 

[HowardGWR]

I look forward to reading the IEA's report, but it strikes me that it is likely to be a damp squib if it keeps lumping costs in to come to a convenient figure of "doubling" the £42bn cost for Stages 1 & 2.

More sensibly, we should be asking why is it taking so long to get to Manchester, and could the taxpayer get better value by building the line more quickly - IIRC, the pace of the expenditure is predicated on the capital budget released from DfT's budget after Crossrail is finished in 2018. If this is correct, then DfT and Treasury should have another look at whether this is the optimal rate of investment - I'd guess it probably isn't. With luck they'd hurry it up!

Tobbes

I think this is the purpose of the 'paving' bill, due to be presented this autumn. We will know how it will be if the Opposition back the legislation. If so backed, the further progress will be assured, even with a change of government in 2015.

 

[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:[June 2012]

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

And another year later.
HS2 'could cost taxpayer £80bn'

No-one saw that coming! Oh, wait, they did and got shouted down for it....

So, I was wrong - I predicted the cost would double by the end of the project. We've got to that after a year... So, what bets are on for a tripling by summer 2014?!

I do love the way the government insist it will provide a huge economic boost, but can never explain how, when asked...

 

[brad465]

And another year later.
HS2 'could cost taxpayer £80bn'

No-one saw that coming! Oh, wait, they did and got shouted down for it....

So, I was wrong - I predicted the cost would double by the end of the project. We've got to that after a year... So, what bets are on for a tripling by summer 2014?!

I do love the way the government insist it will provide a huge economic boost, but can never explain how, when asked...

Not sure about tripling by summer 2014 but I won't be surprised by any further notable cost increase estimates. I'd imagine this has been said before, but most rail (or other transport projects) have two things in common: they're underestimated in cost at first, and likely to finish later than first projected.

 

[Dave1987]

And another year later.
HS2 'could cost taxpayer £80bn'

No-one saw that coming! Oh, wait, they did and got shouted down for it....

So, I was wrong - I predicted the cost would double by the end of the project. We've got to that after a year... So, what bets are on for a tripling by summer 2014?!

I do love the way the government insist it will provide a huge economic boost, but can never explain how, when asked...

Have you actually read this "£80bn" so called "report". They have tried to think every possible extra cost they could to make the headline figure look as big as it possibly could. The cost of HS2 hasn't actually "doubled" as you so blazenly proclaim. It currently stands at £43bn, with a heck of a lot of contingency money built into that figure. This report with its £80bn headline figure tries to include all the costs of roads, tram lines and all the additional infrastructure that might be built as a result of HS2 being built. It is NOT the cost of actually building the line. It also tries to include the cost of regenerating areas around the HS2 hubs.

Before you proclaim to know that the costs of building the line have doubled and know that the line is pointless and think the costs will triple...... Get your facts right.

 

[HowardGWR]

I am fed up with the not-very-informed postings on this subject, simply generated by fly by night articles in the press. We have a thread for HS2 and I propose this thread I have opened is used for the to-ing and fro-ing about whether HS2 should be built and its costs and benefits.

The original thread would be used for the routings, technical stuff / interface with present network and related issues. If the mods disagree with me, then just delete this posting.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am fed up with the not-very-informed postings on this subject, simply generated by fly by night articles in the press. We have a thread for HS2 and I propose this thread I have opened is used for the to-ing and fro-ing about whether HS2 should be built and its costs and benefits.

The original thread would be used for the routings, technical stuff / interface with present network and related issues. If the mods disagree with me, then just delete this posting.

I am a total Rail Enthusiast - but for the money they are now talking to build HS2 -- that would buy a huge amount of electrification and other network improvements, new stations, new IEP/EMU/other builds. I AM ACTUALLY HAVING DOUBTS.

 

[jon0844]

It's the second news item, after Egypt, on the BBC News at Ten!

Odd given you'd think the BBC would love HS2 given it will speed up travel between its two key locations!

Edit: After watching it, I'm amazed it made second billing (but not the summary at the end) and I can only believe the editor thought it worthy because of the incredible increase in cost (that everyone will now be quoting from now on).

 

[D365]

Fair idea, it can be irritating when one is in a serious, involving discussion with informed, informative individuals and a not-very-informed member just throws the topic completely.

Let me throw in my two cents on the grand 'Yes or No' debate; how much more would it cost to upgrade the Victorian-origin WCML to standards anywhere near that of a modern high speed railway? So many billions and it's only 125mph... It wouldn't provide anything on the patch of the capacity, speed and modernity of a new line. Do we really want to go through the horrors of the upgrade again?

I'm not having a go at anyone who disagrees; not at all, we live in a democracy - not like China and other NICs which build and build without looking at the bigger picture. This is just giving the case for why such a project is in order here.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps the existing thread could be renamed HS2 - Progress and updates.

 

[The Ham]

Have you actually read this "£80bn" so called "report". They have tried to think every possible extra cost they could to make the headline figure look as big as it possibly could. The cost of HS2 hasn't actually "doubled" as you so blazenly proclaim. It currently stands at £43bn, with a heck of a lot of contingency money built into that figure. This report with its £80bn headline figure tries to include all the costs of roads, tram lines and all the additional infrastructure that might be built as a result of HS2 being built. It is NOT the cost of actually building the line. It also tries to include the cost of regenerating areas around the HS2 hubs.

Before you proclaim to know that the costs of building the line have doubled and know that the line is pointless and think the costs will triple...... Get your facts right.

If you include Crossrail 2 costs then that ups the costs by quite a margin, however it also ups the benefits, as would any other scheme that would be justified in being built to aid access to HS2.

 

[D365]

Perhaps the existing thread could be renamed HS2 - Progress and updates.

But it isn't just about the project itself, the 'master' thread holds discussion over the features and technicalities as well... In principle, I guess it would be sensible to rename. Though in the past, we have had trouble maintaining multiple threads on what is ultimately one topic.

 

[HSTEd]

Probably we could do with multiple threads but they would have to be grouped together somehow.
This is probably the best solution short of a separate subforum for it (like London Underground has)

 

[RichmondCommu]

Come what may, this particular item has had the maximum possible media coverage...

No matter what you think of the press coverage, we should celebrate the fact that the media in this country are not controlled by the Government. The media don't have control over the population, it's up to you and I to make our own minds up.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I don't think i can deal with this thread anymore, the drivel that people in the media (or these independent think tanks that are about as independent and neutral as i am on matters concerning Sheffield Wednesday) are driving me round the bend.

Got enough on arguing with the locals.

 

[jon0844]

Maybe we should axe this thread and spread the posts amongst threads discussing existing lines instead...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

No matter what you think of the press coverage, we should celebrate the fact that the media in this country are not controlled by the Government. TOTALLY AGREE

The media don't have control over the population, it's up to you and I to make our own minds up.

again, I AGREE

The cornerstone of a democracy is a free press.

 

[NSEFAN]

No matter what you think of the press coverage, we should celebrate the fact that the media in this country are not controlled by the Government. The media don't have control over the population, it's up to you and I to make our own minds up.

Oh I wouldn't say that. There have been cases before where the media has gotten hysterical and swayed public opinion for the worse. Remember the MMR scare? More people are now suffering from those diseases because of that saga. :roll:

At least in UK politics there is accountability, in so much as we can vote out a party we don't like. In the mean time, the likes of Murdoch continue to rake in the dosh year after year, practically unanswerable to anyone.

Anyway that was off-topic. Having had a quick look at the IEA report criticising HS2, it seems to assume that the point of railways is to generate profit, arguing HS1 would never have been built on pure economic terms. It argues that the railways were originally meant to be profitable, but can't be because of political interference. This to me smacks of a total disregard for the social benefits of having a good railway system, which is pretty much the only reason we're still using rail technology in the 21st century.

The report raises a lot of concerns that the whole project is only being done for political reasons. To an extent this is inevitable, as there will always be winners and losers with any big government decision, but it doesn't change the underlying need for long-term improvements to the infrastructure. I personally am skeptical about the X number of jobs alleged to be created, but I believe that in the long term that the social and wider economic benefits will be easier to see, as they are now with today's railways.

The report also lists a set of proposed additional infrastructure that will be needed to make HS2 link in better with the current system. It then presents them as if having an integrated transport system is a bad thing! The objection to this appears to be that it will cost public money to create these links. It seems that the £80 billion figure isn't actually for HS2 itself, but the perceived extra costs that will be incurred as a result of the project. All in all it's very gloom and doom, and very much a worst case scenario rather than a fair assessment.

 

[HowardGWR]

Oh I wouldn't say that. There have been cases before where the media has gotten hysterical and swayed public opinion for the worse. Remember the MMR scare? More people are now suffering from those diseases because of that saga. :roll:

At least in UK politics there is accountability, in so much as we can vote out a party we don't like. In the mean time, the likes of Murdoch continue to rake in the dosh year after year, practically unanswerable to anyone.

Anyway that was off-topic. Having had a quick look at the IEA report criticising HS2, it seems to assume that the point of railways is to generate profit, arguing HS1 would never have been built on pure economic terms. It argues that the railways were originally meant to be profitable, but can't be because of political interference. This to me smacks of a total disregard for the social benefits of having a good railway system, which is pretty much the only reason we're still using rail technology in the 21st century.

The report raises a lot of concerns that the whole project is only being done for political reasons. To an extent this is inevitable, as there will always be winners and losers with any big government decision, but it doesn't change the underlying need for long-term improvements to the infrastructure. I personally am skeptical about the X number of jobs alleged to be created, but I believe that in the long term that the social and wider economic benefits will be easier to see, as they are now with today's railways.

The report also lists a set of proposed additional infrastructure that will be needed to make HS2 link in better with the current system. It then presents them as if having an integrated transport system is a bad thing! The objection to this appears to be that it will cost public money to create these links. It seems that the £80 billion figure isn't actually for HS2 itself, but the perceived extra costs that will be incurred as a result of the project. All in all it's very gloom and doom, and very much a worst case scenario rather than a fair assessment.

A very welcome posting after some of the uninformed comment we had before, worse even than the newspaper drivel, which prompted my reaction.

May I suggest you omitted the third factor of a considered evaluation of investment projects and that is environment.

The three factors, social, environmental and economic, are all taken into account in decision making (or should be).

Thus in this case, we have to think about effects on landscape, effect on nature, effects on fossil fuel consumption and so on.

I still plead for two threads, one for the arguments about Need for the projects, and one for the issues surrounding their further development, which would be preferable to endless interference by one topic, on the other.

It makes following the thread very tedious at present.

 

[Geezertronic]

The cornerstone of a democracy is a free press.

A free press it may be but not always an accurate press...

 

[jon0844]

It's certainly true that a lot of our press isn't accurate and that's probably because of the political bias in our newspapers and, to a lesser degree, the TV. Thankfully we don't have any TV news station like Fox News here yet (and I am always pleased even Sky News hasn't gone that way).

We can pretty much conclude that the Daily Telegraph is firmly against HS2 and isn't going to be publishing any reports that show the project in a good light.

The Daily Mail will just go with anything controversial to generate traffic from all of the shares/comments.

As for the BBC, I really did think a service taking people quickly to/from its London offices and Manchester (thus actually used a lot by the organisation) might be a little bit more in favour of it.

But, even though the football has started again, it's still a quiet time for news so I guess a controversial story like this couldn't be ignored on a Sunday.

A good play by the anti-HS2 (or should that be anti-rail) campaigners.

 

[Dave1987]

Im still amused by a lot of the anti campaigners who say "upgrade what we already have", even though most haven't got a clue what that would involve, how much it would cost and how much disruption it would cause.

 

[The Ham]

Im still amused by a lot of the anti campaigners who say "upgrade what we already have", even though most haven't got a clue what that would involve, how much it would cost and how much disruption it would cause.

Also a lot of the schemes put forward cope with rail demand in 2033 (assuming 2.5% growth), but do not address what happens if growth is higher than 2.5% (which it has been since the growth perditions were undertaken) nor what happens in 2034!

 

[yorksrob]

Anyway that was off-topic. Having had a quick look at the IEA report criticising HS2, it seems to assume that the point of railways is to generate profit, arguing HS1 would never have been built on pure economic terms. It argues that the railways were originally meant to be profitable, but can't be because of political interference. This to me smacks of a total disregard for the social benefits of having a good railway system, which is pretty much the only reason we're still using rail technology in the 21st century.
.

Sounds very much like the sort of stock-in-trade position on rail transport that all of our loopy right wing think-tanks have been peddling for decades.

I'm sceptical about HS2 for reasons outlined in previous posts, but I'd take anything this bunch have to say with a pinch of salt.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Guardian has a detailed technical drawing of the first HS2 rolling stock... http://www.theguardian.com/cartoons/archive

The current public perception is that if you shout loud enough, you can stop anything spoiling the view at the bottom of your garden.
Fracking today, HS2 tomorrow.

 

[WatcherZero]

Mmm, apparently the inflated £80bn even includes the full cost of Crossrail 2 added to the HS2 tally.

 

[jon0844]

HS2 is just being built to woo Northern voters?

Wow, on that basis, why not just give them a share of the £80bn? Then they'll vote for you for life!

Not sure how that theory works though - given both sides want HS2 (even if some within Labour seem to be trying to be both for it and against it!). Who would these Northern voters be voting for?!