High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Stats]

It's not an £80bn project though, that's an outright lie by the Institute for Economic Affairs

Actually, it's not. The latest Treasury estimate is that HS2 will cost £73bn.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Actually, it's not. The latest Treasury estimate is that HS2 will cost £73bn.

adjusted for inflation, £43bn at either today's prices or possibly those from a few years back. i.e. they have estimated inflation which is never a good idea

 

[jon0844]

It's probably a bad time for me to also say that I am a firm believer that we need to also upgrade a lot of our road network too.

God knows what anyone against high-speed rail would say to that suggestion!!

(Actually, they might prefer it if they can use those roads themselves)

 

[gordonthemoron]

TBF, the M1 seems (in places) quite a lot better than I remember it from a few years back. However, the A14 certainly needs sorting out

 

[ainsworth74]

so I can't buy the "starve other railways" argument.

It's always been a bit nonsensical to me (at least since I swapped sides to being pro-HS2). The plan is, unless something's changed, that once Crossrail wraps up around 2018/19 that the £2bn per year we're spending on that will be switched to funding HS2. So it isn't actually going to cost anymore than we're already spending we just have to continue to sustain the present £2bn per year that we've been spending for a while now.

adjusted for inflation, £43bn at either today's prices or possibly those from a few years back. i.e. they have estimated inflation which is never a good idea

The amount of 'worst case scenario' funding that the Treasury demands is increadible. I wouldn't be surprised if HS2 comes in well under budget.

 

[YorkshireBear]

At this stage HS2 has to add around 66% to there prices.

 

[HowardGWR]

It's probably a bad time for me to also say that I am a firm believer that we need to also upgrade a lot of our road network too.

God knows what anyone against high-speed rail would say to that suggestion!!

(Actually, they might prefer it if they can use those roads themselves)

Certainly is. The whole idea (unless you ar a CC denier) is to restrict road use, not increase it.

 

[D365]

TBF, the M1 seems (in places) quite a lot better than I remember it from a few years back. However, the A14 certainly needs sorting out

Hence updating my signature yet again; can't decide what fits there! The situation with the A14 is just as ridiculous as ever; though if anyone has anything they wish to add to this, please post elsewhere as I do not wish to derail this topic (haha).

 

[si404]

Phase 1 does finish in Birmingham.

Since when is Lichfield 'Birmingham'? I guess it is like the M1 ending in Leeds - having bypassed the city and merged into the old route to further north, only Lichfield is much further away from Birmingham than Hook Moor is from Leeds.

It finishes in a way which integrates poorly with the existing rail services.

Assuming you are talking about Birmingham, rather than the fork-junction at Lichfield, then this is thanks to anti-HS2 flavour-of-the-month Darling (and others) blocking Birmingham City Council/Arup's Grand Central plans.

When Phase 2 arrives, are services going to run into Birmingham and out again - not very many of them, if any.

All of them will - otherwise Curzon Street will quickly fill up with trains...

There would be 6 Birmingham Curzon Street-North services (1 Scotland, 2 Manchester, 2 Leeds, 1 Newcastle) as well as 3 London ones each hour.

London - North services won't bother with a reverse at Birmingham as that would add a lot of time to passengers heading north, compared to the 'avoiding' line, for no reason.

You could look at the proposed HS rail network and see that the design is meant to be independant of the existing rail network.

That's incredibly deliberate, with the exception of at stations (where passengers can transfer between lines), it is far far better to be separate as much as possible. It keeps costs down, it keeps existing passengers from being inconvenienced, it allows better routes than our Victorian forebears chose.

So we will end up with two networks, the HS network and the "old" network, with the HS network running over some old network lines because we cannot afford to develop a full network (the North east, Scotland).

So what you are saying here is that this disgraceful 2-network plan can't be implemented and it will not function as a separate network*. Well surely either this point is a good one, or your last one is - you can't have both as they are mutually incompatible.

*even if you, as you do, ignore Meadowhall, Toton, Manchester Piccadilly, Old Oak Common and London Euston which will be stations serving both the captive network and the classic network...

What will happen in the long term is that the old network will be starved of funds and suffer accordingly.

<citation needed>

 

[YorkshireBear]

Apologies at this stage it is around 10% and will remain at the till completion (source Dft website) it started at 66%. And they have added another 23% contingency to that so we should be okay in terms of pricing they are going high now with the hope that when its done they can go, look we did it for 6 billion less aren't we geniuses?

 

[HSTEd]

Actually, it's not. The latest Treasury estimate is that HS2 will cost £73bn.

In 2033 pounds, including interest payments.

Its complete nonsense, its the same idiocy that allows people to claim Trident will cost £100bn as if that is a lot of money.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its basically saying if you buy a 1p sweet today in 2033 it would cost you 3p so using the price in 20 years time that sweet you buy today is no longer good value.

 

[PR1Berske]

Just heard Angela Eagle on BBC News talking about their support for what she kept calling "the north/south railway". I wonder if the pro-lobby has forced (paid?) her to stop using "HS2" ?

 

[Dave1987]

Just heard Angela Eagle on BBC News talking about their support for what she kept calling "the north/south railway". I wonder if the pro-lobby has forced (paid?) her to stop using "HS2" ?

You still have not answered the point about how much your upgrades to the existing infrastructure would cost and exactly how much benefit it would bring. If you think HS2 is such a waste of money surely you have done a cost to benefit ratio of upgrading the WCML? Could you please provide with those figures. Otherwise your claims are completely meaningless.

Plus this is complete rubbish its £43bn for the full Y network your statements make your argument even more disingenuous.

I am anti-HS2. £80bn for a London-Birmingham shuttle bus is obscene

 

[D365]

Just heard Angela Eagle on BBC News talking about their support for what she kept calling "the north/south railway". I wonder if the pro-lobby has forced (paid?) her to stop using "HS2" ?

What, has the name become taboo? Oh and please answer our outstanding remarks on your contribution to this discussion.

 

[PR1Berske]

You still have not answered the point about how much your upgrades to the existing infrastructure would cost and exactly how much benefit it would bring. If you think HS2 is such a waste of money surely you have done a cost to benefit ratio of upgrading the WCML? Could you please provide with those figures. Otherwise your claims are completely meaningless.

Plus this is complete rubbish its £43bn for the full Y network your statements make your argument even more disingenuous.

Treasury figures are within my range, see above.

I would spend small and focused. So £10m on five new stations, and then a controlled budget thereafter on focused areas across the network. I won't spend £80bn on a cross-fingered experiment.

I would spend money on new rolling stock. I would connect existing towns to the network. I won't spend money on a London-centric expressway.

 

[jon0844]

TBF, the M1 seems (in places) quite a lot better than I remember it from a few years back. However, the A14 certainly needs sorting out

Yes, the M1 has been improved quite a lot from the M25 north... although a lot of it might simply be because of the removal of all the roadworks and speed restrictions.

I have to admit I was dead against hard shoulder running, but it seems to have been fairly well thought out. Not that I know how quickly the cameras can detect a car has broken down and shut the lane.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Treasury figures are within my range, see above.

I would spend small and focused. So £10m on five new stations, and then a controlled budget thereafter on focused areas across the network. I won't spend £80bn on a cross-fingered experiment.

I would spend money on new rolling stock. I would connect existing towns to the network. I won't spend money on a London-centric expressway.

And how will that tackle overcrowding on the WCML?

 

[PR1Berske]

And how will that tackle overcrowding on the WCML?

We can explore where and how to explore widening/exploring the WCML where possible.

 

[jon0844]

Apologies at this stage it is around 10% and will remain at the till completion (source Dft website) it started at 66%. And they have added another 23% contingency to that so we should be okay in terms of pricing they are going high now with the hope that when its done they can go, look we did it for 6 billion less aren't we geniuses?

A lot of people won't necessarily still be around by the time HS2 is completed, or too old to care.

If it was to be built quicker (no doubt costing more, and having labour supply issues) then maybe there would be more support?

 

[Bonemaster]

If HS2 is scrapped then this country is doomed pretty much. It will show that we can't do big infrastructure projects as the antis will just get in the way all the time. The same thing is happening for power at the moment. People don't want wind turbines ("blot on the landscape"), dont want nuclear ("scared of it"), dont want fracking ("causes earthquakes and damage to water supply") so how are we supposed to feed our insatiable desire for electricity? Same is happening with rail. We are the laughing stock of the world with our transport network. And the main heart of our rail network, the WCML is near bursting point.

So the antis say that it is a "white elephant" and will cost far far too much and won't provide value for money. Current cost is £43bn with around £7bn contingency fund not £80bn which is a figure that has been cobbled together and includes Cross rail 2 which probably won't even go ahead!!

Can the antis please provide proof that your idea to upgrade the WCML to will cost less than HS2 and provide the same capacity benefits (ie a better cost to benefit ratio), and can you also please show that these capacity benefits will be good enough to last the next fifty years or so. If you cannot show that then your arguments are meaningless.

Oh please, having HS2 or not is not going to make us the laughing stock, having a £40bn version of Ciudad Real, will make us a laughing stock. We are a small country, with a high population, and population densities and distributions that are not ideal for high speed rail.

The optimised alternative costs £2.062bn, so even if it overspends by a factor of 20 it's still below the current estimated cost of HS2, with a BCR of 5.17.

I think you are missing the point of what a BCR is. Having a larger or smaller BCR does not mean the benefits are the same, its the ratio of benefits to costs.

One question whos 25 year passenger figures are right, DfT, Network Rail or HS2? and which one are you most inclined to believe? ok we won't know for 25 years and you may as well throw darts at paper on a dart board, but to turn your statement round, if you can't show the capacity step change is needed over and above what can be cost effectively got out of the current network, there is no argument for HS2.

 

[PR1Berske]

Oh please, having HS2 or not is not going to make us the laughing stock, having a £40bn version of Ciudad Real, will make us a laughing stock. We are a small country, with a high population, and population densities and distributions that are not ideal for high speed rail.

The optimised alternative costs £2.062bn, so even if it overspends by a factor of 20 it's still below the current estimated cost of HS2, with a BCR of 5.17.

I think you are missing the point of what a BCR is. Having a larger or smaller BCR does not mean the benefits are the same, its the ratio of benefits to costs.

One question whos 25 year passenger figures are right, DfT, Network Rail or HS2? ok we won't know for 25 years and you may as well throw darts at paper on a dart board, but to turn your statement round, if you can't show the capacity step change is needed over and above what can be cost effectively got out of the current network, there is no argument for HS2.

I agree with every word. Glad to have at least one fellow anti-HS2 person on this thread!

 

[jon0844]

We are a small country, with a high population, and population densities and distributions that are not ideal for high speed rail.

That's true. What we really need is to build a new high-capacity line then.

 

[PR1Berske]

That's true. What we really need is to build a new high-capacity line then.

Oh, wait...

Expand the WCML where possible.

 

[jon0844]

Can you work out where, and what benefits it will bring.

How new stations will affect paths, how you increase capacity, and how you do it in stages (often requiring a load of work just to move existing things to keep stuff moving, like when you widen a road like the M25 and M1 - and that's often just moving concrete lane dividers, not tracks and overhead wires) without bringing things to a standstill?

Then put a rough cost to it. Oh, and perhaps ask Mr Darling and the IEA what they think, as you obviously think their thoughts are valid in bashing HS2 so it would be rude not to consult with them. The IEA wants to reduce all expenditure and reduce taxes - so it's pretty obvious that they'll give a resounding NO to your WCML idea anyway, or triple the cost.

Also, check that you won't have all the residents and businesses around the WCML setting up protest groups and saying 'No to WCML upgrade' - or factor in the legal challenges that will follow.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Expand the WCML where possible.

How without demolishing hundreds of homes built alongside the WCML?

 

[Bonemaster]

That's true. What we really need is to build a new high-capacity line then.

Oh, wait...

We are in a country that has excellent links too and from London, travelling East to West or vice versa is abysmal, i'm quiet firmly in the camp that if we are going to spend £40bn on railway infrastructure, we can do pinch point alleviation, rolling stock enhancement, and several smaller projects, get better BCR, provide enhanced spread of the economic benefits and get a better engine for growth through our railway system, get a carbon negative improvement, and provide enhanced social economic benefits.

 

[NSEFAN]

We can explore where and how to explore widening/exploring the WCML where possible.

Have you considered the additional load that will be put on the current WCML because of the additional connecting services from improving and introducing other routes? Don't forget that there are other developments alongside HS2 which will mean more people will be using the WCML as a result.

The current mainline can indeed be optimised with flyovers and better signalling, but there will still ultimately come a point when major changes will be required to keep up with demand, either by rebuilding the current line with a larger loading gauge, or increasing the number of tracks it has. Given how long it takes to get anything done in this country, if you wait until this upgrade is needed before you actually start building anything, it will be too late.

Improving the loading gauge would involve replacing many bridges and, more importantly, rebuilding tunnels. Both will take a long time to do and risk there being over-running works and long blockades/service reductions in order to make them happen.

Switching over from lineside to in-cab signalling will have high risks, too. The new system has to be thoroughly tested to make sure that it is safe, meaning if too many things go wrong then no trains can run at all over the re-signaled section until it is fixed. I am told that in BR days, new signals were commissioned in between trains on active mainlines, but this practice is not acceptable today.

Adding more tracks is possible, and as I've said before this is effectively what HS2 would be in its current form. Of course, we could see a sudden decline in rail usage in the coming decades and further rail expansion may be unnecessary, but is there any serious evidence to suggest that this might actually be the case?

We are in a country that has excellent links too and from London, travelling East to West or vice versa is abysmal, i'm quiet firmly in the camp that if we are going to spend £40bn on railway infrastructure, we can do pinch point alleviation, rolling stock enhancement, and several smaller projects, get better BCR, provide enhanced spread of the economic benefits and get a better engine for growth through our railway system, and provide enhanced social economic benefits.

See my point above about introducing more people on the current mainlines. I agree that we should spread out economic growth in this country to try and spread development around, rather than making London the end-all of business, but this would take more than just decent regional rail networks (although they are a good start). Private companies need to be given an incentive to not be based in London to try and get them out of the South-East of England.

 

[jon0844]

I totally agree with more lines to go east and west. Isn't there one already in the works from MK to Cambridge - effectively creating a link that spans most, if not all, of the mainlines.

I'd like some form of link from St Albans through to Hertford (connecting the MML to the ECML to the WAML) and can think of many others.

I would hope and expect that in the next 50 years, a lot of these things will be considered separate projects and won't be held back by HS2.

If I was an investor, I'd be looking at HS2 as a pretty safe, solid, project to fund. I wouldn't, sadly, see a lot of other things that will help people but not guarantee a good return, as being worthwhile.

Thus, the money that will be given for HS2 probably wouldn't be there for the other stuff anyway. It's not all public money for HS2 is it?

 

[PR1Berske]

Can you work out where, and what benefits it will bring.

How new stations will affect paths, how you increase capacity, and how you do it in stages (often requiring a load of work just to move existing things to keep stuff moving, like when you widen a road like the M25 and M1 - and that's often just moving concrete lane dividers, not tracks and overhead wires) without bringing things to a standstill?

Then put a rough cost to it. Oh, and perhaps ask Mr Darling and the IEA what they think, as you obviously think their thoughts are valid in bashing HS2 so it would be rude not to consult with them. The IEA wants to reduce all expenditure and reduce taxes - so it's pretty obvious that they'll give a resounding NO to your WCML idea anyway, or triple the cost.

Also, check that you won't have all the residents and businesses around the WCML setting up protest groups and saying 'No to WCML upgrade' - or factor in the legal challenges that will follow.

Can you explain why Liverpool should suffer from having clapped out stock running on old lines just because London wants 15 minutes shaved off its commuter times at £20m+?