High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Ironside]

The answer doesn't have to be capacity, capacity, capacity, as those on the pro- camp keep banging on about. Reducing demand is a viable alternative.

It is if you want a seat.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I will happily 'stand down' and call it London/Birmingham Expressway, but as for anything else, there's no guarantee of money being available to make it any further north, so don't go counting those particular chickens just yet.

The IoD makes a good case against the scheme. The momentum is clearly moving to anti- , which is fine with me.

Then you should no longer quote prices for both phases in your arguments. As even inflated it will not cost 73 billion for phase 1.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It’s very easy to be sanctimonious about all of this when the proposed construction of HS2 doesn't affect you personally. Are you seriously suggesting that people living in Bucks should be prepared to make sacrifices so that people living in the North have quicker journey times to the capital? Why should they care about people living in the Midlands and the North?

We met this attitude when Kent commuters voted against HS1.
Their prime commuting territory was of course created by the railway in earlier years, and now they vote against extending the benefits further out from London in the same way.
Bucks commuters were gifted their present lifestyles and house values by the Victorian railways, especially near the the Met, GC and GW routes.

The capital transfers over recent decades have been from the north to the south (ie northern taxes funding south-east development).
This project just balances things out a little.

 

[The Decapod]

The Institute of Directors has now called for HS2 to be scrapped. The CBI has already expressed doubts about it. The ducks seem to be lining up for cancellation of the project shortly before the next general election.

 

[PR1Berske]

Question.

Let's use the figure of £20bn for the London/Birmingham Expressway.

If we spent that same amount on high-speed broadband, allowing for video conferencing, virtual offices and all the rest of it, would not that deliver just as much real term economic benefit in rural and northern areas than a southern-based railway?

There are alternatives to HS2 - and that's one of the better ones I'm hearing touted this morning.

 

[jon0844]

The IoD and anyone in a position to represent the views and fears from potential investors will probably want to see HS2 adapted to give them the chance of a maximum return. They have interests, just like anyone else. At the moment, everyone is giving their opinion on what HS2 should do, but at some point a line will have to be drawn.

I can see the logic of building a proper HS1 connection. Whether the demand is there or not, I can get the perception that a link to a line to mainland Europe is worthwhile. Likewise, I can see the same argument for a branch off to Heathrow (not so much to connect airports like Birmingham or Manchester, but for the people who will be able to come from further north to fly long-haul from London).

Labour could be playing a game too, by introducing obstacles (while saying it is still broadly in support of HS2) to try and get it delayed until it might get back into power. I am sure that Labour would rather have HS2 signed off under its watch, than have to live with something that will be seen as approved, funded, and started under the Tories (albiet a coalition). We all know the Tories NEVER spend anything on rail don't we!!

There's lots of politics here, just as wealthy land owners in Bucks are trying to secure some nice compensation before HS2 can start.

Still, at least some genuine points have been raised in the last 12 hours or so - unlike the usual repeating of nonsense by some members.

 

[PR1Berske]

The IoD and anyone in a position to represent the views and fears from potential investors will probably want to see HS2 adapted to give them the chance of a maximum return. They have interests, just like anyone else. At the moment, everyone is giving their opinion on what HS2 should do, but at some point a line will have to be drawn.

I can see the logic of building a proper HS1 connection. Whether the demand is there or not, I can get the perception that a link to a line to mainland Europe is worthwhile. Likewise, I can see the same argument for a branch off to Heathrow (not so much to connect airports like Birmingham or Manchester, but for the people who will be able to come from further north to fly long-haul from London).

Labour could be playing a game too, by introducing obstacles (while saying it is still broadly in support of HS2) to try and get it delayed until it might get back into power. I am sure that Labour would rather have HS2 signed off under its watch, than have to live with something that will be seen as approved, funded, and started under the Tories (albiet a coalition). We all know the Tories NEVER spend anything on rail don't we!!

There's lots of politics here, just as wealthy land owners in Bucks are trying to secure some nice compensation before HS2 can start.

Still, at least some genuine points have been raised in the last 12 hours or so - unlike the usual repeating of nonsense by some members.

But just as realistically and politically, Labour wouldn't want -- with their reputation -- a massive scheme to go way over budget on their watch. If they sign this off only for it to go through the roof, they get blamed for being irresponsible.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I really don't see what Labour have to gain by withdrawing support for HS2, yes it will probably gain a few positive headlines but for the majority of the public HS2 is not a major issue. They won't gain any new seats in the affected constituencies and as Maria Eagle has repeatedly pointed out no one has yet come up with a viable alternative.

 

[Geezertronic]

...the London/NotQuiteBirmingham Expressway....

Like your signature before (glad to see that has changed), this worefully inaccurate comment results in the rest of your postings being ignored. Maybe I have missed it, but what do you mean by NotQuiteBirmingham?

Maybe you are not just Anti-HS2 but Anti-Rail as well?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Like your signature before (glad to see that has changed), this worefully inaccurate comment results in the rest of your postings being ignored. Maybe I have missed it, but what do you mean by NotQuiteBirmingham?

Maybe you are not just Anti-HS2 but Anti-Rail as well?

He's not anti rail he wants extra stations on the WCML to tackle capacity issues.

 

[PR1Berske]

Like your signature before (glad to see that has changed), this worefully inaccurate comment results in the rest of your postings being ignored. Maybe I have missed it, but what do you mean by NotQuiteBirmingham?

Maybe you are not just Anti-HS2 but Anti-Rail as well?

I am very pro-Rail, I love using the railways and have written about my sadness at the loss of so many routes around Lancashire and have indeed walked some of the former lines for my blog. What I do not like, and enjoy ribbing and taking the mickey out of whenever possible, is this scheme.

I seem to remember using "Birmingham" earlier in the context of the route being a London - Birmingham shuttle and getting told that was wrong, so used "Not Quite Birmingham", and now that's wrong too. So who knows, eh?

When faced with the ridiculous, I ridicule. HS2 is ridiculous.

 

[jon0844]

He's not anti rail he wants extra stations on the WCML to tackle capacity issues.

Stations that will only cost £2m each, and when that was shown to be rather optimistic, suggested that maybe we need to look at building them cheaper! Like nobody would have thought of that!

Modern building regulations make many things more expensive than they were, and that would mean ensuring any new station is fully accessible - invariably that's going to mean a fair few lifts. And more space for passenger flows (thus more land and materials) and so on.

Unless of course these stations are going to be tiny little rural-like stations, getting maybe 1tph or less. Maybe then you could build some cheap, as Chiltern did (from what I saw on a TV programme) but I am not sure how many people would be expected to use them, or how it solves capacity problems. If an already packed train stopped at these new stations, could people even get on?

What I do not like, and enjoy ribbing and taking the mickey out of whenever possible, is this scheme.

Finally, the admission that this is all just a joke to you - and you're just winding people up. And you had a go at me for saying you were trolling?

You've never appeared to be serious with anything you've said, but now you have actually said so. So, I think that until you can debate things seriously, there's absolutely no point in even reading anything you post from now on.

 

[brianthegiant]

Question.

Let's use the figure of £20bn for the London/Birmingham Expressway.

If we spent that same amount on high-speed broadband, allowing for video conferencing, virtual offices and all the rest of it, would not that deliver just as much real term economic benefit in rural and northern areas than a southern-based railway?

There are alternatives to HS2 - and that's one of the better ones I'm hearing touted this morning.

PR1Berske, you just keep trotting out all the stock Stop-HS2 arguments, which we've heard here all before (yawns), and they've all been well and truly demolished, this one is no exception, if you read back through the thread.

Web conferencing has been around for years now, the internet has been widely available since the mid nineties, indeed the same period during which rail use doubled..hmm. If anything the stats indicate the web is increasing demand for travel not reducing it. Web conferencing complements but doesn't replace meeting face to face, believe me if you want to build trust in business relationships you do have to meet face to face. I suspect a lot of business travellers by rail are managers visiting sites to meet people working for them, you can't do good people skills over the web.

If you can find some stats to back up your argument, go ahead....

 

[PR1Berske]

He's not anti rail he wants extra stations on the WCML to tackle capacity issues.

You misinterpret me, again.

I have typed before what I want - focused expansion/extension of the WCML where possible, new stations where necessary, a re-evaluation/refreshing of the timetabling to match the reality of passenger demand to locate and resolve any duplication and/or find gaps for services.

All cheaper and with faster, more visible results than HS2.

 

[YorkshireBear]

You misinterpret me, again.

I have typed before what I want - focused expansion/extension of the WCML where possible, new stations where necessary, a re-evaluation/refreshing of the timetabling to match the reality of passenger demand to locate and resolve any duplication and/or find gaps for services.

All cheaper and with faster, more visible results than HS2.

No, when faced with the ridiculous, I ridicule. Is actually what that was.

 

[PR1Berske]

Stations that will only cost £2m each, and when that was shown to be rather optimistic, suggested that maybe we need to look at building them cheaper! Like nobody would have thought of that!

Modern building regulations make many things more expensive than they were, and that would mean ensuring any new station is fully accessible - invariably that's going to mean a fair few lifts. And more space for passenger flows (thus more land and materials) and so on.

Unless of course these stations are going to be tiny little rural-like stations, getting maybe 1tph or less. Maybe then you could build some cheap, as Chiltern did (from what I saw on a TV programme) but I am not sure how many people would be expected to use them, or how it solves capacity problems. If an already packed train stopped at these new stations, could people even get on?



Finally, the admission that this is all just a joke to you - and you're just winding people up. And you had a go at me for saying you were trolling?

You've never appeared to be serious with anything you've said, but now you have actually said so. So, I think that until you can debate things seriously, there's absolutely no point in even reading anything you post from now on.

Do you have no sense of humour?

I am taking this very seriously, but there's only so much seriousness you can present when faced with this scheme. It's being demolished by people in the industry (including the sainted Bearded One, I notice), it's been smashed to pieces by the CBI and IoD, it's budget has sky-rocketed, forcing Ed Balls to talk of a cap if things get too daft, and with each passing week, more suitable alternatives are offered.

So yes, I do use nicknames and slang terms to refer to HS2 in these posts, not because I'm trolling, but because the reality of this scheme is a joke!

 

[Geezertronic]

I am very pro-Rail, I love using the railways and have written about my sadness at the loss of so many routes around Lancashire and have indeed walked some of the former lines for my blog. What I do not like, and enjoy ribbing and taking the mickey out of whenever possible, is this scheme.

And you are very much entitled to your opinion

I seem to remember using "Birmingham" earlier in the context of the route being a London - Birmingham shuttle and getting told that was wrong, so used "Not Quite Birmingham", and now that's wrong too. So who knows, eh?

So even though HS2 Phase 1 is quite clearly NOT a London-Birmingham "shuttle" (and the HS2 diagram you linked to a million posts ago proves that by virtue of the delta junction with onward connection to the WCML around Lichfield) and NEVER been wholly about saving "15 minutes from Birmingham to London", you would still prefer to use that comment? And when questioned you provide another idiosyncratic comment?

When faced with the ridiculous, I ridicule.

I would have to agree which is why I am commenting on your posts. I am definitely no expert, I don't work on the railways, but I am old enough to remember the last WCML upgrade...

HS2 is ridiculous.

That is your opinion, but it is not as ridiculous as people who think the WCML can be upgraded further to provide any where as much capacity on the southern section. I too have read the 51M suggestions and they are way past the ridiculous

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Do you have no sense of humour?

I am taking this very seriously, but there's only so much seriousness you can present when faced with this scheme. It's being demolished by people in the industry (including the sainted Bearded One, I notice), it's been smashed to pieces by the CBI and IoD, it's budget has sky-rocketed, forcing Ed Balls to talk of a cap if things get too daft, and with each passing week, more suitable alternatives are offered.

So yes, I do use nicknames and slang terms to refer to HS2 in these posts, not because I'm trolling, but because the reality of this scheme is a joke!

Ok then lest say HS2 is cancelled, we embark on a further round of upgrades to the WCML which given the previous round of upgrades cost £10billion and take 8 years. At the end of this how much extra capacity do we get exactly?

 

[Tobbes]

The IoD makes a good case against the scheme. The momentum is clearly moving to anti- , which is fine with me.

Actually, quite the contrary. The IoD has run a member survey, so what this actually tells you is the state of knowledge / understanding / support for HS2 amongst their members who could be bothered to complete the survey. The one thing it is not is a policy analysis of whether it is a good idea or vfm.

It is clearly the case that the message of why HS2 is necessary needs to be made better by HS2 itself, DfT and the Government. But it doesn't change the fact that there is no other proposal that provides the capacity WCML requires to 2050. Your posts over the last few days have certainly not provided a concrete alternative!

For the antis to ultimately win, they need to come up with a better idea and/or the costs need to explode. Neither is likely, if 51M's effort is anything to go by.

Tobbes

 

[PR1Berske]

So even though HS2 Phase 1 is quite clearly NOT a London-Birmingham "shuttle" (and the HS2 diagram you linked to a million posts ago proves that by virtue of the delta junction with onward connection to the WCML around Lichfield) and NEVER been wholly about saving "15 m

The first part of the scheme will be built as a London-Birmingham section, before the next part to northern England. The whole scheme has always been sold, advertised and plugged as a London-Birmingham project that would take 15 minutes off the commuting time. If that is wrong, I'm only typing what the pro-HS2 politicians have been saying, so take it up with them. The fact that the junction joins the WCML tells me that it would still be considered a London-Birmingham expressway by the general public in any case, and even if the Y-junction is completed, the general consensus would be that there's two parts - one to Brum, and the other further off.

There are no regional voices loud enough promoting the scheme - it's entirely the work of the London elite and the Westminster bubble, and that's what makes this a London-centric scheme. There's no point in keep saying "There's a link to Manchester too you know!" when that's 30 or so years away, at which point Crossrail et al. would have provided yet more evidence that there's only one part of the country where investment really matters; London, London, London.

Had anyone suggested a "Northern Crossrail", they would have been laughed out of court.

But hey, you know, £20bn to Birmingham for 15 minutes, and a further who knows what to the North for 30 or so minutes, and all for the mid 2020s/2030s. What a great scheme that is. Imagine the same amount of money being spent on the existing network! That's all I've ever wanted someone to answer, really, why can't the same HS2 budget not be diverted to the existing network? And nobody can answer, nobody. "Capacity, capacity, capacity" is a false argument if the current guess of 2026 is the year being bounded about - on whose calculations? On what assumptions?

You see, this is not the first time that this Forum has treated dissent with such an gang-onslaught. I've said it before - if people didn't come here to express doubt or opposition, this thread would be an echo chamber. Maybe that's what you want?

 

[Tobbes]

You see, this is not the first time that this Forum has treated dissent with such an gang-onslaught. I've said it before - if people didn't come here to express doubt or opposition, this thread would be an echo chamber. Maybe that's what you want?

No, what I want - can't speak for others - is reasoned debate on rail policy. Which is not something that you've contributed to at all, PR1Berske. Have a look at tbtc's post a few pages back for a great example.

Tobbes

 

[jon0844]

I am sure it is right that some MPs may have 'sold' HS2 as making it quicker to get to Birmingham. But it wasn't advertised as such, and people should have the intelligence to know that it is more than that - or accept being told that countless times.

Trains that use HS2 and then carry on to other destinations will automatically be faster to those places simply from the time saved so far - so even before any more of HS2 is finished, there are benefits to more than just those going to Birmingham.

You could think of HS2 then as a simple bit of extra capacity alongside the WCML, and perhaps axe the rest of the project. But that wouldn't do much for those who don't need to actually go to/from London.

HS2 is actually benefiting more than just people going to, or coming from, London.

 

[khib70]

The first part of the scheme will be built as a London-Birmingham section, before the next part to northern England. The whole scheme has always been sold, advertised and plugged as a London-Birmingham project that would take 15 minutes off the commuting time. If that is wrong, I'm only typing what the pro-HS2 politicians have been saying, so take it up with them. The fact that the junction joins the WCML tells me that it would still be considered a London-Birmingham expressway by the general public in any case, and even if the Y-junction is completed, the general consensus would be that there's two parts - one to Brum, and the other further off.

There are no regional voices loud enough promoting the scheme - it's entirely the work of the London elite and the Westminster bubble, and that's what makes this a London-centric scheme. There's no point in keep saying "There's a link to Manchester too you know!" when that's 30 or so years away, at which point Crossrail et al. would have provided yet more evidence that there's only one part of the country where investment really matters; London, London, London.

Had anyone suggested a "Northern Crossrail", they would have been laughed out of court.

But hey, you know, £20bn to Birmingham for 15 minutes, and a further who knows what to the North for 30 or so minutes, and all for the mid 2020s/2030s. What a great scheme that is. Imagine the same amount of money being spent on the existing network! That's all I've ever wanted someone to answer, really, why can't the same HS2 budget not be diverted to the existing network? And nobody can answer, nobody. "Capacity, capacity, capacity" is a false argument if the current guess of 2026 is the year being bounded about - on whose calculations? On what assumptions?

You see, this is not the first time that this Forum has treated dissent with such an gang-onslaught. I've said it before - if people didn't come here to express doubt or opposition, this thread would be an echo chamber. Maybe that's what you want?

For what it's worth, I agree with you completely, especially the bit in bold. And I admire your tenacity in the face of it. Like you I'm a huge supporter of the railways, but I thank the Lord every day that major national spending decisions are not in the hands of railway enthusiasts....

 

[CalderRail]

But hey, you know, £20bn to Birmingham for 15 minutes

This is not, nor has it ever been, the objective. Your endless repetition of this ignorant line of attack in the face of repeated reminders of the facts are what are causing you to be attacked as a mindless nay-sayer.

 

[AndyLandy]

But hey, you know, £20bn to Birmingham for 15 minutes, and a further who knows what to the North for 30 or so minutes, and all for the mid 2020s/2030s. What a great scheme that is. Imagine the same amount of money being spent on the existing network! That's all I've ever wanted someone to answer, really, why can't the same HS2 budget not be diverted to the existing network? And nobody can answer, nobody. "Capacity, capacity, capacity" is a false argument if the current guess of 2026 is the year being bounded about - on whose calculations? On what assumptions?

Thank you for getting to your actual point. There are some genuinely good questions in there that are worthy of answers:

• On what do we base the predicted WCML usage figures?
• Assuming we were able to freely allocate the HS2 money to other rail projects, what could we achieve with the current system instead?

Perhaps if you'd simply asked questions like these in the first place, instead of belittling all the pro-HS2 people on here, you might have had a warmer reception.

 

[jon0844]

This is not, nor has it ever been, the objective. Your endless repetition of this ignorant line of attack in the face of repeated reminders of the facts are what are causing you to be attacked as a mindless nay-sayer.

Indeed.

Some people are actually giving some genuine reasons for why HS2 might not be perfect in its current guise - and it allows for debate.

What's happening is that people aren't debating, they're just constantly trying to correct mistakes (mistakes that are in fact deliberate attempts at humour, apparently).

 

[YorkshireBear]

The first part of the scheme will be built as a London-Birmingham section, before the next part to northern England. The whole scheme has always been sold, advertised and plugged as a London-Birmingham project that would take 15 minutes off the commuting time. If that is wrong, I'm only typing what the pro-HS2 politicians have been saying, so take it up with them. The fact that the junction joins the WCML tells me that it would still be considered a London-Birmingham expressway by the general public in any case, and even if the Y-junction is completed, the general consensus would be that there's two parts - one to Brum, and the other further off.

There are no regional voices loud enough promoting the scheme - it's entirely the work of the London elite and the Westminster bubble, and that's what makes this a London-centric scheme. There's no point in keep saying "There's a link to Manchester too you know!" when that's 30 or so years away, at which point Crossrail et al. would have provided yet more evidence that there's only one part of the country where investment really matters; London, London, London.

Had anyone suggested a "Northern Crossrail", they would have been laughed out of court.

But hey, you know, £20bn to Birmingham for 15 minutes, and a further who knows what to the North for 30 or so minutes, and all for the mid 2020s/2030s. What a great scheme that is. Imagine the same amount of money being spent on the existing network! That's all I've ever wanted someone to answer, really, why can't the same HS2 budget not be diverted to the existing network? And nobody can answer, nobody. "Capacity, capacity, capacity" is a false argument if the current guess of 2026 is the year being bounded about - on whose calculations? On what assumptions?

You see, this is not the first time that this Forum has treated dissent with such an gang-onslaught. I've said it before - if people didn't come here to express doubt or opposition, this thread would be an echo chamber. Maybe that's what you want?

You have to look beyond the politicians who in the most part do no understand the project.

You are ignoring then the powers that be in Yorkshire, the Midlands and Manchester who are all promoting the scheme?

20 billion on the existing network will not achieve an awful lot. WCRM cost was it 12 billion? add inflation and your looking at at least 13-14 billion to do that again. Then doing the same to the ECML and MML and you won't have much change from 30 billion. Add in to this that a similar modernisation is likely to severely impact on local services which HS2 does not. It won't reduce journey times as much and more importantly it certainly won't be able to offer anywhere near the same level of capacity as HS2 does.

 

[Geezertronic]

You see, this is not the first time that this Forum has treated dissent with such an gang-onslaught. I've said it before - if people didn't come here to express doubt or opposition, this thread would be an echo chamber. Maybe that's what you want?

But you yourself admit that "When faced with the ridiculous, I ridicule". So what do you expect when you freely admit that you ridicule the ideas and thoughts of other people?

 

[Dave1987]

Question.

Let's use the figure of £20bn for the London/Birmingham Expressway.

If we spent that same amount on high-speed broadband, allowing for video conferencing, virtual offices and all the rest of it, would not that deliver just as much real term economic benefit in rural and northern areas than a southern-based railway?

There are alternatives to HS2 - and that's one of the better ones I'm hearing touted this morning.

Now you are starting to bring a sensible argument to this discussion. The use fibre optic broadband and video conferencing is a sensible argument, also the argument about business men/women using onboard wifi etc to work while they travel is another good argument. If the only reason for building HS2 was just to speed up journey times I would agree with you up to a point. But this does not address the capacity problems. What you need to understand is how much extra capacity a purpose built line gives you.

 

[TheGrew]

This topic has seemingly gone round in circles for the last 20 odd pages. So I have decided it is my time to weigh into the discussion as a pro-HS2.

Why am I pro-HS2
Capacity Concerns:

Currently the WCML is operating at near capacity (and will be by the time HS2 is built according to pretty much all estimations).
In addition to this both the MML and ECML (especially the latter) are also rather congested.
Currently off peak Virgin are operating 9tph from Euston and have already suggested that they wish to run more (I believe they want 4tph to Manchester).
Apart from the frankly token call at Watford Junction no services currently stop south of Milton Keynes (where 3tph are scheduled to stop). Other than this the first calls for several services are quite far up the country at Rugby, Stafford, Stoke, Crewe and Warrington Bank Quay. These 4tph don't provide any relief for Milton Keynes or stations further south as they are primarily targeting the Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow end to end market (as you would expect from an Intercity Operator).

So the question becomes what to do with this end to end demand in order to free up paths on the fast tracks on the WCML. Where you effectively have the following choices:

1. Upgrade the WCML, this would be a major project that would no doubt cause huge disruption on an already busy mainline, likely causing a reverse modal shift back to car as the reliablilty of the WCML sinks futher.
2. Upgrade the Chiltern Mainline, Similar to the WCML in terms of disruption but the other problem with this is simply that the Chiltern wasn't designed for fast running from Marylebone to Moor Street and I imagine platform capacity would be an issue at the former. This would also only really solve the London-Birmingham issues.
3. Finally, build a brand new line lets call it HS2 This would allow all ICWC services to be slowed down, allowing more station calls at places like Milton Keynes and Watford Junction (to name but a few) increasing capacity from those stations. It would also, depending on routing be able to provide relief for the MML and ECML long distance services, as that 3 birds with one stone I hear you say!

Rolling Stock:
Who dislikes Pendolinos, small windows, cramped interior is just some comments I have read on this forum. This is primarily due to the required tilt profile within the UK loading gauge. But what is that, HS2 will be built to European Standards, allowing bigger brighter trains for HS2 only routes (though I appreciate the classic compatible stock will need to fit within the traditional gauge).

Journey Times:
Even though on the shorter trips to Birmingham gaining 30 minutes isn't massive it is when you look at the effect for Manchester, Nottingham or Leeds where significant journey time improvements are made. Yes people might not commute these distances but I for one have to make occasional business trips to the capital and the idea of shaving an hour off sound very appealing. Journey times is by no means the main reason to build HS2 despite what the politicians say (what do they know anyway!) it is mainly about capacity.

I accept that fact the HS2 isn't perfect, but no large infrastructure project has been. But HS2 is simply far too important to be canned.

Anyway those are some of my thoughts, enjoy trying to rip them to shreds.