High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[PR1Berske]

You said that you'd build a railway from Blackpool to Sunderland, but I don't remember any specifics. Would love to hear more, of course...

You want to relieve pinch points and invest more in the "regions" (to tackle that London-mafia conspiracy)? One of the biggest pinch points outside London is obviously 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly - apart from "metro" operations like Merseyrail these are possibly the busiest platforms in terms of departures/ passenger volumes in northern England.

So, surely anyone would want to build parallel platforms there to tackle this bottleneck? I mean, you'd have to knock a pub down, but apart from that...

Any more ideas?

To be fair, there has always been a London-centric bias in the industry towards investing in the capital's transport networks. You would never see, ever, the kind of modern stock in the North. And that shows as much as it says.

IIRC my point about Blackpool-Sunderland was looking at the disparity between investment in London-centric transport schemes - such as HS2 which before the Y (if we ever get the Y) is a Birmingham-London network - and Northern schemes.

I do support the MAN 15/16 proposals, but have always been worried about the impact on the Star and Garter. I've actually read and examined the NR maps and have seen that they have tried to come up with at least one which lessens the likelihood of it being demolished. Now if the owner/landlord believes, as I think he has, that he wouldn't mind being moved, then I can only accept that decision by him, but I hope that that isn't something he has to consider.

Again I have to say that it's not "Joe Public" at fault for believing what they read. If the case isn't made then they're going to need far more than a rebrand/repackaging.

 

[Squaddie]

Whatever it costs - whether it's £40bn, £80bn or £100bn - I can't help thinking how that money could be better used to improve the train services we already have, with new, longer and more comfortable trains running more frequently between nicer stations right across the country. We could have free WiFi and first class on every train, to make journeys productive. Travelling on Britain's trains could even become an experience to be looked forward to and enjoyed rather than dreaded and endured.

Unfortunately, the politicians' vision does not extend beyond the ridiculously expensive and discredited high speed line.

 

[PR1Berske]

Whatever it costs - whether it's £40bn, £80bn or £100bn - I can't help thinking how that money could be better used to improve the train services we already have, with new, longer and more comfortable trains running more frequently between nicer stations right across the country. We could have free WiFi and first class on every train, to make journeys productive. Travelling on Britain's trains could even become an experience to be looked forward to and enjoyed rather than dreaded and endured.

Unfortunately, the politicians' vision does not extend beyond the ridiculously expensive and discredited high speed line.

Another poster on my side!

 

[jon0844]

Not necessarily! Squaddie has made a point about extending trains/platforms and improving the facilities on board. I doubt anyone here is against that idea, given the fact that whether HS2 happens or not, we still have plenty of other lines that need upgrading too (much of which is happening or will happen).

That doesn't mean you've won or have another person 'on your side'. HS2 doesn't mean nothing else happens for 20-odd years.

I'd say that we should be improving other train services, but a lot of it won't be enough for the next 50-100 years. Besides the option of double deckers, and these have issues of their own, it's not necessarily good to think that we might one day all need trains that are 12, 16 or 20 coaches long. Besides needing to rebuild loads of stations, there's the simple issue of having to walk that distance to get on a train! If every coach is around 20 metres, that's a VERY long walk from one end to the other for passengers and crew.

 

[PR1Berske]

Fiiiiiine, another poster with similar sounding doubt. It's just rare for me to have someone else, t'is all.....

 

[jon0844]

Surely you're confident that you have majority opinion on your side and that we're all just wasting our time defending a scheme that's doomed anyway?

 

[PR1Berske]

Surely you're confident that you have majority opinion on your side and that we're all just wasting our time defending a scheme that's doomed anyway?

I'm happy that the "court of public opinion" is indicating its rejection of the scheme (incidentally, 81% against HS2 on the Guardian website at the moment).

I do believe the pro-lobby is wasting its time defending it. I suspect economic reality, and politics come the General Election in 2015, will sign its fate.

 

[jon0844]

If it becomes an election issue, maybe the public will speak but I really doubt it will ever be an election issue. In any case, all the major parties are for it anyway.

So chances are, HS2 could be delayed a bit more, then be signed off by whoever is in power come 2015.

Cherry picking polls that support your view doesn't really change anything. There isn't going to be a referendum on HS2 as far as I'm aware.

 

[ainsworth74]

Again seeing as HS2 is taking over the same stream of money as Crossrail currently gets I don't see why people are assuming that we're going to see a decrease in investment. Has the same happened whilst Crossrail is on going?

Finally if HS2 is cancelled that £42bn isn't suddenly going to be spent on the conventional network. It'll either go to something else or just as likely not be spent at all on anything and go towards tax cuts or similar.

 

[Geezertronic]

Another poster on my side!

I do wonder whether you are a child who seeks attention?

Squaddie has mentioned more in his one post than you have all thread. Thing is that improvements are happening UK wide and that won't stop because of HS2 and that is absolutely right and blows the either HS2 or Classic improvements argument of the anti-rail brigade. away

The WCML continues to get improvements to improve reliability (not necessarily capacity), electrification continues, IEP and other stock continues to be ordered, plus others

The Guardian website poll is about as relevant as a poll on The Sun website on whether Page 3 should stay or go since internet polls can be manipulated.

Again seeing as HS2 is taking over the same stream of money as Crossrail currently gets I don't see why people are assuming that we're going to see a decrease in investment. Has the same happened whilst Crossrail is on going?

Finally if HS2 is cancelled that £42bn isn't suddenly going to be spent on the conventional network. It'll either go to something else or just as likely not be spent at all on anything and go towards tax cuts or similar.

If I had a quid for everytime that had been mentioned on this thread....

 

[jon0844]

If I had a quid for everytime that had been mentioned on this thread....

You'd be able to fund HS2 yourself!

It's always ignored though. Some people must think there's this vault with £40 odd billion in cash that is waiting to find a use. Will it be for new schools, funding the police or building new homes - or a new busway that almost reaches Birmingham, but not quite?

 

[Manchester77]

PR1Berkse: what are you actually against I don't quite understand why you're so anti surely you understand that the existing WCML is pretty much at capacity and short of demolishing 1000s of homes etc to add additional tracks would be more destructive than building a 2 track route.

The argument about the loss of InterCity services was touched upon briefly on North West Tonight and I don't quite understand his it's being used, the existing IC services switch onto HS2 the freed up paths are then used for additional stopping trains and freight?

 

[AndyLandy]

The other thing is we've only just recently finished the WCRM programme. I cannot believe that there are any low-hanging fruit left to be had. If there were any easy wins to increase capacity, surely they'd have been taken back then.

 

[Philip Elliott]

PR1Berkse: what are you actually against I don't quite understand why you're so anti surely you understand that the existing WCML is pretty much at capacity and short of demolishing 1000s of homes etc to add additional tracks would be more destructive than building a 2 track route.

The argument about the loss of InterCity services was touched upon briefly on North West Tonight and I don't quite understand his it's being used, the existing IC services switch onto HS2 the freed up paths are then used for additional stopping trains and freight?

Once again, the existing IC services stop at the likes of Rugby, Coventry, Stoke, Wolverhampton, Macclesfield. Since HS2 doesn't stop at these there is still plenty of demand for IC services.

 

[The Ham]

I've come up with a couple of options of things which could be done to relieve capacity problems on the WCML, not that they would be very popular:

- replace the class 390's with pantographed 444's (12 coaches of standard only seating), by doing so it would increase peak hour seats by about 4,000 (a 100% increase), but slows down the journey times as they'll only be able to run at 110mph rather than 125mph. It ten allows the 390's to be used on the MML
- replace the Chiltern mark 3's and Loco's with 9 coach bi-modal IEP and run them beyond Birmingham so that some of the long distance services on the WCML can be replaced with London Miland service.

 

[anthony263]

PR1Berkse's arguments I dont think are getting anywhere and all we are doing is going round in circles.

Maybe HS2 isnt needed now but the government does have a responsibility to plan for the future and there has been arguments that this has not been done by previous governments. The recent sarga over network rail refusing Virgin any paths to run services from Shrewsbury/Blackpool to London due to lack of paths south of Rugby is a perfect example of why HS2 is starting to be required. The East Coast mainline is also creaking especially the southern parts so I think it is pretty safe to say I think give another few years thing sare going to be pretty serious unless something is done.

With fuel prices rising I think we will start to see a very sharp decline in dmoestic air travel and even the car I think is starting to have its day with fuel prices rising rapidly one reason why rail passengers numbers have surged and I expect to further increase.

I am sure many of us arguing over this scheme wish we had a time machine so we could see what the situation is like in 30 years time.


I will very much be glad when this scheme finally gets underway so we can start arguing the merits of HS3 from London to Bristol as even the GW is becoming crowded and will get worse in the future

 

[jon0844]

- replace the class 390's with pantographed 444's (12 coaches of standard only seating), by doing so it would increase peak hour seats by about 4,000 (a 100% increase), but slows down the journey times as they'll only be able to run at 110mph rather than 125mph. It ten allows the 390's to be used on the MML

What do you think of that idea PR1Berske?

Double the passengers for a slower train journey along the WCML? Is that the sort of thing you've been meaning?

 

[PR1Berske]

What do you think of that idea PR1Berske?

Double the passengers for a slower train journey along the WCML? Is that the sort of thing you've been meaning?

I'm not in a position to know if that's exactly the "end point", but it is closer to how I would put into place reforms, yes.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not in a position to know if that's exactly the "end point", but it is closer to how I would put into place reforms, yes.

How about we take it further.
12-coach Class 323s would give us 1136 seats.

That puts the capacity through the roof.

Course it would likely leave us with far longer journey times.
But since journey times are considered unimportant all the extra capacity from a uniform 90mph service would be more important....

 

[anthony263]

Take from the Wnxx forum (You must be registered):

http://www.wnxxforum.com/interactive/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=31357

Seems FGW have come up with additional carriages for their HST's to provide extra cpacity into London. Not sure what the performance of a 16 carriage HST will be like however

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not in a position to know if that's exactly the "end point", but it is closer to how I would put into place reforms, yes.

So you would, in fact, slow down the WCML? I wonder what impact that would have on East Coast Scottish services if they became the fastest again.

 

[HSTEd]

So you would, in fact, slow down the WCML? I wonder what impact that would have on East Coast Scottish services if they became the fastest again.

The capacity would be rapidly swamped and they will also have to be slowed down.

What a wonderful "upgrade" this is, when journey times end up back in the pre HST era.

 

[AndyLandy]

The capacity would be rapidly swamped and they will also have to be slowed down.

What a wonderful "upgrade" this is, when journey times end up back in the pre HST era.

I can see FlyBe doing really well out of that...

 

[tbtc]

To be fair, there has always been a London-centric bias in the industry towards investing in the capital's transport networks. You would never see, ever, the kind of modern stock in the North. And that shows as much as it says

London had hundreds of "slammers" a few years ago - there are still 313s - some of the Underground trains are ancient (and as for the Isle of Wight, which is in the South East...)

Northern England has some new stock and some old stock - grass is always greener though

IIRC my point about Blackpool-Sunderland was looking at the disparity between investment in London-centric transport schemes

Are you suggesting that you'd rather build a line from Blackpool to Sunderland instead of HS2? Is that a bigger priority? Or is it just a case of "spending money anywhere outside London" to suit the chip on the shoulder?

I've come up with a couple of options of things which could be done to relieve capacity problems on the WCML, not that they would be very popular:

- replace the class 390's with pantographed 444's (12 coaches of standard only seating), by doing so it would increase peak hour seats by about 4,000 (a 100% increase), but slows down the journey times as they'll only be able to run at 110mph rather than 125mph. It ten allows the 390's to be used on the MML
- replace the Chiltern mark 3's and Loco's with 9 coach bi-modal IEP and run them beyond Birmingham so that some of the long distance services on the WCML can be replaced with London Miland service.

Downgrading the WCML to 110mph and slowing all of the current Virgin services down would create more capacity - getting rid of all First Class would also create more capacity.

Getting more seats by stripping out the catering on Virgin services (replacing with a trolley) and maybe some 3+2 seating could also be considered?

These are the kind of tough decisions we'd have to consider if we don't want HS2.

 

[The Ham]

Downgrading the WCML to 110mph and slowing all of the current Virgin services down would create more capacity - getting rid of all First Class would also create more capacity.

Getting more seats by stripping out the catering on Virgin services (replacing with a trolley) and maybe some 3+2 seating could also be considered?

These are the kind of tough decisions we'd have to consider if we don't want HS2.

Of course that then make ths business case for building HS2 a lot better, as the time saving then become a lot bigger (did I not mention that earlier, oh well!).

There is always the possibility that HS2 is scrapped and replaced with HS2 v2 which would be one of the following:
- HS line to Wales and the West as there are capacity problems with those servces which will be relived in the short term by IEP, but will soon become a problem again.
- HS line up a more eastly alignment so as to bypass Birmingham but still serving the more northly cities.

 

[CalderRail]

No political decision will ever give a slower speed on the WCML. Not only has every part sold High Speed Rail as the choice, there is no political traction at all in giving extra impetus to air travel, in light of the arguments over Heathrow capacity.

 

[WatcherZero]

The new business case is out, 92 pages costing £200k and taking four months to complete by KPMG and based on an enhanced private sector business case rather than the simplified Treasury infrastructure economic appraisals.

HS2 will deliver economic growth of an annual £15bn when completed
It will create 250,000 jobs
The Treasury would be £5bn per annum better off due to increased tax reciepts, over the 30 year appraisal period the Treasury would generate a profit of £75bn from funding the scheme.
HS2 would increase the size of the Greater London economy by 0.5% and the Birmingham City region economy by 2.1-4.2%, Manchester city region by 0.8-1.7%, Leeds 1.6% (figure variance due to varying location economic growth could be felt as the regions outside London compete against each other), overall there is more benefit to the regions than to London.

The finding is preliminary until the Treasury decides what figure it wants to use for the economic benefit of time saved, the figures used by KPMG assume that a worker is half as productive on a train as if he was in an office this knocks the annual GDP figure down to £12bn, if you assume the worker is 100% as productive on a train as he was in the office the GDP growth would be £8bn annually.

The benefits of the Manchester Airport station have not been included in the findings due to late inclusion of the station in HS2 route (cost of station is £200m with £100m locally funded).

The £15bn annual economic growth is like adding a county the size of Cambridgeshire or Oxfordshire.

KPMG finds that teleworking and 'laptop time' and the ability to be productive outside the office will actually increase the amount businessmen travel around the country to conduct face to face business rather than reduce it. They allude to the idea that teleworking would reduce travel in the same way people thought computers would produce a paperless office, paper usage actually went up.


(this is all from the crib notes ive been handed)

 

[PR1Berske]

KPMG are not impartial.

I have just heard the KPMG guy's interview on the Today Programme. When asked to justify the report, he said HS2, and I quote, "provided a step-change in connectivity". I don't think he ever got round to explaining what on earth this means in English.

He was asked to confirm that all he was really saying Britain needed was more capacity, not necessarily a high speed line, and he struggled to get any words out.

Impartiality is compromised when the first people the Government turn to for justification......is the people behind the scheme in the first place.

HS2 will deliver economic growth of an annual £15bn when completed

This claim was challenged. It was "peer reviewed" by....people who support HS2, and I'm not sure he expanded on this. £15bn from who to whom? As has been admitted by the pro-HS2 lobby, an increasing amount of business is done on-line, so what is being quantified here? And is it being done so on current behaviour and expectations or how business and e-technology will have changed in 30 years time?

Greater London economy by 0.5%

Dodgy accounting. "Greater London" includes the entire conurbation, not just the centre where most people work. It's telling that they then use "Manchester" rather than "Greater Manchester" :roll::roll:

 

[Ironside]

The new business case is out, 92 pages costing £200k and taking four months to complete by KPMG and based on an enhanced private sector business case rather than the simplified Treasury infrastructure economic appraisals.

HS2 will deliver economic growth of an annual £15bn when completed
It will create 250,000 jobs
The Treasury would be £5bn per annum better off due to increased tax reciepts, over the 30 year appraisal period the Treasury would generate a profit of £75bn from funding the scheme.
HS2 would increase the size of the Greater London economy by 0.5% and the Birmingham City region economy by 2.1-4.2%, Manchester city region by 0.8-1.7%, Leeds 1.6% (figure variance due to varying location economic growth could be felt as the regions outside London compete against each other), overall there is more benefit to the regions than to London.

The finding is preliminary until the Treasury decides what figure it wants to use for the economic benefit of time saved, the figures used by KPMG assume that a worker is half as productive on a train as if he was in an office this knocks the annual GDP figure down to £12bn, if you assume the worker is 100% as productive on a train as he was in the office the GDP growth would be £8bn annually.

The benefits of the Manchester Airport station have not been included in the findings due to late inclusion of the station in HS2 route (cost of station is £200m with £100m locally funded).

The £15bn annual economic growth is like adding a county the size of Cambridgeshire or Oxfordshire.

KPMG finds that teleworking and 'laptop time' and the ability to be productive outside the office will actually increase the amount businessmen travel around the country to conduct face to face business rather than reduce it. They allude to the idea that teleworking would reduce travel in the same way people thought computers would produce a paperless office, paper usage actually went up.


(this is all from the crib notes ive been handed)

Good to see an intelligent attempt to work out the benefits of of HS2 in numerical form. I particularly like the paperless office analogy and the suggestion that working on the train is half as effective as working in an office. The stated effectiveness of working on the train seems fair as if you have a seat and the coach is quiet you can get some work done, but these conditions are not guaranteed.

 

[PR1Berske]

From the report itself :

"Part 4 of the report

"In this section we describe the methodology (and data) used to derive initial estimates
of the potential regional economic impacts of investment in HS2."

[...]

"The impacts are clearly uncertain, and they depend on macro- and micro-level
interactions between firms, within firms and with the labour market. Moreover, they
depend on assumptions about how the economy and transport patterns will develop
in future. We have used standard assumptions for these future ‘Do Minimum’ trends
which are based on information from DfT and HS2 Ltd...."


About as water-tight as ricepaper.