High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[joeykins82]

Public spending went through the roof only if you use the baseline as what was set by the Major government during which public services were an underfunded shambles.

 

[jon0844]

If you had to pay 50% tax tomorrow (as in they brought this in as the standard rate) wouldn't you seek to avoid as much as possible - even if you knew that you could now have HS2, HS3, loads of new schools, hospitals and double the police force? It isn't just rich people that try and avoid paying their dues, as you'll see people at the bottom doing what they can to avoid tax and VAT.

The problem, and it's by no means unique to public sector industry, is that when you have loads of money to spend, you waste it. Happens just as much with a new startup that gets a cash injection.

It's finding the right balance. I think Labour swung too far towards just spending more and hoping it would get results. Maybe it did some times.

 

[PR1Berske]

Wow. I never realised that Labour had such far reaching influence that they were able to trigger a global banking collapse. Strange, though, that the economy was recovering steadily until May 2010 and has been turned into a basket case since then. If you think the Tories have any sense of fiscal responsibility just look at the billions they're allowing that dribbling idiot Michael Gove to waste.

Back on topic, HS2 phase one will be forced through by whichever party's in government. However, it'll be so grotesquely overbudget that phase two will never be built. It will, as predicted by the PAC, be a purely London-centric development.

Labour chose to spend beyond the country's means and it was the policies of Brown (who chose to put public spending on the back of massive levels of both national and personal debt) who did nothing about it.

And indeed, on topic, HS2 already is a London-centric development, which is why it goes into Euston, will start construction in London, and was initially sold as a quicker way to get into London for work. With or without the Y beyond Brum, that's what it is.

My constant use of "London - Birmingham" to describe the project has always been because I've just assumed that's as much as would be built. The City always gets its way.

 

[jon0844]

Once it's agreed, the whole thing will go ahead. We can argue about whether it should be built all at once (I'd like that) but I presume it's down to labour, equipment and skills etc.

I doubt they'll just build to Birmingham and say 'haha - all done. we fooled you!' because that would still leave the WCML and ECML at breaking point.

Now that we're getting more production going in the north, why would 'The City' be against this? It will stand to profit from the wealth generation.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes I do thank you. However that is no excuse to carry on borrowing! Japan's exports mean that they have a much greater chance of trading their way out of debt than we have.

Do they?
Japan's export industries are coming to pieces in the face of competition from the Asian continent (ie. China, Thailand and even Burma these days).
They are running a trade deficit that is growing even faster than Britains (although it is currently much smaller).

Remember that the Yen and the Pound are both Global Reserve currencies and the "mercantalist" rules over the trade deficit don't really apply in the conventional sense.
Most economists now believe that the trade deficit is largely irrelevent as well.

Oh don't be so ridiculous! Are you suggesting that we go back to the 1970's economic model?

Did I say that?
All I said was that the little remains of the pre 1979 consensus are under attack.
And for the record, I would rather that utilities and the railways answered to the people of Britain rather than to the people of France, Germany, the Netherlands and half a dozen other countries as they do now.

You're flying in the face of reality here. Public spending went through the roof and now we're paying the price. And what's wrong with low taxes? Paying 50% tax is depressing.

Are you willing to accept the society that ensues when you have low tax rates?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Wow. I never realised that Labour had such far reaching influence that they were able to trigger a global banking collapse. Strange, though, that the economy was recovering steadily until May 2010 and has been turned into a basket case since then. If you think the Tories have any sense of fiscal responsibility just look at the billions they're allowing that dribbling idiot Michael Gove to waste.

So why is it that schools are improving at a record rate according to OFSTED? It's all very well to criticise the government based on historic trends, and even what you think will happen. It's not alright when things actually are improving because of what they're doing. Or I suppose you'll cry that OFSTED are corrupt to the core or that the goalposts have been changed? (Neither of which are true.)

I'm aware this is off-topic, but I can't let that one slide.

 

[Muzer]

So why is it that schools are improving at a record rate according to OFSTED? It's all very well to criticise the government based on historic trends, and even what you think will happen. It's not alright when things actually are improving because of what they're doing. Or I suppose you'll cry that OFSTED are corrupt to the core or that the goalposts have been changed? (Neither of which are true.)

I'm aware this is off-topic, but I can't let that one slide.

Gove's really bad decisions have mostly been in relation to external exams - GCSEs and A-Levels - which (correct me if I'm wrong) aren't really tested by OFSTED.

I'll just say that you can tell your education secretary is **** when he tries to make schools exactly the same as when he was young.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Gove's really bad decisions have mostly been in relation to external exams - GCSEs and A-Levels - which (correct me if I'm wrong) aren't really tested by OFSTED.

I'll just say that you can tell your education secretary is **** when he tries to make schools exactly the same as when he was young.

Hasn't the scandal there been simply that teachers are annoyed that their pass rates aren't continuing to go up? (i.e. no more grade inflation)

 

[Metrailway]

Japan also demonstrates that you can drive public debt values very high without the supposed bond vigilantes turning a country into Greece. (Japan's public debt is over two hundred percent of GDP).

For cultural reasons, debt is frowned upon in Japan, so there is a very high household savings rate (unlike the UK). Many Japanese savers being risk averse invest in Japan Govermental Bonds despite the very low interest rates offered. Thus, Japan's Governmental debt is primarily owned by Japanese creditors. Over 90% of the Japan's public debt is owned by the Japanese (Brits own under 70% of the UK's national debt; IIRC Greeks own around 40% of Greece's national debt). The Japanese government did not really need to take into account about the foreign "bond vigilantes" perceptions of Japan's national debt. It is why the Japanese Government have been able to borrow significants sums over a sustained period.

 

[OuterDistant]

Brainwave: one of the arguments against HS2 is "it's costing £XXbn just to save 20 minutes on a journey", so I propose that they just slow the trains down, and call it "Normal Speed 1" :-P

 

[Muzer]

Hasn't the scandal there been simply that teachers are annoyed that their pass rates aren't continuing to go up? (i.e. no more grade inflation)

No. That's basically the strawman argument the Tory newspapers are using to make out everyone's complains are rubbish. Just as they do in reverse with HS2.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not totally against HS2 but I feel enthusiasts many who have lived through years of a declining rail system starved of cash just to keep certain lines and stations merely open (an that was a time when the railway had about £1billion subsidy rather than the £5billion today )know there are viable much cheaper alternatives that have not been given proper consideration by the government

Alternatives such as what? Changing one First Class carriage per train to Standard Class is one suggestion I've seen, but that's going to make practically no difference (maybe a dozen extra seats per service?).

What are your alternatives that everyone else has ignored?

why is one of the worlds strongest economy's going to take 20 +years to complete

HS2 gets criticised for being too expensive and also gets criticised for taking too long. To build several hundred miles all at once is going to push the cost up and up further.

Wow. I never realised that Labour had such far reaching influence that they were able to trigger a global banking collapse

Yes - they caused a global banking collapse by spending too much money on SureStarts and Libraries.

If only they'd listened to the Tories who were calling for more red tape to regulate our banks more, they'd never have had the financial crash.

(not that I can remember any Tories in 2005 arguing that the banks weren't regulated enough, mind...)

I'll just say that you can tell your education secretary is **** when he tries to make schools exactly the same as when he was young

This is my main criticism of Gove - he's trying to treat education based on what those over 50 want (one big annual exam, no extravagant school buildings, Latin, Shakspere etc), rather than base education on what modern kids need (e.g. if you want to do a job nowadays you need to pass lots of little "problem solving" tasks, not swot up for one exam at the end of the year).

Pensioners vote, school kids don't, so we have an education system designed around the prejudices of those who'll never set foot in a school (other than every four/five years when they vote).

 

[The Ham]

Once it's agreed, the whole thing will go ahead. We can argue about whether it should be built all at once (I'd like that) but I presume it's down to labour, equipment and skills etc.

I doubt they'll just build to Birmingham and say 'haha - all done. we fooled you!' because that would still leave the WCML and ECML at breaking point.

Quite, especially if the suggested stagnation/fall in passenger numbers doesn't come about.

It could well be that by the early 2020's that there is a lot of pressure to get HS2 built faster than the current plan if passenger numbers out perform the growth model (2.5% per year), as it has done from the 2009 figures (year 0 in the model) until the 2012 figures.

This could well be likely, bearing in mind that the ICWC franchise bids were looking to achieve a 5% per year growth rate (most likely to be higher in the early years and lower in the later years), buy putting in a lot of measures and investment to get more people to use their services.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No. That's basically the strawman argument the Tory newspapers are using to make out everyone's complains are rubbish. Just as they do in reverse with HS2.

So what is the complaint then? I literally can't make out much else from the reports. Surely that schools are improving is more important? Unless you're referring to the fact that resits have been limited and the focus is on exams. Just look at our cousins over the pond to see how well continuous assessment works: it makes very little difference. In fact, their drop-out rates are considerably higher than ours, because it demotivates students from doing well if they have a few poor grades.

Education starts at home, and is finished at school. Socioeconomic background and the school you go to are far more important in determining success than what sort of exams you have. I think we can all agree on this.

By the way - I don't actually have a problem with grade inflation, due to the fact that the grades someone achieves are usually only in competition with those of the same year, or maybe from one year either side; if universities are selecting the best candidates from recent assessment, it doesn't matter that a B is easier to achieve than 20 years ago, as they will compensate. Employers, on the other hand, are often much broader in what they require in terms of grades, usually stating x number of A*-C grades, for example, and so again it doesn't really matter much.

 

[Muzer]

The things that immediately occur to me:

* The inability to do resits. Everyone has bad days, and being able to resit exams is a valuable way of ensuring one bad day doesn't ruin your future prospects. Like it or not, universities and colleges alike still have the same or even higher grade requirements than they had before, even though average grades have actually gone down. One bad day in a critical exam can essentially mean you can't do the subject for A-level in the college you wanted, or the same for university. Resits give you an extra chance in these circumstances.
* (Not related to exams) the changing of the academy system to something that makes the rich schools both rich and able to ignore the national curriculum outside of the core subjects.
* Spreading exams out places more emphasis on understanding than plain learning of material, IMHO. It allows you to really understand particular subject areas, take an exam on them, and then build on that knowledge whilst focusing on different subject areas. It also makes it easier to spread the work over the two periods rather than having to revise what has become a very detailed amount of material for a single exam, which obviously again hampers understanding. This is a more subjective thing but, from having had a mix of both, I believe having both January and June exams is significantly better.
* English Baccalaureate thing for GCSEs. I don't know what the status of this is now, but when I was at school they had started to encourage schools to force students to do particular subjects in order to get better results for this. IMHO, by GCSEs many students are already aware if not what they like, certainly what they don't like. The ability not to do things like history or geography, for instance, would help them get better overall GCSE grades in the subjects that they ARE interested in and are actually going to be helpful in later life.


Anyway, we should probably get back to HS2.

 

[jon0844]

No. That's basically the strawman argument the Tory newspapers are using to make out everyone's complains are rubbish. Just as they do in reverse with HS2.

As someone who has had to hire people, I think that if we have 99.99% of the nation passing their exams with extra high grades then it makes them pretty meaningless.

Of course, if it really did mean that the kids were excellent at all the subjects they passed, it might not be such an issue - but it's clear, as many employers will tell you, that some people can struggle to read and write, or do basic calculations etc.

So, what's the problem and how is it fixed?

Three things spring to mind;

a) Why are we trying to risk disappointing children by giving them a lower grade or failing them, when it will actually help them in the long run?

b) Why are targets and league tables encouraging teachers to potentially help children to pass exams (perhaps by helping a little too much, thus people learn to pass the exam not in general)? Should we reconsider if these actually do more harm than good?

c) Why is it that people say it's insulting to children, when you hear the kids feeling aggrieved that they worked hard to pass - and others who didn't also passed and now have an equal chance (in theory) when trying to go on to do A-levels, go to college or enter the workplace.

(and d - what the hell as this got to do with HS2?!)

Yes - they caused a global banking collapse by spending too much money on SureStarts and Libraries.

If only they'd listened to the Tories who were calling for more red tape to regulate our banks more, they'd never have had the financial crash.

(not that I can remember any Tories in 2005 arguing that the banks weren't regulated enough, mind...)

I am sure the Tories would have got us into the same situation with regards to how the banks caused everything to come tumbling down, but the fact is they weren't in power and Labour was - so it happened on their watch.

My problem (as I said repeatedly in the late 1990s and early 2000s) was with the ease at which people could borrow, the belief that the way to invest was to buy property (not helped by all the TV programmes showing how you could get rich) and nobody caring about debt as you just got a new credit card and shifted the balance.

The fact the financial industry wasn't tightly regulated caused most of the problems, including VERY irresponsible lending. Most of that can be blamed on the banks, sure, but shouldn't the Government and other organisations have policed it better?

Clearly everyone must have known the score but just hoped it would go away or happen long after they'd moved on.

Anyway, we should probably get back to HS2.

It's okay, it hasn't been finished yet so we still have time.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's okay, it hasn't been finished yet so we still have time.

We might still have time and as interesting and worthy as this discussion is I'm going to have to ask that we stick to the topic at hand namely HS2. If there is a strong desire to discuss some of the topics that have just come up (education mainly it seems) then by all means start a topic in the General Discussion sub-forum. Otherwise I have to ask that we move back to High Speed 2.

 

[stanley T]

The only real argument for HS2 is the capacity issue. Quite apart from the cost, the others don't cut it - rail is already competitive in terms of journey times from London to Northern England, and some of the proposed reductions in times won't be that great with a route which snakes around to try to serve too many places - London to Leeds via Birmingham International makes little sense. And it will never get to Scotland, so forget 3hr timings to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

We are constantly told that capacity on the WCML runs out some time after 2020. But will it? That assumes a linear extrapolation of the recent growth in rail - and for passengers at least, that has been a rise in market share because petrol has stayed so expensive, and it won't go on for ever. Despite all the bleating about high fares, if you have access to a railcard (which about half the population do) or book advance, rail is good value. One does not foresee very cheap fares on HS2... just look at the half empty Pendolinos to Brum because cheaper fares are available on LM or Chiltern, leisure travellers don't mind an extra half hour or so for a lower cost.

Even if capacity is an issue, there are much cheaper fixes. The main capacity constraint is south of Rugby, to which the solution is to divert freight from there to a rebuilt GCML (route well graded and virtually intact). This is not heritage nostalgia, it makes sense. South of Aylesbury TfL hardly use the Metropolitan fast lines now, there are just the 2tph Chiltern trains except in the peaks, so just build a flyover at Kenton to connect to the WCML. Re-electrifying the DC lines to AC would allow much better use of the capacity south of Watford (virtually all Bakerloo trains terminate at Queen's Park already).

Then there is the ECML, doubling the Welwyn tunnels and viaduct is expensive, but small change compared to HS2. Add in some other four tracking (e.g Holme to Peterborough) and freight being sent via Lincoln, you have a big gain for relatively little money.

You could even extend the rebuilt GCML as far as a junction with the Birmingham - Leicester line relatively easily to ease pressure on the MML.

And what would be the capacity of HS2 anyway, if it serving all these places? You can't run 2 minute headways at 200 mph - anyone know the frequency on the Tokaido Shinkansen, that must be the busiest high speed line.

HS2 was always a bad idea, now public perception has finally caught up with the fact.

 

[Geezertronic]

Your cheaper alternatives do nothing for WCML capacity on the southern section and are only a short term fix to a longer term issue

 

[PR1Berske]

Two possibilities.

Best case scenario. Google cars are up and running, at high speed, within five years and this idiotic project is cancelled before serious money is spent bulldozing the countryside.

Worst case scenario, Google cars take 15 years and HS2 is built just in time to be cancelled.

 

[dggar]

Two possibilities.

Best case scenario. Google cars are up and running, at high speed, within five years and this idiotic project is cancelled before serious money is spent bulldozing the countryside.

Worst case scenario, Google cars take 15 years and HS2 is built just in time to be cancelled.

And if you think this is off the wall read this posting from the HS2 thread on SkyScraperCity.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=107020042&postcount=8197

OK, so we are now being told that HS2 is about capacity improvement not just speed, and I can see the point and benefits of that, with a rising population and increased demand for freight by rail I can see the benefit of increasing capacity. What I am thinking though are new tracks the only solution to increasing rail capacity? Working in the automotive sector we are seeing the developing of driverless cars, automatic distance spacing, forming vehicles into groups and many other techniques to improve road capacity and make journey times more reliable. Can’t some of this technology be applied to rail? For example:

• No conventional track side signalling, all signalling in cab, train space management is automated in the same way it will be in cars

• Reducing the gap between trains to 100’s of metres, not kilometres

• Trains that couple and de-couple at speed - no need to stop a train to break or join, speeding up this process. Dynamic seat reservation makes sure passengers are in the right section of the train

• Dynamic rail use – for example using three out of four tracks into London during peak and swapping this over during rush hour – this potentially increases capacity into London by 50% during the peak hours

• Enabling fast trains to ‘overtake’ slow trains by using the interval between trains on the oncoming track

All of this will need better and enhanced station management, but again, this is now possible with new technology. Integrating passenger and stations using smart phone technology, better passenger information etc. is all now feasible.

Researching, using and thinking of new and innovative train positioning technology will improve capacity over the whole network, and potentially bring far bigger total capacity improvements than building a single new line?

 

[jon0844]

Do you know someone called Zoe, PR1Berske?! Let's not start assuming driverless cars will make train travel obsolete!

And if you think that, and we've sussed out a cheaper way to run cars, then you will be arguing for more roads. Good luck with the NIMBYs then.

 

[Rational Plan]

Look google cars would be great, but they are not going to make roads magically hold more cars. Cars will still need to leave enough space for other road users, plus these cars will still run off the same fuel, whether they are automated or not. They won't be magically faster either. They would be worth it just from improved safety and if they could be 100% automated (in other words be able to park half on pavements and streets down Britain's many cramped residential roads) then you could do away with drink driving laws.

If taxi driver wages are a high proportion of taxi costs, then you could see auto taxis being cheaper than buses in the evenings and weekends in a lot of towns. Then there is the possibility of autobuses at some stage and the potential for lower costs there.

What all these options do not do, is replace the need for high capacity transport, especially over longer distances.

 

[Ironside]

Look google cars would be great, but they are not going to make roads magically hold more cars. Cars will still need to leave enough space for other road users, plus these cars will still run off the same fuel, whether they are automated or not. They won't be magically faster either. They would be worth it just from improved safety and if they could be 100% automated (in other words be able to park half on pavements and streets down Britain's many cramped residential roads) then you could do away with drink driving laws.

If taxi driver wages are a high proportion of taxi costs, then you could see auto taxis being cheaper than buses in the evenings and weekends in a lot of towns. Then there is the possibility of autobuses at some stage and the potential for lower costs there.

What all these options do not do, is replace the need for high capacity transport, especially over longer distances.

You could also tighten up the standards of driving so that those who have committed speeding or aggressive driving offences can be banned from manual driving without worrying about them loosing their jobs. Also elderly drivers could be tested more regularly and those that are no longer able to meet standards can still have private transportation.

But as you say trains will still be preverable over longer distances.

 

[The Planner]

You can't run 2 minute headways at 200 mph -

Why not if you could guarantee the trains could stop? Plenty of places on the WCML where the technical headway is around 80-90 seconds at 125mph.

Working it out that puts the trains 6¾ miles apart at 200mph and 2 minutes.

 

[tbtc]

This gets better and better. So, we shouldn't invest in a railway line because that's unproven technology and based on a lot of assumptions about what travel patterns will be in twenty years time...

...instead we should pin all of our hopes on high speed driverless cars, on the whim of a private business?

Great thinking there.

 

[The Ham]

Even if driverless cars increase capacity on our roads, then 20 years is not a long enough time frame for them to come on line. As how many people who currently drive a car would trust it enough to stop driving themselves? As such the vast majority of drives on the roads in 20 years time (even if driverless cars came on line now) would be used to driving themselves (you'd be comparing those who are ages 17-37 with those aged 40+,). This would mean that there would not likely be the political will to ban manual driving.

There are a number of reasons for this
- older people tend to vote
- road deaths probably wouldn't drop much more over supervisory systems (i.e. self breaking), so little case for road safety
- the cost of building cars with that much processing on board. although it would be a lot cheaper than now it would still be more expensive than supervisory systems, so only those that wanted it would pay for it

 

[6Gman]

Two possibilities.

Best case scenario. Google cars are up and running, at high speed, within five years and this idiotic project is cancelled before serious money is spent bulldozing the countryside.

Worst case scenario, Google cars take 15 years and HS2 is built just in time to be cancelled.

You pinched that from Boogie.

Plagiarist!

 

[Ironside]

Even if driverless cars increase capacity on our roads, then 20 years is not a long enough time frame for them to come on line. As how many people who currently drive a car would trust it enough to stop driving themselves? As such the vast majority of drives on the roads in 20 years time (even if driverless cars came on line now) would be used to driving themselves (you'd be comparing those who are ages 17-37 with those aged 40+,). This would mean that there would not likely be the political will to ban manual driving.

There are a number of reasons for this
- older people tend to vote
- road deaths probably wouldn't drop much more over supervisory systems (i.e. self breaking), so little case for road safety
- the cost of building cars with that much processing on board. although it would be a lot cheaper than now it would still be more expensive than supervisory systems, so only those that wanted it would pay for it

Road deaths may drop if the auto drive is sophisticated enough and simple things like keeping sufficient distance from the car in front, obeying the speed limit, radar detection of potential hazards will make a big difference.

If computer driven cars are significantly safer then insurance premiums could be much cheaper. This would lead to an increased demand for computer driven cars, but manual only cars will always be cheaper to buy unless some subsidy/tax is imposed to encourage computer driven cars.

 

[jon0844]

To be totally safe, computer driven cars can't have manually driven ones allowed to stay on the road. They'll react quick to problems and effectively make it extremely uncomfortable as they slam on the anchors for boy racers and the doddery OAP (apologies for stereotypes there, but you get the idea).

That's not to say it won't happen, but expect a lot of opposition from people that quite like driving!