High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't expect my daily life to be transformed by HS2, bar the times I need to travel to the places connected.

At least you offer up the hope that you will still be around to enjoy the fruits of HS2, unlike some of us who will have been laid to rest or fast approaching the expected message from the reigning monarch congratulating us on reaching the 100 years mark on the planet..

This debate is one that will run on and on ad nauseum for years to come....

 

[HSTEd]

This is exactly why HS2 is proving to be a hard sell. You and I can see the benefits but the £50bn is of no use to commuters away from the WCML. And this is precisely the point that the BBC is making.

Or ECML, or the WAML, or the GEML.

The cascade of service improvements effects almost all of the north-of-the-thames commuter routes.

 

[tbtc]

Well done to whoever created that list, working out how HS2 will affect places like Gosport...

The point is though Cardiff is not having £50bn thrown at it! I concur that it will benefit from electrification (along with the rest of South Wales) but it will noT benefit from HS2.

What's the answer though?

We're not allowed any infrastructure improvements that don't equally benefit everywhere?

That way lies pork barrel politics.

HS2 isn't trying to do everything. It won't cure cancer or bring world peace either!

Newsnight clearly thinks it should!

If every policy has to pass the "how will this affect someone in Ullapool and someone in Penzance" then this country has no chance.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Isn't part of the reason for HS2 to "bridge the north-south divide"?
If you invest in the "north" it inevitably means the money will not be spent in the "south".
We've had decades of disinvestment in the north and HS2 attempts to rebalance things a little.
Note that London (ie Boris) will only support HS2 if it also benefits London (ie triggers Crossrail 2).

I find it hard to believe that unique places like Cambridge will lose out economically, and Aberdeen has its place as the UK oil capital which HS2 is not going to change.
In fact, lower journey times on HS2 will benefit everywhere in Scotland.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The arguments can be used for any major scheme, building the M25 is for example no apparent use to anybody in the regions, but imagine if it had not been built. It may not be perfect, but without it the capital would have probably ground to halt several years ago, and who would be complaining then? Similarly the M1 or M6 because inevitably they suck in traffic and when they become blocked for one reason or another people and businesses well away from them encounter delays. Of course the difference about building a motorway and an HS rail line is that you can build the former in sections and the costs are spread over many years and therefore are not always in the public eye whereas you cannot really do the same with an entirely new railway.

The government spending review for 2013 states the government will spend £100 billion on publicly funded infrastructure over the next parliament of which 70% will be on transport. By the end of 2021 spending on HS2 will have been £16 billion, The Highways agency £15 billion, Network Rail £22 billion, London Transport Investment just under £6 billion, Local Authority Major projects just under £5 billion etc., all of which will likely be on very long term government loans at very low interest rates. Of course £50 billion for HS2 looks expensive to the public in the current economic climate, and in reality it is. But given that this will be by the mid 203*'s is it really that expensive?

 

[The Ham]

This is exactly why HS2 is proving to be a hard sell. You and I can see the benefits but the £50bn is of no use to commuters away from the WCML. And this is precisely the point that the BBC is making.

The thing is it's £50bn over 20 years, that is similar to the spending on Thameslink and Crossrail, which will basicly be £20bn over 10 years. Yes, I know double £20bn is £40bn, but then HS2 shouldn't cost as much as the £50bn anyway and the £20bn doesn't include trains for Crossrail.

So two large projects which basicly only benefit London have a simmilar spend over similar timeframes as one big project which benefits several cities directly and benefits more towns and cities indirectly.

How's that something that is hard to sell?

 

[jon0844]

At least you offer up the hope that you will still be around to enjoy the fruits of HS2, unlike some of us who will have been laid to rest or fast approaching the expected message from the reigning monarch congratulating us on reaching the 100 years mark on the planet..

This debate is one that will run on and on ad nauseum for years to come....

Well, there is always the chance I won't be around! However, my son will be and many others - so I am not basing my opinion on whether I will benefit!

 

[clc]

The list in question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_10_13_newsnight_hs2.pdf

According to that list the Highlands would gain from HS2 but Glasgow might lose out. Very strange indeed.

 

[jon0844]

On Newsnight, even Cambridge raised some concerns about the suggestion it would lose out - but still gave an opinion on a 'what if it did' basis.

The bit about Cardiff suffering was funniest to me, as it will benefit loads from the GWML improvements.

Total nonsense story, but one that clearly had Gavin Esler able to bully the poor lady and being particularly desperate to get a scoop by getting an admittance that all the places that might suffer weren't listen in full detail.

She did attempt to say many times that the information wasn't hidden, and I wonder if the BBC would have got the same data by simply asking - rather than going down the FoI route, which naturally suggests they've 'exposed' something.

I wondered if she should have simply walked out, but of course that would have just made him even more smug and able to claim victory on what was a total b**s**t story from start to end.

I wonder how Paxman would have handled things?

 

[HowardGWR]

At least you offer up the hope that you will still be around to enjoy the fruits of HS2, unlike some of us who will have been laid to rest or fast approaching the expected message from the reigning monarch congratulating us on reaching the 100 years mark on the planet..

This debate is one that will run on and on ad nauseum for years to come....

Well said Paul. On the subject of cities 'off the HS2 Route' we did have a discussion here on whether there could /should /would be through services from (say) Cardiff to Leeds using HS2. I disputed with an OP as to whether trains could access HS2 from New Street and it seemed perfectly possible to me looking at the maps.

In other words, lots of journeys could benefit from CC services, perhaps not at the moment fully envisaged or realised.

The 'wider economic benefits' issue was just as much debated, regarding road building, back in the 90s. Only then, there was no background data to support the slanging match that went on.

As an illustration, if you build a new road to a location that is suffering unemployment, it was argued that this would bring more business to that area. The anti-road building side argued that the increased ease of accessing the location would mean the reverse, namely that the location could more easily be served from afar, resulting in the removal of local factories and distribution centres to more central locations.

Judging by what actually has happened since the late 80s, I think it can be confidently argued that both results occurred, but it is difficult to disentangle the evidence as we have of course had substantial economic growth generally, anyway.

If I was an anti HS2 campaigner (e.g. Chilterns, Camden) I would stick to environmental and social impact and leave economics out of it.

 

[Planman]

The requirement for additional capacity is valid, however the Government cannot make a valid economic case for it because there is not one. That is why they are getting people like KPMG to come up with exotic theories to justify it. Bottom line where the REAL money coming from to pay for it?

The Government figures are all based on HS2 fares being more or less the same as current fares. That is totally unrealistic and is NOT going to happen. The uplift on HS1 is 25% and HS2 may have to be more to take account of the vastly higher operating costs such as maintenance with the considerably higher speed of HS2. The other thing is to cut the speed of the trains and lower capacity.

KPMG in their report accept that HS2 will only deliver if the fares are about the same. This would require massive Government subsidies or cuts elsewhere to the network. Even France is moving away from this to a more commercial model and fare will have to rise. That is why they have cancelled another HS line

The likely reality is empty HS2 trains due to cost and crowded normal cheaper services , because frequency has been cut by up to half in some cases.

We need a realistic discussion on how to deliver the line and not just steam roller it through.

 

[merlodlliw]

Note that London (ie Boris) will only support HS2 if it also benefits London (ie triggers Crossrail 2).LNW/GW Joint

Well Boris is Mayor of London,so I suppose hes looking after his patch.

The bit about Cardiff suffering was funniest to me, as it will benefit loads from the GWML improvements.

Agreed Cardiff will. The figure for Wrexham is going to be slewed, as the figures take no account of the annual £23M income via the new Super Prison into the County from 2017.

Is this really thread 5322 on page 355,is this heading for a record on RF infrastructure pages

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Isn't part of the reason for HS2 to "bridge the north-south divide"? If you invest in the "north" it inevitably means the money will not be spent in the "south". We've had decades of disinvestment in the north and HS2 attempts to rebalance things a little. Note that London (ie Boris) will only support HS2 if it also benefits London (ie triggers Crossrail 2).

I find it hard to believe that unique places like Cambridge will lose out economically, and Aberdeen has its place as the UK oil capital which HS2 is not going to change. In fact, lower journey times on HS2 will benefit everywhere in Scotland.

Was there a similar debate when HS1 was being planned....or was it stated by Government circles that EVERYONE would benefit from HS1 ?

 

[jon0844]

The likely reality is empty HS2 trains due to cost and crowded normal cheaper services , because frequency has been cut by up to half in some cases.

We need a realistic discussion on how to deliver the line and not just steam roller it through.

Yes, empty trains are going to run around all day while people squeeze on the cut back services elsewhere.

Seriously?

Trains with stacks of room (a train not needed on the classic lines would be wide enough for 3+2 seating with as much room and comfort as 2+2), thus offering far cheaper costs per seat (and even more standing room if required) combined with a private operator that would willingly keep prices high and carry no passengers?

Think about what you just said.

If anything, the operators on the old lines may find it harder to compete.

HS2 could offer cheaper fares (perhaps not for first class) and likely will for all but the most busy times. And that's when users can choose to save money by using older routes and slower services as they see fit.

 

[NotATrainspott]

the vastly higher operating costs such as maintenance with the considerably higher speed of HS2. The other thing is to cut the speed of the trains and lower capacity.

Once you've built the thing and kept it simple, the maintenance costs are tiny in comparison to the Victorian network we deal with now. The speed of the trains running matters only if it's faster than what the infrastructure was built for. Running trains at high speed requires the use of the most modern signalling and control systems, all of which have much reduced maintenance costs versus what we currently use on our mainlines (so much so that we're going to upgrade the GWML, ECML and probably the MML to the same signalling standard as HS2). Also, unlike the existing mainlines where anything from a Pendolino/IEP to a Pacer to a 1000 ton freight train would be going along, the only trains allowed on HS2 will be the captives, the classic-compatibles and the maintenance/thunderbird (if they don't decide to do an IEP and specify a diesel generator per train) fleet.

 

[Philip Elliott]

The thing is it's £50bn over 20 years, that is similar to the spending on Thameslink and Crossrail, which will basicly be £20bn over 10 years. Yes, I know double £20bn is £40bn, but then HS2 shouldn't cost as much as the £50bn anyway and the £20bn doesn't include trains for Crossrail.

So two large projects which basicly only benefit London have a simmilar spend over similar timeframes as one big project which benefits several cities directly and benefits more towns and cities indirectly.

How's that something that is hard to sell?

HS2 is £50bn over 16 years (2017-2033ish) - £3bn per annum.

Crossrail is costing the DfT £5.5bn, they are only paying a third, the other two thirds being split between borrowing against future revenue and a business levy on local companies meaning the combined budget for Thameslink and Crossrail for the DfT is circa £1.1bn per annum.

 

[Nym]

HS2 is £50bn over 16 years (2017-2033ish) - £3bn per annum.

Crossrail is costing the DfT £5.5bn, they are only paying a third, the other two thirds being split between borrowing against future revenue and a business levy on local companies meaning the combined budget for Thameslink and Crossrail for the DfT is circa £1.1bn per annum.

And this won't happen for HS2?

 

[WatcherZero]

Indeed theyve already specified that Manchester Airport and Birmingham International stations have to be 50% financed from local contributions, they will also be looking for a private sector partner to help finance the larger project.

Hs2 is only £50bn when you factor in rolling stock procurement as well which would have to happen whether they were running on HS2 or the classic network anyway.

Governments contributing half of Crossrail not a third, funding a initial £4.7bn dft grant for infrastructure (since raised to £5.5bn), a £100m grant towards an initial £350m upfront PFI cost for rolling stock as well as underwriting the £650m of PFI borrowing (since abandoned with the full £1bn now to be publically financed, the breakdown between local and national contributions hasnt yet been agreed as far as I know) and £2.3bn of funding funneled via Network Rail borrowing.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Will the recently announced $1.3 billion Chinese involvement by Beijing Construction Engineering Group in the Manchester Airport International Business District make the case for the HS2 station there much stronger ?

 

[anthony263]

Will the recently announced $1.3 billion Chinese involvement by Beijing Construction Engineering Group in the Manchester Airport International Business District make the case for the HS2 station there much stronger ?

I sit will since I think the Chineese will love a bullet train service from the Airport into Manchester and also to London via the Midlands.

HS2 might also persuade more investors to invest in other area's close to HS2 since they will have easy acess to London and other parts of the UK..

 

[HSTEd]

The Government figures are all based on HS2 fares being more or less the same as current fares. That is totally unrealistic and is NOT going to happen. The uplift on HS1 is 25% and HS2 may have to be more to take account of the vastly higher operating costs such as maintenance with the considerably higher speed of HS2. The other thing is to cut the speed of the trains and lower capacity.

You do realise that HS2 maintenance will be lower than the WCMLs right?
New equipment, new designs and a far simpler track layout.

And before you mention energy....

A TGV Duplex uses the same amount of energy per seat.km as a Pendolino.

 

[Philip Elliott]

And this won't happen for HS2?

A third of the cost to be paid for by a tax on businesses in Mancester & Birmingham? Dream on!

Regarding borrowing against future revenue, this would mean that any 'profit' from running the services will go to pay back the loan and not used to cross-subsidise the rest of the network. As much of the revenue for HS2 will come from transferred patronage, it would result in a significant net increase in operational subsidy.

 

[HSTEd]

A third of the cost to be paid for by a tax on businesses in Mancester & Birmingham? Dream on!

Regarding borrowing against future revenue, this would mean that any 'profit' from running the services will go to pay back the loan and not used to cross-subsidise the rest of the network. As much of the revenue for HS2 will come from transferred patronage, it would result in a significant net increase in operational subsidy.

The interest on a loan of £40bn is something like £400m a year or something.
And you are assuming that the classic line services continue as they did before.. . why?

"Only people from Rugby and Coventry use this train now but we must continue using an 11-car Class 390 with a full on board restaurant service despite the fact the longest common journey is only 60-66 minutes"

 

[HowardGWR]

If you subscribe to a news distribution service like this one

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Current+Affairs/Travel+&+Transport/Rail

you will soon see how a 'story' is take up with no discernment by the nation's press -you could almost imagine a computer is doing it, in fact just as this service does.

I understand that this is now happening in financial markets provoking massive over-reaction to even minor events.

The latest nonsense on 'who loses out /who gains from HS2' is an example and a lesson to those who tried to manipulate the news with the initial KPMG findings.

 

[WatcherZero]

If you ever watch the show The Newroom you will get occasional glimpses of the corporate system that media companies use that produces these kind of avalanche syndication of news alerts.

As to KPMG findings dont know what kind of manipulation your refering too, the fact that places would benefit and places would lose out was in the original report and the £15bn is the net figure of those accumulated fluctuations. All the BBC did was put in a FOI request for the raw data, list of two hundred and thirty five nationally modeled local outputs of which just 50 were worse off with HS2, i.e. 185 or more than three times as many places were better off.

 

[jon0844]

Given the BBC had it top story on the website for a lot of yesterday, someone clearly thought getting freely available data via a FoI request was akin to exposing warcrimes.

The comments picked out were all of the same sort of line - overpriced, pointless, typical of this Government etc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The comments picked out were all of the same sort of line - overpriced, pointless, typical of this Government etc.

How many parts of the past Government's and the current Government's policies could that comment be said to apply to ?

 

[YorkshireBear]

We need a realistic discussion on how to deliver the line and not just steam roller it through.

Steam roller it through? I wouldn't say 10 years from early planning to first construction is steam rolling it through. Steam rolling it through is what we did when we first built the railways.

 

[Planman]

Ha Ha, I was actually referring to getting the Bill through Parliament before the next Election

 

[Pendolino jono]

were going to need a bigger budget:grin: