High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

Now that's an excellent suggestion!

Well it would be pricey, but if the thought of nine or ten underground platforms makes you have a heart attack, you could have four or so and split the trains between the surface station at Paddington and the 'Euston Cross' station.

Its almost a pity that the British Library is where it is as that would be the perfect position for an East-West Orientated station in a giant excavated station box.

 

[The Ham]

Well it would be pricey, but if the thought of nine or ten underground platforms makes you have a heart attack, you could have four or so and split the trains between the surface station at Paddington and the 'Euston Cross' station.

Its almost a pity that the British Library is where it is as that would be the perfect position for an East-West Orientated station in a giant excavated station box.

Could you also further reduce the number of platforms by having through platforms and linking the Kent HS services through with the Wales & West HS services.

If these services could also interchange at OOC then that enable an interchange between all HS services at one location and may also make a viable location for international services to serve without the need to go to Central London.

Of course that does mean that the Wales & West HS line would only really be HS1 phase 3, which would probably leave the UK with just 2 HS lines.

 

[TheGrew]

I think a Euston Cross station would only really work well as a through station for the reasons posted by HSTEd. I would be tempted to run it through to somewhere like Stansted and then Cambridge following the route of the M11. Which would provide fast access to both allowing Great Northern and WAML services to be slowed down. What do people think?

 

[HSTEd]

Could you also further reduce the number of platforms by having through platforms and linking the Kent HS services through with the Wales & West HS services.

But then you throw away perfectly good platform capacity at St Pancras which can't really be used otherwise.
Additionally I doubt you can find enough paths on HS1 to handle all the trains running on a Wales and West Line.
And it would restrict you to running only classic compatible sets on the Western route because there is nowhere to turn back a captive set on HS1.

If these services could also interchange at OOC then that enable an interchange between all HS services at one location and may also make a viable location for international services to serve without the need to go to Central London.

That would be a bad move IMO, far better to have a W&W line stop first at Heathrow rather than packing more and more into OOC.
Euston-Euston Cross-St Pancras-King's Cross would already put all HS services at one location without replicating this connectivity at OOC as well. (Also how would you run a future NE/East line into OOC if its going out of KGX directly towards Cambridge?)

And why are people so obsessed with international services?
Even if they were viable, which I doubt they are, they are still just a rounding error compared to domestic demand.

 

[TheGrew]

And why are people so obsessed with international services?
Even if they were viable, which I doubt they are, they are still just a rounding error compared to domestic demand.

Agreed, as I said in an earlier post Euston and Kings Cross are not at all far from St Pancras Int and changing is fairly straight forward.
The only way you are going to see big modal shift from Air to Rail from the main HS2 destinations to the continent is when aviation fuel makes it prohibitively expensive to fly.

 

[clc]

Interesting development. Cameron is calling Milliband's bluff saying if Labour don't support the project he'll cancel it:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/cameron-warns-labour-if-you-oppose-hs2-well-cancel-it

 

[YorkshireBear]

Interesting development. Cameron is calling Milliband's bluff saying if Labour don't support the project he'll cancel it:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/cameron-warns-labour-if-you-oppose-hs2-well-cancel-it

Oh dear.....

 

[Chris125]

Feeling a certain degree of deja vu here, Maria Eagle was being similarly non-committal a few years back pending a policy review - not only did they decide to continue supporting the project but it seems Maria Eagle became so outspoken in her support she had to be moved aside.

Chris

 

[Ironside]

Hopefully this will greatly reduce the temptation for Labour to hedge there bets for political gain and instead we just get on with it.

 

[IKBrunel]

I'll give it to dave, that's a smart bit of political maneuvering, will hopefully stop Balls turning it into a party political for/against football.

I also note the national press aren't allowing comments on HS2 stories at present, presumably because its being heard at the supreme court, which I don't think has issued a judgement yet.

 

[Tobbes]

I'm in favour of HS2, but this looks like an opportunity for a bipartisan opportunity to get kill the programme.

If nothing else, I hope that this means that HS2's phasing is looked at to bring the benefits forward by hurrying up Phase II, and getting on with an HSL link to the Central Belt.

Tobbes

 

[IKBrunel]

The preparation bill gets its third reading on thursday
http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#!/calendar/Commons/MainChamber/2013/10/31/events.html

I think this will be a key gateway in the projects democratic process.

If you support HS2 and your MP is a back bencher or in opposition, now would be a very good time to drop them an email explaining why HS2 is an essential north south backbone for a reliable and efficient transport network which will connect major conurbations and airports.
www.parliament.uk/about/contacting/mp/

 

[Chris125]

I think it's worth actually reading what the Shadow Chancellor has said, instead of relying too much on media interpretations - the Independent has a transcript from an Ed Balls interview yesterday which has some interesting comments:

Victoria Derbyshire: Can you be clear on Labour’s policy on HS2?

Ed Balls: Yes, there is no blank cheque from the next Labour government for HS2. We’ve always supported the idea of a new north-south rail link, but when I listen to David Cameron and George Osborne giving the impression that, even though the costs are going up billion by billion, and even though the benefits are becoming less clear, they are going to go ahead regardless. I think that is completely irresponsible. A Labour Treasury won’t treat public money in that way …

VD: Can you be clear what “no blank cheque” means? Does that mean at £50bn Labour would go ahead with it and if it rises above that, you scrap it?

EB: No, because there are two sides to this ledger. There is both the cost and the benefit. And we need to know, one, are the costs under control, and they have been spiralling in recent months; and secondly, are the benefits really there so that this would be the best way to spend that money, rather than using it on other ways to improve our transport network or our rail network. And that is something which we are looking hard at, as is the new chair of HS2, and the NAO and the PAC. Because, at the moment, those questions haven’t been answered. And you know, I …

VD: Once they are you can be definitive with voters?

EB: Absolutely. And if the case is clear, the benefits are strong, it’s the best way to spend the money and the costs are under control, at that point I would be happy to say we’ll support it. But what I am not going to do is say we support it when the costs are rising, the benefits are unclear and the government are acting like cheerleaders rather than proper stewards of public money. That is not a road I am going to go down and …

VD: Well you did with the Millennium Dome, let’s be fair?

EB: As you know Victoria, government and being a grown up is partly about learning from mistakes and in the case of the Millennium Dome that was a Conservative Michael Heseltine vanity project which the Labour government should have scrapped in 1997 and didn’t and it was a mistake and I think you should learn from your mistakes.

VD: Is HS2 a vanity project then?

EB: I’m not saying that at all. What I am saying is that we need to know the costs are under control and the benefits are real. And if we judged that it wasn’t in the national interest, we would not go ahead. And if it is in the national interest, if this is the best way to spend £16bn on transport in the next Parliament and the extra billions in the years after, then we’ll give it the go-ahead. But, at this stage, I genuinely don’t think that the evidence is there, the case has been made, the NAO has been very critical and the government can’t answer the questions. In those circumstances, it would be irresponsible for me to say, regardless of the benefits, we are going to pull the plug, but it is also really irresponsible for me to say ‘well OK, whatever it costs and however obscure the benefits, we will go ahead anyway’, because I don’t think that is the job of the Chancellor or the Treasury or proper government. George Osborne seems to be a cheerleader, that is not the job of the Treasury and that is not the role I am going to play. I am going to be …

VD: So it will be your final decision on whether Labour backs HS2?

EB: No, of course it won’t. It will be a decision for a Labour Cabinet or a Labour shadow Cabinet led by Ed Miliband of which I am an important player, but only one voice amongst many. My job though is to be absolutely clear: a Labour Treasury will keep a tight grip on costs and always want to know the benefits are there. You are right, there have been times in the past where that wasn’t done – the Dome. There have been times in the past where we were hard-headed and said ‘yes go ahead with that project’ – like the Olympics – completely the right thing to do. Even on the Olympics, though, it was the Treasury’s job to say ‘are you sure the costs are under control, make sure it is managed well’. But the benefits were there and real. In the case of HS2, we need to see these benefits, it needs to be properly set out. I don’t think that case has been won yet. And as I said, a Tory Chancellor being a cheerleader, a Labour Chancellor being disciplined with public money. I think the public want discipline on public spending and that is what I am going to deliver.


This still sounds to me like a politician distancing himself from the controversy and the headline figures of cost, not the project itself - if anything there's a softening of his stance, with no arbitrary 'cap' and comparing the cost of HS2 with other ways of investing in the rail/transport network.

Chris

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Labour need to be careful how they handle situation. If they abandon support for HS2 and propose a series of upgrades what happens then if someone like David Higgins comes out and says this is inadequate and won't meet future capacity needs? They then look like they don't know what there doing or that they think they know better than the people who run Britain's railways.

 

[jon0844]

If HS2 was scrapped, it would then be time to seriously cost up and plan out how we'd attempt to do something similar with existing lines.

I fear that's when a few people might suddenly get a shock and realise it isn't cheaper to upgrade the WCML, build a few new stations (especially from those who thought you could build five stations for £10m) and run more, longer, trains at a higher frequency than they already are - and yet also faster than they already are.

I guess it's far too much work and time to properly cost out another plan, as well as the details like having to buy new land, build new bridges, new tunnels, knock down existing properties (good luck with the new batch of NIMBYs that would now appear all along the route) and the actual reality of pathing slow and fast trains, plus freight.

Oh, and also explain how it will be possible to keep on budget when working around a live railway - so it doesn't end up spiralling out of control and cost way more than HS2, which at some point will be brought back onto the table 10 or 20 years down the line anyway.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

If HS2 was scrapped, it would then be time to seriously cost up and plan out how we'd attempt to do something similar with existing lines.

I fear that's when a few people might suddenly get a shock and realise it isn't cheaper to upgrade the WCML, build a few new stations (especially from those who thought you could build five stations for £10m) and run more, longer, trains at a higher frequency than they already are - and yet also faster than they already are.

I guess it's far too much work and time to properly cost out another plan, as well as the details like having to buy new land, build new bridges, new tunnels, knock down existing properties (good luck with the new batch of NIMBYs that would now appear all along the route) and the actual reality of pathing slow and fast trains, plus freight.

Oh, and also explain how it will be possible to keep on budget when working around a live railway - so it doesn't end up spiralling out of control and cost way more than HS2, which at some point will be brought back onto the table 10 or 20 years down the line anyway.

Maybe someone should explain this to Ed Balls :roll:

 

[IKBrunel]

As usual the media convey that there is more opposition than there really is. papers are saying 60 tory MPS may vote against, yet in the previous vote, less than 20 MPs voted against.

There are 650 seats in the commons, even if only half the MPS turned up for the division, StopHS2 would need 160 MPs to oppose it, that probably wont happen.

 

[jones_bangor]

As usual the media convey that there is more opposition than there really is. papers are saying 60 tory MPS may vote against, yet in the previous vote, less than 20 MPs voted against.

There are 650 seats in the commons, even if only half the MPS turned up for the division, StopHS2 would need 160 MPs to oppose it, that probably wont happen.

I think the decision to scrap would be made by the PM / Chancellor, not by a vote of MPs - this will be as much an economic as a political decision.

 

[Chris125]

Labour need to be careful how they handle situation. If they abandon support for HS2 and propose a series of upgrades what happens then if someone like David Higgins comes out and says this is inadequate and won't meet future capacity needs? They then look like they don't know what there doing or that they think they know better than the people who run Britain's railways.

In my opinion this is what makes a u-turn so unlikely, even Ed Balls now appears to acknowledge that it's a question of where to invest the money in transport rather than if and one of the first things Mary Creagh said after becoming shadow minister was that HS2 was the "only way" to relieve congestion on the rail network.

Frustrating as it is, sitting on the fence is very attractive politically and opposition parties do it all the time - for all it continues to be an 'option' does anyone seriously think Labour are going to propose re-nationalisation for example?

Chris

 

[MidlandMainlie]

In my opinion this is what makes a u-turn so unlikely, even Ed Balls now appears to acknowledge that it's a question of where to invest the money in transport rather than if and one of the first things Mary Creagh said after becoming shadow minister was that HS2 was the "only way" to relieve congestion on the rail network.

Frustrating as it is, sitting on the fence is very attractive politically and opposition parties do it all the time - for all it continues to be an 'option' does anyone seriously think Labour are going to propose re-nationalisation for example?
Chris

Ill believe that when I see it!

 

[jon0844]

I expect Labour will support it but in a way that it can look like it kept costs down (by getting reassurance from the coalition and HS2).

And if it costs did escalate, it could distance itself from it later on. In fact, far better to have it approved under the coalition than when in power.

 

[tbtc]

As I've said before, Labour are keen to show some financial prudence (remember "prudence"?), so it plays well for them to be seen to be focussed on the dangers of spiralling costs on this project - without being seen to cancel it.

Lets face it, any other serious attempt to increase rail capacity between London and Birmingham/ Leeds/ Manchester over the next fifty years will require some demolition in London to create station capacity and will involve a line through the "Home Counties". Ripping it up and starting again will only come up with the same answer.

 

[jones_bangor]

I expect Labour will support it but in a way that it can look like it kept costs down (by getting reassurance from the coalition and HS2).

And if it costs did escalate, it could distance itself from it later on. In fact, far better to have it approved under the coalition than when in power.

Hopefully (!!??) Labour have learnt the lesson from PFI and other pseudo-public projects....

I'm afraid that the track record of the public sector keeping privately delivered project cost under control anytime since 2005+ is - politely put - worse than appalling!

Such incompetence would simply not be tolerated in the private sector.

Which begs the question...why not award HS2 as a design - build - operate model for 25 years?

 

[edwin_m]

Which begs the question...why not award HS2 as a design - build - operate model for 25 years?

No reason why not in principle. Passing the revenue risk to the private sector for that length of time may not be wise though, and isn't there a European limit on the length of contracts like this?

However that couldn't be done until legislation was in place. No private company will take it on at the current level of political risk, or at least if they did so would ask for a huge premium or guarantees which would not represent value for public money. The design work being done by HS2 at present is intended to support the consultation process and also to prepare the necessary supporting information for Parliamentary bills covering phase 1 and later phase 2, which would be the necessary precursor to any DBOM-type contract.

 

[Chris125]

Another example why the Daily Mail should make any sane person's blood boil - Victoria Derbyshire brought up the issue of the Millennium Dome in the interview, which Ed Balls called a vanity project.

He was then asked if that also applied to HS2, to which he replied "I’m not saying that at all"

...cue DM headline "New threat to HS2 as Balls compares it to Dome disaster"

Chris

 

[WatcherZero]

Luton Labour MP apparently trying to convince Balls to back his own £6bn plan to reopen the Great Central backed by freight hauliers instead of HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

Luton Labour MP apparently trying to convince Balls to back his own £6bn plan to reopen the Great Central backed by freight hauliers instead of HS2.

Is that the latest iteration of the double stack railway to Liverpool?

If they can actually do it for £6bn I can't see why we can't do both

 

[Chris125]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journali...now-Labour-look-at-an-alternative-scheme.html

It's Andrew Gilligan being creative with the truth again, there's nothing to suggest Labour are 'looking at it' beyond the words of the man who dreamt up the abortive scheme to reopen it as a freight line.

“If HS2 goes down, there will be people talking about this,” says Alan Stevens, former chief executive of a company which made a strong, but ultimately abortive, attempt to reopen the line in the 1990s. “I shouldn’t be saying any more than that.”

The fact that Gilligan didn't do some basic research into how useful the GCR would actually be, or didn't care, says everything.

Chris

 

[MidlandMainlie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journali...now-Labour-look-at-an-alternative-scheme.html

It's Andrew Gilligan being creative with the truth again, there's nothing to suggest Labour are 'looking at it' beyond the words of the man who dreamt up the abortive scheme to reopen it as a freight line.



The fact that Gilligan didn't do some basic research into how useful the GCR would actually be, or didn't care, says everything.

Chris

London to Birmingham on a 100mph reopened Great Central line wouldn't just be slower than HS2 it would be slower than the WCML :roll:

Interesting debate on HS2 on Sunday Politics, one journalist made the point about capacity on the phase 1 route and connectivity between Northern cities with phase 2 being the main driver but said that the government failure to get the that message across has basically killed the scheme. Two of the three said that it won't go ahead as Labour will continue to undermine the scheme till abandoning support all together while one from the Financial Times said he thinks it will still go ahead because of the capacity argument and the lack of any alternatives.

 

[WatcherZero]

Several of tommorows papers look like they have had early access to a Network Rail study on economics/alternatives to HS2 which states that without HS2 there would be 14 years of disruption from the upgrading of existing lines. Nothing been published yet on NR website?

Edit: Seems all the major media groups have had access to the Governments revised business case for HS2 that will be published on Tuesday and includes reports from NR and Atkins.

Report will say upgrading the WCML, ECML, and MML will require 2,770 weekend closures totalling 144,000 hours of disruption.