High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Tobbes]

Which then leads to an intresting question, how far up the country could the extended phase 1 reach whist the Euston Station works are on going?

Would it, for instance be possible to get to one of the next junctions with the WCML? Maybe the one at Crew so that Liverpool benefits more from Phase 1 than it was due to, which then make keep them a bit happier about not being part of Phase 2.

Exactly. Does anyone know how much work has been done on the design of the route from Phase 2 to Scotland's Central Belt? In other words, if I were David Higgins, if possible I'd like to present a revamped plan that spends more in each year, but gets the line to Scotland by, say, 2029. Also helpful for the pro-Union camp in next year's Scottish independence referendum.

Tobbes

 

[RichmondCommu]

I read recently that Concorde still managed to turn a profit right up until the end. And it was a moment in history that might not be beaten in our lifetime.

Only an idiot would consider it to have been a white elephant. Heck, even the dome turned out to be good in the end, with loads of development around it.

Who in 100 years from now would ever believe there were people opposing HS2, or other new lines we'll hopefully build.

You clearly know very little about the history of Concorde. I was fortunate enough to fly on Concorde more times than I care to remember. It was a fantastic aircraft but ultimately it lost the UK and the French money because of the lack of orders. So yes I would argue that it was a white elephant, but never the less the finest white elephant that was ever built.

As for HS2, phase one is an absolute must, phase 2 is a gamble which will hopefully pay off.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Concorde may well have been sabotaged by the yanks disinclination to allow it to use US airports

 

[jon0844]

You clearly know very little about the history of Concorde. I was fortunate enough to fly on Concorde more times than I care to remember. It was a fantastic aircraft but ultimately it lost the UK and the French money because of the lack of orders.

Thanks for that patronising remark!

But I see you're referring to the plane itself in terms of sales. Yes, I'd agree that with such few sales, the project itself wasn't a success.

My point was that when the planes that were built were running, it made a profit. If it had continued, even with the sky high prices, I expect it would have still done so today.

There are still enough people even in a recession to fill what was very few seats, perhaps even yourself?

One accident - albeit a major one, but still very preventable - made Concorde an incredibly safe plane.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But I see you're referring to the plane itself in terms of sales. Yes, I'd agree that with such few sales, the project itself wasn't a success.

My point was that when the planes that were built were running, it made a profit. If it had continued, even with the sky high prices, I expect it would have still done so today.

Those planes cost BA/AF the princely sum of £1 each.
What branch of economics calls that "profitable" for the UK and France?
We also wasted precious skills going up the wrong technological route for 20 years.
A bit like the APT with wings.

 

[Domeyhead]

Those planes cost BA/AF the princely sum of £1 each.
What branch of economics calls that "profitable" for the UK and France?
We also wasted precious skills going up the wrong technological route for 20 years.
A bit like the APT with wings.

ok I'll buy it. What was the "right technological route?"

 

[ainsworth74]

We also wasted precious skills going up the wrong technological route for 20 years.
A bit like the APT with wings.

Eh? Concorde pioneered quite a few technologies that are in common use today (particularly the automation side of things and fly-by-wire technology). So I'm not sure how it was the wrong technological route?

Also I have to ask how did we 'waste skills'? The skills required to develop something as complex as Concorde were and are far greater than developing something like a 747. If skills were wasted it was by not developing the technology further rather than developing it in the first place.

Also seeing as there are more than a few teams working on supersonic and hypersonic designs for future aircraft I'd question how this was the 'wrong technological route'.

Finally I'd suggest that ATP wasn't 'the wrong technological route' because unless I'm very much mistaken there are a large number of tilting trains now in service on the WCML, which are capable of 140mph if the infrastructure could support it. ATP's problem was that it attempted to introduce too much cutting edge technology on one platform too quickly (and without sufficent financial or political support). Its problem was not that it was a technological dead end.

On the profit issue a long serving Concorde pilot and former president of the Royal Aeronautical Society is of the opinion that the plane made a profit in service until the accident in Paris (and I'd add that you also have to consider the impact of 9/11 and downturn in air travel generally). So you'll forgive me if I defer to his judgement.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

ok I'll buy it. What was the "right technological route?"

Designing/building large subsonic B747 look-alikes, like the US did.

 

[jon0844]

Designing/building large subsonic B747 look-alikes, like the US did.

But there are people who would pay a hefty premium for faster travel (irrespective of the environmental impact, which plays more of a part now than it probably did in the 70s and 80s).

To the next generation, it will seem very odd that we once had a way to get to New York in half the time we can today - when technology usually goes the other way. It's a real shame, but there were many factors that sealed its fate, even if some reasons were a bit suspect on their own.

 

[HowardGWR]

JonMorris0844
What is 'compo' which you used in an earlier post. I am getting nowhere with Google.

Thanks in advance.

 

[The Ham]

Those planes cost BA/AF the princely sum of £1 each.
What branch of economics calls that "profitable" for the UK and France?
We also wasted precious skills going up the wrong technological route for 20 years.
A bit like the APT with wings.

There however times when the cost to the country is not easy to measure. How much money did the UK/French governments get from the air taxes from Concorde, corporation tax from the airlines (where they were making a profit by running Concorde), the extra business which done because it was quick to fly across the pond (and therefore the extra tax received), the extra jobs created in its development/operation which meant that benefits didn't need to be paid, the extra personal taxes paid by those receiving money from the government and so on.

If you build HS2 a lot of the money paid out in its construction will pass back though HMRC's books over the following years as UK suppliers and workers are paid, who then pay direct and indirect taxes and who pay other companies and individuals, who then pay their relevant taxes and so on.

It could be argued that a proportion of the money paid to MP's this month is actually so that we can tax them so they pay part of their pay for next month (replace MP's for doctors, nursers, teachers, council staff, etc. as you see fit).

 

[jon0844]

JonMorris0844
What is 'compo' which you used in an earlier post. I am getting nowhere with Google.

Compensation.

For the record, I have no problem with people being sufficiently compensated for losing their homes or land, or for any significant disruption. I just wish some of the campaigners would be a little more honest than resorting to other tactics (which aren't working anyway).

If you live near an airport, you have little cause to complain when they expand or build a new runway - but if a new road or railway line (or indeed a new airport) is suddenly plonked in your back garden, it's appropriate to compensate people.

In the case of Boris Johnson's dad, it seems that he's particularly upset because he's just beyond the distance where he would qualify.

 

[Snibsey1]

The Americans didn't need to build an SST/Concord. Their military/NASA X plane programs were quite sufficient to develop new technologies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Americans didn't need a Concord to develop new technology - they had their huge military and NASA R&D programs.

The 747 was spawned from a competition to provide the USAF with long range heavy transport. We came up with the Belfast (aka Belslow) instead. Enuff said.

 

[Domeyhead]

Designing/building large subsonic B747 look-alikes, like the US did.

History says you are right. Though as the Americans had stolen (or been given) all our aerospace know how for the last 50 years I am sure that they would have found a way to ensure that any serious British competitor to Boeing would have been stalled and frustrated just long enough to ensure their own version took to the air first and won all the orders (with GE and Pratt and Whitney engines of course)

 

[TheGrew]

Concorde was not a waste of money, much of it's development lead to the A300 which was commercially very successful and has of course spurred Airbus an actual competitor to Boeing...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

History says you are right. Though as the Americans had stolen (or been given) all our aerospace know how for the last 50 years I am sure that they would have found a way to ensure that any serious British competitor to Boeing would have been stalled and frustrated just long enough to ensure their own version took to the air first and won all the orders (with GE and Pratt and Whitney engines of course)

Yes you are right. At least we make good wings and engines.
My point about technology was not just about aerospace.
My generation spent all its brains chasing up UK-specific blind alleys.
Now we have to buy French or Japanese nuclear technology when once we were leaders.
Trains ditto (to get us back on thread!).

 

[JohnB57]

...Heck, even the dome turned out to be good in the end, with loads of development around it.

Who in 100 years from now would ever believe there were people opposing HS2, or other new lines we'll hopefully build.

The dome analogy is a good one. It was a project that was "badly thought out and executed" and which only became a success when the whole thing was revamped into something the general public were prepared to support.

Maybe in a hundred years' time HS2 will have similarly evolved.

 

[Ironside]

The dome analogy is a good one. It was a project that was "badly thought out and executed" and which only became a success when the whole thing was revamped into something the general public were prepared to support.

Maybe in a hundred years' time HS2 will have similarly evolved.

I think most of the critism will evaporate when the first phase is up and running and a comparison to the Olympics is more apt. Thosee affected by or just interested in commenting on subsequent phases will contribute to the dialogue until they are built and like HS1 people get used to it.

 

[WatcherZero]

The dome analogy is a good one. It was a project that was "badly thought out and executed" and which only became a success when the whole thing was revamped into something the general public were prepared to support.

Maybe in a hundred years' time HS2 will have similarly evolved.

I tend to think of it as an example of flawed London centric thinking. They believed if they built a great exhibition hall in London then people from the rest of the country would come to see it, however when it exhausted the local population the amount of national visitors was only a trickle.

 

[HSTEd]

Ofcourse the Dome would have probably been much more succesful if you could reach central London from Manchester in only an hour

 

[JohnB57]

Ofcourse the Dome would have probably been much more succesful if you could reach central London from Manchester in only an hour

Pretzel Logic...

 

[quantinghome]

The dome (aka the millennium experience) was a failure because there was no clear idea what it was for. It ended up as a random pile of exhibits which showed the very worst in high-mided 'creative' intent. It's only been successful following its retooling as a concert and sports venue.

By contrast HS2 is very clear what its purpose is, that is to provide much needed additional north-south rail capacity, the extra speed being a useful by-product. My opinion is that HS2 will be a resounding success. Peak fares on long distance services are astronomical, yet the trains are still full. To me this shows there is massive constrained demand which HS2 will be able to satisfy with its economies of scale (1100 seats per train, capital cost of trains spread over more services etc.)

Unfortunately this fairly simple concept has been poorly communicated by HS2. They have produced a lot of good, solid, detailed reports explaining this, but have singularly failed to engage the majority of the public who aren't going to read long reports unless they have a particular interest in railways and don't use trains much (the average number of long distance train journeys per person per year is less than one, apparently). As a result most people don't see the problem HS2 is planned to solve, and swallow the oft-repeated rubbish eminating from the anti-HS2 groups. HS2 haven't made a very good job at countering this. Hopefully this will change under new management.

This is turning into a mild rant, but recent journeys on Crosscountry have convinced me more than ever that HS2 is essential. An 'Intercity' service trundling between Leeds, Sheffield, Derby and Birmingham, stuck behind slow trains cannot be the future.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Thanks for that patronising remark!

But I see you're referring to the plane itself in terms of sales. Yes, I'd agree that with such few sales, the project itself wasn't a success.

My point was that when the planes that were built were running, it made a profit. If it had continued, even with the sky high prices, I expect it would have still done so today.

There are still enough people even in a recession to fill what was very few seats, perhaps even yourself?

One accident - albeit a major one, but still very preventable - made Concorde an incredibly safe plane.

Yes, I would agree that I was a little harsh. I was having a bad morning! The flights would always have made a profit given that there were enough people like me who would always pay more to get home quicker. And of course the limited number of seats.

However, the English and French (and the rest of Europe) would have achieved a lot more by designing a aircraft to rival the 747. The point was most people didn't think the time saved was worth the huge expense and most of the time I felt the same. It's worth mentioning here that from 1990 - 1995 I was crossing the Atlantic back and forth twice a month.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ofcourse the Dome would have probably been much more succesful if you could reach central London from Manchester in only an hour

Agreed but how does that benefit Manchester economically!? Which is the whole point of Phase 2.

 

[HSTEd]

Agreed but how does that benefit Manchester economically!? Which is the whole point of Phase 2.

I thought was to benefit the nation economically, not necessarily one tiny section of it?

Manchester benefits by moving into a position more amenable to it doing business in a world where foreign businessmen see London AS the UK, or the only part of it that matters.

I know people want to live in some fantasy land where Manchester can stand on its own feet in the Global market, but it isn't going to happen, making the London-Birmingham-Manchester-Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds complex stand is the best we can hope for.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I thought was to benefit the nation economically, not necessarily one tiny section of it?

Manchester benefits by moving into a position more amenable to it doing business in a world where foreign businessmen see London AS the UK, or the only part of it that matters.

I know people want to live in some fantasy land where Manchester can stand on its own feet in the Global market, but it isn't going to happen, making the London-Birmingham-Manchester-Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds complex stand is the best we can hope for.

The point is though what chance do we have of encouraging the likes of Google to move its headquarters from London to Sheffield? That is what HS2 is aiming to do but sadly I have my doubts.

 

[HSTEd]

They will never leave 'London', but the definition of London is not fixed and unchanging.

 

[RichmondCommu]

They will never leave 'London', but the definition of London is not fixed and unchanging.

But surely you could never suggest that Sheffield might one day become a suburb of London?

 

[HSTEd]

But surely you could never suggest that Sheffield might one day become a suburb of London?

Why not?
I imagine it was unthinkable that Watford would become a suburb of london, or that Reading would effectively become one.
Sheffield Meadowhall will be a similar distance from London Euston as Grantham and Newark are from King's Cross, and both have a significant commuter traffic flow
Sheffield has a far larger population so I expect the flow will be larger.

Go 30 years down the line and it appears that the lines between London and the rest of the country will blur further and that we will see a gradual suburbanisation of the southern half of England.

 

[The Ham]

Why not?
I imagine it was unthinkable that Watford would become a suburb of london, or that Reading would effectively become one.
Sheffield Meadowhall will be a similar distance from London Euston as Grantham and Newark are from King's Cross, and both have a significant commuter traffic flow
Sheffield has a far larger population so I expect the flow will be larger.

Go 30 years down the line and it appears that the lines between London and the rest of the country will blur further and that we will see a gradual suburbanisation of the southern half of England.

You just need to see the number of people on trains out of Southampton of a morning heading to London to see that it may not take 30 years for that to happen!

 

[HSTEd]

You just need to see the number of people on trains out of Southampton of a morning heading to London to see that it may not take 30 years for that to happen!

Commuter traffic developing to huge degree is not the end state of suburbanisation but only the first phase.

Eventually the lines between London and the suburb blur into irrelevence, for instance Watford is not in London but everyone treats it as if it is. Ditto Reading to a lesser extent.