HS2 in the press

[RichmondCommu]

Sorry, I'll have to disagree, putting all your trains in one basket is just reckless, I've thought that all along.

If you were to build a HS2 station at Heathrow how would you ensure that all the terminals were served without having to change trains? You mention running services into St Pancras but the only way you can achieve that is by reducing the current Eurostar service.

The Victorian railway companies only ever had one London terminus. The SNCF only have one station for their LGV services from the North rather than spreading their services out across Paris. On that basis why should HS2 be any different?

 

[po8crg]

Some will almost certainly will leaving at Old Oak Common as it will be easier to get to Canary Wharf via Crossrail 1 and some to Heathrow and other destinations to the west.

Also most of East London and Essex - not just Shenfield metro direct, but also changing in Stratford for all the GEML routes.

If the Ebbsfleet extention to Crossrail ever gets built, then that's another bunch of passengers for Old Oak Common from Kent - I know I'd rather change at Ebbsfleet and take Crossrail than walk from St Pancras to Euston.

 

[edwin_m]

If the Ebbsfleet extention to Crossrail ever gets built, then that's another bunch of passengers for Old Oak Common from Kent - I know I'd rather change at Ebbsfleet and take Crossrail than walk from St Pancras to Euston.

Even with about ten intermediate stops and hordes of commuters in peak time?

I'd like to think the Euston-St Pancras link would be sorted once and for all - how about relocating the Dangleway to somewhere it will actually be useful?

 

[pablo]

StP has what? Four Euro* tph and five international platforms. There are, at least, four suitable platforms extant in London and no suggestion of using them.

Extend Euston on the west side only, using the carriage shed space and some significant demolition. Insert 4 to 5, 415m platforms, on west side at existing gl. Thus 8/10 tph to EUS. Might just get away with that politically. Construction period becomes acceptable too.

Then 2 to Waterloo via the WLL; will require gauge clearance for Captives but not for CCs. 2 tph to StP Euro* platforms via NLL; maybe reverse onto HS1 from there. Move the security fence usw. 2 direct to Stratford or Ebbsfleet or beyond. Accept 2 or 4 tph turning back at OOC for now (if run at 18 tph), and most pax having to change there. They probably will anyhow. Wonderful dispersal.....

Think again about terminating in London.

Want to bet?

 

[swt_passenger]

...There are, at least, four suitable platforms extant in London and no suggestion of using them...

Then 2 to Waterloo via the WLL...

There are no spare platforms at Waterloo with current NR/SWT proposals.

The agreed high level programme scope fully reopens Waterloo International Terminal and
the approaches to platforms 20-24, with infrastructure works at Queenstown Road,
additional turnback facilities, facilitating up to 20 trains per hour across the Windsor line
service group.

With the entire Windsor lines service group (all services via Barnes) moved over to platforms 19-24 it allows for more platforms for main fast services in the middle part of the main shed, as well as more platforms for the main suburban side.

 

[pablo]

Yeh. I know that. Just didn't think they had grasped the nettle yet. There's also two at Stratford I didn't mention.

Edit: is it six or seven years since those Waterloo platforms became available? :roll:

 

[po8crg]

Yeh. I know that. Just didn't think they had grasped the nettle yet. There's also two at Stratford I didn't mention.

Is there a crossover at Stratford? That box is really tight to put one into as well.

 

[pablo]

The box is over a kilometre long. To the east of the station, just within the box, there is a diamond crossover both ways. There is also domestic turnback facilities at Ebbsfleet on both the Fav and Dover lines. No end of possibilities.

 

[WatcherZero]

British Chamber of Commerce is advocating a novel idea, instead of offering 100% of property value compensation instead offer 150% so that people actually want to sell you their property and so speed up infrastructure programs.

 

[pablo]

Ahhh. Very nice for some, but Camden doesn't want to de-populate. Rather the other way around. They are looking to solve their housing shortage out of this deal and intensify. Don't ask me why! :grin:

 

[AM9]

British Chamber of Commerce is advocating a novel idea, instead of offering 100% of property value compensation instead offer 150% so that people actually want to sell you their property and so speed up infrastructure programs.

That just shows how much profit they think they can make on new properties after the major work releases the land.

 

[deltic]

British Chamber of Commerce is advocating a novel idea, instead of offering 100% of property value compensation instead offer 150% so that people actually want to sell you their property and so speed up infrastructure programs.

At present the offer is 110% plus expenses subject to various conditions and maximum payments. I agree a higher offer of at least 125% would reduce the amount of opposition and hence speed up the process. However in reality most opposition comes not from those who get brought out but those very close to the route who may have to put up with years of construction work with no compensation and no benefit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ahhh. Very nice for some, but Camden doesn't want to de-populate. Rather the other way around. They are looking to solve their housing shortage out of this deal and intensify. Don't ask me why! :grin:

In most cases Camden is losing social housing not private housing and given the shortage of such housing the council is not surprisingly trying to get the best deal possible.

 

[Ironside]

At present the offer is 110% plus expenses subject to various conditions and maximum payments. I agree a higher offer of at least 125% would reduce the amount of opposition and hence speed up the process. However in reality most opposition comes not from those who get brought out but those very close to the route who may have to put up with years of construction work with no compensation and no benefit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


In most cases Camden is losing social housing not private housing and given the shortage of such housing the council is not surprisingly trying to get the best deal possible.

As well as the above it may be worth pointing out that if large amonts social housing were removed from the area and replaced with expencive housing the voting habits of the new residents might be quite different from the current residents. The elected representatives would therefore have quite an interest in keeping up the levels of social housing. I apologize if presuming people's voting habits based on the type of house they live in is a crude prediction, but I would expect politicians make similar judgements.

 

[edwin_m]

As well as the above it may be worth pointing out that if large amonts social housing were removed from the area and replaced with expencive housing the voting habits of the new residents might be quite different from the current residents. The elected representatives would therefore have quite an interest in keeping up the levels of social housing. I apologize if presuming people's voting habits based on the type of house they live in is a crude prediction, but I would expect politicians make similar judgements.

Making that kind of judgement got the Tories into big problems at Westminster council a few years back.

 

[pablo]

They (politicians) do it all the time! They would be daft if they didn't. Oh, is that a Freudian slip or an oxymoron?

 

[WatcherZero]

Yet another appeal from the objectors, arguing that there hadn't been an environmental impact study for the safeguarding of land for temporary construction work sites was defeated today.

 

[WatcherZero]

Public Accounts Committee today complaining that the HS2 budget has a 95% contingency and claiming that's too large and wont be spent or will be spent on other things.

Says something when PAC is complaining the budget envelope is too large and not too small, like they are disappointed they couldn't complain that it was going to be overbudget :P

 

[jon0844]

That's funny!

 

[HowardGWR]

Public Accounts Committee today complaining that the HS2 budget has a 95% contingency and claiming that's too large and wont be spent or will be spent on other things.

Says something when PAC is complaining the budget envelope is too large and not too small, like they are disappointed they couldn't complain that it was going to be over budget :P

What amazes me is when I read an article like this.

http://www.globalrailnews.com/blog/...ird-construction-phase-of-tortona-genoa-hsr/?

Italy’s rail infrastructure owner, RFI, and the COCIV consortium have finalised funding for the third construction lot, valued at €607 million, of the Terzo Valico (Third Pass) high-speed railway between Tortona/Novi Ligure and Genoa.

Italy is pressing ahead with the 53-kilometre railway in the north of the country which will form part of Europe’s Rhine-Alpine Corridor – one of several key transport routes identified by the European Commission.

The construction package is the third of six that make up the €6.2 billion project and includes the remaining work on the Valico tunnel and the entire Serravalle tunnel.

Work on the third construction lot will start by the end of June 2015. The entire project is scheduled for completion in 2020.

I could have instanced many such projects throughout Europe (including Russia), some in supposedly impecunious countries, that are costing a particle of what our scheme is costing and are being built.

One would think the PAC would be doing these comparisons.

 

[NotATrainspott]

What amazes me is when I read an article like this.

http://www.globalrailnews.com/blog/...ird-construction-phase-of-tortona-genoa-hsr/?



I could have instanced many such projects throughout Europe (including Russia), some in supposedly impecunious countries, that are costing a particle of what our scheme is costing and are being built.

One would think the PAC would be doing these comparisons.

53 kilometres at €6.2bn isn't far off what HS2 is planned to cost, at £42bn for around 400 kilometres of track. Some of the comparisons made with other projects aren't particularly ideal as on the Continent, they often have to do almost nothing to their other railway infrastructure to fit high speed services. They also tend to build their lines in a more incremental way, with small high speed bypasses being built further and further towards a destination as time goes on. The French would probably have baulked at the idea of spending €50bn on building the entirety of the LGV Sud-Est and Mediterranean networks to Figueres on the Spanish border, which would not be of dissimilar scale to the whole of HS2 from Euston to Glasgow Central.

 

[WatcherZero]

There are other minor diffrences over accounting treatment and taxation. For example in the UK the project is responsible for the significant cost of utilities relocation whereas on the continent the utilities company picks up the bill another is that in the UK the cost of finance (interest) is included whereas elsewhere only the construction cost is.

 

[Deerfold]

What amazes me is when I read an article like this.

http://www.globalrailnews.com/blog/...ird-construction-phase-of-tortona-genoa-hsr/?

I could have instanced many such projects throughout Europe (including Russia), some in supposedly impecunious countries, that are costing a particle of what our scheme is costing and are being built.

One would think the PAC would be doing these comparisons.

Do these costs include new stations or is all their existing infrastructure already up to handling trains the size of those which will run on HS2?

 

[Haydn1971]

Hang on a minute, the great Italian scheme referenced above is €6.2Bn for 53km ? That's £4.7Bn

HS2 is £42.6Bn for 540km ? Am I missing the point here ?

 

[edwin_m]

Hang on a minute, the great Italian scheme referenced above is €6.2Bn for 53km ? That's £4.7Bn

HS2 is £42.6Bn for 540km ? Am I missing the point here ?

Is it not just saying that the cost per km is about the same?

 

[HowardGWR]

Is it not just saying that the cost per km is about the same?

Looks like it (with above caveats). My real point is that these actual costs are actual, not present day value estimates, because the blessed things are being built now or are already constructed, and the other EU projects (except that one going through the Alps) do not seem to be mired in legal effluvia.

 

[WatcherZero]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/558251/Sturgeon-s-dream-of-a-Scots-bullet-train-is-derailed

In 2012 Sturgeon pledged not to wait for Westminster and to build a high speed railway between Glasgow and Edinburgh themselves. Now according to the Scots Express they've been sitting on a feasibility report since December that finds the Scots high speed line is only feasible as part of a UK network not in isolation and the Scottish Government doesn't have any money to build a high speed line.

 

[po8crg]

The French planning system isn't much faster than the British. The difference is that they keep planning projects for the future and then decide what to build based on the budget they have available.

Montpellier-Avignon has been in consultations and enquiries for about six or seven years at this point. But they're building Tours-Bordeaux while they do the process for the rest.

Once we're past phase one, HS2 should develop like that. Phase two planning is well-advanced even before the first spade hits the ground for phase one. We should be looking at phase three now, and I suspect there will be an announcement next year, just after phase one gets the Royal Assent.

 

[edwin_m]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/558251/Sturgeon-s-dream-of-a-Scots-bullet-train-is-derailed

In 2012 Sturgeon pledged not to wait for Westminster and to build a high speed railway between Glasgow and Edinburgh themselves. Now according to the Scots Express they've been sitting on a feasibility report since December that finds the Scots high speed line is only feasible as part of a UK network not in isolation and the Scottish Government doesn't have any money to build a high speed line.

Having been involved in both HS2 and Glasgow-Edinburgh, all I can say is that the Express reporting is down to its usual level of accuracy.

 

[Altnabreac]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/558251/Sturgeon-s-dream-of-a-Scots-bullet-train-is-derailed

In 2012 Sturgeon pledged not to wait for Westminster and to build a high speed railway between Glasgow and Edinburgh themselves. Now according to the Scots Express they've been sitting on a feasibility report since December that finds the Scots high speed line is only feasible as part of a UK network not in isolation and the Scottish Government doesn't have any money to build a high speed line.

It's one of those ones where the facts are basically correct but the spin on the article is the problem.

The business case all along was dependent on the cross border element of the scheme. We know that because a standalone high speed Edinburgh - Glasgow line was appraised and rejected in the Central Scotland Corridor Study 10 years ago. Fast Track Scotland was specifically pulled together to see whether HS2 and the cross border elements of the scheme made it viable now.

As for the revelation that a scheme that has not yet been announced does not have a funding guarentee yet... Is that what passes for news reporting these days.

Suspect the full report will be published before the election and it's conclusions may form part of any post election negotiations by the SNP.

 

[edwin_m]

Will we see what happened in Canada in Victorian times happening here? A new railway to prevent the country breaking up?