Labour may withdraw support for HS2

[YorkshireBear]

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/...s-support-for-high-speed-rail-65233-28125477/

Not sure the truth and facts behind this artcle but if true how much of a blow and with all the money already spent on stuff will this be?

If labour come in power and cancel it what happens then? do we do anything or is that 20 bn of railway investment gone

 

[142094]

Quite frankly there are better things to spend £20bn on in the railways at present, I'd much rather see improvements made now than a high speed network in 20 years time.

 

[Zoe]

Remember that one of the principal reasons for building HS2 was to remove the need for expansion at Heathrow. Once the line is built there is the potential for the government to tax domestic flights out of existence.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not relevant to HS2, but Ms Eagle is going to sound like a stuck record if she keeps going on about the government 'cancelling Labour's new carriages'. Doesn't she even realise that Labour had already defaulted on most of their earlier 'new carriage' orders anyway?

Might be an idea for Roger Ford to send her one of his detailed explanations...

 

[Eng274]

Remember that one of the principal reasons for building HS2 was to remove the need for expansion at Heathrow. Once the line is built there is the potential for the government to tax domestic flights out of existence.

Much as I'd like to see BAA and their miserly, sourpuss corporate Fagin-esque attitude evaporate, I doubt any government would happily see their business suffer too much, since the amount of tax revenue, fuel duty, VAT from outlet revenue etc is too big to let it fly away (nowhere near £6bn, but thats another story).

One of the few sensible things the Cons have done is scrap the third runway at Heathrow, let's hope they follow it up with a commitment to investing in the railways in some form, be it HS2 or otherwise.

 

[sprinterguy]

Lord Adonis was correct in saying “that high speed rail should be placed above party politics and needed the backing of all parties to proceed”, and now Labour are looking to back track on that agreement. If the future of HS2 is less than certain then that will only hinder progress in its’ development and hence delay what is already a long-term project even further when the maximum amount of activity on the project is needed to ensure it is delivered in a realistic timescale.

If Labour does actually succeed in halting HS2 in the future, then the current Government might as well just be throwing away the £750 million earmarked for HS2 research in the current Parliamentary term. At least the money currently being invested in HS2 is worthwhile for as long as HS2 goes ahead: If Labour manages to terminate the plans then they have caused a large sum of money to be simply wasted for no good reason.

Marie Eagle and her cohorts are acting like short sighted idiots whose only agenda is their own wellbeing in the popularity stakes by playing on the opinions of many members of the general public who do not grasp the scope of the HS2 project. Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians actually looked ahead and did something good for the future of Britain rather than furnishing their own selfish goals in the short term.

 

[Chris125]

I suspect this is just a way of saying 'nothing is sacred' regarding policy - HS2 is unlikely to have much effect on how people vote ultimately, though i doubt they'd want the negative press in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds that would come from removing their support. With construction not starting till 2017 there's no point changing their mind now.

Chris

 

[SS4]

I just see it as arguing for argument's sake (much more disappointing was the affair over two councillors not joining in a standing ovation for a GC recipient back from Afghanistan). The coalition is blaming Labour for their cuts and Labour is blaming the coalition over anything (eg: the Lords debate over AV)

The government needs to come out with a backbone and force some things through. Recent governments have been too soft with the NIMBYs (and perhaps other, unelected, pressure groups - but that's for a different topic). Perhaps HS2 isn't the best plan but then what other plan is there? At least HS2 acknowledges that there is a country North of Watford even if a third London-Birmingham line is overkill

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Remember that one of the principal reasons for building HS2 was to remove the need for expansion at Heathrow. Once the line is built there is the potential for the government to tax domestic flights out of existence.

That's a socialist outlook. You don't tax something out of existance, you make the alternative more attractive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The Labour party/government will do what they have always done and play along with whatever union is giving them the most money. Top of the biggest givers are Unite and the TGWU. That means air and roads. If you want a history lesson look back to see what happened when the NUR/ASL&F refused to move coal trains during Arthur Scargill's little set-to with the government of the day. The TGWU card carrying lorry drivers made a fortune.

 

[Zoe]

That's a socialist outlook. You don't tax something out of existance, you make the alternative more attractive.

Tim Yeo said it. I wouldn't call his party socialist at all.

 

[Invincibles]

It seems perverse. HS2 is a line which:

• Annoys the Tory vote in the Cotswolds
• Links labour heartlands to perceived (but not actual) prosperity
• Shows the all important green credentials
• Employs people and increases the role of the state in stimulating investment

All looks very good for Labour. But maybe they finally thought that HS2 is a line which:

• Will annoy Tory voters but the tories support it and will not defect to Labour over it
• Will make the labour heartlands feel better and feel more like the middle that the tories appeal to
• Will create work overseas and generate far greater growth for others, all at the expense of the labour core vote

So really seems sensible to let the Tories take the blame, laugh as the fields are torn up and the lorries roll in. Not very green for those years... and then when the whole thing is working conveniently forget they opposed it.

So why didnt the line go to Manchester and the North West - Tory london bias.... (after all it wasnt Labour who supported it...)

I like to be cynical

 

[RichW1]

Oh dear. That's the final nail in Labour's coffin for the next election. This line has broad support from the public and we have no capacity left!!! Where else will they find capacity for the same money? Nowhere. HS is actually the most cost effective way of adding capacity to a full railway.

Whilst we're on the subject, having studied the facts over this masters course, I have to say the idea that rail will replace a third runway at heathrow I'm afraid is a nonsense. The truth of the matter is...we need both. I'd prefer replace Heathrow with an airport in the Thames estuary but unfortunately I don't see this happening but t would be the most modern and impressive solution connected to HS1.

HS rail will not replace many London to Scotland's Central Belt flights at this Y shape stage. There will be a small handful of European flights it will replace, other than that there will still be a massive demand for more traffic at London's airports from Long-haul international traffic. Another runway at Gatwick or Heathrow is going to be desperately needed.

I'm not speaking from a personal point of view, just from the figures and facts given and laid before me. The press does have a way of saying it's either HS rail OR airport expansion but in reality it needs to be both. We don't have long to decide whether we want to hit the 21st century running because of how long these projects take. We can choose to do it or not....but we will suffer without both of these options as as a nation, we're bursting at the seams because of such lack of forsight in previous decades.

 

[tbtc]

Quite frankly there are better things to spend £20bn on in the railways at present, I'd much rather see improvements made now than a high speed network in 20 years time.

What would you get for £20bn though?

Its easy to say (as many HS2 critics do) that the money should be spent "elsewhere", but what's a realistic alternative for the price? Bear in mind that the WCML upgrade (some four-tracking, remoddeled junctions, no brand new lines) cost around £10bn, nobody has given a good "shopping list" as an alternative to HS2.

 

[Zoe]

Its easy to say (as many HS2 critics do) that the money should be spent "elsewhere", but what's a realistic alternative for the price? Bear in mind that the WCML upgrade (some four-tracking, remoddeled junctions, no brand new lines) cost around £10bn, nobody has given a good "shopping list" as an alternative to HS2.

How about 4 tracking Welwyn and Huntingdon to Peterborough. Railtrack had a plan to do this before Hatfield.

 

[RichW1]

Still not convinced such a solution would provide a 20-30 year solution to passenger volumes. It does need to happen though I agree but not as an alternative to HS. We're at a point in our history where we need some 'leaps' in how we live and move around, almost a move from 20th centry to the 21st over the next 15years or so.

 

[Zoe]

Still not convinced such a solution would provide a 20-30 year solution to passenger volumes. It does need to happen though I agree but not as an alternative to HS. We're at a point in our history where we need some 'leaps' in how we live and move around, almost a move from 20th centry to the 21st over the next 15years or so.

It could be argued that reducing the need to travel through the likes to telecommuting would be an alternative solution.

 

[RichW1]

That's a point that was interesting and has been raised at research level, however, it has been shown that people prefer to meet when it comes to working together on a project or brokering deals. The use of teleworking is used but more as a 'housekeeping' alternative to neding to meet for the weekly things for example. It seems to be a human trait. Some do it but most just don't seem to take to it in the way it was anticipated would happen! Probably unfortunate given our curent predicament!

It's like the odd result that emerged when most people preferred some sort of commute to work as a change of environment influenced the change of psyche too; people did not (generally) like to work and live in the same place. They didn't have to be far from work, but it still had to be in a separate place! However, that's assuming everyone has the choice which they obviously don't. Everything's so complicated these days!

 

[tbtc]

How about 4 tracking Welwyn and Huntingdon to Peterborough. Railtrack had a plan to do this before Hatfield.

That'd help, but:

1. I've not seen a realistic price for it
2. One criticism of HS2 is that "it only helps one certain part of the UK". So, before I could support an alternative, I'd like to see one which helped more of the country

If only Virgin had won the ECML bid, they'd be running their new ECML (with a brand new four track section bypassing Welwyn, with London - Retford - Sheffield trains, with bypasses at Durham/Morpeth) and we wouldn't have the same need for HS2 today...

 

[Metroland]

What would you get for £20bn though?

Its easy to say (as many HS2 critics do) that the money should be spent "elsewhere", but what's a realistic alternative for the price? Bear in mind that the WCML upgrade (some four-tracking, remoddeled junctions, no brand new lines) cost around £10bn, nobody has given a good "shopping list" as an alternative to HS2.

The 'other' solution is given on the DFT site:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/alternativestudy/pdf/railintervention.pdf

The rail paper is quite interesting it proposes a number of packages, such as:

-Replacing London Midland Desiro fleet with 125 mph capable rolling stock
-Grade-separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard,
-Extra 3 new platforms at Euston and
-Extra platforms at Manchester (with grade separation at Ardwick),
-4 tracking Attleborough – Brinklow (including freight works at Nuneaton),
-Northampton area speed improvements
-4 tracking Berkswell – Stechford (Coventry corridor)
-New Moor Street platforms (WCML route)

in addition on the Chiltern line

-Electrification throughout (including replacement of existing Chiltern “clubman” diesel rolling stock)
-125 mph maximum line speed
-New chord from Chiltern – Coventry corridor (avoiding Coventry but including new Coventry South station)
- Banbury cut off (includes to Kings Sutton) IE new line around Banbury
- Improvements at Princes Risborough
- New 2 track tunnel Saunderton – Seer Green (avoiding High Wycombe)
- 4 tracking of Seer Green – South Ruislip (Northolt Junction)
- 2 tracking of South- Ruislip – Paddington (via Park Royal & Old Oak Common)
- Possible new Paddington - Birmingham express (4 tph) with 1 hour journey time

The paper does mention the GCR, but it is not looked at, though it could I suspect be re-opened as far as Leicester fairly easily. The paper discusses the maximum the WCML can be upgraded - there's not much more can be done with it because of problems with train length. After that the solution is to price people off.

Overall, a fairly largish capacity increase with the Chiltern upgrade, but no realistic journey time reductions. If Labour pull out, we are most likely to end up with the above.

 

[tbtc]

It could be argued that reducing the need to tarvel through the likes to telecommuting would be an alternative solution.

This is a common criticism of HS2. However, the technology exists today. You can hold video calls on mobile phones, you can share information electronically... yet we still have significant amounts of post and significant amounts of travel.

 

[Zoe]

If only Virgin had won the ECML bid, they'd be running their new ECML (with a brand new four track section bypassing Welwyn, with London - Retford - Sheffield trains, with bypasses at Durham/Morpeth) and we wouldn't have the same need for HS2 today...

Again this goes back to the bold plans that were around in 2000. Long franchises with TOCs bidding for improvements like you suggested. There was also talk of station and line repoenings and even in mid 2000 things were looking very good for the railways. Then we had Hatfield and we all know the rest of the story.

 

[Failed Unit]

Whatever happens to HS2 I always find these amusing.

DFT - "there isn't enough demand to make all pendos 11 cars"
DFT - "WCML wont keep up with the demand without HS2"

Do there isn't the demand to lengthen the rest of the pendos, but the won't be able to cope beyond 2020 with demand - interesting! When HS2 is late I wonder if we will regret not building the extra pendos.

 

[Zoe]

The paper discusses the maximum the WCML can be upgraded - there's not much more can be done with it because of problems with train length. After that the solution is to price people off.

The Intercity 250 plan would have included route realignments of the WCM to allow higher linspeeds up to 155 mph. This may have negated the need somewhat for HS2.

 

[142094]

What would you get for £20bn though?

Its easy to say (as many HS2 critics do) that the money should be spent "elsewhere", but what's a realistic alternative for the price? Bear in mind that the WCML upgrade (some four-tracking, remoddeled junctions, no brand new lines) cost around £10bn, nobody has given a good "shopping list" as an alternative to HS2.

There are plenty of smaller infill schemes that could do with the money, along with however many reopenings that could be financed. Plus at the same time get a load of new stock to replace the ageing ones and provide for the extra capacity that is needed now and not 20 years in the future.

My main worry is that we'll spend £20bn on a high speed line but passenger numbers start to decrease and it will be hardly used. Demand for the railway is at an all time high since the 20s or 30s IIRC what was said last week, but things can change very fast and demand might start to drop off.

 

[tbtc]

There are plenty of smaller infill schemes that could do with the money, along with however many reopenings that could be financed. Plus at the same time get a load of new stock to replace the ageing ones and provide for the extra capacity that is needed now and not 20 years in the future

I accept that there are a load of improvements needed today. Expand 13/14 at Manchester? I'm not against that. However to give the increase in capacity HS2 would give means months of "weekend replacement services" on existing lines.

Given that the short line from Skipton to Colne (trackbed generally there, few major hills etc) is going to cost over £100m, I'm not convinced that you'd get much built for £20bn that would offer a realistic alternative to HS2.

 

[route:oxford]

My main worry is that we'll spend £20bn on a high speed line but passenger numbers start to decrease and it will be hardly used. Demand for the railway is at an all time high since the 20s or 30s IIRC what was said last week, but things can change very fast and demand might start to drop off.

Best not to worry too much. Be brave and embrace opportunity and change.

This £20bn figure that is banded about is a bit of a red herring. This is for an asset that will (if compared to the GWML, ECML & WCML), with due care and repair, have a lifespan of over 150 years. 150 years! On average it'll carry passengers throughout 22 Booms and 22 Busts.

The only way it'll become a white-elephant is if someone manages to develop a personal teleportation device.

 

[Failed Unit]

I guess all major infrastructure projects have the risk of changing demand. Look at Heathrow many say more runways demand for flying will never slow, others say that as oil prices rocket people won't afford to be able to fly so more capacity is not needed. It is embarrassing if we get this wrong either way.

Tele-working may reduce loads on commuting, but I think long distance travel will increase for leisure and business. If everyone teleworks they may live further from London so long distance travel increases. More people work from home now then 10 years ago and demand is still increasing. Price rises may stop it, but like all major infrastructure projects it could be they are not needed when they are complete. Anyone think of any examples? The 222s nearly ended up on that list (well at least the 9 cars)

 

[Chafford1]

The 'other' solution is given on the DFT site:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/alternativestudy/pdf/railintervention.pdf

The rail paper is quite interesting it proposes a number of packages, such as:

-Replacing London Midland Desiro fleet with 125 mph capable rolling stock
-Grade-separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard,
-Extra 3 new platforms at Euston and
-Extra platforms at Manchester (with grade separation at Ardwick),
-4 tracking Attleborough – Brinklow (including freight works at Nuneaton),
-Northampton area speed improvements
-4 tracking Berkswell – Stechford (Coventry corridor)
-New Moor Street platforms (WCML route)

in addition on the Chiltern line

-Electrification throughout (including replacement of existing Chiltern “clubman” diesel rolling stock)
-125 mph maximum line speed
-New chord from Chiltern – Coventry corridor (avoiding Coventry but including new Coventry South station)
- Banbury cut off (includes to Kings Sutton) IE new line around Banbury
- Improvements at Princes Risborough
- New 2 track tunnel Saunderton – Seer Green (avoiding High Wycombe)
- 4 tracking of Seer Green – South Ruislip (Northolt Junction)
- 2 tracking of South- Ruislip – Paddington (via Park Royal & Old Oak Common)
- Possible new Paddington - Birmingham express (4 tph) with 1 hour journey time

The paper does mention the GCR, but it is not looked at, though it could I suspect be re-opened as far as Leicester fairly easily. The paper discusses the maximum the WCML can be upgraded - there's not much more can be done with it because of problems with train length. After that the solution is to price people off.

Overall, a fairly largish capacity increase with the Chiltern upgrade, but no realistic journey time reductions. If Labour pull out, we are most likely to end up with the above.

The above upgrades together will be around £11 billion with the Chiltern Upgrade alone costing more than £7 billion. For that, you'll get a 20th century 125mph railway with less than half the capacity of HS2.

 

[WatcherZero]

Or you could spend another £10bn to increase the WCML speed from 125 to 140 finally. even together with the above list both schemes wouldnt match the speed and capacity of HS2 while equalling the cost.

 

[tbtc]

Or you could spend another £10bn to increase the WCML speed from 125 to 140 finally. even together with the above list both schemes wouldnt match the speed and capacity of HS2 while equalling the cost.

Upgrading to 140mph wouldn't mean as many additional paths as HS2 would (since HS2 would allow existing WCML paths to be retained)