Labour may withdraw support for HS2

[Geezertronic]

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.

Plus there would be years of rail replacement while the line shuts down in sections to provide the upgrade

 

[Shrub Hill]

maybe they should spend the money joining the great central railway to GCR north, that way when we have all finished banging our heads against the wall we can have a bloody good weekend out,

 

[Zoe]

maybe they should spend the money joining the great central railway to GCR north, that way when we have all finished banging our heads against the wall we can have a bloody good weekend out,

What benefit is "bridging the gap" on the GCR to the national rail network? I'd very much like to see the gap bridged but taking funding away from the national network isn't the best way to do it.

 

[142094]

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

I'm all for investment in the railways, I'd much rather see money spent o railway than on new roads (new roads can never solve the problems of traffic congestion). However we still have large areas of the country that are without a railway station, and this wouldn't change under HS2. Taking the north east as an example, when HS2 reaches us (if at all), we'll still have places like Washington and Blyth without a rail link, and both of these are big centres of population. With part of the £20bn these two areas could be joined to the rest of the network quickly.

 

[Old Timer]

Oh how the unpleasant smell of hypocrisy pervades the air.

I recall the venting of venom and bile in the run up to the GE when some people on the Forum were happily declaring that the world would end if the Conservatives won, because HS2 would be cancelled, leading to the destruction of our Railway system as we know it, and there followed from that the wailing and gnashing of teeth as entrails were wrung publicly about how the Country would be impoverished by Conservative plans to ditch HS2.

Yes you read it here first !

Time however moves on, and having lost the taste of victory when the Conservative announced HS2 would happen, apparently it doesn't matter anymore because Labour in Opposition don't think it is such a good idea anymore :roll:

You really don't have to make it up.

Pass the sickbag someone.

 

[Shrub Hill]

just a tongue in cheek remark Zoe, something i would like to see happen but when it does it will be the result of a lot of hard work by alot of people all working together towards a common goal in the interest of the people, pretty much everything HS2 wont be i should imagine

 

[tbtc]

Oh how the unpleasant smell of hypocrisy pervades the air.

I recall the venting of venom and bile in the run up to the GE when some people on the Forum were happily declaring that the world would end if the Conservatives won, because HS2 would be cancelled, leading to the destruction of our Railway system as we know it, and there followed from that the wailing and gnashing of teeth as entrails were wrung publicly about how the Country would be impoverished by Conservative plans to ditch HS2.

Yes you read it here first !

Time however moves on, and having lost the taste of victory when the Conservative announced HS2 would happen, apparently it doesn't matter anymore because Labour in Opposition don't think it is such a good idea anymore :roll:

You really don't have to make it up.

Pass the sickbag someone.

In fairness, the Tory plan was for a weaker HS2, with just one line north of Birmingham snaking round the country. Thankfully they have seen sense and now back the "Y" which Labour were promising. Sadly Labour now seem to think opposing HS2 can be used as a cheap vote winner, which is a poor move on their part. This kind of "once in a generation" thing can only happen with cross party support (because otherwise you get into petty arguments and awkward compromises).

In other words, Labour had the better plan before the election, the Tories have the better plan now. See, no bias here

 

[Metroland]

Oh how the unpleasant smell of hypocrisy pervades the air.

I recall the venting of venom and bile in the run up to the GE when some people on the Forum were happily declaring that the world would end if the Conservatives won, because HS2 would be cancelled, leading to the destruction of our Railway system as we know it, and there followed from that the wailing and gnashing of teeth as entrails were wrung publicly about how the Country would be impoverished by Conservative plans to ditch HS2.

Yes you read it here first !

Time however moves on, and having lost the taste of victory when the Conservative announced HS2 would happen, apparently it doesn't matter anymore because Labour in Opposition don't think it is such a good idea anymore :roll:

You really don't have to make it up.

Pass the sickbag someone.

As someone who is fairly a-political and centre in their views, even I thought it was very predictable that Labour would be first to ditch HS2. They never did like big infrastructure projects, and prefer to spend money on 'touchy feely' stuff. I never did understand why people think Labour are so 'for the railways' (union brainwashing?), when their record is not especially strong. Yes the Tories can get too carried away by markets, but right now if the railways were nationalised they would be taking the brunt of spending cuts, as BR did many times. The private companies are somewhat fixed by contracts.

On the subject of telecommuting, this has been talked about for years as a magic solution. Whereas I think it will become more important for very long distance business travel, the case has not been made for much else considering:

1: Most bosses do not trust their workers and working from home. There is a case for some flexitime, but this only suits certain businesses.
2: Most people do not live is suitable homes to home work - most households have too many distractions in: Kids, noisy neighbours, etc. We don't all live in big middle-class detached homes with a separate office.
3: Human beings are social, they not want to spend time alone too much in a non-face to face situation.
4: Home working only suits people who are self-motivating, lots of people are not.
5: Home working is not especially green. Home heating, the energy costs of the internet and computers can outweigh standard commuting patterns. Many studies have concluded this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3295393/Go-green-work-at-the-office-not-at-home.html
6: Many people are making social and business connections via the internet, they would otherwise not have made, leading to more travel for face-to-face meetings not less.


If people decide they don't want HS2, then they have to decide what the alternative is, and what the problems are related to that. There are no magic bullets. If they do not want any transport expansion, they need to think about the alternatives not to travel, and, if the demand is still there, pricing people off, or at least spreading the demand.

 

[tbtc]

On the subject of telecommuting, this has been talked about for years as a magic solution. Whereas I think it will become more important for very long distance business travel, the case has not been made for much else considering:

1: Most bosses do not trust their workers and working from home. There is a case for some flexitime, but this only suits certain businesses.
2: Most people do not live is suitable homes to home work - most households have too many distractions in: Kids, noisy neighbours, etc
3: Human beings are social, they not want to spend time alone too much in a non-face to face situation.
4: Home working only suits people who are self-motivating, lots of people are not.
5: Home working is not especially green. Home heating, the energy costs of the internet and computers can outweigh standard commuting patterns. Many studies have concluded this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3295393/Go-green-work-at-the-office-not-at-home.html
6: Many people are making social and business connections via the internet, they would otherwise not have made, leading to more travel for face-to-face meetings not less

The real problem with home-working is that only a small minority of jobs are ones where you could consider it.

Its easy for journalists to recommend it (and the same goes for the advice during the snow that people should work from home) because media-work can be conducted like that. More people work in shops/ non-executive office jobs/ manufacturing... that kind of thing - no way these people can work "from home" (however good technology gets).

If people decide they don't want HS2, then they have to decide what the alternative is, and what the problems are related to that

Agreed. Saying "HS2 only helps a small part of the country and costs a lot of money" is only a valid criticism if you can tell me where the money could be spent that would deliver more for the rest of the UK.

 

[vtiman]

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).

i think the cost of oil will lead to decreases in flights more then anything but something to remember is that since the airlines dont pay ANY fuel tax then the government wouldnt lose any money there and might rather protect the £34 billion hs2 investment through a jet fuel tax !

taxing jet fuel worldwide is complex and apparently there are agreements and conventions in place etc. but i dont see why in the uk and europe we couldnt tax at least fuel for short term flights which could fund the construction of high speed lines. if a fuel duty tax were not possible, another tax could be implemented - we could call it a modal transfer tax.

 

[WatcherZero]

Anyway I think a lot of media and posters are getting ahead of themselves, Labour hasnt changed their policy to opposing HS2 yet, all theyve said is they were writing a new manifesto where there were no sacred cows and everything would be considered.

 

[vtiman]

Anyway I think a lot of media and posters are getting ahead of themselves, Labour hasnt changed their policy to opposing HS2 yet, all theyve said is they were writing a new manifesto where there were no sacred cows and everything would be considered.

but they are moooving in that direction !

 

[WatcherZero]

The new shadow transport minister doesnt like it, doesnt mean the whole party has turned against it. The Conservative Shadow Transport minister was against it when they were in opposition until overuled by the party and they became supporters of the demented S shaped allignment.

 

[Rhydgaled]

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.

I'll give it a go:

• Electrify GWML to Bristol and Swansea (which should go ahead anyway, if it doesn't then HS2 must die NOW to pay for it)
• Electrify GWML to Penzance (via Weston-Super-Mare/Bristol TM and via Westbury)
• Electrify Midland Main Line
• Electrify any other INTERCITY routes with line-speeds above 100mph
• Re-open lines such as the north-south routes in Wales and shorter lines elsewhere
• Build a large fleet of new trains, including INTERCITY 225s (with up-to-date technology and seats in the DVT), Electrostar and 5-WES style EMUs and additional 158s with the best possible fuel economy (this is for whatever re-opened lines that don't make a good case for electrification)

All of that would probablly be over £20bn, but even a few of them would be very useful. If there is some money left, improve some linespeeds across the UK.

HS2 is a line which: Shows the all important green credentials

No it is not, I've seen graphs that show HSR is just as poluting as car travel, only against aviation does it have enviromental benifts. Maybe if they reduced the max speed to 202mph (325kph) and enhanced efficency they could make it better than the car and possiblly be able to avoid the most sensitive areas of the Chilterns more easily by being able to get round tighter curves. If sombody would provide a trustworthy source where I can find what exactlly the radius required for 202mph operation is I'd get back to designing my prefered HS2 route, following the Great Central to Rugby then dividing with one spur following motorways and heading to Manchester (via Birmignham, though in a way it might be better not to go through the city centre) and the other (to be built much later, after the line has been extended south of Euston to Reading to help with GWML capacity) to Leeds via Sheffield and Nottingham (mostly following the GCR too and motorways).

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.

Actually, I think there is no aviation fuel duty at the momment, international treaties prevent it for international flights and I think our goverment has never taxed it on domestic flights either.

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.

I would hope the government would come to their sences and tax domestic flights out of existance anyway, HS2 or no HS2. They should also put a take-off or landing tax to massivly reduce overseas flights too (or cap them at about 2 flights a day per destonation).

 

[Zoe]

I'll give it a go:
Electrify GWML to Penzance (via Weston-Super-Mare/Bristol TM and via Westbury)

I'm not convinced of the benefits of electrifying the Berks and Hants. If linespeeds between Paddington and Bristol could be improved to 140 mph and between Bristol and Exeter to 125 mph then there would be no time penalty going via Bristol. The Castle Cary and Langport line could even be closed although keeping it open for diversions would be more sensible. Electrification of the GWML from Bristol to Plymouth would also benefit XC services but Plymouth is likely to be as far as the wires will ever go.