HS2 - Could be scraped

[Axholme Lion]

Anything to cut London off from the rest of the country!

It's like another country down there nowadays in any case.

It was when I lived there twenty years ago and one of the reasons I was happy to get out and back north again.

If I knew then what I know now I would have moved to somewhere like Cambridgeshire years ago. Not bad for access to London without the stress of living there. Some really nice villages down there, but very pricey nowadays.

[i_ateallthepies]

You ever tried having an all-day meeting by conference call or one involving a large group of people?

You’re all day meetings must be very important if those 20 minutes will make or break them  !!!

My point wasn't about the 20 minutes, simply the stupid suggestion that conference call is the answer.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Or ANY meeting by conference call. I've never yet had one that is remotely as useful as a face to face meeting.

[drfchound]

You ever tried having an all-day meeting by conference call or one involving a large group of people?

You’re all day meetings must be very important if those 20 minutes will make or break them  !!!

My point wasn't about the 20 minutes, simply the stupid suggestion that conference call is the answer.

.......and my original post on this subject was about the stupid need to get to London twenty minutes quicker.

[BillyStubbsTears]

But that's a wrong premise Hound.
1)
Most journeys between large cities will have far bigger time savings than that..

Leeds to Birmingham will come down from 2hrs to 1hr.

Manchester to London 2hrs down to 1hr.

It connects those cities into commutable range.

And that matters. It means it is far more likely that large companies will see the big northern and Midlands cities as connected to the main economic powehouse of the country, which is London, like it or not.

Look at somewhere like Reading. It has exploded economically over the past 25 years as the transport connections to London have improved. With HS2, Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield will be closer or only a few mins further away from London.

2) It's also about expanding capacity. We need massive investment in the rail network to improve capacity for the next century. Yes, you can do that to a limited extent by improving the existing network, but that means decades of engineering works and delays.

[Draytonian III]

Does your work have any connections to the rail industry by any chance, as you seem overly keen for it to go ahead . In fact you’re the only person I’ve heard support it well apart from a few MPs and some railway industry folks

[BillyStubbsTears]

No it has less than zero to do with the rail industry.

[Draytonian III]

Fair enough, I take it you don’t have any not a slim connection with the rail industry

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I tend to agree in many ways BST, but are there better options than HS2 that could achieve similar at less cost?

[Axholme Lion]

I'm not so sure that many would support it if their home was subject to a CPO (AKA LEGALISED ROBBERY).

[silent majority]

Whilst I agree that we need the better infrastructures such as projects like this it does worry me about the investment in one city.

As a country we've become a one city country, convinced that investment in London is the driving force for the economy, at times to the detriment of every other town and city.

[Pancho Regan]

Anyone got a free brick wall for me to talk to?

Once again. It is not a question of HS2 or NHS. We can afford both, comfortably.

Hound. I don't doubt that you paid in. But that was paying the last generation's pensions. It's us still working who pay your current pension.

You talk a lot of sense and I find your contributions on here very interesting BST, but you are coming over as rather patronising on this subject.

Lots of us have had to get to London for meetings at inconvenient times over the years of our working lives. This problem isn’t exclusive to you.

But in this age of technological advances I do not for one minute believe that the answer to this very mild inconvenience is to spend billions on HS2 which will have a relatively minor positive effect on our economy.

This money could be far better spent on a mixture of social projects (of which there are many) and less expansive rail links such as a main line across the north of England from east coast to west coast.

Although Im reaching the end of my business life I still occasionally have to make a business trip from Skipton (North Yorkshire) to Manchester.

Although I’m within 15 miles of the conurbations of Bradford and Burnley, the journey by train to Manchester is so difficult it verges on farcical.

Let’s think about really investing in the much-hyped ‘Northern Powerhouse’ by allowing business people to get from Leeds to Manchester in a reasonable time rather than wasting billions on chipping 15 minutes (or whatever) off the journey time from South Yorkshire to London.

[SydneyRover]

The problem is with a london centric government all we get is promises at election time, big society, northern powerhouse, new cross penines rail.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Anyone got a free brick wall for me to talk to?

Once again. It is not a question of HS2 or NHS. We can afford both, comfortably.

Hound. I don't doubt that you paid in. But that was paying the last generation's pensions. It's us still working who pay your current pension.

You talk a lot of sense and I find your contributions on here very interesting BST, but you are coming over as rather patronising on this subject.

Lots of us have had to get to London for meetings at inconvenient times over the years of our working lives. This problem isn’t exclusive to you.

But in this age of technological advances I do not for one minute believe that the answer to this very mild inconvenience is to spend billions on HS2 which will have a relatively minor positive effect on our economy.

This money could be far better spent on a mixture of social projects (of which there are many) and less expansive rail links such as a main line across the north of England from east coast to west coast.

Although Im reaching the end of my business life I still occasionally have to make a business trip from Skipton (North Yorkshire) to Manchester.

Although I’m within 15 miles of the conurbations of Bradford and Burnley, the journey by train to Manchester is so difficult it verges on farcical.

Let’s think about really investing in the much-hyped ‘Northern Powerhouse’ by allowing business people to get from Leeds to Manchester in a reasonable time rather than wasting billions on chipping 15 minutes (or whatever) off the journey time from South Yorkshire to London.

Pancho

It shouldn't be either/or. We should have BOTH HS2 and massive investment in rail in the North. I've said that repeatedly.

[Campsall rover]

Scrape (sorry.......scrap) the thing.
Not required.
Allocate the money to something worthwhile like the NHS.

We all need the NHS at sometime in our lives but not too many of us need to get to London twenty minutes faster than we can do now.

Massive white elephant.

I agree hound. 20 mins faster from London to Leeds ( not Doncaster ).
What a total waste of money for the sake of 20 mins, and all the disruption it will cause.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Once again.

1) It's not 20 minutes. It's more than 50.
2) It's not just about the times. It's about the massive increase in capacity which means fewer cars on the road and fewer flights.

[dknward2]

Would imagine that the rail fares on a hs2 train will be double the price of one on the network now.
IMO if we spent the money on the current network we could get close to speeds that hs2 is promising, the daft thing is even if we still go ahead with it, it will be out of date by the time it’s finished, we should be investing in either maglev tech or hyper loop.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The plan is not to have higher fares last time I saw. It's because the trains will be so big and there'll be so many, there will be a need to manage the ticket prices sensibly.

They are talking about up to  3000 seats each way per hour between Leeds and London and Manchester and London.

You're not going to fill 12,000 seats pet hour charging them at £200 a pop.

And you might get the increases in speed by tinkering with the existing network. But
a) you won't get the increase in capacity. THAT is the key driver of the need for HS2. You need to look at what the country is going to need, capacity-wise, by 2040 and 2070 and 2100.

b) tinkering with the existing lines isn't cheap or problem-free. The upgrade to the West Coast Mainline in the early 2000s cost £10bn (more than a decade ago) and didn't get remotely close to the speeds or capacity of HS2.

[Draytonian III]

South of Doncaster until you get to Grantham there numerous level crossings ,if these were bypassed /closed the present trains could travel at 140mph thus reducing travelling time. The level crossing leave stones and debris close to the rails damaging the wheels etc .

[BillyStubbsTears]

But that doesn't increase capacity. And that is the main thing.

Do that as well, by all means. But you'll have a saturated network by 2050 if you only do that.

[albie]

If the issue is increasing capacity then adding more carriages (increasing platform length if needed), and using double deck units (raising bridge clearances) would offer massive increases in passenger capacity per train.

It should be considered when the final cost of HS2 cannot be determined.

Not including project cost over-runs, and a large under-estimate for CPO costs, the final bill will be more than double the original cost benefit analysis.

There is no point in assessing value for money against an economic model that proves to be wildly optimistic.
The UK does not need another Hinckley Point mega project costing the earth.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'll repeat. None of that can come close to the capacity increase that HS2 will bring. AND those changes would lead to a decade of huge disruption on the existing network (as the WCML upgrade did in the 00's).

We can fanny about round the margins as we tend to do in this country. We can see more traffic on what is already the most congested motorway network in Europe. We can go on using grossly polluting internal flights for journeys that would be taken by high-speed train everywhere else in Western Europe. (I've got a meeting in Southampton next week. Got to get there and back in a day. I'm flying from Manchester because it is 40% of the price of the train and means 2 hours less travelling on the day. That is f**king idiocy.)

Or we can invest in infrastructure that will see us well placed into the 2100s, while also boosting the economy immediately through the multiplier effect, and long-term through a step change in connectivity between our major cities. And vastly reduce the environmental effect of long distance travel in the UK.

And, as I say, none of this should be a question of either HS2 or other rail improvements. We should be improving the entire network.

[albie]

BST,

Do you have any evidence that HS2 will add more network capacity than other measures?
I'd be interested to see it if so.

I'm surprised you don't see the need to demonstrate value for money. The original go-ahead was given on the basis of an incorrect economic analysis, hence the National Audit Office revisiting the project.

Are you saying it should go forward whatever the cost?
Not really a good method of delivering infrastructure upgrades, is it.

I do agree about improving the entire network. Part of that improvement is bringing a public asset into full public ownership and control.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

The WCML upgrade lasted for a decade, cost £10bn, massively disrupted services, added about 600 seats per hour between Manchester and London and shaved about 20 minutes off journey times.

Go figure.

[albie]

BST,

You argued that HS2 adds more network capacity than other alternatives.
It certainly does increase carrying capacity on the chosen route, so good for those travelling from Brum to London.

Concentrating resources on a prestige project is easier to support if it brings wider network benefits, but it is difficult to see how other UK routes would be improved as a result.

The project could easily divert funding from elsewhere in the network if the cost over-runs are not controlled.
https://www.ft.com/content/27ab2f5c-a976-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04
Eye watering blank cheque by the look!

The same budget distributed more widely across the network could give a broad range of benefits to other routes.

The point about the cost is central.
Rising CapEx dilutes the business case as presented. The payback period is extended beyond the time assumed under the bid process.
The mechanism for evaluating public sector financial liabilities is undermined.

I take your point about the WCML. The whole process was inefficient. No need to repeat it though.

You did not answer my question about how much you think should be allocated, nor that which looked for evidence to support your claim.

Be a good lad and back up your claim......"go figure" is not a helpful response.

[Draytonian III]

One last question on this subject BST do you have any connection with the railway system in this country,because you seem to he skirting around the issue when it’s been raised before

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm sorry Albie, it's been really hot today and I'm too tired to deconstruct another one of you blunderbuss posts.

You seem to have major concerns on the principle of cost control on HS2. But you don't extend that to other potential projects.

You just wave away the experience of WCML where costs and timescales ballooned and the end product was, at best, marginal improvements (because improvements to existing infrastructure is always more difficult and more expensive than new build.)

You seem to buy into the Tory line that investment in capital infrastructure in one area inevitably means not investing in another (that's why they indefinitely shelved the electrification of the East Coast Mainline above Leicester, and the GWR past Cardiff.

So, if you'll excuse me, given that I've presented a lot of data here which is just being ignored, I'll pass on arguing with you over this until it's clear what you are actually arguing about.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Do you mean, when I said that I have zero connection with the rail industry, that I was skirting around the issues? Not really sure how much less skirting around I could be than that. But I'll say it again. I don't have any personal or professional involvement with the rail industry, other than using trains regularly and having a feeling of national shame at the state of our national transport infrastructure.

[Draytonian III]

For someone who has no connection with the rail industry you seem to be very well read on the subject

[BillyStubbsTears]

I read widely on a lot of subjects.