High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Deerfold]

...and for the last time the trains are not full!

Which ones?

My morning peak Leeds to London ones are - and noticeably fuller than when I started using them.

 

[YorkshireBear]

This is laughable argument. I'm constantly coming up against pro hs2 people who try and argue that the real cost is only £42bn, as its not fair to lump in the cost of the trains to hs2.
What a ludicrous statement. So a train line with no trains eh? That'll make it an even bigger White elephant.
The £80bn would be far better spent on the Nhs, giving Britain a first world broadband network, upgrading our eexisting road and rail infrastructure, instead of plowing it all into one train line that by the time it opens, the average man in the street won't afford.
This only has cross party support because mps themselves, or their mate's or close relatives will be getting stinking rich from 'consultancy' fees on this project.


The countryside is the greatest gift we will take away from our children if we continue this relentless battle to concrete it all over.
Things like hs2 make me very sad.

Now its just sad liz. Come back when you want to ask some questions that are relevant and dont involve emotive speeches and lies.

 

[RichW1]

I do not even understand why there is the discussion regarding HS2. It's very simple...it has to happen. Status quo or where we are now but get worse overcrowding still with a rising population is no contest. My recent (and numerous) trips on the ECML and WCML makes this clear as day. I might add the Pendolino's are a rough ride too unlike with high speed routes with one purpose but that is not the issue - capacity is. Got that Liz...capacity, which upgrading existing lines will not deliver in anything like the same efficiency as a high speed line. I should also point out as many of us have, that this IS NOT A DIVERSION OF FUNDS from the classic railway but an addition to. Also, railways have never made money - they are a factor of production. They facilitate economic activity and are not economic activity themselves (although many will be employed on it and skills gained rather than drifting away to be employed in other countries).

Liz's were around when railways were first being built but you wouldn't be without them now. I might add though that it's a very southern argument from those that are against it (and I'm southern from London). If we want economic growth we have to move people and goods across the country efficiently.

The no's don't talk to the freight operators at all I notice. Neither do they ask the the people in Edinburgh or Glasgow when it comes to their journey times which are unacceptable (understatement) or those in Aberdeen for whom taking a train is not an option at all to go south when the same distance in all other western European countries could quite easily be done by train.

The no's of this country are weak, weak in vision, weak when the big bold decisions have to be made and weak in their grasp of history and economics. Thank goodness these people are not in charge of the country so much or we'd all still be working with bare feet and cold water!

It is depressing the BANANA lobby in this country. No wonder it takes ages to get things done and the hypocrisy is these same people go abroad and say how great all these things are in other people's countries!! It makes me so mad the small minded little England attitude that did not build Britain. Can you imagine for all their faults, what this country would have been if the Georgians and Victorians thought like that?! Nowhere! Our ancestors would be disgusted by the lack of backbone and ambition of all the 'no' people in this country from railways to power stations, from airports to skyscrapers. Imagine the new world for all (unique in Europe) if we just said a simple word more often...yes!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Why not?

The capacity of the line is not significantly decreased by running fast.

Meanwhile running fast reduces the number of trainsets required significantly.

Hang on a minute! I don't have problem with HS2 running at speeds in excess of 186 mph, in fact its only the reduced journey times that have got the North on board in the first place!

And what £50bn cost?
Its not really fair to include the cost of the rolling stock unless you plan to have the Pendolinos continue to serve a long time after 2033, which would make them even older tha the HSTs will be when they finally head to the scrapline.

An 11-car Pendolino with ~595 seats costs something approaching £28m at current quoted prices for such vehicles.
A TGV Duplex that has 545 seats costs something like €20m.

Given that it would be impossible to use Captive stock anywhere else on the network they have to be added to the cost of building HS2. On the other hand Pendolinos could run all over the network and so their cost is not specific to the WCML.

 

[HowardGWR]

Given that it would be impossible to use Captive stock anywhere else on the network they have to be added to the cost of building HS2. On the other hand Pendolinos could run all over the network and so their cost is not specific to the WCML.

No that's not right. When doing COBA one does not add in the cost of the vehicles. For instance when justifying a new road the vehicles are deemed to be provided by the user. So the fact that captive stock can only run on HS lines is not relevant since that is an issue for the instances that will run on it.

The benefits are calculated in time savings accruing to pax, not in profits made by the operators of the captive (or CC) stock.

It's the same for all transport COBA exercises.

Thus it is also irrelevant that some people will never travel on HS2. That's the way public investment works. I've never travelled from Stansted Airport and it is unlikely I ever will. I still have, as taxpayer, to contribute to related infrastructure though, as we all do.

 

[RichmondCommu]

No that's not right. When doing COBA one does not add in the cost of the vehicles. For instance when justifying a new road the vehicles are deemed to be provided by the user. So the fact that captive stock can only run on HS lines is not relevant since that is an issue for the instances that will run on it.

The benefits are calculated in time savings accruing to pax, not in profits made by the operators of the captive (or CC) stock.

It's the same for all transport COBA exercises.

Thus it is also irrelevant that some people will never travel on HS2. That's the way public investment works. I've never travelled from Stansted Airport and it is unlikely I ever will. I still have, as taxpayer, to contribute to related infrastructure though, as we all do.

So are you suggesting that the rolling stock that is ordered for HS2 will not be funded by the Government?

 

[edwin_m]

No that's not right. When doing COBA one does not add in the cost of the vehicles. For instance when justifying a new road the vehicles are deemed to be provided by the user. So the fact that captive stock can only run on HS lines is not relevant since that is an issue for the instances that will run on it.

The benefits are calculated in time savings accruing to pax, not in profits made by the operators of the captive (or CC) stock.

The costs of rail vehicles needed on a project are included in cost benefit analysis, usually by including a leasing cost in the operating cost. However the cost of doing the project is always compared with the cost of not doing it, which will include continuing to provide trains to carry the pasesngers on the classic network.

In the case of HS2 the rolling stock will be largely additional to the existing fleet, because most existing trains will continue to run for passengers not using HS2 and new passengers attracted by the extra capacity on the classic network. If the CBA is done properly then these should all be taken into account.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that it would be impossible to use Captive stock anywhere else on the network they have to be added to the cost of building HS2. On the other hand Pendolinos could run all over the network and so their cost is not specific to the WCML.

A seat that will be occupied by a Manchester-London passenger on a TGV Duplex means a seat not occupied on the classic line.

Urgo Class 390 capacity is replaced by HS2 Capacity.

You may not like the idea but that is how it works.

 

[WessexEclectic]

The no's of this country are weak, weak in vision, weak when the big bold decisions have to be made and weak in their grasp of history and economics. Thank goodness these people are not in charge of the country so much or we'd all still be working with bare feet and cold water!

Need I remind you that those who are 'in charge' of the country have let a situation develop whereby individuals and businesses have a hobson's choice of either paying through the nose and with an arm and a leg for electricity or accepting power cuts. Bad decisions that have been made going back a decade or more.

Some of those who voice concerns are a little tired of having to live with the effects of those decisions.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius.

 

[Moonshot]

Need I remind you that those who are 'in charge' of the country have let a situation develop whereby individuals and businesses have a hobson's choice of either paying through the nose and with an arm and a leg for electricity or accepting power cuts. Bad decisions that have been made going back a decade or more.

Some of those who voice concerns are a little tired of having to live with the effects of those decisions.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius.

Are you saying that Utilities should be state owned and never been privatised in the first place then?

 

[HowardGWR]

So are you suggesting that the rolling stock that is ordered for HS2 will not be funded by the Government?

I'm saying it's irrelevant to the COBA. Actually, I suppose it will be funded by the banks via the ROSCOS as normal. So what?

 

[WatcherZero]

Indeed most likely the Government will strike a deal for the rolling stock and leave the operator to pay the annual leasing costs.

 

[Moonshot]

Unless the operator is offered the carrot of, say. a 25 year franchise....in which case buying outright may be an option. The corpoate structure of HS2 is certainly geared up for such a move that way should it so wish......in fact privatising the whole shooting match is a distinct possibilty on completion !!

 

[Muzer]

Are you saying that Utilities should be state owned and never been privatised in the first place then?

I'm guessing he's suggesting (like I would) that we need more power stations to satisfy the demand (especially future demand) in power. We also need to invest more in fusion power so we can finally have clean, cheap abundant energy.

 

[Moonshot]

And the funding for more power stations provided by .....who?

 

[deltic]

The costs of rail vehicles needed on a project are included in cost benefit analysis, usually by including a leasing cost in the operating cost. However the cost of doing the project is always compared with the cost of not doing it, which will include continuing to provide trains to carry the pasesngers on the classic network.

In the case of HS2 the rolling stock will be largely additional to the existing fleet, because most existing trains will continue to run for passengers not using HS2 and new passengers attracted by the extra capacity on the classic network. If the CBA is done properly then these should all be taken into account.

Yes you are correct - the economic case ie the CBA for HS2 includes the cost of rolling stock

 

[RichmondCommu]

A seat that will be occupied by a Manchester-London passenger on a TGV Duplex means a seat not occupied on the classic line.

In which case the need to increase capacity goes out of the window! The argument for building HS2 is to improve capacity on the WCML so there is no reason at all why the number of trains should reduce. I'm surprised that you appear to be struggling to understand this.

Urgo Class 390 capacity is replaced by HS2 Capacity.

You may not like the idea but that is how it works.

Attempting to put words into other people’s mouths will never do you any favors or reinforce your argument. Providing the same level of service is maintained between Manchester and for example Milton Keynes then it doesn't really matter what train operates the service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm saying it's irrelevant to the COBA. Actually, I suppose it will be funded by the banks via the ROSCOS as normal. So what?

It appears that your knowledge of the principles of CBA is rather limited. The cost of providing the rolling stock has been included in the CBA and quite rightly so.

 

[HSTEd]

In which case the need to increase capacity goes out of the window! The argument for building HS2 is to improve capacity on the WCML so there is no reason at all why the number of trains should reduce. I'm surprised that you appear to be struggling to understand this.

Improve capacity using trains which are rather cheaper to purchase than Pendolinos?
A twelve car Cl350 costs something like £18m, not nigh on £30m to purchase a Pendolino with less capacity would.
Additional

Attempting to put words into other people’s mouths will never do you any favors or reinforce your argument. Providing the same level of service is maintained between Manchester and for example Milton Keynes then it doesn't really matter what train operates the service.

First, define 'level of service'?
Is this is terms of numbers of trains per hour or in seats per hour?

If end to end passengers are removed the number of seats per hour that have to be delivered along that stopping pattern to ensure that the number of seats per hour available for MKC to MAN traffic remains the same.
In this case it is likely that one train per hour along the Manchester-Stoke-Euston axis would be sufficient.
Additionally it is likely that it would be formed of cheaper to purchase and operate stock than Pendolinos.

Instead of spending on enough 11-car Pendolinos to maintain 2 trains per hour at 2hr08 to get that many seats on the axis you have to spend on ~9-cars of Class 444 derivative at ~2hr30.

That requires something like 8 11-car Pendos and 5 9-car Class 444 derivatives, with a purchase price of £220m in the first case and £67.5m in the second case.

Even if we include the ~£18m 2 brand new TGV Duplex trainsets which will carry the passengers of the other Pendo rake (and far more than that in actuality thanks to the shorter journy time) the HS2 rolling stock option comes out at £103.5m, which is less than half the cost of the equivalent Pendolinos.

One path is saved on the WCML, we save a £116.5m on rolling stock and the journey time to end to end passengers shrinks drastically.
The only 'losers' are the Manchester/Stockport - Intermediate flows which are only inconvenienced by a handful of minutes.

It appears that your knowledge of the principles of CBA is rather limited. The cost of providing the rolling stock has been included in the CBA and quite rightly so.

And I expect that the CBAs of all HS2 alternatives will include rolling stock.

But I doubt they will.

 

[The Decapod]

Surely the £50-odd billion earmarked for the HS2 white elephant vanity project would be better invested in getting a significant proportion of long-distance freight off the roads and back onto existing railways. Think what could be done in that direction with £50 billion in terms of freight terminals, new locos and rolling stock, new connecting spurs here and there (as at Ipswich), further electrification on top of the existing announcements, etc, etc. - and the public benefit would be much greater.

 

[joeykins82]

Any how is this road to rail shift for freight going to work given that there are no spare paths on the WCML? You've got 3 classes of passenger traffic (intercity, regional & fast commuter, metro & stopping commuter) as well as a sizeable amount of existing freight traffic. Northampton/MK/Leighton Buzzard/Hemel commuters will unanimously tell you that there needs to be more regional/fast commuter services, but there's no space on the fast lines for them to operate.

Building HS2 and investing in the existing rail network are not mutually exclusive, there are huge synergies available as the paths on the existing network are freed up by the transfer of the majority of intercity services on to HS2. If anything, if we don't build HS2 then we may as well just scrap investment in the existing lines because we'll never be able to keep up with the capacity demands.

 

[jon0844]

Surely the £50-odd billion earmarked for the HS2 white elephant vanity project would be better invested in getting a significant proportion of long-distance freight off the roads and back onto existing railways. Think what could be done in that direction with £50 billion in terms of freight terminals, new locos and rolling stock, new connecting spurs here and there (as at Ipswich), further electrification on top of the existing announcements, etc, etc. - and the public benefit would be much greater.

Firstly, you wouldn't get £50bn to spend as that's way more than for HS2.. but I do agree about wanting to get more freight (back) onto the railway.

Of course, you can't just build new terminals, rolling stock etc and expect all lorries to disappear as businesses presumably think road is cheaper, easier and more flexible - and even with a lot of work, freight by rail will still not be as nimble or flexible as a lorry.

Anyway, if you want to get more freight onto our railway - with trains doing between 50-75mph (my own assumption, apologies if they can go a lot faster) trying to mix with those doing 75-125 (and maybe one day 140mph with new signalling) then you'll be running out of paths pretty damn quick.

What you'd need to do is find a way to manage this.

Perhaps like building HS2 to move away all of the fast express trains, giving more paths for the freight?

It seems odd that you'd be against HS2. It, and other new lines, would be vital to have more freight running around on the railway.

 

[Geezertronic]

Surely the £50-odd billion earmarked for the HS2 white elephant vanity project....

I ignored the rest of your post after the three lies at the beginning of it...

 

[jon0844]

I ignored the rest of your post after the three lies at the beginning of it...

I replied because the initial comment totally contradicted the rest of the post. Wanting more freight on the railway would mean being in favour of HS2, and indeed more new railway construction.

But why would the Government be asked to pay for something primarily for freight? Surely the haulage industry would be expected to pay - and would they want to do this on their own, with a long time to break even (if at all, given there's no guarantee that everyone would use the services even if they existed).

 

[Geezertronic]

I replied because the initial comment totally contradicted the rest of the post. Wanting more freight on the railway would mean being in favour of HS2, and indeed more new railway construction.

But why would the Government be asked to pay for something primarily for freight? Surely the haulage industry would be expected to pay - and would they want to do this on their own, with a long time to break even (if at all, given there's no guarantee that everyone would use the services even if they existed).

tbh I didn't read past the part I quoted. IMO that sort of inaccurate and false posting belongs on stophs2.org and other anti-HS2 sites where posting facts does not come into the equation. Despite the length of this thread, people still want to quote the wrong cost and spout the usual emotive nonsense which quite frankly ridicules the rest of their post. Shame because most of this thread is full of reasoned debate and discussion, but I guess every village has one (or maybe multiple in the case of on the HS2 route)

Oh god, I've sunk to their level...

 

[jon0844]

Even arguing that the WCML should get upgraded instead doesn't make sense if it's to enable trains to run faster there - given one big anti-HS2 argument is that speed=bad (for the environment).

It only serves to make you think it's purely about NIMBY.

I think the only thing that would convince me otherwise would have been for the anti-HS2 people to accept HS2 as a good idea, but argue the route and the specific damage to any area - and seek to resolve those issues. And then, afterwards, accept the project.

 

[HowardGWR]

If I was wrong about CBA I apologise. I was referring to my knowledge when they were building all the roads and then the CBA (Called COBA then) costed the difference between 'do something' (the proposed scheme) and 'do nothing' (literally that). In the case of HS2 that would, as HSTEd points out, not include the cost of stock because one would need the stock in any event to cope with the projected increased demand which was then projected according to CSO economic growth figures. The fact that the present 'do nothing' could probably not handle the extra trains would not come into it.

So I don't really understand why the captive stock depreciation cost has been included, if that is so, nor the running costs because they would be held to be the same. In fact the HS2 scenario would presumably be much cheaper than providing the equivalent number of pendolinos to handle the capacity.

I realise my knowledge is out of date. However, reading the above, hopefully colleagues will see what a tale of smoke and mirrors CBA is and my fundamental view is that these exercises are not worth the paper they are written on, a view held by Lord Heseltine, who has seen plenty of these CBAs in his time.

Let me leave you with one last thought. What monetary value would you put on the loss of countryside? No I can't either.

 

[jon0844]

Let me leave you with one last thought. What monetary value would you put on the loss of countryside? No I can't either.

What I don't understand is that a railway is better than a road (at least for now, as we might one day have super efficient electric vehicles in widespread use) and the amount of land used up is tiny.

Look at any satellite image on Google and railways are a miniscule percentage of land, and a really efficient use of that space compared to a road.

Of all the things we'll need to build in the future to keep up with growing population demands, I'd have thought new railway lines would be the easiest sell of all.

(And I'm not against building new roads either)

 

[Geezertronic]

It's not even as if HS2 would blight the countryside such as the anti protestors suggest.

I have a cousin who lives in Bugbrooke (Northamptonshire) and the village is soon to see the building of new build houses across a few fields next to the Rugby club. That IMO will cause a considerable amount of disruption both short term and long term to the village than having a railway line running though it (not that I am suggesting HS2 is going through Bugbrooke, just using it as an example), and this sort of thing is happening in most counties across the UK without the apparent media coverage and negativity that HS2 brings with it.

Do the councillors and developers put a price on the countryside in this instance? Obviously they do

 

[Trog]

Let me leave you with one last thought. What monetary value would you put on the loss of countryside? No I can't either.

Probably a similar amount to the value of the improvement to other parts of the countryside where there is a reduction in road traffic as less people are forced to use the roads due to the lack of rail capacity.

 

[HowardGWR]

Probably a similar amount to the value of the improvement to other parts of the countryside where there is a reduction in road traffic as less people are forced to use the roads due to the lack of rail capacity.

That's a good point and also good to read other people discussing the subject above. This is the sort of thing petitioners will have to give evidence about in their locality, but not of course on the principle of building the whole line, because that is to be decided in principle next Spring. After that, then, apart from if Balls withdraws funding (assuming he gets the chance), it will just be about the details in each locality.