Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[nidave]

But we're not, are we? At the last election I don't recall any party demanding we vote for them and they will add 5p on our tax bill. Suicide if they did, yet everyone and their dog knows the NHS and social care is totally underfunded. I agree we should pay more and it should be ringfenced, but that won't win an election because we don't think of the situation we will be in if we reach old age.
So unless we decide that we pay for ourselves out of our own cash/house at that age then something has to give, and the increase of the HS2 costs should concentrate a few minds as to what is REALLY necessary. It's sad that we can't afford everything - but that's reality, and we will end up with a half-baked HS2 and a struggling care system and make the best of it.

We are in ageeement that we should be paying more however, scrapping HS2 does not mean there is money for other things like NHS and social care.

HS2 funding comes out of general taxation

I thought it was coming out of debt which is funded by government bonds - not general taxation

 

[Tetchytyke]

I thought it was coming out of debt which is funded by government bonds - not general taxation

And how are government bonds funded?

Hint: it's not Boris Johnson's Magic Money Tree.

(And it's certainly not revenue, given we sold our rights to HS1's revenue for £2bn when it cost £7bn to build!)

 

[quantinghome]

And how are government bonds funded?

(And it's certainly not revenue, given we sold our rights to HS1's revenue for £2bn when it cost £7bn to build!)

£2bn for a 30 year lease, then it reverts to government. Of course the wider economic benefits are of far greater importance than being able to generate a commercial rate of return from leasing the line operation (the latter is something that very few passenger railways in the world manage to achieve).

 

[PartyOperator]

And how are government bonds funded?

Hint: it's not Boris Johnson's Magic Money Tree.

(And it's certainly not revenue, given we sold our rights to HS1's revenue for £2bn when it cost £7bn to build!)

Through expected future GDP growth, which in real terms only needs to exceed about -1.5% for a 40-year gilt to be worth issuing at a nominal yield of 0.5% assuming inflation of 2%. As long as the government does not borrow so much that it causes consumer prices inflation to exceed acceptable levels (circa 2%) and it invests in projects having above-unity benefit to cost ratios, there are no definite limits. Look at how hard Japan has been trying to increase inflation with minimal success despite all manner of wall-spaffing on enormous infrastructure projects. Borrowing by a government that controls taxation and issues its own currency is nothing at all like household borrowing and the two should not be confused.

The limiting factor here is really the capacity of the construction sector to deliver work (and the associated construction sector inflation that occurs if stretched), not any limits on aggregate borrowing. Given the recent reduction in activity in the sector (civil engineering PMI has been below 50 for the last year or so, indicating contraction), there would appear to be scope for more public sector work. And in any case, this capacity is relatively flexible in the long term so shouldn't constrain multi-decade projects if they are worth doing otherwise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clearly we ought to go with awkward middle seats rather than mucking about with awkward stairs to get the bonus capacity boost, when we go with captive trains. That is, if we want that additional bit of capacity on top of that already added, rather than use the captive trains' larger size to provide more comfort instead.

There will be no captive trains to start with, a uniform fleet is easier. Therefore, they'll look a bit like a Eurostar E300, or a fancy 80x or something. Captive trains won't need considering until we get to the second generation of stock.

 

[si404]

The extra capacity is primarily a result of improvements in design and the shrinking of the electronic sand mechanical fits.
The power cars on the Horizon are going to be substantially shorter than on a traditional TGV thanks to the advances in technology.

A TGV Duplex is a 90s design, 30 years is a long time in technology.

Even the Ouigo layout surrenders the lower deck below what would have traditionally have been the buffet car for "technical areas".
Those are apparently no longer required with the more modern design.
And the reduction in length of the power cars is a major deal

Hence why I used the 740 people train you used as an exemplar, not the one with fewer seats than a hypothetical 8-car Class 80x! I was pointing out that you were picking up a decent modern train and making the best case you could.

I'm rather confused about why we care what the end car carries?
The end car has to be present either way.

So you can know how I came up with my figure of 600. Sure it doesn't matter whether there's a bouncy castle, or a kitchen, or bike racks, or whatever. What matters is that even wasting space on a single-deck train, double-decking doesn't offer that much more seating.

I'd imagine that the Horizon number would include some space given over to on-board facilities beyond toilets, even if Ouigo (a specifically low-cost product) replaces those spaces with seat. I think it fairer comparison to take out some space for such facilities.

The better way to do this is to go to the seating plan provided by the LNER.

Why LNER's layout, and not the GWR one I described? It doesn't matter, but it just strikes me like you are trying to nitpick a fight for the sake of it rather than actually address the meat of my argument.

So in an all second class configuration we end up at about 640 seats.
So about what I said to start with.

Sure, will go with an even lower seat increase from adding a double deck! What is wrong with single deck trains if they can hold 85% of your exemplar high-capacity double-deck high speed train?

Given how you've decided to go into nitpicking rather than clearly answer when the percentage was 80%, I don't hold much hope for any better argument when the percentage is 85% making it harder?

'Facilities and Services' are entirely worthless.
The journeys are far too short, beyond toilets all that matters is seats seats seats seats.

OK, fine. I don't know why you are rejecting the stuff I'm putting on the single-deck train to reduce the amount of seats and make your argument for double-decker trains stronger, but whatever. If you want to shoot your own foot, go for it!

And do we even need toilets, given how Class 345s (Reading-Shenfield is 20 minutes longer than London-Leeds), S stock (Chesham will be as far away from Euston as Manchester Interchange), etc don't have them?

Luggage racks are a thing too you know, and electrical equipment cabinets and the likes tend to fill those spaces.

Sure, and why can't they do that on the staircase from mezzanine down? If it's, say 4 steps down from a mezzanine and that space is dead, that space under the bottom 4 steps on a staircase to the top deck would be just as dead on a bottom-loading bi-level train!

And you want people to climb from their 915mm height platforms in these places into a 1200mm height train?

No. Never said 1200mm was the way to go, just that the low platforms (which suddenly become double-deck trains rather than low platforms, moving the goal posts in a failed attempt to have a convincing argument) that you want aren't the capacity improvement you said they were.

Why do people on the bottom deck have to go up to the top deck?
A bit fraction of the seating is on the bottom deck, if the disabled toilet is on the bottom deck then there is no need for them to go upstairs.

Then why do they have to leave the vestibule on mezzanine double-deckers if the seats and toilets are there (maybe at the ends of the train, akin to Class 80x layouts. After all, you're going to need more technical/electrical stuff there - which can go under and over the mezzanine)? You were rightly annoyed about the possibility of them being stuck in some allotted area when it was a bi-mode with high-platform level access...

The Horizon press releases talk about the train's autonomous accessibility for disabled passengers including fancy lifting platforms in each carriage (this video shows one being used to go down from the door to the bottom floor. Yes your exemplar double-decker makes everyone boarding/alighting use steps/lifts, just as you don't want!). Surely, 10+ years later (2032) we'd have similarly good stuff on this double-deck train you want to have on HS2 - if not better. Accessibility should be to as much as possible, not some allocated area.

Because 3+2 and double deck are not mutually exclusive are they?

Sure they aren't, but who would want to spend 49 minutes in such cramped conditions, let alone 81 minutes? Do we really need to sacrifice comfort that much to eke out every last drop of capacity when we're doubling it on captive corridors as a base level?

There's clearly a reason why even suburban bi-levels in Europe don't do 3+2 seating (the examples I found were all Asian).

I know outer-suburban 3+2 have narrower seats than a captive stock 3+2 would have, but people get off, the trains empty and so you don't have to sit in the middle seat the whole journey. You are going to be in that middle seat for some time on HS2 - far more than London Commuters would tolerate.

Outer-suburban services are slowly getting rid of their 3+2 seating. In part as you can fit more on standing (don't get ideas! ) and the trains need the capacity boost, but mostly as people would rather stand for 20 minutes than sit in a middle seat for that long!

But lets say we assume both double-decking (which you have as 15%) and 3+2ing yield 20% increases. Doing both gives 44% increase over doing neither. Given we're already roughly doubling capacity on captive lines by roughly doubling train length, do we really need to make it a near tripling from the get go?

 

[Tetchytyke]

£2bn for a 30 year lease, then it reverts to government.

Just in time for us to pay for a major mid-life refurbishment!

As long as the government does not borrow so much that it causes consumer prices inflation to exceed acceptable levels (circa 2%) and it invests in projects having above-unity benefit to cost ratios, there are no definite limits.

The BCR is a thorn in HS2's side, but that's by the by.

Government borrowing isn't like household borrowing, I quite agree, but the bonds still have to be repaid. As you say, inflation does some of this, but it is also general taxation that pays.

 

[Noddy]

Think it's worth digging this up from 2012 http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/39261/heathrow-connection-included-in-hs2-plans

So the cost is, what, triple the first estimate??
How much could half the current estimate improve what we already have (and add new lines) and scrap HS2 altogether? Example, I believe (sorry, no link) the the National Grid will be decommissioning the Woodhead Tunnel (has anyone further details??) so that line could be re-opened linking the NW to S.Yorks, east midlands etc?
I was all in favour of HS2 in 2012 - might still be in favour if it linked directly to Heathrow/Gatwick/Eurotunnel but it won't so now dead against. Just too expensive and considering we have millions of elderly needing care.....

I’ve no doubt costs have risen significantly since 2012. But check out how badly written and unclear the article is:

It introduces the controversial project and says it is set to cost £32B. It then says Justine Greening has given the go-ahead for the line between London and Birmingham. So is the £32B for this?

It then says [Greening] ‘said further extensions were planned’ and goes on to say how the network will eventually link London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester and have direct links to Heathrow and HS1 (also described as ‘planned’). So are all these planned extensions included in the £32B as well? At this stage as Greening has not given them the go ahead and in fact the Heathrow link has apparently only just been announced given the headline of the article. But in the piece there is no announcement or discussion of extra money to cover this. So presumably the planned lines are excluded from the £32B which has the go ahead?

The article then quotes Greening saying “it will form a foundation for a potentially wider network in the years to come’. But it’s unclear if she’s referring to Phase 1 which she’s just green lit here, or a much wider network beyond those announced as ‘planned’. So going back to the £32B - what exactly was it for? Because even in 2012 it was pretty clear £32 billion wouldn’t get you the green lit (Phase 1) and all planned routes (Phase 2, HS1-HS2 link, Heathrow link), given where the Crossrail budget was in 2012. But it would get you the green lit Phase 1.


Regardless of how much the budget has grown it’s easy to see how badly promoted it’s been, given that piece was probably lifted directly from a press release written by either HS2 Ltd or the government.

 

[si404]

There will be no captive trains to start with, a uniform fleet is easier. Therefore, they'll look a bit like a Eurostar E300, or a fancy 80x or something. Captive trains won't need considering until we get to the second generation of stock.

Absolutely!

Why have a microfleet (especially before phase 2b opens) of double-decker captive comfortless trains as HSTEd wants and get a near tripling of capacity vs today when a rough doubling from running 400m classic-compatible trains instead of ~200m trains* would more than suffice for a good long while!

*Aventi's new electric Class 80x (presumably that number will be given, given its the same family as the others) trains for London-Birmingham will be 7-car and thus less than 200m.

 

[class26]

Think it's worth digging this up from 2012 http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/39261/heathrow-connection-included-in-hs2-plans

So the cost is, what, triple the first estimate??
How much could half the current estimate improve what we already have (and add new lines) and scrap HS2 altogether? Example, I believe (sorry, no link) the the National Grid will be decommissioning the Woodhead Tunnel (has anyone further details??) so that line could be re-opened linking the NW to S.Yorks, east midlands etc?
I was all in favour of HS2 in 2012 - might still be in favour if it linked directly to Heathrow/Gatwick/Eurotunnel but it won't so now dead against. Just too expensive and considering we have millions of elderly needing care.....

No, that`s for stage one only. It says "further extensions are planned "

 

[class26]

Think it's worth digging this up from 2012 http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/39261/heathrow-connection-included-in-hs2-plans

So the cost is, what, triple the first estimate??
How much could half the current estimate improve what we already have (and add new lines) and scrap HS2 altogether? Example, I believe (sorry, no link) the the National Grid will be decommissioning the Woodhead Tunnel (has anyone further details??) so that line could be re-opened linking the NW to S.Yorks, east midlands etc?
I was all in favour of HS2 in 2012 - might still be in favour if it linked directly to Heathrow/Gatwick/Eurotunnel but it won't so now dead against. Just too expensive and considering we have millions of elderly needing care.....

Spending on infrastructure is a totally different thing to health spending. Infrastructure is permanent , it will last 200 years perhaps as we are still using railways built almost 200 years ago;. 100 b over 200 years is a complete bargain. 100 b isn`t even 1 years NHS spending
Infrastructure facilities the economy which then generates the cash for the NHS. You really must see this differently

 

[Noddy]

No, that`s for stage one only. It says "further extensions are planned "

In which case £32B (2012 prices) just for Phase 1 compared with £106B (2019 prices) for Phase 1 and Phase 2 doesn’t seem too bad, especially considering all the extra tunnelling that’s been required.

 

[The Ham]

Rubbish - where is your source for this?
Edit: there is a graph that proves you wrong with spending on the railways so far, I just can't find it at the moment.

You mean this graph from the Network Rail accounts showing that enhancement spending had grown year on year for 9 years then had had as fairly small drop of £0.3bn in the last year.

Net subsidy for the railways has hovered around £5bn a year for a while before HS2. It's now £6bn a year- but that includes £2bn a year for HS2.

So, unless my maths are very much out, that's a 20% cut in subsidy for non-HS2 rail.

Source:
https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-does-government-subsidise-railways/

Prior to HS2 spending there was about £1bn a year being spent on Crossrail, as such there's not been a cut in spending, even if there had been the above table shows that it's not been to enhancements.

This is because the amount of support for the TOC's has generally fallen of late, again other than in the last year where it's gone back up a bit. However that's due in part to strikes.

 

[The Ham]

You've asked every passenger, especially those who prefer to fly into Heathrow and out again rather than take the train and trail across London? Or those who fly to the near-continent rather than have a split train journey? Fair enough if you have!!

The problem with a direct link is that you'd only be able to run fairly few services across it in any given hour. That means that even places like Manchester would have maybe 3 trains a day. That's fine if they go when you'd like, but if they don't (say they run at 6am, 12 noon and 6pm and you'd like to go between 8am and 10am) then you'll have to change trains anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely!

Why have a microfleet (especially before phase 2b opens) of double-decker captive comfortless trains as HSTEd wants and get a near tripling of capacity vs today when a rough doubling from running 400m classic-compatible trains instead of ~200m trains* would more than suffice for a good long while!

*Aventi's new electric Class 80x (presumably that number will be given, given its the same family as the others) trains for London-Birmingham will be 7-car and thus less than 200m.

And even when the other phases are built and dedicated stock makes sense, why have it as a cramped all-Standard 3+2 cattlewagon just because it'll be used on the Birmingham service as well as the other longer ones?

I would rather see a quality operation with an interior like the ICE (indeed, the whole train like an ICE). If they're 400m long there will be tons of capacity even with 2+1 armchairs.

 

[Howardh]

The problem with a direct link is that you'd only be able to run fairly few services across it in any given hour. That means that even places like Manchester would have maybe 3 trains a day. That's fine if they go when you'd like, but if they don't (say they run at 6am, 12 noon and 6pm and you'd like to go between 8am and 10am) then you'll have to change trains anyway.

or fly....

 

[The Ham]

or fly....

Indeed, there's no certainty that having direct services would make much difference.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the above table shows that it's not been to enhancements.

The above table shows total investment has decreased since 2013/14, when HS2 hove into view. Renewal is as important, if not more so, than enhancement.

Add it to what Full Fact said, and it's looking like I'm pretty accurate: HS2 is swallowing up the money, just as Crossrail is doing in London (PS not sure NR's contribution is £1bn a year to Crossrail as their total contribution is under £3bn)

 

[The Ham]

The above table shows total investment has decreased since 2013/14, when HS2 hove into view. Renewal is as important, if not more so, than enhancement.

Add it to what Full Fact said, and it's looking like I'm pretty accurate: HS2 is swallowing up the money, just as Crossrail is doing in London (PS not sure NR's contribution is £1bn a year to Crossrail as their total contribution is under £3bn)

Renewals are nearly totally covered by the operation of the railways, the fact that there was a big spike in renewals in 2013/14 before falling back to a level which was more typical doesn't mean that we are under investing in renewals.

Anyway even if HS2 was the reason behind the drop, it was £0.5bn and not the £1bn which you cited. This drop her been reversed so that the total in now broadly the same as it was, however HS2 spending had gone up from £0.47bn to £2bn. If HS2 was swallowing up the spending then surely this amount would have gone down more.

Whilst Network Rail funded £3bn of Crossrail, the overall government support of Railways is a different figure and includes all rail support. This means that it includes money other than just that spent by Network Rail. As such it's possible for Network Rail to spend a lot less in a year than the £1bn which was given in government support to Crossrail. Given that I went on to talk about support given to TOC's and it was in response to a post about overall spending it was fairly clear that I was no longer talking about just Network Rail spending.

 

[TrafficEng]

The problem with a direct link is that you'd only be able to run fairly few services across it in any given hour....

That assumes having a direct link to Heathrow isn't achieved by routeing HS2 via Heathrow anyway. Rather than having the first stop at OOC it could have been Heathrow itself.

Indeed, one of the reasons we are talking about HS2 at all is because the government of the day had a real problem dealing with the tricky problem of Heathrow expansion. One of the solutions proposed was a rail hub near Heathrow connected to HS1. The intention being that people would take the train to continental Europe rather than flying - meaning that Heathrow would only cater for 'good' air travel in future.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Indeed, there's no certainty that having direct services would make much difference.

Unless I'm mistaken, one of the benefits claimed for HS2 is that it will encourage people to travel by rail rather than air for domestic journeys.

Should your post be read as meaning there is no certainty HS2 will reduce air travel, even if a direct rail service is provided? (which it won't be)

 

[The Ham]

That assumes having a direct link to Heathrow isn't achieved by routeing HS2 via Heathrow anyway. Rather than having the first stop at OOC it could have been Heathrow itself.

Indeed, one of the reasons we are talking about HS2 at all is because the government of the day had a real problem dealing with the tricky problem of Heathrow expansion. One of the solutions proposed was a rail hub near Heathrow connected to HS1. The intention being that people would take the train to continental Europe rather than flying - meaning that Heathrow would only cater for 'good' air travel in future.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Whilst it would be possible to have Heathrow rather than Old Oak Common as the first stop there would be many problems with doing so.

Firstly you'd need to build an underground station with less (if any) surface level access, this would make it harder and therefore more expensive. You would also have to deal with the existing underground infrastructure.

Next, whilst Heathrow is a significant attraction point (currently) you wouldn't have the ability to interchange with other rail services as much as at Old Oak Common which is likely to attract more people to use HS2 than going via Heathrow.

You would attract a lot more people to travel between the first 2 stops but probably wouldn't get as many joining at Heathrow to then head north. Whilst Old Oak Common will attract more people from the GWML corridor as well as significat numbers from the SWR area without being reliant on the Southern Approach to Heathrow (although that would only increase numbers and it's unlikely to be materially influenced by being at Old Oak Common over being at Heathrow).

Unless I'm mistaken, one of the benefits claimed for HS2 is that it will encourage people to travel by rail rather than air for domestic journeys.

Should your post be read as meaning there is no certainty HS2 will reduce air travel, even if a direct rail service is provided? (which it won't be)

My post was on response to the matter of through trains to HS1, and how such a link is unlikely to have a significant impact on the numbers traveling by train rather than flying. In that direct trains from (say) Manchester to HS1 would probably be fairly infrequent.

As such the chances of the direct train going when you want to travel is fairly small (even then chances are it wouldn't be a direct train to where you wish to go in Europe) as such for quite a few journeys many people would need to change trains anyway.

Someone then suggested that the alternative is that they would fly, given that's what they are doing currently then the impact is no different. However there's little certainty that even with a direct link that they would switch from international flying to going by train.

Just going back to the point about needing to change trains to get where they are going in Europe, there's likely to be people who (even with a more difficult change in London) would prefer changing at a UK based station where the announcements and signage is all in English.

In an unrelated note, in still awaiting your response to how on a Macro level public transport is worse than car/aircraft travel, as asked in this post:

Whilst flying can be a useful way of transporting people it's hardly an efficient way of traveling for the vast majority of travel which would be undertaken by those using HS2.

However even where there's an engineering heavy solution (like for instance the Channel Tunnel) these trends to be for fairly short distances and so given that rail passengers have a lower carbon footprint than flying (especially those on electric traction) then the overall impact is still lower.

Anyway there's a LOT of concrete needed to build an airport including the taxiways, runways, aircraft stands, buildings, etc.



In the meantime trains will produce less and less emissions as the energy grid gets greener. We do not really have the luxury of of waiting for aircraft to get worse before they get better.

Just to get back to levels of emissions from UK international aviation seen in 1990 we'd need to halve emissions from it. If that's not possible we'd have to cut by 1/4 emissions from road travel just so that those two combined went back to the 1990 level, even if there was no increase in flying and no worsening of emissions.



Whilst it's true that the individual vehicles in question are more efficient when traveling that is not how you measure efficiency.

Even if it was then it's still not taken into account the emissions from construction of the vehicle and the infrastructure to move those vehicles.

Whilst a fleet of buses will produce more emissions than 5 cars when carrying 5 people, it is rare that is ever the case. As such you need to look at average vehicle loadings to see how is the best way for people to travel around.

On average then a train is better than a bus and a bus is better than a car. Yes you'll be able to find some journeys where the opposite may be true, for instance the train returning to a depot. However those are small inefficiencies are more than offset by the times that there are buses and trains carrying more people than there are seats.



A single wind farm is hardly likely to make a dent in the capability of the grid to keep the trains running and the lights on.

Whilst recovering power from charged batteries will help smooth out peaks and troughs in power generation is going to have a limit on what can be recovered.

You'd be better off building more pumped hydro power stations (like Dinorwig) which allows you to pump water to a reservoir when there's excess power being generated and then generate power when there's a shortage of power.

The storage capacity of Dinorwig is 9.1GWh.

Compare this to the storage capacity of a Tesla battery of 100kwh.

That would mean you'd need to take back 5% of a full charge of 1,820,000 cars just to have the same amount of energy.

That's getting in for 7.5% of all cars on the road being able to give back 5% of their charge compared to 1 power station.

If there were 10 such power stations then to be able to draw on that much power would require about 75% of every car on the road to be able to give up 5% of their charge.

Increase it to 20 such power stations and you'd be looking at 75% of cars needing to give up 10% of their charge. Now that's fine if it's overnight, but during the rush hour then very few of those cars will be plugged in.



However nature is more easily able to deal with metal particles than rubber. In fact there's an argument that by putting iron filings into the oceans that it would increase the ability for then to absorb CO2 emissions. (Again Google is your friend).

Now whilst steel isn't iron it is made from it and so, although likely to be less effective than iron the outcome would likely be the same.

However trains are designed to run long distances without breaking and mostly manage to do so, especially compared to cars where they will have to show down or stop for other traffic or due to infrastructure layout quite a lot.

Now whilst the brakes of a train have to do more work than a car, again it comes down to the number of people being carried for the weight. However, probably more importantly it also comes down to how hard the brakes are used. Trains show down much more slowly than cars, mostly because drivers of trains know where they are stopping and so can drive accordingly.

As such the problem of brake dust is a much smaller issue for rail travel than it is for car travel



OK then, using science from a Transport Planner to a Highway Engineer (who has picked up a lot of knowledge of Transport Planning due to working in small companies where the boundaries between the job roles are very fuzzy and so has been tasked with undertaking most tasks on both sides of the fence, in fact struggles to understand where the fence actual is at times), please explain to me how car travel can be a more efficient method of travel at a macro level when there's more reliance on public transport.

I can see how on some journeys car travel could be better, however even then for many of those it would be better to walk or cycle. However, when viewed from the perception of trying to reduce our overall carbon emissions it is generally better for people to use public transport than the private motor car, especially for the 85% of the population who live in urban areas (settlements with a population of over 10,000).

 

[nidave]

You mean this graph from the Network Rail accounts showing that enhancement spending had grown year on year for 9 years then had had as fairly small drop of £0.3bn in the last year.

View attachment 73211



Prior to HS2 spending there was about £1bn a year being spent on Crossrail, as such there's not been a cut in spending, even if there had been the above table shows that it's not been to enhancements.

This is because the amount of support for the TOC's has generally fallen of late, again other than in the last year where it's gone back up a bit. However that's due in part to strikes.

Thats the one - thanks

 

[nidave]

The above table shows total investment has decreased since 2013/14, when HS2 hove into view. Renewal is as important, if not more so, than enhancement.

Add it to what Full Fact said, and it's looking like I'm pretty accurate: HS2 is swallowing up the money, just as Crossrail is doing in London (PS not sure NR's contribution is £1bn a year to Crossrail as their total contribution is under £3bn)

Its not taking money away from investment or renewals. Its additional spending.

 

[mmh]

It's looking quite possible that a decision will be announced tomorrow, after Johnson said at PMQs this afternoon that a final decision will be made tomorrow and announced to the house "imminently."

I think the chances are greater than not, as the timing (whenever it turns out to actually be!) will have been considered in a political strategy, and damage limitation, context.

Tory MPs are split on HS2. Some will be unhappy whatever the outcome. An announcement tomorrow would put it in the news and papers on "Brexit Day", a variation of burying news day - announce it at a time where it'll be massive news packaged up with another massive event which isn't really news, but will dominate it.

Also it would fall a day after the Northern franchise announcement, not surprising news to any of us, but a fig leaf of sorts to HS2 supporting MPs and Tory voters should the decision be a significant alteration or cancellation.

We shall have to wait and see.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's looking quite possible that a decision will be announced tomorrow, after Johnson said at PMQs this afternoon that a final decision will be made tomorrow and announced to the house "imminently."

I think the chances are greater than not, as the timing (whenever it turns out to actually be!) will have been considered in a political strategy, and damage limitation, context.

Tory MPs are split on HS2. Some will be unhappy whatever the outcome. An announcement tomorrow would put it in the news and papers on "Brexit Day", a variation of burying news day - announce it at a time where it'll be massive news packaged up with another massive event which isn't really news, but will dominate it.

Also it would fall a day after the Northern franchise announcement, not surprising news to any of us, but a fig leaf of sorts to HS2 supporting MPs and Tory voters should the decision be a significant alteration or cancellation.

We shall have to wait and see.

Grant Shapps was interviewed earlier today by Radio 4, and he said "next month" for an HS2 decision.
Said he had asked Okervee for more detail in certain areas to help decision-making.
"Next month" is Monday of course, or even Saturday....

 

[tasky]

The Financial Times, which is usually right, is reporting that the Chancellor has thrown his weight behind HS2

https://www.ft.com/content/3194a87e-42c6-11ea-a43a-c4b328d9061c

Sajid Javid will on Thursday throw his support behind the £88bn High Speed 2 rail scheme, in a decisive intervention which makes it almost certain the project will go ahead.

The chancellor of the exchequer has pored over Treasury analysis of the project in recent weeks and will argue at a crunch meeting in Downing Street that HS2 remains an essential part of the government’s mission to boost the midlands and north of England.

Boris Johnson, who has already said that his “instinct” is to proceed with the project, now has the backing of the Treasury — provided HS2 is subject to new savings from its spiralling budget, according to officials. Mr Johnson is holding talks with Mr Javid and transport secretary Grant Shapps on Thursday with an announcement expected within days over whether to move forward with the project.

Although some officials insisted the final decision would not be made at the meeting others said it would effectively decide the fate of the project. Mr Javid has been depicted in recent days as one of the more sceptical cabinet ministers about the scheme, not least after the FT revealed that an official review had suggested that the budget could rise as high as £106bn. But one ally said the chancellor had decided to support HS2 after concluding that the possible alternatives did not stack up.

“The chancellor, having looked at the numbers and strategic alternatives going into the meeting, is supportive of HS2,” the person said. “He’s looked closely at this in recent weeks, given the increase in the budget. But he will go into the meeting in a supportive mood.”

 

[TrafficEng]

Whilst it would be possible to have Heathrow rather than Old Oak Common as the first stop there would be many problems with doing so.
Firstly you'd need to build an underground station with less (if any) surface level access, this would make it harder and therefore more expensive. You would also have to deal with the existing underground infrastructure.

OOC is also proposed to be underground station with limited surface level access. Road wise (for construction) it is far harder to get to than a site near Heathrow.

It sounds like you are suggesting a Heathrow HS2 station would need to be somewhere within the airport perimeter. In fact there is a greenfield location approx 500m from the airport perimeter and roughly 2km from each of the two main terminal buildings. (for comparison the distance from T2 to T5 is approx 2.5km)

I'm not advocating that a HS2 station should be built here, just pointing out that the perceived problem (construction type/access/cost) is not necessarily a real one.

Next, whilst Heathrow is a significant attraction point (currently) you wouldn't have the ability to interchange with other rail services as much as at Old Oak Common which is likely to attract more people to use HS2 than going via Heathrow.

If OOC is considered adequate as an interchange for people to get to Heathrow for onward travel, then why wouldn't Heathrow be an adequate interchange for people to get to OOC for onward travel?

If the problem is the need to co-locate Crossrail and HS2 stations then the site mentioned above might feasibly incorporate a Crossrail station as well (e.g. the line looping from T5 around to the HS2 station and then onwards onto the Heathrow spur and London)

Again, not advocating this as a scheme. Just with a blank canvas and £100bn other solutions might be better value for money and meet more objectives than was anticipated a decade ago.

You would attract a lot more people to travel between the first 2 stops but probably wouldn't get as many joining at Heathrow to then head north.

This comes down to deciding what the objectives of HS2 are. If the intention is to provide a realistic alternative to people using domestic air travel to access the Heathrow hub then an easy connection at Heathrow should be a priority. If there is no interest in achieving that kind of modal shift then the potential for connections at OOC may well be more valuable. The problem we have is the lack of clarity on what HS2 is trying to achieve, other than building additional capacity for some undefined purpose.

My post was on response to the matter of through trains to HS1, and how such a link is unlikely to have a significant impact on the numbers traveling by train rather than flying. In that direct trains from (say) Manchester to HS1 would probably be fairly infrequent.

Ok, it seems there is some confusion. I understood 'direct link' to be about an HS2 stop at Heathrow. See Howardh's post #4764.

Just going back to the point about needing to change trains to get where they are going in Europe, there's likely to be people who (even with a more difficult change in London) would prefer changing at a UK based station where the announcements and signage is all in English.

Stratford International presumably has signs in English. Or Ashford perhaps? But I'm sure people would be able to cope with bilingual signs wherever they are.

In an unrelated note, in still awaiting your response to how on a Macro level public transport is worse than car/aircraft travel, as asked in this post:

Apologies, I didn't see the question in there with everything else. I will respond to that point separately when I get time.

 

[MackemPacer]

Tomorrow there is a 'Live Transport Questions' session from 09:30 to 10:30, I wonder if this will provide the oppourtunity for an announcement? For those interested, it is transmitted on the BBC Parliament channel. (232 on Freeview[/QUOTE]

 

[MarkyT]

OOC is also proposed to be underground station with limited surface level access. Road wise (for construction) it is far harder to get to than a site near Heathrow.

It sounds like you are suggesting a Heathrow HS2 station would need to be somewhere within the airport perimeter. In fact there is a greenfield location approx 500m from the airport perimeter and roughly 2km from each of the two main terminal buildings. (for comparison the distance from T2 to T5 is approx 2.5km)

I'm not advocating that a HS2 station should be built here, just pointing out that the perceived problem (construction type/access/cost) is not necessarily a real one.

OOC platforms may be beneath the surface, but are being built in a vast open trench which will then be partly covered by passenger facilities above I understand, like Stratford International, and other commercial developments. I suspect HS2 will leave sufficient air gaps in the development above so it will not legally have to be classified as an 'underground station'. You're quite right a similar station might be possible to place somewhere much nearer Heathrow airport itself, but in both cases some kind of transfer to each terminal is required, and OOC will have that in the form of Elizabeth line and HEX which will serve all terminals directly. A wiggle route via Heathrow would add significant extra mileage towards Birmingham. For road traffic accessing HS2, I would have thought it would not be advisable to attract this into the already very busy road network surrounding Heathrow. OOC is reasonably well connected to west London's local road network, if not the South East's in general, for which encouraging connections by train via Central London or Old Oak would be more beneficial instead.

 

[Bald Rick]

OOC is also proposed to be underground station with limited surface level access. Road wise (for construction) it is far harder to get to than a site near Heathrow.

It sounds like you are suggesting a Heathrow HS2 station would need to be somewhere within the airport perimeter. In fact there is a greenfield location approx 500m from the airport perimeter and roughly 2km from each of the two main terminal buildings. (for comparison the distance from T2 to T5 is approx 2.5km).

There’s below ground and underground. OOC is the former. A station at, or near, LHR would need to be the latter.

I’m not sure where this prospective greenfield site is, but the only greenfield site that I can see matches that description is well within the future airport perimeter for Runway 3. (And there# 4 ma8n terminal buildings, of course; three of which ar3 very much intended to remain for the long term).

For what it’s worth I was very much an advocate of routing HS2 via, or near LHR, ie near enough such that a dedicated, very frequent shuttle link between the air terminals and a ‘Terminal R’ would make the station feel part of the airport.

But then I saw the numbers, and it really isn’t worth it. The time disbenefit for the 95%+ of passengers on the line who wouldn’t be using Heathrow for going via Heathrow would vastly than outweigh any time saving for those who would benefit. And that’s before the extra cost - because a station at LHR would be a LOT more expensive than that at OOC. And OOC will offer many more connections, and has huge regeneration potential. Definitely the right choice.