High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

LNW-GW Joint · 16 May 2013

New documents on HS2 Phase 1 have been published by DfT:

a) Environmental Satement http://www.hs2.org.uk/draft-environmental-statement/document-library
b) Consultation on route Design Refinements: http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/Design Refinement Consultation - Complete.pdf

The latter includes changes to the Calvert depot, the North London HS1 connection and the Lichfield WCML connection, among others.

RailUK Forums

tbtc · 16 May 2013

YorkshireBear said:
Labour said it was a wake up call for the government??? You mean progressing with your exact idea. Morons of the highest idea, i am sick of politicians using railways for political gain.

You could easily account 1000 different ways, funny the BBC only pick the negative ones.

jonmorris0844 said:
I know. I am always amazed how Labour is so willing to attack ideas that IT came up with. I know all politicians do this, but I do actually seem to recall that in the past, the Tories in opposition did appear to support a lot of what Labour planned, and said so.

It's as if the current Labour government has been told to attack, attack, attack regardless and don't even know when they're making themselves look stupid.

I can only conclude that Labour knows the Tories are being seen as evil for imposing cuts and making hard decisions, so it's very easy to keep bashing to ensure people to continue to believe the Tories are the 'Nasty Party' and now totally unable to get anything right.

Labour is never asked by sections of the press 'well what would you do?' and can therefore get away with it easily. If anyone said to them 'But wasn't HS2 your idea? What would you have done differently? How would you have financed it?' then we might see some more balanced reporting

I agree with both of you.

I was a fan of Labour's plan at their last party conference for a proper long term review of infrastructure - they promised that Sir John Armitt (chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority) had agreed to conduct an independent review into the long-term infrastructure needs of the country.

That sounded brilliant - a serious approach to the kind of structural decisions that no Government wants to "bite the bullet" on. Projects like HS2 can't be completed within one parliament, but if we don't tackle long term needs then we end up much worse off.

So for the Labour party to be taking the "must bash the Government at every opportunity" approach... its very frustrating. And I say this as someone who is generally closer to the "left" than to the "right". The Tories are coming out of this better.

jon0844 · 16 May 2013

Wow, BBC's One O'clock news has now got a reporter saying that HS2 will cost £1,000 for every taxpayer and that by the time it's opened, many will have retired.

So there you have it. We'll all be paying £1,000 (presumably in one single hit, rather than over time) and some of us won't even benefit. Who knows, many of these people might even be dead by the time it opens!

What sort of argument is that?

At least there was SOME attempt at balance by reporting that the Government has said that if you looked at figures alone, we wouldn't have had the M25, the M1 etc. And then some old man in Leeds saying 'waste of money' and a younger man saying 'great' to prove that there are mixed opinions.

tbtc · 16 May 2013

jonmorris0844 said:
Wow, BBC's One O'clock news has now got a reporter saying that HS2 will cost £1,000 for every taxpayer and that by the time it's opened, many will have retired.

So there you have it. We'll all be paying £1,000 (presumably in one single hit, rather than over time) and some of us won't even benefit. Who knows, many of these people might even be dead by the time it opens!

Are pensioners not going to be allowed on the HS2 services then?

And the cost (per taxpayer) £1,000 over the next twenty years? That's basically £1/ week. And we are only talking taxpayers (so kids aren't paying anything towards it)? Bargain!

(if we took this illogical argument to its conclusion then pensioners wouldn't pay for anything that would still be in operation after their death... how silly)

gordonthemoron · 16 May 2013

I wouldn't trust any news article which includes numbers, journalists aren't good at maths. I have a friend who is a financial journalist (with Dow Jones) and he's rubbish at sums, which he admits

jon0844 · 16 May 2013

tbtc said:
(if we took this illogical argument to its conclusion then pensioners wouldn't pay for anything that would still be in operation after their death... how silly)

Of course, but now people have got another way to attack HS2. I expect the anti-HS2 brigade will be well chuffed that they can now add '£1,000 for every taxpayer in the UK' as a new way to get support.

Many people really won't question that, or even work out that it isn't going to come directly out of their salary; they'll just repeat it.

YorkshireBear · 16 May 2013

LNW-GW Joint said:
New documents on HS2 Phase 1 have been published by DfT:

a) Environmental Satement http://www.hs2.org.uk/draft-environmental-statement/document-library
b) Consultation on route Design Refinements: http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/Design Refinement Consultation - Complete.pdf

The latter includes changes to the Calvert depot, the North London HS1 connection and the Lichfield WCML connection, among others.

The new option for HS1 link doesn't look an awful lot better. But ensuring it can take 3tph is a good step.

anthony263 · 16 May 2013

Pete Waterman Is on BBC News defending HS2. Too be honest he does make a good point especially his points about future growth

HSTEd · 16 May 2013

Frankly anything more than a single track line is horrendous gold plating anyway.

Everyone loves to go on about how we will have through services to the continent but a far more likely result is that the line will be used primarily to allow empty moves of trainsets to works on the continent and to allow the 'Iris 320' set access to HS2.

There is little demand and effectively no capacity.

WatcherZero · 16 May 2013

tbtc said:
I agree with both of you.

I was a fan of Labour's plan at their last party conference for a proper long term review of infrastructure - they promised that Sir John Armitt (chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority) had agreed to conduct an independent review into the long-term infrastructure needs of the country.

That sounded brilliant - a serious approach to the kind of structural decisions that no Government wants to "bite the bullet" on. Projects like HS2 can't be completed within one parliament, but if we don't tackle long term needs then we end up much worse off.

So for the Labour party to be taking the "must bash the Government at every opportunity" approach... its very frustrating. And I say this as someone who is generally closer to the "left" than to the "right". The Tories are coming out of this better.

Its not so much intentional party bashing as individuals, Maria Eagle shadow transport is in favour of HS2 but she is trying hard to get the Labour Partys official position to be renationalisation much to my dismay.

Brunel · 17 May 2013

Personally I think it is a damn shame they will not be rebuilding Euston. The most hideous looking main line station in London without doubt. Didn't think it was possible to design a more unwelcoming station than Euston. Missed opportunity!

jon0844 · 17 May 2013

I am sure it could be done up quite considerably to give it a fresher look though.

The Ham · 17 May 2013

Looking through the full report by the NAO:
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Full-Report.pdf

There are a few intresting points, for instance on Page 30 (32 of the PDF) it has a comparason of the costs and benefits of the various rail packages.

Firstly (using the figures provided) a converntional line is costed at £12bn (with total benefits of 4.4) compared with HS2 (phase 1) cost of £13.8bn (with total benefits of 9.8) or over double the benefit for 15% more cost.

Secondly, although the improvement costs options on the WCML are fairly cheap in comparision to HS2 the cost of doing this as well as improvemetns to the MML and the ECML were costed at £9.7bn (with total benefits of 5.9) compared with the HS2 (phase 1 and 2) of £25.7 (with total benefits of 37.9), or 6.42 times the benefit for just over 2.65 times the cost.

Thic could mean that if HS2 is not built, then the cost to undertake the required improvements to the all the lines could be fairly costs to the tax payer with a lot less in way of return.

Also although the NOA report was critical on growth of rail passengers, saying:

The strategic case contains evidence of general growth in rail travel but has limitedevidence on where, and by how much, increases in capacity are needed on the West Coast Main Line.

However they appear to agree (at least in pricipal) with the sort of passenger numbers that could be expected in future years saying:

Our (NOA's) analysis of West Coast Main Line forecasts shows that, without intervention, it is suburban services arriving at London Euston that will become most crowded (Figure 4). A new line would release capacity for extra commuter services as most intercity services would transfer.

Manchester77 · 17 May 2013

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22551178

Quantifying the benefits of HS2
By Ed Lowther
BBC News

The UK's existing high-speed train service is the most reliable rail link in Europe, a spokesman said
The creation of a high-speed rail line from London to the north of England will produce quantifiable benefits to society, the government believes.

It has put this figure at £48.2bn for the whole project - significantly higher than its estimate of the cost, which is £25.7bn.

But critics have questioned the assumptions underlying the estimate of likely benefits.

So how did the government arrive at this sum?

YorkshireBear · 17 May 2013

A well reasoned report from BBC with some journalists defending the government decisions, surprisingly.

LE Greys · 17 May 2013

The Ham said:
Looking through the full report by the NAO:
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Full-Report.pdf

There are a few intresting points, for instance on Page 30 (32 of the PDF) it has a comparason of the costs and benefits of the various rail packages.

Firstly (using the figures provided) a converntional line is costed at £12bn (with total benefits of 4.4) compared with HS2 (phase 1) cost of £13.8bn (with total benefits of 9.8) or over double the benefit for 15% more cost.

Secondly, although the improvement costs options on the WCML are fairly cheap in comparision to HS2 the cost of doing this as well as improvemetns to the MML and the ECML were costed at £9.7bn (with total benefits of 5.9) compared with the HS2 (phase 1 and 2) of £25.7 (with total benefits of 37.9), or 6.42 times the benefit for just over 2.65 times the cost.

Thic could mean that if HS2 is not built, then the cost to undertake the required improvements to the all the lines could be fairly costs to the tax payer with a lot less in way of return.

Also although the NOA report was critical on growth of rail passengers, saying:

The strategic case contains evidence of general growth in rail travel but has limited evidence on where, and by how much, increases in capacity are needed on the West Coast Main Line.

Click to expand...

However they appear to agree (at least in pricipal) with the sort of passenger numbers that could be expected in future years saying:

Our (NOA's) analysis of West Coast Main Line forecasts shows that, without intervention, it is suburban services arriving at London Euston that will become most crowded (Figure 4). A new line would release capacity for extra commuter services as most intercity services would transfer.

Click to expand...

How very interesting. I would have preferred that they go into more specifics about the negative effects of not improving a rail service (what will happen to Doncaster's economy for instance) but on the whole, I agree with what they are saying. The questions I always ask about costs and benefits, is 'For whom?'. How much of that 37.9-billion will reached North Herts, and how much of the 5.9-billion would have?

The one area where more analysis is definitely needed is precisely where the passengers will be coming from. I tend to take the approach that the inter-city portion of a journey has to be considered as part of a whole rather than an end in itself (which I think is what your first quote was getting at). Figure 4 does indicate greater suburban growth, which rather suggests that the WCML might end up choked off at its southern end (I wish it had given a breakdown by station, including how many had arrived at New Steet or Coventry by connecting services) so the case for sextupling the WCML is very good, at least for the people living along the WCML.

Brunel · 19 May 2013

jonmorris0844 said:
I am sure it could be done up quite considerably to give it a fresher look though.

I do hope so

LNW-GW Joint · 19 May 2013

LE Greys said:
so the case for sextupling the WCML is very good, at least for the people living along the WCML.

One of the starting points for HS2 was the DfT view that they would "never again" contemplate rebuilding an exisiting main line, after the shambles of WCRM.
That gave us 10 years of massive disruption and zero growth, for only a modest return for the spend (and still without good reliability).

Philip Elliott · 19 May 2013

LNW-GW Joint said:
One of the starting points for HS2 was the DfT view that they would "never again" contemplate rebuilding an exisiting main line, after the shambles of WCRM.
That gave us 10 years of massive disruption and zero growth, for only a modest return for the spend (and still without good reliability).

Well apart from the £5bn GWML modernisation, the L&M and TP North rebuilds... :lol:

Most of the actual 'upgrade' works of the WCRM took place during 2006-08 and for less than £1bn (TV4, Rugby, MK)

Chris125 · 19 May 2013

Brunel said:
Personally I think it is a damn shame they will not be rebuilding Euston. The most hideous looking main line station in London without doubt. Didn't think it was possible to design a more unwelcoming station than Euston. Missed opportunity!

They aren't proposing to leave the present station untouched, just concentrate the major work on the concourse and refurbish the platforms instead. It's detailed in the ES report, page 38.

Euston station conventional rail

2.5.56 Refurbishment and reconfiguration of the conventional rail part of the station would take place once the high speed station concourse becomes available to accommodate passengers from the conventional station. This would permit removal of the remaining first floor and ground level facilities in the western part of the station concourse.

2.5.57 In the eastern part of the existing station concourse, the existing building structure would be removed to ground level. A new roof and walls would be built for the conventional station concourse. An improved station entrance would be built on Eversholt Street, which would require relocation of the existing boiler house.

2.5.58 In the basement, work would include strengthening of the existing structure, with additional foundations where required, and the construction of passages to connect to the underground station.

2.5.59 Modification of the thirteen platforms that would be retained in the conventional part of the station is likely to be completed during the enabling works. The platform access ramps would be modified and a new separating wall would be constructed between the high speed and conventional platforms, with modifications to the existing roof and drainage.

2.5.60 The parcel deck spans the north end of the platforms at Euston Station. The parcel deck would be demolished west of a line of columns running along the centre of platforms 14/15 and subsequently reconstructed on the eastern edge of the high speed station. The existing ramps that allow vehicle entry and exit, via Barnby Street and Cardington Street respectively, would both be demolished, along with the existing vehicle ramp from Barnby Street to Platforms 2 and 3. A new vehicle access would be established connected to the east-west link road.

2.5.61 There would be close co-ordination of the works in the existing station, in the new high speed section of the station and to the Euston underground. In particular, the flow of passengers between main line and underground trains would be rerouted on a number of occasions to allow works to progress. One example would be when the existing main escalators into the existing ticket hall would close (about six years from the start of construction works). A second example would be when the passage ways would be available between the ends of conventional platforms and the underground station (after about eight years). Completion of the conventional station, including refurbishment of the concourse, would be concurrent with the commencement of high speed services.

Chris

jon0844 · 20 May 2013

Today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/high-speed-broadband-not-hs2

The Guardian said:
Let's forget HS2 and invest in high-speed broadband instead
The government should kill its absurd rail plan and lay an optical fibre network – it's cheaper and would be the ultimate economic boost

Interesting logic, and clearly by an author (Charles Arthur) who is very tech minded, and very in with Apple and Google, so perhaps a little biased.

Thing is, I work from home and it's not for everyone. Even I am wondering how long it might be before I seek to go back to working in an office, if only for the social contact.

Sure, we communicate with each other via Skype and much, or most, of what I can do is perfectly done from home - but I really can't see home working EVER being the norm, not least because major employers won't trust their staff.

Even where I work, there's a feeling amongst management that some people aren't doing much when they're not being 'watched' - and this is a company where just about everyone works from home, so far more open minded than most.

(Personally, as someone into tech, I'd say we need to be rolling out a high-speed broadband network as well as see no link between HS2 and improving our means of communication via phone/net).

HSTEd · 20 May 2013

Yes, that article has rather interesting logic, which one again constitutes a one dimensional attack on HS2.
Fibre optic broadband will never constitute a replacement for decent transport infrastructure, especially as businesses are failing to move to a "work from home" model on mass simply because monitoring staff is proving incredibly difficult.

The Ham · 20 May 2013

jonmorris0844 said:
Today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/high-speed-broadband-not-hs2

Interesting logic, and clearly by an author (Charles Arthur) who is very tech minded, and very in with Apple and Google, so perhaps a little biased.

Thing is, I work from home and it's not for everyone. Even I am wondering how long it might be before I seek to go back to working in an office, if only for the social contact.

Sure, we communicate with each other via Skype and much, or most, of what I can do is perfectly done from home - but I really can't see home working EVER being the norm, not least because major employers won't trust their staff.

Even where I work, there's a feeling amongst management that some people aren't doing much when they're not being 'watched' - and this is a company where just about everyone works from home, so far more open minded than most.

(Personally, as someone into tech, I'd say we need to be rolling out a high-speed broadband network as well as see no link between HS2 and improving our means of communication via phone/net).

Interestingly Yahoo is ending teleworking:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/02/25/working-at-home-popular/1946575/

Yahoo says it must end the practice of working at home to foster collaboration. Others who telecommute cite the benefits but say success depends on the type of work.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Almost 10% of U.S. workers do their jobs from home at least one day a week, so news that tech giant Yahoo will end the practice in June surprised many.

and it goes on to say:

Overall, companies have found that working from home full time doesn't work as well as working at least one or two days a week in the office, Horn says. That seems to be necessary to keep the lines of communication "open and strong and to maintain relationships within the organization".

Even if everyone who uses the WCML to commute to work then only worked 2 days a week it would reduce peak hour rail passenger numbers by up to 60% (assuming everyone travelling in the peak hours are going to work, have a job which they can do from home, have suitable space to work at home, etc.). However I would suggest that the off peak demand would hardly be impacted by such a scheme.

Anyway isn't HS2 mostly about longer distance travel and therefore teleworking would have little impact on it anyway.

jon0844 · 20 May 2013

The lack of face to face communication a semi-regular basis definitely has issues, if only because it can mean relatively simply things can take a lot longer to get done because you don't know where people are, and can't expect an instant response to an email or Skype IM, so it might take a few hours just to get 'yeah, no problem' compared to just asking someone on the same floor or in the same building.

I do think a lot more people can work from home than do now, but not everyone and not without the acceptance that nobody should ONLY work from home. That's why I am also a big supporter of smartcard ticketing for travel to allow flexible working hours (ie. flexible season tickets) for those who might only travel a few days a week, but do so in the peak and on a regular basis to deserve a discount, but not a normal weekly/monthly/annual ticket.

Barclay · 20 May 2013

If anyone in North London is interested, Lord Berkeley is holding a meeting to discuss his "Euston Cross" station proposal at 6.30pm tonight. It's at Cecil Sharp House, just North of Regent's Park.

tbtc · 20 May 2013

If this Forum was around ten or fifteen years ago then we'd have been having the same arguments about how this newfangled modern communication would mean a huge decrease in long distance/ business travel. And look at how train travel has increased over that time.

The Ham · 20 May 2013

tbtc said:
If this Forum was around ten or fifteen years ago then we'd have been having the same arguments about how this newfangled modern communication would mean a huge decrease in long distance/ business travel. And look at how train travel has increased over that time.

Quite, there is the argument that because of good internet we can keep friendships going for a lot longer after people move away and so we then spend more time travelling to see our friends than if we could previously as it was harder (note I am not saying that it wasn't possible, just harder) to maintain friendships with those who had moved away.

LE Greys · 21 May 2013

Philip Elliott said:
Well apart from the £5bn GWML modernisation, the L&M and TP North rebuilds...

Most of the actual 'upgrade' works of the WCRM took place during 2006-08 and for less than £1bn (TV4, Rugby, MK)

And of course let's remember that HS2 is almost close enough to the WCML that it counts as part of the same route. It will certainly require at least one major WCML rebuild (Euston) and several junction rebuilds (Trent Valley connection, etc.).

LNW-GW Joint · 21 May 2013

Philip Elliott said:
Well apart from the £5bn GWML modernisation, the L&M and TP North rebuilds...
Most of the actual 'upgrade' works of the WCRM took place during 2006-08 and for less than £1bn (TV4, Rugby, MK)

You must have fogotten the long list of botched WCRM projects before 2005.
"Rebuilds" in the WCML sense means replacing track, signalling and OHLE at the same time plus loads of remodelling and new systems.
None of your examples do all of that. L&M and TP are barely touching track and signalling. I don't think GW track will change much.

The nearest project to WCRM is the GEML rebuild (rewiring, resignalling) which has also gone on for years and is deeply unpopular.
Before long the ECML will require rebuilding - and that won't be easy either.
The comparison made (by Andrew Adonis I think) was that as a project HS1 was virtually painless, while WCRM was a nightmare (operationally, economically, politically).

And the GW project has hardly started.

LE Greys · 21 May 2013

LNW-GW Joint said:
You must have fogotten the long list of botched WCRM projects before 2005.
"Rebuilds" in the WCML sense means replacing track, signalling and OHLE at the same time plus loads of remodelling and new systems.
None of your examples do all of that. L&M and TP are barely touching track and signalling. I don't think GW track will change much.

The nearest project to WCRM is the GEML rebuild (rewiring, resignalling) which has also gone on for years and is deeply unpopular.
Before long the ECML will require rebuilding - and that won't be easy either.
The comparison made (by Andrew Adonis I think) was that as a project HS1 was virtually painless, while WCRM was a nightmare (operationally, economically, politically).

And the GW project has hardly started.

And when the ECML is done, it will be a like-for-like replacement without any speed increases and with only minimal capacity tweaks. Lots of pain and no gain, despite the new bridge at Newark being specified for 140 mph. :roll:

High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member