• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

HS2 Review ongoing

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,027
If we tunnel then we have less opportunity to create the green corridor which happens alongside railway lines with embankments and cuttings. Due to the provision of noise bunds then HS2 is likely to better in this regard than the existing railways.

The other thing to consider is that concrete is very bad environmental, and you'd need a lot of it for the tunnel linings, which would increase the emissions for the construction of the project.

There's even the potential that HS2 would provide additional protection to the ancient woodland near to it, in that few would want to build close to it (few would want to own a house close to it). As such it could reduce the likelihood of development in the areas near it and so provide indirect protection.

As an example from a different area, if you lived in a village would you like to have a crematorium on your doorstep? Probably the initial answer is no. However given that you can't build it within set distances and no new development can be built within those same distances, then it protects that village from having extra houses being built. It also means that there's a large area of green space which is kept. As such there are benefits to having a crematorium.

Whilst I agree that there's much more which could be done to improve things in terms of the environment, in not sure that tunnels are the right thing to do.

Personally I think that the Woodland Trust missed a trick. They should have highlighted their concerns and then launched an appeal called "High Speed Tree" with the goal to buy up other ancient woodland and undertake tree planning around them. This would allow then to further mitigate against the impact of HS2 by enlarging ancient woodland and increasing the numbers of trees planted.

In addition they could have approached HS2 and asked if they could have been gifted any areas of ancient woodland which they purchased and didn't need with the view to improve things further.
That's not the point. Any greenfield or country land loss is unacceptable. If it was brownfield land mixed with tunnel, then that would be fine, but it isn't. To prevent loss of greenfield land, the railway should be built in tunnel. Former railway alignment however I would describe as brownfield land, so some of the ex-GCR parts of the current route around Calvert could stay,maybe as a break between two tunnels.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
Better switch off your computer to save some electricity. And don't buy another computer should yours break.

As it happens, I almost never buy anything until what I have becomes unusable/unmendable. Hence using a 10-year-old computer, 18-year-old bike, well-patched clothing, sharing a friend's TV, etc etc. It's perfectly possible to lead a lower-impact lifestyle without withdrawing from using technology completely! If this comment was serious, it shows a reluctance to accept the difference between large-scale and more environmentally destructive infrastructure (which often tends to exacerbate unfairness within society) and small-scale technology which (at least in theory, though of course it's not always the case*) can have only a small impact, and can help to improve fairness and equity in society. [*Which is one of the reasons I don't have a mobile phone.]
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
That's not the point. Any greenfield or country land loss is unacceptable. If it was brownfield land mixed with tunnel, then that would be fine, but it isn't. To prevent loss of greenfield land, the railway should be built in tunnel. Former railway alignment however I would describe as brownfield land, so some of the ex-GCR parts of the current route around Calvert could stay,maybe as a break between two tunnels.
Do you have a route alignment and budget for this? Does it offer the same BCR as the current HS2 plan? (Hint: no, and no)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Do you have a route alignment and budget for this? Does it offer the same BCR as the current HS2 plan? (Hint: no, and no)
Do you have a budget for HS2 that we can actually believe will be met?
(Hint no)
The BCR calcs for HS2 are entirely shot due to massive budget escalation, a slipping schedule and the changes in the rail industry since then. They need to be redone from scratch.

Also its not unreasonable that the costs would be generally comparable.
Hell building a new line in tunnel turned out to be cheaper than upgrading an existing, lightly used railway as was originally projected by HS2 (The NNML).

It's not unreasonable that boring tunnels would be similar order of magnitude costwise to the enormously complex process of laying a new surface railway line in the UK.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
That means reining in massive projects like HS2 and stopping most flying and car transport

But that isnt going to happen. The car and the plane, despite the eco fantasies of some here, aren't going to go away. Instead we should be working on ways to make them less damaging.

As it happens, I almost never buy anything until what I have becomes unusable/unmendable. Hence using a 10-year-old computer, 18-year-old bike, well-patched clothing, sharing a friend's TV, etc etc. It's perfectly possible to lead a lower-impact lifestyle without withdrawing from using technology completely

that is all well and good but if your tools don't allow you to do the work you need to do they need to be replaced. I had to buy a new computer recently because the graphic thingys weren't up to the standards required for my photographic work. And playing football manager.

I try to limit my impact by recycling, reducing plastic use etc and only replacing items when I have to rather than when I want to ( but in honesty that is because I am tight) but i am not going to live some kind of backwards existence to satisfy some greeny agenda. As said we need to focus on making the tools and equipment we have today less damaging rather than trying to stop people using them because they wont.

PS I could happily live without a TV mind ;)
 

Domeyhead

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2009
Messages
386
Location
The South
Hugely destructive, waste of money white elephant turns out to be a white elephant which is hugely destructive and a waste of money.

Well, I didn't see that one coming.

Any party which commits to binning HS2 off gets my vote.
How will you resolve the capacity crisis on the railway's main spine, and create enough spare capacity to double the freight carried on the "legacy" WCML around Birmingham? I guess I should also ask how you will incentivise the modal shift from domestic air travel onto rail.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
Do you have a budget for HS2 that we can actually believe will be met?
(Hint no)
You can choose not to believe any figure. I have a best-guess figure for you and it's £88bn.
The BCR calcs for HS2 are entirely shot due to massive budget escalation, a slipping schedule and the changes in the rail industry since then. They need to be redone from scratch.
I agree they need to be redone (and I think will be in the review?) - I strongly believe the slipping schedule and changes in industry will boost the benefit as the demand will be that much higher.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
I don't care about the cost of HS2 escalating. At least we get something for the money, which is more than can be said for all the money we're pissing against the wall in the name of Brexit.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
As it happens, I almost never buy anything until what I have becomes unusable/unmendable. Hence using a 10-year-old computer, 18-year-old bike, well-patched clothing, sharing a friend's TV, etc etc. It's perfectly possible to lead a lower-impact lifestyle without withdrawing from using technology completely! If this comment was serious, it shows a reluctance to accept the difference between large-scale and more environmentally destructive infrastructure (which often tends to exacerbate unfairness within society) and small-scale technology which (at least in theory, though of course it's not always the case*) can have only a small impact, and can help to improve fairness and equity in society. [*Which is one of the reasons I don't have a mobile phone.]
So how much energy does your 10 year old computer compare with a modern one that can do the same things at the same speed?
How much energy does your friend's (presumably old) TV use compared to a current model?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
... It's not unreasonable that boring tunnels would be similar order of magnitude costwise to the enormously complex process of laying a new surface railway line in the UK.
Especially if the line used 3rd rail power so the tunnel could be a much smaller bore. :)
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
But tunnelling the entire line would more likely increase costs when it’s not required, when they built HS1 they didn’t put the entire line in tunnel now!
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
the potential that HS2 would provide additional protection to the ancient woodland near to it
You know, of course, that HS2 destroys acres of ancient woodland, threatens historic trees and demolishes peoples houses.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
So how much energy does your 10 year old computer compare with a modern one that can do the same things at the same speed?
How much energy does your friend's (presumably old) TV use compared to a current model?

It's still better for the environment to keep using something old, than it is to replace it just for the sake of it. For a start, you reduce waste, and you don't consume the resources needed to manufacture the replacement.
 

RichT54

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2018
Messages
420
It's still better for the environment to keep using something old, than it is to replace it just for the sake of it. For a start, you reduce waste, and you don't consume the resources needed to manufacture the replacement.

Until the whole network ends up like the Island Line?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
It's still better for the environment to keep using something old, than it is to replace it just for the sake of it. For a start, you reduce waste, and you don't consume the resources needed to manufacture the replacement.
However if you are using less efficient equipment your increased energy use and it's impacts will eventually overtake the embedded impacts of the new equipment.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
It's still better for the environment to keep using something old, than it is to replace it just for the sake of it. For a start, you reduce waste, and you don't consume the resources needed to manufacture the replacement.
Only true to a degree, otherwise we would all be driving around in 1960's cars that managed 30 mpg.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
However if you are using less efficient equipment your increased energy use and it's impacts will eventually overtake the embedded impacts of the new equipment.
ON this I agree with you. If the 10 year old computer was just used as a general home office machine, it could be replaced with a modern, (and much cheaper) device that dissipated about 25% of the energy, despite the use of a much more modern operating system.
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
There was a debate in parliament today, here is the opening remarks from Shapps, and then you can follow the various questions from MPs. Seems quite balanced for and against and not much difference between Conservative and Labour in for / against.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-09-05/debates/832D1830-560C-483C-B6EB-3CA67C069B4D/HS2


There is no future in obscuring the cost benefits or timetable of HS2, so on 21 August I announced an independent cross-party review, led by Douglas Oakervee, of whether and how HS2 should or should not proceed. The review will consider the project’s affordability, deliverability, benefits, scope and phasing, including its relationship with Northern Powerhouse Rail. The chair will be supported by a deputy chair, Lord Berkeley, and a panel of experts from business, academia and transport to ensure that its assessment programme is independent, thorough and objective. Some of the individuals on the panel have been passionate advocates and others have been vocal critics of the project, but they will provide input to and be consulted on the report’s conclusions.



The review is under way and will report to me on time this autumn. I will discuss its findings with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and its recommendations will help to inform our decisions on the next step or otherwise for this project.



Colleagues will be aware that on our first day back, 3 September, I placed in the House advice that I received over the summer from the recently appointed chairman of HS2 Ltd, Allan Cook, on the cost and deliverability of the current scheme. He has said that he does not believe that the current scheme can be delivered within the budget of £55.7 billion, set at 2015 prices. He estimates that it requires a total budget, including contingency, in the range of £72 billion to £78 billion, again set at 2015 prices. The chairman does not believe that the current schedule of 2026 will be met for the initial services of phase 1. He does not think that that is realistic.



In line with lessons from other large major transport infrastructure projects, the chairman’s advice proposes a range of start dates rather than a specific one. He recommends 2028-31 for phase 1, starting with initial services between London Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street, followed by services to and from London Euston later. He expects phase 2b—the full high-speed line to Manchester and Leeds—to be open between 2035 and 2040.



The chairman is also of the view that the benefits of the current scheme are substantially undervalued. All those matters will now be considered by Douglas Oakervee within the scope of Oakervee review.



When I announced the independent review into HS2, I said that I want Doug Oakervee and his panel to assess independently the findings and other available existing evidence. The review will provide recommendations on whether and how we proceed.



I wish to make one further, wider point. Everyone in the House knows that we must invest in modern infrastructure to ensure the future prosperity of our nation. However, it is right that we subject every single project to the most rigorous scrutiny possible. If we are truly to maximise every opportunity, this must always be done with an open mind and a clean sheet of paper.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
You know, of course, that HS2 <...snip...> demolishes peoples houses.

After buying them first, with full defensible justification made in front of Parliament, compensation, and a number of years' notice.

I find debate is better when all facts are presented, not selective ones to try and be pseudo-emotional.
 

Grumpy

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2010
Messages
1,064
Do you have a budget for HS2 that we can actually believe will be met?
(Hint no)
The BCR calcs for HS2 are entirely shot due to massive budget escalation, a slipping schedule and the changes in the rail industry since then. They need to be redone from scratch.
A competent Project manager should be constantly reviewing and updating his project cost and timetable estimates, as well as keeping track of the potential project benefits. A competent Authorising body would be expecting regular updates. There should be no need to redo from scratch
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
You know, of course, that HS2 destroys acres of ancient woodland, threatens historic trees and demolishes peoples houses.

Ancient Woodland doesn't equal old trees, it's entirely possible to pass through an area of Ancient Woodland and not need to impact on a tree older than 5 years old, or even any trees at all. As Ancient Woodland is a definition of the land type not how old the trees are.

HS2 impacts on a small percentage of the amount of Ancient Woodland lost in the last 10 years, and although it would be preferable that it didn't the building of HS2 would be less disruptive than (for instance) building a motorway.

What is often overlooked is that the population of this country is due to grow by ~10% in the next ~15 years.

Therefore just to stand still in terms of congestion and emissions chances are that on average we'd all need to reduce our driving by ~10%.

As such there's probably going to be a need for some extra capacity. If you are providing extra capacity it's better to do so by means of rail capacity than road capacity.

Another thing which is overlooked, it is entirely possible to double rail use whilst only reduce road and air use by 5% and still see a reduction in overall travel.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
A competent Project manager should be constantly reviewing and updating his project cost and timetable estimates, as well as keeping track of the potential project benefits. A competent Authorising body would be expecting regular updates. There should be no need to redo from scratch

Agreed - but this is just another example of how people hold HS2 to completely different standards to rail projects that involve re-opening some ancient Victorian line.

People seem perfectly relaxed about kicking people out of their fifty year old houses built on the alignment of a line closed by Beeching but get their knickers in a twist about HS2 knocking down houses in Mexborough that haven't even been built yet (so it's not like forcing people to leave a property that has been owned by the family for generations).

Network Rail cut down thousands of line side trees each year (without much implant complaint on here), but woe betide HS2 cutting down a single tree ("ancient woodland" doesn't necessarily mean that all the trees are ancient, of course) - after all, nobody counts the number of trees that would have to be chopped if we re-opened some crayonista pipe-dream line in some empty bit of the country.

Every project is managed, re-assessed, updated... benefits and costs are re-calibrated "as at" different years... yet the fact that adding a decade to the year that HS2 costs are based "as at" adds a large sum to the defined "cost" is apparently headline news.

See also the way that we supposedly don't need HS2 because passenger numbers have peaked, we should spend it all on broadband, we should spend it all on hospitals, there's no benefit in providing faster journeys just to save people ten minutes... yet these things are never reasons not to re-open some other line.

I'm aware of HS2's flaws - it's not perfect - nothing of that size will ever be perfect - but you can tell that the opponents have got nothing because they aren't offering any alternatives (other than some "woo" about magic signals) and they are kicking HS2 for things they turn a blind eye to on other projects.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
I think this is a key aspect of this document for environmentalists:
The first phase of HST "is estimated to reduce emissions by 1.8 million tonnes CO2e over 60 years [sic] because of the expected reductions in car and air travel. This comfortably offsets the 1.2 million tonnes of embedded carbon that will result from construction of the line".
Even if, over a couple of generations, there's a clear net gain in carbon emissions, the severity of the crisis we face is such that we need to stop most carbon emissions now. We can't deal with the current situation by massive carbon-intensive developments which make matters even more dangerous in the short term despite the fact that they can balance the books decades down the line.

Similar arguments apply to other things which seem superficially to be helpful - like "offsetting" flights with investment into planting trees that will only soak up the damage caused by flying when it's all too late. If we face an emergency, then we have to do things that have a more immediate effect, and which don't make things even worse in the short term. That means reining in massive projects like HS2 and stopping most flying and car transport (amongst other things of course).

We need to significantly reduce ALL travel other than rail, bus, cycle and walking.

The reason that rail needs to have an increase is that without it you're going to struggle to get people to stop driving.

However I would go further, there's an argument that by increasing rail you could see people shift from air in ways which aren't just direct replacements (i.e. London to Edinburgh), but could see people changing where they are going (i.e. xxxxx to European City to xxxxx to UK City).

Why would people do that? Well if air taxes were increased significantly to make going on short city breaks (i.e. to the likes of Barcelona) unaffordable then you'll stop a lot of people from going on any city breaks. However several would still want to go and visit cities. If there's scope for them to do so "locally" (i.e. within the UK) by using rail then that's going to massively reduce emissions.

As not only do you reduce the emissions per mile compared to flying but you also reduce the number of miles traveled.

As an example someone living/working in Winchester visiting Manchester or the other way around, with HS2 they could leave home at 8am and be in their visiting city at about 10:30. With the return happening at 8pm for being home at 10:30. That's quite a long time in a city, however add an overnight stay and you'll probably be able to spend more time in the visiting city than if you fly out on a Friday and back again on the Sunday as the Friday night would be a write off, as would a fair chunk of the Sunday afternoon/evening. Especially as you'd typically have to spend several hours getting to/from home/work and the airport you are using.

By avoiding the need to stay over on a Friday night you can reduce your costs over those European city breaks, even without extra air taxes. As such those extra taxes may not need to be very much. However no one is going to do that if the journey time is circa 3:50 but they are much more likely to do so if it's circa 2:30 (or maybe even slightly less).
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
See also the way that we supposedly don't need HS2 because passenger numbers have peaked, we should spend it all on broadband, we should spend it all on hospitals, there's no benefit in providing faster journeys just to save people ten minutes... yet these things are never reasons not to re-open some other line.

There's a problem with most of these arguments, the evidence doesn't support the argument.

For instance passenger numbers continue to grow, they may, in percentage terms, be showing but they aren't falling.

However even in percentage terms doesn't mean that they are slowing in real terms.

5% of 100 is 5
4% of 125 is 5
3.34% of 150 is 5
2.86% of 175 is 5
2.5% of 200 is 5

The growth appears to be falling yet the actual growth seen is still the same.

Using 2009 as a base year with a figure of 100, 2018 is 170 on some key flows. That means that the rate of increase (in percentage terms) can be quite a bit lower but still see the number of new rail journeys added to the network.

Likewise the argument that there should be better broadband misses that £3million (that's a tiny fraction of the HS2 budget, which is so small it's less than 0.01%) has connected 100 communities to the fiber network by connecting the local schools. These schools now have 100mb/s connections Vs ~0.5mb/s with the potential to have 1,000mb/s if they wish to.

Only there's a problem with the scheme, the budget.

The £3 million hasn't been fully spent so they are looking for yet more schools to benefit.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-than-100-rural-schools-to-get-gigabit-speed-broadband

Based on the 100 schools the government could provide 100mb/s (probably even 1,000mb/s, but certainly more than the 100mv/s) fiber to every one of the 50,000 settlements in the UK for about £1.5bn. The problem is that many already have it and although several will be very remote and so their costs for connection would be much more, chances are you'd still have a LOT of HS2 budget left over to spend on something else. There's also no guarantee that it would reduce rail user.

In fact there's an argument which says, if I work in an office or makes sense for me to own a car as I have to drive it nearly every day. However if I work from home I rarely have to drive and so the justification for owning a car reduces. That may mean that as a household we have 1 car rather than 2, but we're not going to invest several thousand pounds in purchase costs as well as £500 to £1,000 a year in fixed costs when we could opt to pay for other travel options for a less money as the journeys we make are more ad-hoc.

That then result in an increase in bus and rail travel because of better broadband and working from home, not a reduction in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top