• 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.

tasky

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2018
Messages
381
High worth jobs could actually be attracted to the North, I'll explain why by using my work history as an example. I've never worked in London (i.e. within the M25), however my office had always been within a fairly short hop (typically up to an hour from central London by train). This means that those who needed to attend meeting in London could do so easily without the need to (and cost from their own pocket) travel into London every day. The companies that I work(ed) for are not unique in choosing this model. In that their costs are lower and often find it easier to recruit staff (who are also likely to accept lower pay by not needing to pay such high travel costs), especially for those lower grade staff (including admin staff). As such with Manchester being busy over an hour from London I wouldn't be surprised if you actually saw companies setting up officers Manchester to compete with companies within London.

Yes, this is accurate – London currently benefits from what's called an agglomeration effect – the previous decisions of other enterprises to locate there gives it an advantage when new enterprises are deciding where to locate. The effect this post describes sees HS2 undermining London's advantage by providing a better value option in other cities, where most of the benefits of the agglomeration effect can still be reaped.

The logical conclusions of some arguments to the contrary is that we should rip up the railways and roads between other cities and London because they are "sucking jobs" to the capital by providing faster journey times. It's a great way to make everyone poorer.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,784
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If the double deck TGVs from la Rochelle to Paris count, then I had a painful reminder of the presence of the rack in first class upstairs - twice... Don't lean forward to give something to someone sitting in the window- seat! They are clearly visible in the pictures on https://www.seat61.com/tgv.htm#TGV_Duplex

That looks horribly cramped and is a good advertisement for why double deck is a bad idea outside of the massive loading gauge the US uses...
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
That looks horribly cramped and is a good advertisement for why double deck is a bad idea outside of the massive loading gauge the US uses...

Appearances can be deceiving!

I’ve used such rolling stock in France, Germany, Belgium and Finland both InterCity, TGV and InterRegio all certainly not coming as cramp as you make out to be.

You are also forgetting that the Russian gauge as used in the former USSR and Finland is much wider then the standard UK gauge and that the US gauge is the same as the UK.

The only reason the US rolling stock is bigger is because the clearances are more.
 

civ-eng-jim

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
396
Location
Derby
You are also forgetting that the Russian gauge as used in the former USSR and Finland is much wider then the standard UK gauge and that the US gauge is the same as the UK.

The only reason the US rolling stock is bigger is because the clearances are more.

Loading gauge refers to the clearances around the track. This varies around the world for the same track gauge.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,179
Loading gauge refers to the clearances around the track. This varies around the world for the same track gauge.

Strictly speaking, Structure gauge refers to clearances around the track, whereas loading gauge refers to vehicle dimensions (now more accurately referred to as kinematic envelope).
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,602
The estimates for HS1 were adrift compared to predictions, however I would suggest that even if the predictions for HS2 start/end points were off by 25% it would still be 50/50, however the opposite could be true that it could be off the other way and so only be 30%. Anyway we are currently ahead of predictions, so even if the 40/60 predictions is off the actual numbers traveling to/from non London locations could be the same or higher.

High worth jobs could actually be attracted to the North, I'll explain why by using my work history as an example. I've never worked in London (i.e. within the M25), however my office had always been within a fairly short hop (typically up to an hour from central London by train). This means that those who needed to attend meeting in London could do so easily without the need to (and cost from their own pocket) travel into London every day. The companies that I work(ed) for are not unique in choosing this model. In that their costs are lower and often find it easier to recruit staff (who are also likely to accept lower pay by not needing to pay such high travel costs), especially for those lower grade staff (including admin staff). As such with Manchester being busy over an hour from London I wouldn't be surprised if you actually saw companies setting up officers Manchester to compete with companies within London.


... And how many director and executive jobs are in your (slightly) out of london offices? It is often found that there is something of a glass ceiling in terms of promotion to top jobs which are almost always in London. If the satellite offices are so much cheaper than London (they will be) why don't the company headquarters move to say Sheffield or Newcastle? The answer is the directors and execs don't want to exile themselves from the London job market and multiple directorships. In other words too difficult to network.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Strictly speaking, Structure gauge refers to clearances around the track, whereas loading gauge refers to vehicle dimensions (now more accurately referred to as kinematic envelope).

Indeed which is why using our friends from across the pond they have the same track gauge as we do eg standard gauge but can run bigger rolling stock as the structure gauge is more.

Have I understood that correctly @Bald Rick ???
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,144
... And how many director and executive jobs are in your (slightly) out of london offices? It is often found that there is something of a glass ceiling in terms of promotion to top jobs which are almost always in London. If the satellite offices are so much cheaper than London (they will be) why don't the company headquarters move to say Sheffield or Newcastle? The answer is the directors and execs don't want to exile themselves from the London job market and multiple directorships. In other words too difficult to network.

London competes with Paris, New York, Tokyo etc not Manchester, Edinburgh, Leeds etc. Top talent from around the world will always be attracted to London which is why many companies base themselves there, despite the higher costs. With the best will in the world top talent from around the world won't be attracted to anywhere else in the UK other than London.
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,602
London competes with Paris, New York, Tokyo etc not Manchester, Edinburgh, Leeds etc. Top talent from around the world will always be attracted to London which is why many companies base themselves there, despite the higher costs. With the best will in the world top talent from around the world won't be attracted to anywhere else in the UK other than London.

Only the footsie 200 companies (if that), universities and some government jobs are really in the world market. World class footballers on mega salaries play for Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle etc as well as London, doesn't seem to be a barrier to them.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,758
Appears to be a new challenge from Conservative MPs indicating their view that the business case is getting worse:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...cerns-north-oakervee-review-tax-a9257241.html

Tories urge Boris Johnson to ‘change course’ on HS2 amid fears project could reach 12-figure cost
Newly elected MPs in Labour’s ‘red wall’ warn business case for project is collapsing

Boris Johnson has been urged to “change course” on High Speed 2 by more than 20 of his own MPs, weeks after he admitted the controversial project could end up costing the taxpayer more than £100bn.

The newly re-formed HS2 Review Group – which consists of veteran and recently elected Tories, some seated in Labour’s “red wall” – wrote to the PM on Saturday requesting meetings with him and the transport secretary “as a matter of urgency”.

They warned the business case for the project was collapsing, voicing “significant concerns” about government-owned HS2 Ltd’s ability to manage the project and unease over its environmental impact.

“It is not too late for the government to change course,” Banbury MP Victoria Prentis wrote in the letter signed by 20 other Tories. “We have many new colleagues who have campaigned against or are seriously concerned about the future of this project.

“Our fear is that if this project goes ahead as planned, costs will continue to spiral, and the business case will further collapse. We are concerned that not only money but also energy and expertise will be consumed by this project, affecting our ability to deliver on other national priorities.”

Mr Johnson postponed making a decision on whether to proceed with the project and delayed publication of an official review into it until after the general election campaign, when he admitted the project would probably cost “north of £100bn” – more than double the expenditure proposed initially.

The MPs also voiced fears that the review’s chair, Douglas Oakervee, “is perceived to be in favour of the project because of his previous role at HS2”.

“Indeed, we understand his remit prevented sufficient consideration of alternatives and the panel was not given enough time to do the comprehensive review that this project demands,” they said.

A purported leaked draft of the review – ordered by the PM in summer – was published before the election by The Times, and recommended the project go ahead with minor alterations. However, it also criticised spiralling costs and slipping deadlines.

In their letter, the concerned Tories also reminded Mr Johnson of the need to “restore public trust”, and to “secure the trust” voters in northern constituencies had placed in them.

“As One Nation Conservatives, we need to restore public trust in the process of government and the way we spend taxpayers’ money,” the letter said. “HS2 is widely seen as a project that is beset by problems, consistently running over time and over budget.

“The business case is increasingly weakened. We have a duty to ensure that our new northern constituencies benefit from infrastructure investment to secure the trust they have placed in us.”

They requested a meeting with transport secretary Grant Shapps on the morning of 7 January – the day that parliament reconvenes.

Despite fears that the project's cost is skyrocketing, others urge the high speed railway would bolster northern communities, and under plans brought forward on the day of the Queen's Speech, the government backed a parliamentary bill to extend the proposed rail line further north than Birmingham.

although this alternative piece in the Yorkshire Post at least presents an opposite view
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...e-minister-urging-him-to-scrap-hs2-1-10167139

Yorkshire MPs sign letter to Prime Minister urging him to scrap HS2

A group of MPs has told the Prime Minister it “is not too late for the Government to change course” over HS2 as they wrote an open letter to Boris Johnson urging him to rethink the project.

Two Yorkshire Tory MPs - Alexander Stafford for Rother Valley and Philip Davies for Shipley - signed the letter, alongside other members of the newly re-formed HS2 Review Group, sent to the PM on Friday.

The letter said the new Government had a duty to “ensure our new northern constituencies benefit from infrastructure investment to secure the trust they have placed in us” but that they felt it was “especially important that we do look at alternatives” to the high-speed rail link which is planned.

They added: “As One Nation Conservatives, we need to restore public trust in the process of government and the way we spend taxpayers’ money. HS2 is widely seen as a project that is beset by problems, consistently running over time and budget.”

Mr Stafford, who was elected as MP for Rother Valley last week, joined the group and said: “The current route for HS2 will wreak havoc across Rother Valley, destroy hundreds of home, break up our communities and would be an environmental disaster.

“We urgently need HS2 to be properly reviewed and stop this huge waste of money.

“Every pound spent on HS2 is a pound that is not being spent on proper connectivity or the upgrading of our northern infrastructure.”

The total cost for HS2 is now set at £88bn, up from an original £34bn when first announced.

And the Oakervee Review, which will recommend what the Government should do next with the project, is due to report back soon. It was expected before the election but was delayed by the poll.

However the HS2 Review Group said: “The Chair is perceived to be in favour of the project because of his previous role at HS2, Indeed, we understand his remit prevented sufficient consideration of alternatives and the panel was not given enough time to do the comprehensive review that this project demands.”

Henri Murison, Director of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, said it was “unsurprising that a number of Conservative backbenchers who have always opposed HS2, mostly in the South, will be making representations on the project”.

But he said their criticism of the Oakervee Review “shows their fear of evidence-based analysis proving them soon to be on the wrong side of the argument”.

He added: “Their case includes the significant misunderstanding that they will somehow only be able to pay back northern voters with infrastructure if they scrap the project, when the opposite is in fact the case.”

However the HS2 Review Group added: “It is not too late for the Government to change course. We have many new colleagues who have campaigned against or are seriously concerned about the future of this project.

“Our fear is that if this project goes ahead as planned, costs will continue to spiral, and the business case will further collapse.

“We are concerned that not only money but also energy and expertise will be consumed by this project affecting our ability to deliver on other national projects.”

The group has asked to meet with Transport Secretary Grant Shapps when Parliament returns on January 7, and also the Prime Minister, to discuss the issue.

A government spokesperson said: “The Transport Secretary established an independent review into HS2 which will provide Government with clear advice on whether and how the project should proceed. We will consider the findings of the independent review before making a decision on the next steps.”
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,179
Indeed which is why using our friends from across the pond they have the same track gauge as we do eg standard gauge but can run bigger rolling stock as the structure gauge is more.

Have I understood that correctly @Bald Rick ???

Yes, just about everywhere has a bigger structure gauge than the U.K.!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,322
Boris has a majority of 80 so doesn't have to listen to a group of 20

Indeed, especially given that there's bound to be other MP's from other parties which support HS2.

The last few votes for HS2 have been significantly in favour of it continuing.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,179
Appears to be a new challenge from Conservative MPs indicating their view that the business case is getting worse:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...cerns-north-oakervee-review-tax-a9257241.html



although this alternative piece in the Yorkshire Post at least presents an opposite view
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...e-minister-urging-him-to-scrap-hs2-1-10167139

Scrap the Yorkshire branch then, and send all the jobs and economic benefit to Lancashire.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Indeed, especially given that there's bound to be other MP's from other parties which support HS2.

The last few votes for HS2 have been significantly in favour of it continuing.

The last few but the most recent parliamentary votes for Brexit weren't in favour of it. Luckily we've now got a government that claims to be listening to its electorate. HS2 is massively unpopular, hopefully a "populist" government will catch onto that at last.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
The last few but the most recent parliamentary votes for Brexit weren't in favour of it. Luckily we've now got a government that claims to be listening to its electorate. HS2 is massively unpopular, hopefully a "populist" government will catch onto that at last.

What people want, and what is best for them, are not always the same thing.
 

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,011
Scrap the Yorkshire branch then, and send all the jobs and economic benefit to Lancashire.
Build HS2 from Crewe to Manchester. Will free up much needed capacity on existing lines such as Mid-Cheshire Line and Styal Line to Manchester Airport. Address the bottleneck through Castlefield and re-configure Manchester Piccadilly to create a east-west line for 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' to Leeds and Liverpool. As others have said, HS2s great flaw has been framing it with 'speed' rather than 'capacity'.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,322
... And how many director and executive jobs are in your (slightly) out of london offices? It is often found that there is something of a glass ceiling in terms of promotion to top jobs which are almost always in London. If the satellite offices are so much cheaper than London (they will be) why don't the company headquarters move to say Sheffield or Newcastle? The answer is the directors and execs don't want to exile themselves from the London job market and multiple directorships. In other words too difficult to network.

Every single company was wholly outside of London, including those at the very top.

Again it's not uncommon. Especially given that over 50% of people work for business which employ less than 250 people. I've never worked for a company which employed more than 25 people, yet I could have done as at times I've been offered roles in larger organisations but had other offers which I accepted instead. However even then they didn't have London offices (but one does have a Sheffield and Newcastle office).

There's a perception that you need to have a London office, it's not needed. It's why do many people head into Reading to work, as it's not much further (in time terms) from somewhere like there than it is from some of the non central London bits of the tube network. However you then have the potential to get to a lot of other places easily for other projects.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,441
Yes, this is accurate – London currently benefits from what's called an agglomeration effect – the previous decisions of other enterprises to locate there gives it an advantage when new enterprises are deciding where to locate. The effect this post describes sees HS2 undermining London's advantage by providing a better value option in other cities, where most of the benefits of the agglomeration effect can still be reaped.

The logical conclusions of some arguments to the contrary is that we should rip up the railways and roads between other cities and London because they are "sucking jobs" to the capital by providing faster journey times. It's a great way to make everyone poorer.

Thing is though, whilst there might be some benefit in this, Manchester and Leeds, with HS2, will be about the same journey time from London as Birmingham or Leicester are today, and much less well connected by modes other than rail, less linked to the London job market. Birmingham and Leicester are not renowned as fabulously wealthy cities.
 

tasky

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2018
Messages
381
That looks horribly cramped and is a good advertisement for why double deck is a bad idea outside of the massive loading gauge the US uses...

They're really not, they feel probably more spacious than a Pendolino or similar
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,422
Build HS2 from Crewe to Manchester. Will free up much needed capacity on existing lines such as Mid-Cheshire Line and Styal Line to Manchester Airport. Address the bottleneck through Castlefield and re-configure Manchester Piccadilly to create a east-west line for 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' to Leeds and Liverpool. As others have said, HS2s great flaw has been framing it with 'speed' rather than 'capacity'.

How would a Crewe - Manchester HS2 free up capacity on the Styal Line?
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
They're really not, they feel probably more spacious than a Pendolino or similar

Indeed, I've used the TGV Duplex before as one example and found it to to be quite spacious indeed even the InterRegio sets that I've used in Germany are spacious. They're not cramped at all.

Yes, just about everywhere has a bigger structure gauge than the U.K.!

Indeed I've travelled on a Finnish DMU used as a commuter service with 2+3 seating which compared to the UK version was quite spacious!
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
One thing we hear little of is the future (or not) for Heathrow's third runway. Whilst HS2 is generally regarded as necessary infrastructure for the UK's future, Heathrow runway 3 strikes me as sheer folly, as humanity will doubtless be in the teeth of dealing with the climate emergency at the time it might be ready for use. Even if the UK were determined to allow unfettered air travel, it would not be much good if the rest of the world has moved and restricted aviation as there would be nowhere worth flying to.

The prime Minister also previously vowed to sit in front of the bulldozers if builders turned up to start work. Whilst this thread is dealing with HS2, the third runway has previously been framed as a rival transport project of national importance. Has anybody got any gen on government thinking or is it a little too soon for this parliament to have determined what they want yet?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,322
I couldn't give a hoot about this report, other than noting the public condemnation of it by someone who was supposed to be involved in it.

HS2 has already wreaked havoc in the north, even without a chain of track being built.

The whole "Liverpool" issue is extremely iffy, and its exclusion from the core network (bizarrely reinforced recently by it also being excluded from the silly named northern powerhouse rail, despite having a massive business case) has cost billions in lost GDP.

On top of directly wrecking growth prospects, needlessly depressed property values in one of the country's top five cities - due to missed/ruined inward investment opportunities - has led to some very concerning events, including scandals which have damaged the UK's global investment reputation (probably why more recently there have been moves to try and actually put a stop to some of it, many years too late).

When access to the Port of Liverpool is primarily going to be by road, a new road cutting a swathe through a country park, something is very wrong with infrastructure spending in this country.

Dealing with inequity and curious decisions will be one of Boris' big challenges in the next 5 years, whether he wants to or not. Scrapping HS2 would be a good start, but if he doesn't get a grip at least he will find himself booted out after one term.

Firstly why would a project which is going take years to build want to lay any track.

The laying of track is similar to the putting on of roof tiles to a house, in that there's a lot of work required before you get to that point.

You're unlikely to complain to a builder that you'd paid them a lot of money and they've not put up a single roof tile.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,758
The prime Minister also previously vowed to sit in front of the bulldozers if builders turned up to start work.

Boris was, of course, not against extra runway capacity, just it being at Heathrow. He was trying to develop support for the 'Boris Island' airport in the Thames Estuary.
 

Railguy1

Member
Joined
6 Apr 2016
Messages
116
One thing we hear little of is the future (or not) for Heathrow's third runway. Whilst HS2 is generally regarded as necessary infrastructure for the UK's future, Heathrow runway 3 strikes me as sheer folly, as humanity will doubtless be in the teeth of dealing with the climate emergency at the time it might be ready for use. Even if the UK were determined to allow unfettered air travel, it would not be much good if the rest of the world has moved and restricted aviation as there would be nowhere worth flying to.

The prime Minister also previously vowed to sit in front of the bulldozers if builders turned up to start work. Whilst this thread is dealing with HS2, the third runway has previously been framed as a rival transport project of national importance. Has anybody got any gen on government thinking or is it a little too soon for this parliament to have determined what they want yet?

There are other projects to improve railway access to Heathrow. We should also not discount technological improvements which could, in the future, make planes "cleaner".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top