High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[PR1Berske]

He also said it was going to cost £80bn in the same signature, which wasn't snidey given the fact it had already been proved to be complete nonsense.

And has been removed. But remember that figures from the Treasury, leaked to the Financial Times, are far above the current official budget.

I tend not to believe Government budgets. Why do you?

 

[yorksrob]

Somebody misrepresented one of my snidey remarks as being truthful :roll: I had called it the equivalent of a busway but apparently being tongue-in-cheek doesn't translate well on this forum so I've stuck with "expressway" from then on.

Ah, I see, it‘s a rhetorical device.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No hes refering to the 'white elephant' perception that guided busways have, despite Cambridge still going strong, beating expectations in its first year and in its second full year it carried 3.1m passengers, the same pre construction target for its third year of operation meaning its still a full 12 months ahead of predicted passenger growth.G]

Well, buses will always have their place, and I suppose this busway may well have grown usage in the same way that the Canterbury park and ride increased bus transport intothat City (without the massive infrastructure spend).

However St Ives is still adrift from the National rail network, which is what most residents wanted rectified, and what's more, they‘ve lost forever the real chance that they had of ever achieving that aim, so the busway is still a massive failure in terms of policy and aspiration in my book.

 

[Geezertronic]

And has been removed. But remember that figures from the Treasury, leaked to the Financial Times, are far above the current official budget.

I tend not to believe Government budgets. Why do you?

Then what is the point of posting untruths? Like your busway/expressway comments - more emotive folly. It's a railway line, a High Speed railway line. If your expressway comment refers to the fact that High Speed trains will run on the line, then you are correct as that is what it is designed for - amongst being able to take services off the WCML (initially) and handle much more capacity than any potential WCML upgrades could do.

I could copy/paste from previous posts although I doubt it would link in. You want to ridicule what you percieve is the ridiculous, unfortunately not everyone shares your view.

 

[Muzer]

I tend not to believe Government budgets. Why do you?

Presumably because the majority of *rail* projects recently have come in on time and under budget, and the current budget thanks to the treasury's insistence has something like 90% contingency (so if 90% of the things that have been identified can go wrong go wrong, it'll still be on budget)?

But like I said, the entire case has been replayed and repeated on this thread many a time, and I just can't agree with it. I don't agree that we need a HS line into London, I don't agree that the cost is justifiable, I don't agree with cutting 15 minutes off commuter times whilst the North gets nothing, I don't agree with the justification for the line being based on commuter behaviour in 2010/2013 when the line won't be open for another 20-odd years, I don't agree with any of it.

You keep saying this - but then how would you solve WCML capacity problems? If you wanted to upgrade the WCML, it'd cost perhaps slightly less for a significantly lower capacity increase with months of a "weekday-only railway". Do you want to be unable to get from the North West to London on weekends for months?

 

[Ironside]

But aren't we constantly told that there is no room in the timetable for an Edinburgh-Newcastle stopper, requiring EC trains to stop at numerous irrelevent destinations that would never, in the normal cause of things, justify a significant InterCity service?

So there is a capacity issue from Ednburgh to Newcastle that a phase 3 HS2 could solve.


And remember that it is probably rather naive to believe that an alignment to a Newcastle that is not on the route to Scotland would ever be built.
The Government would baulk at the >£4.5bn price tag.
They would just hide behind the classic compatibles and say that no new spur would be required.
It would certainly be behind Liverpool in the queue since rather less track is required for a similar population/time saving.

>£4.5bn is a lot but significant upgrades to the classic line will surely not be cheap. And this number is a little over a tenth the cost of phase 1&2 and so should be easier to get through parliament, particularly if phase 1 is already in use and people can see the benefit of it.

 

[AndyLandy]

Are you absolutely convinced--fully--that a High Speed train which may not reach top speed until not long before it has to stop at Birmingham, is the best value investment for England (and I use England quite deliberately).

I can't say with 100% certainty that there isn't an even better infrastructure project we could build, but if there is, I've no idea what it could be.

I do know that HS2 is a worthwhile investment for England however. As for not reaching top speed until Birmingham, this sounds like more of your inaccurate conjecture. I could imagine it taking five to ten minutes to get from standing to top speed, but no more than that.

I use "regions" to mean those parts of the country where HS2 means nothing to them. I used the SW England before now, one of the most economically crippled parts of the country, and was batted away as though I'd made some irrelevant point. It *is* relevant that, say, the NW and NE England would be left with 1980s stock and nothing new whilst a brand new, top-spec, high-speed line is built that goes straight into central London. The perception and the truth is - more investment for the south, nothing for the North.

Actually, HS2 is all about providing services to the north. That's its entire raison d'etre, to connect major cities in the north to Birmingham and London, and beyond to HS1 and the rest of Europe.

And if we spent vast quantities of money on new rolling stock to replace the trains in the North, just because people think they're "too old", what benefit would that bring to the south west?

By scrapping HS2, the regions benefit from focused spending, rather than a London-centric, London-dedicated line that even avoids Oxford, Northampton and all the rest of it.

Crossrail is a London-dedicated service. The budget for it, last time I checked was about the same as HS2 phase 1. You tell me what's more London-centric, spending £20bn on a high speed line to Birmingham, or on 20 miles of commuter railway underneath zone 1?

And yet again, you completely ignore that places like Northampton will benefit from freed up capacity on the WCML.

But like I said, the entire case has been replayed and repeated on this thread many a time, and I just can't agree with it. I don't agree that we need a HS line into London, I don't agree that the cost is justifiable, I don't agree with cutting 15 minutes off commuter times whilst the North gets nothing, I don't agree with the justification for the line being based on commuter behaviour in 2010/2013 when the line won't be open for another 20-odd years, I don't agree with any of it.

There's this crazy idea that it's only going to benefit London. The improved capacity and journey times will make improvements for anyone making long-distance journeys from north to south. I regularly travel between Southampton and Crewe. HS2 would actually benefit me doing that, even though I have very little to do with London.

As for the time improvments, it's more like 40 minutes on an average EUS-BHM journey, isn't it? That's actually a worthwhile figure to be able to save.

Cost-wise, it sounds like a big number, but with Crossrail costed at £17bn and the WCRM having cost around £8-10bn, it's not like the £20bn for phase 1 is actually all that expensive.

I agree with you on the 20-odd years though. Ideally we'd have phase 1 open by 2020 at the latest!

Surely that proves it's just a waste of money then, as the HS2 trains will not be stopping anywhere that people want to get to! :roll:

Actually, it's calling at some places where huge amounts of people want to get between; London and Birmingham (as well as all the CC services to destinations further north.) The places it doesn't call at are rural towns in Buckinghamshire that already have railway stations and will benefit from freed up capacity when Intercity services are removed from the WCML.

 

[JohnB57]

Whatever the pros and cons, a letter in the latest edition of "Rail" would surely tempt most antis were it accurate.

"Savings in time proposed by HS2 are "just a few minutes", but the graphic on page 16 of Rail 728 shows some savings of over 100%."

That means you'll actually get there earlier than you leave. Count me in at any price...

 

[dggar]

Could could somebody please explain to me why
they bother to reply to anything posted by PR1Berske
on this thread

 

[HSTEd]

>£4.5bn is a lot but significant upgrades to the classic line will surely not be cheap. And this number is a little over a tenth the cost of phase 1&2 and so should be easier to get through parliament, particularly if phase 1 is already in use and people can see the benefit of it.

Apparently that is about equal to the cost of GC Clearing the ECML between York and Newcastle.
Classic Compatibles will not require any significant upgrades on the ECML however.

 

[D365]

Somebody misrepresented one of my snidey remarks as being truthful :roll: I had called it the equivalent of a busway but apparently being tongue-in-cheek doesn't translate well on this forum so I've stuck with "expressway" from then on.

Ah, I see, it‘s a rhetorical device.

Yes, that much. See, again, one of the numerous reasons why effectively nobody can take you seriously...

No he's referring to the 'white elephant' perception that guided busways have, despite Cambridge still going strong, beating expectations in its first year and in its second full year it carried 3.1m passengers, the same pre construction target for its third year of operation meaning its still a full 12 months ahead of predicted passenger growth.

Well, buses will always have their place... However, St. Ives (Cambs) is still adrift from the National rail network, which is what most residents wanted rectified, and what's more, they‘ve lost forever the real chance that they had of ever achieving that aim, so the busway is still a massive failure in terms of policy and aspiration in my book.

Aside from if we drill rails onto the concrete, which is not going to happen, yes, that is very true... In short, the services which have been provided do not open up any new travel opportunities. Beyond St. Ives, Huntingdon isn't connected anywhere beyond Cambridge City. But instead we get Hinchingbrooke/Peterborough extensions paralleling routes which are already served. I won't go on here, but it is much a ridiculous thing. Nothing at all to do with HS2, the two systems are nothing the same.

...

"Savings in time proposed by HS2 are "just a few minutes", but the graphic on page 16 of Rail 728 shows some savings of over 100%."

...

Somebody made a boo-boo

Could could somebody please explaine to me why
they bother to reply to anything posted by PR1Berske on this thread

Because we've got nothing better to do with our time than ridicule the 'antis' with incoherent and massively falsified statistics and statements...

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Could could somebody please explain to me why
they bother to reply to anything posted by PR1Berske
on this thread

Well it keeps him off the bi-valve mollusc forums where he goes on about how much better it would be to invest in upgrading whelks instead of spending loads of money on oysters.

 

[AndyLandy]

Could could somebody please explain to me why
they bother to reply to anything posted by PR1Berske
on this thread

Because he is someone who is wrong on the Internet! This cannot be allowed to stand!

 

[joeykins82]

 

[Deerfold]

Aside from if we drill rails onto the concrete, which is not going to happen, yes, that is very true... In short, the services which have been provided do not open up any new travel opportunities. Beyond St. Ives, Huntingdon isn't connected anywhere beyond Cambridge City. But instead we get Hinchingbrooke/Peterborough extensions paralleling routes which are already served. I won't go on here, but it is much a ridiculous thing. Nothing at all to do with HS2, the two systems are nothing the same.

Well, the hourly Peterbrough - Cambridge bus links St Ives directly to Ptererborough (Mon-Sat not evenings) which is a public transport link which has not existed for many years and is over and above what Stagecoach promised to run in exchange for being allowed to use the busway,

I'm not saying it's an amazing extra but it wouldn't exist without the busway.

 

[The Ham]

What other than the Northern Hub, North West Triangle electrification, Transpennine Electrification and Midland Main Line electrification? Plus the possibility of electrification to Hull being tagged onto that lot in the next Control Period.

The problem with lots of spending on local projects is that it makes it much more likely that we'll need a new long distance, proberbly a High Speed line, to be able to cope with the extra passengers which would then be attracted to the network.

 

[D365]

Well, the hourly Peterborough - Cambridge bus links St Ives directly to Peterborough (Mon-Sat not evenings) which is a public transport link which has not existed for many years and is over and above what Stagecoach promised to run in exchange for being allowed to use the busway,

I'm not saying it's an amazing extra but it wouldn't exist without the busway.

OK, fair enough, the bustway has provided some new travel opportunity to the St. Ives and Somersham area (taking advantage of the road-going buses). For Huntingdon though, little greater service exists. One could argue that Godmanchester has lost out; once slated for through busway service, but in reality only has the 'ECS' depot moves over the narrow Ouse Bridge and onto the A14. Even the controversial Bearscroft development won't guarantee long-term service. But I am, once again, well off-track here.

The problem with lots of spending on local projects is that it makes it much more likely that we'll need a new long distance, proberbly a High Speed line, to be able to cope with the extra passengers which would then be attracted to the network.

And once again, any HS line will NOT cut input to the 'classic' railways, as these will continue to prove vital to our interests in mass-transit.

 

[The Ham]

NOT[/B] cut input to the 'classic' railways, as these will continue to prove vital to our interests in mass-transit.

I'm not saying that a HS line would cut input into the classic network, far from it. Rather I'm saying that because of the current investment into the classic network it makes the need for a HS line greater.

I'm therefore saying that either we need to not be inesting in the classic network so that we don't need to build HS2 or that we need to build HS2 because we are investing in the classic network.

There is no possible way that with our current investment in the classic network that the problems of the WCML can be fixed with further investment in the classic network. As the more people use trains for their local services (i.e. because of Northern Hub) the more that they will use the longer distance services, further increasing problems on the WCML, ECML and MML.

 

[yorksrob]

And once again, any HS line will NOT cut input to the 'classic' railways, as these will continue to prove vital to our interests in mass-transit.

I‘m afraid it still comes down to how much you trust the Government to identify spending priorities and how much you trust it to follow through on those priorities.

Don‘t forget, the railways were vital to the national interests in the late sixties, yet that didn‘t stop some very ill advised and damaging cuts.

Even if you think back as recently as McNullty, when the socio-political outlook around the railway was similar to now, the only factor driving that report was the bottom line spend - not even split into capital and revenue spend and needless to say, there were some pretty spurious suggestions made around the regional railway network in particular.

I simply don‘t trust Government to always look beyond that bottom line spend and focus on the vital interest that the railway network, as a whole, represents to the country.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

And has been removed. But remember that figures from the Treasury, leaked to the Financial Times, are far above the current official budget.
I tend not to believe Government budgets. Why do you?

Well you shouldn't believe the Treasury figures then.
Probably somebody doing a "straw man" or worst case scenario.
And it wouldn't make the newspapers if it wasn't double the figure anyone last thought of.

 

[tec]

I‘m afraid it still comes down to how much you trust the Government to identify spending priorities and how much you trust it to follow through on those priorities.

The government only ever do what they are advised to do.

All governments employ advisors to do the real work.

HS2 is only being planned as some fool advised the government that we need it.

Just the same as when Tony Blair told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

 

[ainsworth74]

By you're failure to respond can we assume that you don't have a reasonable response to this:

Surely that proves it's just a waste of money then, as the HS2 trains will not be stopping anywhere that people want to get to!

Other than calling at London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Preston, Glasgow, Edinburgh, York, Newcastle, Darlington, East Midlands Hub and Meadowhall and there are a few more stations to boot that will be getting HS2 services. Actually looking at it there are a lot more stations getting HS2 services in the North than the South. Interesting that isn't it...

 

[AndyLandy]

The government only ever do what they are advised to do.

All governments employ advisors to do the real work.

This is always true of all governmental work. You cannot reasonably expect politicians to be experts in every single field.

HS2 is only being planned as some fool advised the government that we need it.

This is exactly why I'm pro-HS2. Like the government, I'm inclined to listen to and believe the industry experts who advise the government on rail.

Just the same as when Tony Blair told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? No, thought not. Just another irrelevant hyperbole from an anti-HS2 pundit with no substance.

 

[Geezertronic]

HS2 is only being planned as some fool advised the government that we need it.

Well thank you Mr Baracus for those wise words :roll: Maybe you'd want to check out the wealth of information that proves the case rather than emotive and inaccurate information presented elsewhere

 

[JohnB57]

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? No, thought not. Just another irrelevant hyperbole from an anti-HS2 pundit with no substance.

I suspect his evidence is of equal value to yours. Probably zero in either case, which is usual for unsubstantiated opinion.

However, you maybe need to review your use of the word "pundit". You've just called him an "anti-HS2 expert"...

 

[tbtc]

Just another irrelevant hyperbole from an anti-HS2 pundit with no substance

The arguments against HS2 really are weak.

You can suggest amendments (like I have, with the point that I think that the current HS2 plans are too much of a compromise - trying to serve too many different markets with just one route), but the arguments against some High Speed rail are getting weaker.

 

[AndyLandy]

However, you maybe need to review your use of the word "pundit". You've just called him an "anti-HS2 expert"...

LOL! Oops.

There were words I wanted to use, but I'm not sure they'd have been appropriate.

 

[Deerfold]

OK, fair enough, the bustway has provided some new travel opportunity to the St. Ives and Somersham area (taking advantage of the road-going buses). For Huntingdon though, little greater service exists. One could argue that Godmanchester has lost out; once slated for through busway service, but in reality only has the 'ECS' depot moves over the narrow Ouse Bridge and onto the A14. Even the controversial Bearscroft development won't guarantee long-term service. But I am, once again, well off-track here.

Well, unless you count improved reliability, shorter journey times and an increase from 3bph to Cambridge to 4bph during the day.

Why call it the bustway? Are you taking a cue from PR1Berske's arguing style?

It had problems whilst being built and opened late. However since opening it has far outperformed its targets. I appreciate there are people who would have liked a rail line, but that option was ruled out fairly early on. Given that wasn't going to happen I think it's doing fairly well.

 

[tec]

By you're failure to respond can we assume that you don't have a reasonable response to this:

You have listed a load of cities.....

I am assuming you need to commute from London to Birmingham as there are no jobs in London? Or you need to commute from Birmingham to London for the same reasons?

It might be worthwhile you moving to rural Bucks, or Oxon, therefore dismissing the need for any over priced rail system. Or just buy a car!

 

[yorksrob]

It still didn‘t provide St Ives with a link to the railway network.

Other bus projects have also managed to increase bus usage without huge infrastructure works or destroying a town‘s chance to rejoin the railway network.

 

[HowardGWR]

You have listed a load of cities.....

I am assuming you need to commute from London to Birmingham as there are no jobs in London? Or you need to commute from Birmingham to London for the same reasons?

It might be worthwhile you moving to rural Bucks, or Oxon, therefore dismissing the need for any over priced rail system. Or just buy a car!

You erect a straw man and then knock that down with some irrelevant points. HS2 is not about commuting, except that its existence will allow the existing WCML to cater for more local travel that otherwise will be constrained. I have yet to read an 'anti' post that does otherwise.