• 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.

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
If you have your house re-roofed, or tarmac a muddy path you use regularly, or build a granny flat do you get your money back? No, because it is simply infrastructure that you need, and you have gained an asset that you benefit from.
I'd get a quote first, and if I couldn't afford it I'd have to move and my house would be worth less. But I certainly wouldn't let the roofers go ahead and then ask them what the bill was afterwards. No granny flat if the money isn't there, and a pair of wellies.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
I'd get a quote first, and if I couldn't afford it I'd have to move and my house would be worth less. But I certainly wouldn't let the roofers go ahead and then ask them what the bill was afterwards. No granny flat if the money isn't there, and a pair of wellies.

What do "have to move" and "house would be worth less" mean for HS2/the railways/the UK in this analogy?
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
What will likely happen is the design will allow for 18tph but will likely see 14tph in regular service, it’s a bit like the Thameslink core having 30 or something tph but in regular service sees 24 or something tph.
And if the 14tph (likely providing basically the same service as the 17tph timetable, with an extra path reserved 'for growth', they currently propose, with added splitting/joining*) works well enough, it can always have more trains added - either removing joins/divides, adding new destinations (eg Chester), or upping frequency (eg 4tph to Birmingham).

*I'd imagine the 3tph reduction would be achieved by having all of the Eastern services join/divide somewhere. Otherwise you start hitting benefits big time - adding extra stops and a join/divide would reduce benefits slightly due to longer journey times, but dropping destinations really would hurt the case.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
What do "have to move" and "house would be worth less" mean for HS2/the railways/the UK in this analogy?
I dunno, I didn't ask this...
If you have your house re-roofed, or tarmac a muddy path you use regularly, or build a granny flat do you get your money back? No, because it is simply infrastructure that you need, and you have gained an asset that you benefit from.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
I dunno, I didn't ask this...

Yeah fair enough!

The trouble is that working on a house (or other similar things) are a terrible analogy for a multi-decade-long national infrastructure project. The temptation is there to make simple analogies but I think even the simplest ones falls apart under a small amount of scrutiny, to the point that they're sort-of worthless?
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Yeah fair enough!

The trouble is that working on a house (or other similar things) are a terrible analogy for a multi-decade-long national infrastructure project. The temptation is there to make simple analogies but I think even the simplest ones falls apart under a small amount of scrutiny, to the point that they're sort-of worthless?
Yeah, a house or car can be patched up until you can afford a full repair or new one - but this HS2 costs a tad more and could well bankrupt the country! Let's face it, £40 - £50bn spread over 15 years probably isn't that much in the scheme of things, but it's gonna cost twice that at least and just how much would it be used (even if it assists those using the "old" lines) and by whom? Are we spending all our taxes so a few business people can have an hour shaved off their journey?
If the cost was affordable, and if we were staying in the EU (for financial stabilisation) then I'd say go ahead, but the future's too uncertain to take this on now.
Why hasn't there been a referendum on this - do we want HS2 or not?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
The government could look at exactly the same info as you keep posting and decide "Don't care, we're axing it." At the end of the day, passenger numbers have peaked, the WCML is free of most congestion, and no justification exists for spending over £80bn on a subpar Heathrow express from Birmingham Airport.

What on earth are you talking about? The WCML is free of congestion is it? Whatever!
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
Yeah fair enough!

The trouble is that working on a house (or other similar things) are a terrible analogy for a multi-decade-long national infrastructure project. The temptation is there to make simple analogies but I think even the simplest ones falls apart under a small amount of scrutiny, to the point that they're sort-of worthless?
It was an attempt at an analogy to point out to the economically illiterate that if you invest in infrastructure you don't get "poorer" because you will benefit from the asset that you create. The roof one wasn't very good (being renewal - which should have been covered by a "sinking fund") but the other two show that turning money into infrastructure is generally in our interests.
The argument is really about
a) whether the asset is needed in the first place (think Heathrow runway 3) and
b) whether it will cost so much over the construction period that it was hardly worth doing. In this respect Berkeley might have a point, but I would address that by looking at the financial structure of the project (I suspect that lots of the complaints about the low and late payments of compensation are down to the multiple layers of consultant, surveying and legal firms involved) and maybe the over-specifying of the linespeed.
I cannot believe that all of his network upgrades in the Appendix (which will somehow magically relieve the southern WCML - not) can possibly be done in anything like the HS2 timescale - or budget. Lots of these upgrades away from London need doing anyway, so they aren't part of the argument.
 

Neen Sollars

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2018
Messages
324
So let's get this right.... You're proposing that we spend a fair chunk of the money allocated to HS2 (remembering that the underground station at Euston and the tunnels leading out of it are going to be one of the most expensive parts of HS2, because building underground stations is expensive). But instead of getting an entire new line giving up to 18tph of long distance trains and massively relieving capacity on the WCML, you want to use the massive expense of this new underground station and approaches to basically get maybe a couple of extra tph on the Chiltern line and divert a few trains from the Great Western Line (I'm assuming you meant the GW line not the West Coast ML)?

Yes. Afaik the old Great Western Line is now known as the Chiltern Main Line. Euston to OOC gives additional platform capacity in London, which I keep reading on these threads needs increasing. The Mayor of London and the GLA should be picking up the bulk of the tab for Euston to the OOC rail hub/interchange link. Longer trains into both Euston and Marylebone supply the additional capacity.
 

cavie78

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2014
Messages
15
Location
Leeds
Yeah, a house or car can be patched up until you can afford a full repair or new one - but this HS2 costs a tad more and could well bankrupt the country! Let's face it, £40 - £50bn spread over 15 years probably isn't that much in the scheme of things, but it's gonna cost twice that at least and just how much would it be used (even if it assists those using the "old" lines) and by whom? Are we spending all our taxes so a few business people can have an hour shaved off their journey?
If the cost was affordable, and if we were staying in the EU (for financial stabilisation) then I'd say go ahead, but the future's too uncertain to take this on now.
Why hasn't there been a referendum on this - do we want HS2 or not?
A referendum on HS2? Considering the amount of ill-informed rubbish about HS2 on this railway forum, for people who are really interested in railways, I dread to think what the level of debate would be. As has been said numerous times, HS2 is nothing to do with "an hour shaved of 'their' journey". The WCML is over capacity, a new railway is required (see the nonsense in Hatchet Berkeley's report about the years and years and shutdowns required to deliver any sort of improvements if the exisiting line is upgraded without HS2) and if we're going to build a new railway, is may as well be HS.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
Yeah, a house or car can be patched up until you can afford a full repair or new one - but this HS2 costs a tad more and could well bankrupt the country! Let's face it, £40 - £50bn spread over 15 years probably isn't that much in the scheme of things, but it's gonna cost twice that at least and just how much would it be used (even if it assists those using the "old" lines) and by whom?

Well, I'm in Nottingham and currently it takes three weeks to get to Leeds. I'd use it for that. But more seriously, see the many other posts for passenger projections/estimates on HS2. People use high-speed rail all the time, every day, all round the world. Are we so different here?

Are we spending all our taxes so a few business people can have an hour shaved off their journey?
If the cost was affordable, and if we were staying in the EU (for financial stabilisation) then I'd say go ahead, but the future's too uncertain to take this on now.

Financial uncertainty is an excellent reason for building infrastructure. It's good quality long-and-short-term investment in the economy.

Why hasn't there been a referendum on this - do we want HS2 or not?
PLEASE no more referendums on complex issues. We (the public) shouldn't be expected to suddenly learn everything necessary about a topic in order to make an informed vote on it. That's why we delegate power to parliament in the first place, so they can scrutinise and debate on our behalf.
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
Can anyone advise of the proportion of return journeys which currently originate in the sticks (ok Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds if you want specifics) and the equivalent proportion which originate from London. This should be a pretty good indicator of the likely benefit to the midlands, north and london from HS2.

I suspect that most return journeys originate in sticks, so the most sensible policy would be to move Government ministries and indeed parliament to say Newcastle or Leeds, reducing the need for more capacity and spreading work around the country instead of concentrating all the best jobs in London. Moving Parliament (as done in Brazil + others) would soon result in rail services being improved in the north.

Since HS2 wont reach Manchester and Leeds until 2035-40, why would any business planning a move away from London go anywhere farther north than Birmingham before 2030 at least?
 

Neen Sollars

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2018
Messages
324
I suspect that most return journeys originate in sticks, so the most sensible policy would be to move Government ministries and indeed parliament to say Newcastle or Leeds, reducing the need for more capacity and spreading work around the country instead of concentrating all the best jobs in London. Moving Parliament (as done in Brazil + others) would soon result in rail services being improved in the north.

Since HS2 wont reach Manchester and Leeds until 2035-40, why would any business planning a move away from London go anywhere farther north than Birmingham before 2030 at least?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. And that is why I think HS2 Phase 1 will not be built Birmingham to London first.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
PLEASE no more referendums on complex issues. We (the public) shouldn't be expected to suddenly learn everything necessary about a topic in order to make an informed vote on it. That's why we delegate power to parliament in the first place, so they can scrutinise and debate on our behalf.
Good, can we please dismiss the EU referendum as null-and-void then?!!

As for the topic, I will remain most unconvinced that we need HS2; I could be convinced if it hooked up with HS1 (maybe North/Midlands > Heathrow > Gatwick > Paris/Amsterdam/Barcelona.)

But I won't be around to use it.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Since HS2 wont reach Manchester and Leeds until 2035-40, why would any business planning a move away from London go anywhere farther north than Birmingham before 2030 at least?

Not Leeds, but Manchester still gets slightly faster journeys to London, and much more convenient /faster access to Heathrow and Birmingham Airports even before Phase 2 is built. Remember Phase 1 includes a link to the WCML near Lichfield, which will allow trains from Liverpool/Manchester/Scotland to run via HS2 calling at Birmingham Interchange and OOC en route. Besides the 2040 date is being mooted for Phase 2b, surely, not phase 2a? So HS2 would reach Crewe long before that date, providing even faster journeys to Liverpool/Manchester/Scotland.

Not only that, but Phase 1 would even by itself allow Manchester/Liverpool-Birmingham Curzon Street journeys avoiding the slow and congested Birmingham-Wolverhampton-Stafford line. I'm not quite sure if there are any plans to run such trains, but if they are, that would provide quicker links from Birmingham to the North, thereby further benefitting Manchester (and Liverpool, Preston etc.)
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
I'm not convinced it does, but I'm not the person saying his view can be disregarded as he's come to the wrong conclusions (now where have we heard that before?)

Have you read it?
Neither am I. I am asking why people think the views of the rest of the committee can be disregarded because they've come to a different conclusion.
I've not had time to read the report yet, but have read some quite detailed criticism of it.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Why? Is it because you want an anti-HS2 safespace devoid of reality and facts butting in?


No, it's because some of the arguments being deployed on here in support of HS2, and the extraordinary defensiveness of some of those making them, are so bad that they are probably winning converts to the anti-HS2 lobby. As someone who is on balance in favour of HS2, but does not.approach it with cultish enthusiasm, I'd rather not see support for it discouraged.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
Yeah, a house or car can be patched up until you can afford a full repair or new one - but this HS2 costs a tad more and could well bankrupt the country! Let's face it, £40 - £50bn spread over 15 years probably isn't that much in the scheme of things, but it's gonna cost twice that at least and just how much would it be used (even if it assists those using the "old" lines) and by whom? Are we spending all our taxes so a few business people can have an hour shaved off their journey?
If the cost was affordable, and if we were staying in the EU (for financial stabilisation) then I'd say go ahead, but the future's too uncertain to take this on now.
Why hasn't there been a referendum on this - do we want HS2 or not?

It will not remotely bankrupt the country. This money is not being spent in one or two years, it is spread over many years. To place it in context the NHS costs more in one year alone (and before anyone jumps in I am not suggesting we spend less on the NHS)
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Can anyone advise of the proportion of return journeys which currently originate in the sticks (ok Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds if you want specifics) and the equivalent proportion which originate from London. This should be a pretty good indicator of the likely benefit to the midlands, north and london from HS2.

I suspect that most return journeys originate in sticks, so the most sensible policy would be to move Government ministries and indeed parliament to say Newcastle or Leeds, reducing the need for more capacity and spreading work around the country instead of concentrating all the best jobs in London. Moving Parliament (as done in Brazil + others) would soon result in rail services being improved in the north.

Since HS2 wont reach Manchester and Leeds until 2035-40, why would any business planning a move away from London go anywhere farther north than Birmingham before 2030 at least?


This reality is never recognised. Without a major change in attitude to economic development in this country, HS2 is unlikely to solve the north-south divide, and may exacerbate it. That said, people are always going to travel between north and south, and more capacity to enable them to do so by rail is desirable.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
And if the 14tph (likely providing basically the same service as the 17tph timetable, with an extra path reserved 'for growth', they currently propose, with added splitting/joining*) works well enough, it can always have more trains added - either removing joins/divides, adding new destinations (eg Chester), or upping frequency (eg 4tph to Birmingham).

*I'd imagine the 3tph reduction would be achieved by having all of the Eastern services join/divide somewhere. Otherwise you start hitting benefits big time - adding extra stops and a join/divide would reduce benefits slightly due to longer journey times, but dropping destinations really would hurt the case.

Well exactly!

What on earth are you talking about? The WCML is free of congestion is it? Whatever!

Typical sand in head approach to reality despite facts being provided!
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
No, it's because some of the arguments being deployed on here in support of HS2, and the extraordinary defensiveness of some of those making them, are so bad that they are probably winning converts to the anti-HS2 lobby. As someone who is on balance in favour of HS2, but does not.approach it with cultish enthusiasm, I'd rather not see support for it discouraged.

I don't see that. I've been watching and contributing to this thread - IIRC from the start - and the impression I get is that time and time again, the main argument in favour of HS2 is that it provides badly needed capacity by removing all the fastest trains - initially from the Southern WCML, but after phase 2 is complete, also from the Southern ECML and to a much lesser extent from the MML, freeing up space for stopping services. Phase 2 also removes trains from the congested Manchester-Stockport corridor, and overall you get massively reduced journey times Birmingham to Manchester, and Birmingham to the East Midlands/Leeds/the NorthEast. The argument further points out that there is no other plausible scheme on the cards that can deliver those same benefits for less money, and even if such an alternative scheme could be dreamt up, any alternative scheme that relies primarily on upgrades to existing lines instead of building a new line would inevitably cause many years of severe disruption to those lines.

That's an extremely strong argument in my mind. There are other arguments in favour of HS2 that are not as strong (including the faster London-Birmingham journey times), but, as far as I can see, it's clear that those are side-arguments, where it's being pointed out that they are additional benefits from HS2.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I don't see that. I've been watching and contributing to this thread - IIRC from the start - and the impression I get is that time and time again, the main argument in favour of HS2 is that it provides badly needed capacity by removing all the fastest trains - initially from the Southern WCML, but after phase 2 is complete, also from the Southern ECML and to a much lesser extent from the MML, freeing up space for stopping services. Phase 2 also removes trains from the congested Manchester-Stockport corridor, and overall you get massively reduced journey times Birmingham to Manchester, and Birmingham to the East Midlands/Leeds/the NorthEast. The argument further points out that there is no other plausible scheme on the cards that can deliver those same benefits for less money.

That's an extremely strong argument in my mind. There are other arguments in favour of HS2 that are not as strong (including the faster London-Birmingham journey times), but, as far as I can see, it's clear that those are side-arguments, where it's being pointed out that they are additional benefits from HS2.

That same argument is why I believe it should go ahead, speed is just a side benefit because the main benefit as the poster I have quoted has said is about capacity and not just about getting to Birmingham 20 mins faster as some on here think it’s all about.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Forgive me if I've missed something, but what cities were selected in 2019 for.any new infrastructure spending ?

No cities were selected, as the funding hasn't been approved. The point I was making is that one of the reasons why the alternative is so much cheaper is by cutting, by half, the amount of money which could be spent on Cities to provide much better public transport so that more people would use HS2 and use public transport.

By making such a large cut there'll be a lot of places which would otherwise see public transport improvements either not see these improvements or the improvements would be much smaller.

You can be fairly sure that those cities which would benefit from this funding would most likely be outside of London and the South East.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
No cities were selected, as the funding hasn't been approved. The point I was making is that one of the reasons why the alternative is so much cheaper is by cutting, by half, the amount of money which could be spent on Cities to provide much better public transport so that more people would use HS2 and use public transport.

By making such a large cut there'll be a lot of places which would otherwise see public transport improvements either not see these improvements or the improvements would be much smaller.

You can be fairly sure that those cities which would benefit from this funding would most likely be outside of London and the South East.


Alternatively, someone could decide to spend the money on better transport outside London without HS2. Tying things together for political purposes is a tiresome feature of life in this country
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I don't see that. I've been watching and contributing to this thread - IIRC from the start - and the impression I get is that time and time again, the main argument in favour of HS2 is that it provides badly needed capacity by removing all the fastest trains - initially from the Southern WCML, but after phase 2 is complete, also from the Southern ECML and to a much lesser extent from the MML, freeing up space for stopping services. Phase 2 also removes trains from the congested Manchester-Stockport corridor, and overall you get massively reduced journey times Birmingham to Manchester, and Birmingham to the East Midlands/Leeds/the NorthEast. The argument further points out that there is no other plausible scheme on the cards that can deliver those same benefits for less money, and even if such an alternative scheme could be dreamt up, any alternative scheme that relies primarily on upgrades to existing lines instead of building a new line would inevitably cause many years of severe disruption to those lines.

That's an extremely strong argument in my mind. There are other arguments in favour of HS2 that are not as strong (including the faster London-Birmingham journey times), but, as far as I can see, it's clear that those are side-arguments, where it's being pointed out that they are additional benefits from HS2.


That's a fairly comprehensive summary of the substantial benefits that come with HS2. Some of the other arguments put forward in its favour on here are pure fantasy
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
Alternatively, someone could decide to spend the money on better transport outside London without HS2. Tying things together for political purposes is a tiresome feature of life in this country

How ? I think we need to challenge those who suggest spending it differently to come up with ideas.
Although 100 billion sounds alot (and is) you really do not get that much for it these days. How would it be spent to achieve the same uplift in passenger numbers ? Ideas please.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
How ? I think we need to challenge those who suggest spending it differently to come up with ideas.
Although 100 billion sounds alot (and is) you really do not get that much for it these days. How would it be spent to achieve the same uplift in passenger numbers ? Ideas please.
Most trips by car (the most motorised transport) are for just a few kilometres or less. Can you imagine what would reduce that immense environmental damage. I can.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
I think it's time to draw a line under this thread as we're going around in circles. The review itself is expected to be published shortly so when that happens lets have a new thread without the baggage of this one to discuss what the report actually says rather than what it might say.

Regarding whether or not HS2 should even be a thing we already have a thread titled Why are people opposed to HS2? ; can I ask that we don't have the exact same arguments against HS2 that they previously posted in the correct thread re-posted into this one or any other thread please. If anyone wants to post their own arguments against HS2, please use the thread dedicated for that purpose. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top