The Green party's rail policy & stance on Hs2 is a dishonest, dogmatic mess..

[Snapper]

I've been casting a critical eye over the Green party's transport policy - especially the section on rail & Hs2. What I've found is a dishonest, dogmatic mess. Here's why:

https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/the-greens-rail-policy-is-a-dogmatic-mess/

....The Greens have made a mess of running Brighton & their pronouncements on rail transport (and Hs2 in particular) have combined hand-wringing, daft ideas & very dodgy assumptions. Now we’ve seen their leader, Natalie Bennet implode in an interview with LBC radios Nick Ferrari.

This has led me to cast a critical eye over their policies relating to rail transport. What I’ve found is less than impressive. In parts, it’s downright dishonest. You see, the Greens have become obsessed with who owns the railways rather than understanding how they operate. They seem to have fallen for the populist rather than the pragmatic. They’ve ditched the chance to genuinely do things that will help the environment in favour of tub-thumping to gain votes.....

 

[Busaholic]

I've been casting a critical eye over the Green party's transport policy - especially the section on rail & Hs2. What I've found is a dishonest, dogmatic mess. Here's why:

https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/the-greens-rail-policy-is-a-dogmatic-mess/

Which political party's transport policy is not a dishonest mess? One man's dogmatic is another man's ignorance. The political party which produces a workable plan to re-nationalise the railway industry along the lines of the French or German systems, fully costed with contingencies, will get my vote. As that is unlikely to happen anytime soon I'll have to make the most of a bad job.

 

[yorksrob]

Given the so called "main stream" parties records, I find it a bit rich to call the Green Party's position on railway ownership "dogmatic". What their policy does seem to emphasise is a greater emphasis on local connectivity, rather than a single mega-project which is supposedly going to revitalise the North (or turn it into a dormitory settlement of London, depending on your point of view).

Whatever one's views on HS2, it's good that at least one party is thinking of the improvement of the "bread and butter" railway network, instead of hiding behind flawed economic assumptions as an excuse for not improving the wider railway.

 

[Snapper]

Interesting. No-one defending the Greens has addressed any of the issues I've raised.

 

[yorksrob]

As far as making a mess of Brighton, I don't live there, so I'm not best placed to comment, however they have formed a part of the Government in other Councils, and I know from experience that they have made a positive contribution to them.

With regard to being obsessed with the ownership of the railway, I agree with you Snapper that it doesn't help to become too hung up on that particular issue. That said, it's not the Green Party that decided to prioritise the refranchising of the ECML, even though it has undergone more than its fair share of managerial upheaval and there are other franchises that are getting decidedly long in the tooth that should have been a greater priority for renewal. This was a fixation borne of the ideological preoccupations of the Tory party.

 

[HSTEd]

Not sure how gradual renationalisation even costs that much in the long run.
Don't reissue franchises and allow them to expire.

The only capital requirement is for new rolling stock - and that is peanuts compared to the other costs in the railway sector.
"Costing it" seems rather difficult because I am not sure what costs there are to account for really.

 

[Voglitz]

The Green party changed its position on high speed rail a few years ago. Its February 2011 press release stated HS2 trains would burn 50% more energy mile-for-mile than the Eurostar and produce more than twice the emissions of an intercity train.

Table 2 of Systra's Factors states that an Alstom AGV11 on open level track would use over 50% more energy at HS2 design speed (400 km/h) compared to HS1 speed (300 km/h); a similar multiplier would apply to products from other manufacturers.

But a significant portion of a high speed train’s journey "may be made at a speed well below top line speed", or in tunnels, or on gradients.

A few years ago, Roger Kemp's comparison of modal energy provided some interesting figures.

 

[thenorthern]

Personally I never find the Green Party Railway policy realistic but that's my personal point of view. Its politics though for example I personally am opposed to High Speed 2 but I know many other members on here are in favour of High Speed 2 and with Nationalisation I am also opposed but I know many member on here are in favour which is how politics work.

 

[edwin_m]

The Greens might have a point if they attacked the privatised railway on grounds of high costs, but I agree that since the demise of Railtrack it's difficult to criticise its safety record. Criticising energy consumption is also qustionable when trains are far more easily converted to renewable energy than any other form of long-distance transport. For this and other reasons it is likely to be environmentally sound to provide faster and better trains to attract more people from road and air transport. This remains so even if the trains themselves use more power.

However, I think the Green attitude is more about rolling back globalisation and making our economy and society much more locally based. From that starting point it follows that there will be less need for long-distance travel and opposition to HS2 does then become a logical stance. However I doubt that many of the 7% or so currently intending to vote Green share this world view - they don't know about it, or they don't care because the Greens won't get any sort of power and they just want to express their frustration with the other parties.

 

[yorksrob]

The Greens might have a point if they attacked the privatised railway on grounds of high costs, but I agree that since the demise of Railtrack it's difficult to criticise its safety record. Criticising energy consumption is also qustionable when trains are far more easily converted to renewable energy than any other form of long-distance transport. For this and other reasons it is likely to be environmentally sound to provide faster and better trains to attract more people from road and air transport. This remains so even if the trains themselves use more power.

However, I think the Green attitude is more about rolling back globalisation and making our economy and society much more locally based. From that starting point it follows that there will be less need for long-distance travel and opposition to HS2 does then become a logical stance. However I doubt that many of the 7% or so currently intending to vote Green share this world view - they don't know about it, or they don't care because the Greens won't get any sort of power and they just want to express their frustration with the other parties.

One of my great problems with the Establishment parties is where is the capital going. All the parties, up to and including the EU seem determined to uphold the so called "free market" at any cost, so any party prepared to speak out against the status quo gets my attention.

 

[Emyr]

The Green Party policy sheet is made up of proposals from members voted on my members. Where do the big three's clever and consistent policies come from?

No wonder Bennett can't explain half her party's policies: she wasn't involved in crafting them!

 

[higthomas]

The green parties policies a complete mess. The idea of them being in government terrifying. Not heard those ones before.

Yet I think I will vote for them in the general election, simply because in other areas at least they offer something different, and I think that it will be good for parliament to have their voice in it.

 

[Busaholic]

It's certainly a popular view that British railways should be nationalised - recent poll findings found that even over half of Tory supporters were in favour, so why won't any mainstream political party back the idea? Labour would probably be able to form a government without support from any other party if they'd only grasp the nettle. It needn't cost a fortune in reorganisation costs if done gradually, and compensation to firms/individuals kept to a minimum.
There are many who know the railways well (e.g. Christian Wolmar, Barry Doe,Simon Calder) who are sceptical at the very least about HS2 as presently proposed and some knowledgeable ex-career railway people too: of course any current railway employees are not going to raise any doubts publically, but that doesn't mean to say that some won't have them. The things that seemed to me good about the scheme (connection to HS1 for direct continental travel, plans for Euston, etc) have either gone or been watered down and suddenly Old Oak Common is going to be a new Clapham Junction, wrong on so many levels imo.
As for the Greens making a mess of Brighton Council, well, why shouldn't they have their turn of messing it up? How much money was wasted by their predecessors on the city status nonsense?

 

[MarkyT]

The things that seemed to me good about the scheme (connection to HS1 for direct continental travel, plans for Euston, etc) have either gone or been watered down and suddenly Old Oak Common is going to be a new Clapham Junction, wrong on so many levels imo.

Direct continental rail travel from the provinces was never going to fly though really, from a security and immigration point of view clearly, but also because volumes between any two likely origin desination pairs couldn't support running any attractive service at reasonable frequency with full sized trains, and running empty trains on HS1 and HS2 purely for polititical completeness would be a terrible waste of resources, including path space.

Whilst Old Oak Common will be on many levels literally, I can't see anything fundementally 'wrong' with the concept of a west London interchange. If the objection is towards stopping twice in the London area, we'd better let the Japanese Shinkansen operators know they've been getting it wrong all these years in Tokyo.

Although deep green ecologically and socially quite left wing myself, I can't bring myself to suppport the party on their rail stance and I think comparisons with Europe are misleading because most revenue supported services throughout the continent are being tendered to private operators today, albeit mostly on a concession rather than a franchise model.

 

[pemma]

We believe that public transport should be run in the interests of passengers, not to make a quick profit for shareholders.

The privatisation of Britain’s transport network has done a huge disservice to to passengers: driving up prices whilst creating a race to the bottom in service provision.

It’s clear that passengers are not getting a fair ride.

We will:

- Return the railways to public hands to stop profits being put before passengers.
- Introduce an immediate cut in fares of 10% to give passengers a much-needed financial break.
- Promote walking and cycling to help reduce pollution and improve people’s health.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/we-stand-for/better-transport.html

Regarding HS2:

The Greens are the only Party in opposition to HS2 at Westminster since the project has had the backing of all three main party leaders since its inception (which occurred during that last Labour Government), despite some backbench protest.

Ed Balls has told the Labour conference that his Party still backs HS2 but might review it after the next election, while questioning whether the project is “the best way to spend £50bn for the future of the country.” (Meanwhile Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman has stated that Labour policy remains firmly behind HS2.)

The Green Party has a clear answer to Balls’s question: It isn’t.

The Greens support high speed rail in principle because it should improve Britain’s transport system, reduce road and air traffic and help cut carbon emissions.

But HS2 does too much damage to local communities and to the environment, and is too pricey. To achieve high speeds the trains are expected to use up to 50% more fuel than Eurostar so carbon emissions will not be reduced. The enormous sums involved could be better spent improving transport for everybody, not just the wealthy business-people who will be able to afford to use HS2.

Rupert Read is the Green Party’s national spokesperson on transport as well as being lead Green candidate in the east of England at next year’s European elections. Dr. Read said:

“HS2 is not a green solution. That money needs to be spent instead on increasing rail capacity by adding more track to existing routes, and by upgrading freight-only routes for passenger use too.

“At the same time, we need wider-ranging policies designed to reduce the need for long-distance travel, while integrating local public transport systems (for example, as has actually happened to good effect in London over the last 15 years) and continuing to make streets safer for cyclists and pedestrians.”

“I am sure most ordinary people see HS2 as a politicians’ vanity project, which should be stopped. I agree with them.”

At its conference this month, the Green Party voted to re-affirm its policy to re-nationalise the railways, taking them away from private operators who have prioritised shareholders’ dividends over a network well-run for the benefit of all. Green MP Caroline Lucas recently introduced a bill that seeks to renationalise the railways into the House of Commons.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/...link-between-london-and-the-north-of-england/

 

[EM2]

Not sure how gradual renationalisation even costs that much in the long run.
Don't reissue franchises and allow them to expire.

The only capital requirement is for new rolling stock - and that is peanuts compared to the other costs in the railway sector.
"Costing it" seems rather difficult because I am not sure what costs there are to account for really.

So what about paying all the staff that will have to TUPE over from the private companies? That's not going to be cheap.

 

[HSTEd]

So what about paying all the staff that will have to TUPE over from the private companies? That's not going to be cheap.

As opposed to them TUPEing to the new franchisee?

The state has to pick up the tab for that anyway.
The revenue streams used to pay them transfer from the franchisee at the same time.

 

[quantinghome]

The Greens support high speed rail in principle because it should improve Britain’s transport system, reduce road and air traffic and help cut carbon emissions.

But HS2 does too much damage to local communities and to the environment, and is too pricey. To achieve high speeds the trains are expected to use up to 50% more fuel than Eurostar so carbon emissions will not be reduced. The enormous sums involved could be better spent improving transport for everybody, not just the wealthy business-people who will be able to afford to use HS2.

I see what the OP means about a mess. Looks like they want to have it both ways. They support high speed rail 'in principle' but think HS2 is the wrong scheme, and then go on to say they should improve transport 'for everybody' which seems to be paraphrasing the anti-high-speed-in-general arguments which have been debunked so many times already. Well sorry, but if the Greens are in favour of high speed but HS2 is so obviously wrong then they should propose a different high speed rail option, not spout rubbish about it only being for rich business people. If it's damaging, let's see the less damaging alternative. This 'policy' supports the argument that Greens are all about 'in principle' but come unstuck when it comes to detail. As a left-leaning environmentally-concerned engineer, I'm not impressed.

 

[tadhatter]

I see what the OP means about a mess. Looks like they want to have it both ways. They support high speed rail 'in principle' but think HS2 is the wrong scheme, and then go on to say they should improve transport 'for everybody' which seems to be paraphrasing the anti-high-speed-in-general arguments which have been debunked so many times already. Well sorry, but if the Greens are in favour of high speed but HS2 is so obviously wrong then they should propose a different high speed rail option, not spout rubbish about it only being for rich business people. If it's damaging, let's see the less damaging alternative. This 'policy' supports the argument that Greens are all about 'in principle' but come unstuck when it comes to detail. As a left-leaning environmentally-concerned engineer, I'm not impressed.

Spot on.

It's easy to criticise and even those in favour of hs2, such as myself, still baulk at the costs. However the Greens don't appear to offer an alternative which is very disappointing. I have regularly voted green over the last decade or so I find this particularly frustrating as they don't even mention the capacity issues which is a key reason for hs2 in the first place!

 

[NSEFAN]

It's easy to criticise and even those in favour of hs2, such as myself, still baulk at the costs. However the Greens don't appear to offer an alternative which is very disappointing. I have regularly voted green over the last decade or so I find this particularly frustrating as they don't even mention the capacity issues which is a key reason for hs2 in the first place!

I think most people react in the same way to the cost. Very few of us ever get to manage billions of pounds so it all just sounds like a lot of money. We have no context about whether it's good value or not, so we back off and assume it must be bad value. It's also easy to believe that upgrading the existing lines would be better, even if it actually works out as insanely poor value.

 

[Voglitz]

It's also easy to believe that upgrading the existing lines would be better, even if it actually works out as insanely poor value.

Upgrading the existing lines works out as insanely good value compared to HS2, as shown by the 51M scheme, and the (very limited) upgrade component of the West Coast Route Modernisation.

Most of the WCRM spend was unavoidable renewals.

 

[quantinghome]

Upgrading the existing lines works out as insanely good value compared to HS2, as shown by the 51M scheme, and the (very limited) upgrade component of the West Coast Route Modernisation.

Most of the WCRM spend was unavoidable renewals.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

51M proposed a few upgrades (most of which are happening anyway), plus a bit of timetable tinkering. The reason it came out as 'good value' on a BCR calculation was that it didn't do much. As an analogy, I could make some space in my house by moving the furniture round a bit, but it's not an alternative to building an extension.

51M would have resulted in a small increase in long distance capacity at the expense of local services (as happened after the WCRM). Its case rested on the spurious arguments that the West Coast Main Line is significantly underutilised and that growth in rail travel would tail off. The latest rail travel figures blow this argument out of the water. HS2 would allow high frequency commuter and regional services that are just not possible on the current mixed use lines.

If the 51M proposal was followed and HS2 ditched, in 5 years' time we'd be faced with another capacity crunch, and with no quick fix options left we'd be looking at building a new main line much like HS2.

 

[Voglitz]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

51M proposed a few upgrades (most of which are happening anyway), plus a bit of timetable tinkering. The reason it came out as 'good value' on a BCR calculation was that it didn't do much. As an analogy, I could make some space in my house by moving the furniture round a bit, but it's not an alternative to building an extension.

51M would have resulted in a small increase in long distance capacity at the expense of local services (as happened after the WCRM). Its case rested on the spurious arguments that the West Coast Main Line is significantly underutilised and that growth in rail travel would tail off. The latest rail travel figures blow this argument out of the water. HS2 would allow high frequency commuter and regional services that are just not possible on the current mixed use lines.

If the 51M proposal was followed and HS2 ditched, in 5 years' time we'd be faced with another capacity crunch, and with no quick fix options left we'd be looking at building a new main line much like HS2.

The latest rail travel figures show that long distance remains a very small part of the rail market, and commuter volume is by far the largest capacity issue. Most of that volume affects corridors not served by HS2.

A great deal of West Coast capacity is wasted, so the 'capacity crunch' would be better described as an inefficiency crunch.

 

[pemma]

As an analogy, I could make some space in my house by moving the furniture round a bit, but it's not an alternative to building an extension.

HS2 is equivalent to you buying a new larger house as well as keeping your existing house.

You could, for instance, build new local lines from Stoke to Manchester, Crewe to Liverpool and Milton Keynes to London to take the slower traffic off the busiest sections of the WCML which would be closer to your analogy of what an extension would achieve.

 

[NSEFAN]

The latest rail travel figures show that long distance remains a very small part of the rail market, and commuter volume is by far the largest capacity issue. Most of that volume affects corridors not served by HS2.

A great deal of West Coast capacity is wasted, so the 'capacity crunch' would be better described as an inefficiency crunch.

And so if you're taking the express trains off the existing route (as HS2 does), you increase capacity for commuter services. The only alternative is to deliberately reduce the number of intercity trains to make space for commuting traffic, or perhaps slow them down by making them all call at places like Milton Keynes. I don't think that'd be very good politically, economically or environmentally.

In any case, commuting into London is probably against the green ethos of working locally. If the Greens were to ever get into power AND stick to what they believe in, we could see a deliberate stagnation of London commuter transport growth in order to force localisation.

 

[quantinghome]

HS2 is equivalent to you buying a new larger house as well as keeping your existing house.

You could, for instance, build new local lines from Stoke to Manchester, Crewe to Liverpool and Milton Keynes to London to take the slower traffic off the busiest sections of the WCML which would be closer to your analogy of what an extension would achieve.

Goes to show you can only push analogies so far...

Building new high speed lines is a more efficient use of capacity than new local lines. On the existing mixed use railway, capacity is eaten up by the speed differential between the different types of traffic. The most efficient solution will be to remove the traffic type which has the largest speed differential compared to the rest (i.e. high speed) onto a new line. As has been stated many times before, it is only marginally more expensive to build a new line as high speed an a given alignment.

Also, a new local line would have to go through the most built up areas (increasing costs). In many cases the only practical option would be to build it right next to the existing line (increasing costs and years of disruption to the existing network). Oh, and rebuild every station along the route.

Much easier to shift the high speed services off the existing network and let the existing network do what it's best at doing - local, regional and freight services.

 

[Voglitz]

Building new high speed lines is a more efficient use of capacity than new local lines. On the existing mixed use railway, capacity is eaten up by the speed differential between the different types of traffic.

On the West Coast fast lines, capacity is eaten up by the performance differential between London Midland and Virgin trains. The obvious solution is to have both service groups operate equipment with the same performance.

Local commuter and freight trains generally run on the slow lines, so their speed mismatch is not really on the busiest part of the WCML.

The most efficient solution will be to remove the traffic type which has the largest speed differential compared to the rest (i.e. high speed) onto a new line.

Demand north of Milton Keynes is a fraction of that to the south. At ~£60 million per kilometre, building and maintaining hundreds of kilometres of high speed track is in no way an efficient solution to local capacity shortages.

As has been stated many times before, it is only marginally more expensive to build a new line as high speed an a given alignment.

It may well have been "stated many times". But there are, it seems, no actual figures to back it up.

There'd be no point in building a lower speed line on an alignment designed for a fast one, anyway. The alignment of HS2 is a direct consequence of its politically mandated speed requirement.

Also, a new local line would have to go through the most built up areas (increasing costs). In many cases the only practical option would be to build it right next to the existing line (increasing costs and years of disruption to the existing network). Oh, and rebuild every station along the route.

The slow lines are currently capable of one train every four minutes, so modernising the signalling would limit the need for changes to the infrastructure. Re-routeing the Haven Ports freight to the cross-country line is another low cost way of improving efficiency.

 

[Busaholic]

Direct continental rail travel from the provinces was never going to fly though really, from a security and immigration point of view clearly, but also because volumes between any two likely origin desination pairs couldn't support running any attractive service at reasonable frequency with full sized trains, and running empty trains on HS1 and HS2 purely for polititical completeness would be a terrible waste of resources, including path space.

Whilst Old Oak Common will be on many levels literally, I can't see anything fundementally 'wrong' with the concept of a west London interchange. If the objection is towards stopping twice in the London area, we'd better let the Japanese Shinkansen operators know they've been getting it wrong all these years in Tokyo.

Although deep green ecologically and socially quite left wing myself, I can't bring myself to suppport the party on their rail stance and I think comparisons with Europe are misleading because most revenue supported services throughout the continent are being tendered to private operators today, albeit mostly on a concession rather than a franchise model.

I know that security and immigration issues seemingly militate against direct connections with Europe from the provinces, but one of the reasons that the forecast levels of traffic on Eurostar were so overstated was the later decision with HS1 not to run trains to anywhere other than London. While business travel from Manchester or Birmingham to Paris or Brussels by direct train might not be very great I am sure two or three trains a day would easily justify themselves for primarily leisure travellers to save all the airport hassles, if security measures to suit our paranoid experts could be introduced.

Old Oak Common might, I suppose, have more relevance now that the Heathrow spur of HS2 is officially dead (I suspect long so, unofficially). I note what you say about the Japanese experience and, although I take it on board, a second stop in London is what most concerns me. I've never been to Japan and, although I'd love to, doubt I ever shall, but things I read and see on TV about their culture make it so alien to European ways in many respects. For instance, only this week I was reading that Japan is thinking of relaxing the edict that human noise must not exceed 42 decibels i.e. the level expected in public libraries here, and then only for parks and children's nurseries! In other words, the Japanese are much more deferential to authority and exercise self-discipline to an extent probably never practised here. Can you see people here allowing themselves to be pushed onto a train by somebody wielding a baton?

Lastly, though, with all the huge cuts in public spending coming up whatever the next government I just do not see any party even start building this project within the next five years, so better to put it on ice right now before wasting any more millions on consultants' fees.

 

[Voglitz]

While business travel from Manchester or Birmingham to Paris or Brussels by direct train might not be very great I am sure two or three trains a day would easily justify themselves for primarily leisure travellers to save all the airport hassles, if security measures to suit our paranoid experts could be introduced.

They wouldn't easily justify themselves, in the sense of users actually stumping up to cover the costs of running them.

If Manchester had offered to pay Eurostar enough to run from there, its council taxpayers might have had something to say.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is mccoy the same guy who writes the beleben.wordpress.com blog?