Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[Ianno87]

But they don't run continuously in a loop with passengers. There are still those that "terminate" at major station, but instead of parking/blocking a platform, they continue in the same direction to holding areas (for crew changes, cleaning etc) before they re-enter service so there is layover time built in, particularly on the longer routes. Of course, the shorter routes are very high frequency anyway so the timetable doesn't really matter, like the London underground. The points/changeovers are away from the main stations so cause less delay/disruption as they occur in less densely used areas of the network rather than at the mouth of a busy terminus station.

...but there is a long operational cost associated with kicking everything the extra distance through to a siding facility. In London's case, due to lack of spare land until approaching the M25, this would need to be a very considerable distance for HS2 services terminating in passengers services.

It works with Eurostar which don't have terminus stations at each end but a loop at each end instead.

Eurostar? Last time I checked, St Pancras, Gare du Nord and Brussels Midi were all terminal platforms....

Berlin also seems to operate with several "main line" through stations rather than any terminus stations, with mostly pretty small/simple lines & stations.

Again different geography to London:
-The North-South axis through Hauptbahnhof (the new, low level bit) is generally the cross-Berlin services, connecting (For example) Hamburg to Leipzig, etc. Centres of demand on one side, with centres of demand on the other

-The East-West High level axis (the original Statdbahn) is different, given relatively little of Germany is to the East of Berlin (as it's not far to Poland). So here it makes sense to terminate trains....but lack of space to do so in Central Berlin (it being a narrow viaduct corridor) means through operation to Ostbahnhof to terminate and be serviced.

 

[underbank]

Eurostar? Last time I checked, St Pancras, Gare du Nord and Brussels Midi were all terminal platforms

OK, Euroshuttle then.

 

[Senex]

The East-West High level axis (the original Statdbahn) is different, given relatively little of Germany is to the East of Berlin (as it's not far to Poland). So here it makes sense to terminate trains....but lack of space to do so in Central Berlin (it being a narrow viaduct corridor) means through operation to Ostbahnhof to terminate and be serviced.

Remember that things were very different when it was built. There was no Poland, and the Prussian State Railways extended to the south-east and the east right up to the Austro-Hungarian and Russian borders, beyond Breslau and Königsberg. (Indeed the Ostbahn had the longest unbroken kilometer-post run in Germany.) So there were lengthy main lines both east and west of Berlin. Trains for the east were formed west of Berlin, at Grunewald, then called at Charlottenburg, Zoo, Friedrichstraße, and the Schlesischer Bahnhof before heading off on their express runs, and trains for the west were formed to the east of the city, at Rummelsburg, and did the same in reverse. The original idea was to work all traffic over the Stadtbahn, but that didn't last long and traffic to the north and south either never moved or soon reverted to the old terminals, and the changes in political geography after the two world wars ended up bringing the German border to within 50 miles of Berlin which rather affected the amount and type of traffic to the east. But there must be many of us who remember tickets with the destination "Berlin Stadtbahn" and train route-shields shewing the same (and shewing it still appearing as an intermediate point on the sides of certain through coaches at Hoek van Holland in the early mornings).

 

[AM9]

OK, Euroshuttle then.

Euro shuttle is a RoRo service designed to move vehicles, so the interchange is with a road network/car park which doesn't have any problem going around a tight loop.
An extreme whataboutery own goal!

 

[si404]

The Euroshuttle terminals are also massive, with many platforms. Even stripping it down, there's 8 platform tracks in the Folkestone terminal, and 10 in the Calais Terminal. There's no saving in space from a more conventional termini - in fact it takes more due to the loop!

You could do the same at any terminus, but you'd take up more space with the loop, would remove the concourse that is level with the platforms, and you'd still need a similar number of platforms. You aren't going to strip it down into a three platform tracks station from a 7 or 8 track terminus.

 

[Tetchytyke]

An interesting article in the FT last month (FT say I'm not allowed to copy/paste it).

https://www.ft.com/content/2d708a94-e68a-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59

In short, HS2 Ltd are screwing over people they're requisitioning land from: paying them far too little, months or even years after the date payment legally should have been made. HS2 didn't get proper valuations before going to Parliament and now are defying their own assesors' estimates (which, in turn, are much less than commercial estimates). Clearly they expect that the people who've lost everything will be too tired and skint to fight them; given what they've done to the owner of the Bree Louise, they're probably right.

So, in answer to the question "why do people hate HS2", add "stealing land and businesses from people" to the long list of things wrong with this shambolic white elephant.

Still, the construction fat cat bosses who donate vast sums of money to the Tories aren't having to beg to get paid, so that's one bonus.

 

[The Ham]

So, in answer to the question "why do people hate HS2", add "stealing land and businesses from people" to the long list of things wrong with this shambolic white elephant.

Given that this has been reported elsewhere it should lead to questions as to how it is run. However in some reports about it, people are complaining that they haven't been paid when their agreement is that they'll get paid once they vacate the property and they are yet to leave.

Likewise there's cases of people complaining that they've lost money compared to what they paid for the property. Now given that anything is only what someone is offering they could well have needed to pay over the odds so that the other person didn't get it.

However, how something is run doesn't mean that the project is wrong in principle. For instance the expected 100 million passengers a year would imply that it's unlikely to be a White Elephant.

Even then those predicted passenger numbers don't have to grow by very much to be ahead of target before the original planned opening date.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However in some reports about it, people are complaining that they haven't been paid when their agreement is that they'll get paid once they vacate the property and they are yet to leave.

The National Audit Office have said that HS2 only managed to pay half the people when they should have done. The NAO didn't say there was mitigation, they were very critical.

However, how something is run doesn't mean that the project is wrong in principle.

If the project can only show a business case by cooking the books- deliberately underestimating the cost and shafting those who can't fight back- then there clearly isn't a sufficient business case.

If HS2 had been honest about costs at the start, my guess is they'd have never got it through Parliament.

 

[Ianno87]

to pay half the people when they should have done. The NAO didn't say there was mitigation, they were very critical.



If the project can only show a business case by cooking the books- deliberately underestimating the cost and shafting those who can't fight back- then there clearly isn't a sufficient business case.

If HS2 had been honest about costs at the start, my guess is they'd have never got it through Parliament.

Oakervee's initial findings however suggest that benefits currently in the business case are also potentially very significantly underestimated.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Oakervee's initial findings however suggest that benefits currently in the business case are also potentially very significantly underestimated.

As costs balloon, so do the nebulous benefits?

That's very...convenient.

 

[Deerfold]

As costs balloon, so do the nebulous benefits?

That's very...convenient.

How are the benefits of HS2 any more nebulous than any other large project?

 

[Esker-pades]

As costs balloon, so do the nebulous benefits?

Could you provide some specifics on what benefits of HS2 are 'nebulous'?

 

[Tetchytyke]

How are the benefits of HS2 any more nebulous than any other large project?

The benefits of most large projects are nebulous, to be fair.

Could you provide some specifics on what benefits of HS2 are 'nebulous'?

The supposed benefits include things like "cost savings by moving back office staff from the City of London to Liverpool".

https://www.hs2.org.uk/why/investing-in-our-economy/

That's pretty nebulous.

 

[Ianno87]

The benefits of most large projects are nebulous, to be fair.



The supposed benefits include things like "cost savings by moving back office staff from the City of London to Liverpool".

https://www.hs2.org.uk/why/investing-in-our-economy/

That's pretty nebulous.

No, that example is pretty well-defined and specific, and easy to demonstrate with the going rates on renting office space.

 

[underbank]

The supposed benefits include things like "cost savings by moving back office staff from the City of London to Liverpool". That's pretty nebulous.

Not really. Most things are a lot cheaper outside London. Wages, rents, outside services etc are all a lot cheaper, even down to ordering in catering for meetings or getting a plumber to fix the toilet. Living costs, childcare, private schools, etc are also cheaper so arguably easier to attract staff.

It's not really any different to "outsourcing" the administration, call handling and other back office functions to India. (Although not as cheap). But at least, keeping it in the UK, you keep the benefits of a UK based workforce for easier communications etc.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Most things are a lot cheaper outside London.

True, but what that has to do with HS2- given it is the case now, and HS2 is not going to Liverpool anyway- is quite beyond me. It's not as if bringing the outsourcing 20 minutes closer to London affects the viability of it. After all, if it did, everyone would already be outsourcing in Northampton and Leicester, an hour from London, and they're not.

 

[Ianno87]

True, but what that has to do with HS2- given it is the case now, and HS2 is not going to Liverpool anyway- is quite beyond me. It's not as if bringing the outsourcing 20 minutes closer to London affects the viability of it. After all, if it did, everyone would already be outsourcing in Northampton and Leicester, an hour from London, and they're not.

Can we not start this "HS2 is not going to Liverpool" nonsense again, please.

There will be two HS2 trains per hour between Euston and Liverpool Lime Street, significantly accelerated over the current Pendolino service.

Furthermore, the DfT recently launched a consultation on a new junction in Cheshire somewhere, precisely to form the start of a new route from HS2 into Liverpool.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Can we not start this "HS2 is not going to Liverpool" nonsense, please.

It isn't. But it's also irrelevant to my point about the supposed financial benefits of HS2 largely being nebulous.

"Liverpool will be 90 minutes from London, so London businesses can move, save some money, and that's a saving attributable to HS2" is just about the stupidest thing I've heard from the organisers of this project. And they've said a lot of stupid things.

If it were the case that being an hour from London was all business cared about, Northampton would be full of London businesses. It isn't, so it isn't.

And "Liverpudlians can commute to London to earn more" isn't a saving when the season ticket is £15,500 per year!

 

[Ianno87]

It isn't. But it's also irrelevant to my point about the supposed financial benefits of HS2 largely being nebulous.

"Liverpool will be 90 minutes from London, so London businesses can move, save some money, and that's a saving attributable to HS2" is just about the stupidest thing I've heard from the organisers of this project. And they've said a lot of stupid things.

If it were the case that being an hour from London was all business cared about, Northampton would be full of London businesses. It isn't, so it isn't.

And "Liverpudlians can commute to London to earn more" isn't a saving when the season ticket is £15,500 per year!

A major employer in Northampton is Nationwide. No doubt a reason for locating there is access to London for the financial markets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A major employer in Northampton is Nationwide. No doubt a reason for locating there is access to London for the financial markets.

It probably was, but I doubt it is any more - the reason they are there now is because they were there before. People just aren't travelling to that extent for that reason any more.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A major employer in Northampton is Nationwide. No doubt a reason for locating there is access to London for the financial markets.

I doubt it, as Nationwide's base there is largely administrative, and has grown out of their origins as a co-operative in Northampton.

It'll still be there because labour is cheaper, just as Santander and BT have large administration centres here in Newcastle. And the County Court bulk centre is in Northampton for that reason too.

 

[Ianno87]

I doubt it, as Nationwide's base there is largely administrative, and has grown out of their origins as a co-operative in Northampton.

It'll still be there because labour is cheaper, just as Santander and BT have large administration centres here in Newcastle. And the County Court bulk centre is in Northampton for that reason too.

Exactly - cheaper for admin staff, but accessible from London. Exactly like Liverpool.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Exactly - cheaper for admin staff, but accessible from London.

So we've already got the benefit, we don't need the white elephant. Sorted

 

[The Ham]

I doubt it, as Nationwide's base there is largely administrative, and has grown out of their origins as a co-operative in Northampton.

It'll still be there because labour is cheaper, just as Santander and BT have large administration centres here in Newcastle. And the County Court bulk centre is in Northampton for that reason too.

There's lots of companies which are located within an hour of London so that they can access London as required.

Something which I've suggested before which may well be overlooked is that if you are employed in London and live a bit further out you have to pay your own way to go there. If however you are employed further out but need to go to meetings in London then the cost is covered by you claiming it as expenses.

You also only have to go to London when you are required to, so your travel time to work can be shorter (at least some of the time).

 

[The Ham]

So we've already got the benefit, we don't need the white elephant. Sorted

Can you please explain why something which is likely to carry getting on for 100 million passenger movements a year is going to be a White Elephant (which by definition is something which is of little or no use)?

 

[Bald Rick]

If it were the case that being an hour from London was all business cared about, Northampton would be full of London businesses. It isn't, so it isn't.

But Northampton isn’t exactly a big city. St Albans is 18 minutes from London, but hardly full of big business either. You need sufficient city scale to have a large enough pool of potential employees for a corporate headquarters (or similar) who will want all the trappings and attractions of a big city.

Birmingham is a good example. Since it’s been confirmed to be at one end of HS2, and about an hour from London, HSBC shifted their U.K. HQ there. Others are following suit. There’s no reason why Liverpool wouldn’t have similar success.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

It isn't.

HS2 trains will enter Liverpool, please tell me how “HS2 isn’t going to Liverpool”?

 

[Tetchytyke]

HS2 trains will enter Liverpool, please tell me how “HS2 isn’t going to Liverpool”?

Will Liverpool have a high-speed rail line? No. Next!

Birmingham is a good example. Since it’s been confirmed to be at one end of HS2, and about an hour from London, HSBC shifted their U.K. HQ there.

They signed the lease in 2015 and HS2 didn't get through Parliament until 2017. The meaty part of the business is still at Canary Wharf, too.

I think you do a disservice to Birmingham as a business city in it's own right. 20 minutes on a train is neither here nor there.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think you do a disservice to Birmingham as a business city in it's own right. 20 minutes on a train is neither here nor there.

I lived there for 11 years, no disservice.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I lived there for 11 years, no disservice.

I really like Birmingham, but it's been on the up for longer than even since HS2 was first tenatively mentioned. Similar with Leeds, which is home to First Direct. I think trying to claim success for HS2, as HS2 Ltd try to do, is disingenuous.

But back on topic.

Can you please explain why something which is likely to carry getting on for 100 million passenger movements a year is going to be a White Elephant (which by definition is something which is of little or no use)?

If those 100m passengers are all passengers who would have travelled on the classic lines anyway, then a shiny new line is, by definition, pointless.

Are you trying to argue there's a massive untapped market to get from London to Birmingham which isn't currently met by the 8tph between the two cities?

Maybe there is a vast untapped market of people wanting to get to Birmingham 20 minutes faster, in which case I'll eat my hat. Harris Tweed trilby, since you ask.

In other news, I notice the former boss of Carillion is now in charge of Balfour Beatty Vinci. Carillion were, and Balfour Beatty are, generous Conservative donors. Someone's doing very well out of the whole bloated shambles.

Trebles all round!