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

[Meerkat]

Or perhaps a left wing government that brings in a land / garden tax to replace council tax at such a punative level that all the occupants of a line of houses feel the need to sell off their gardens for development.

As I said - a totalitarian government
30s semis generally don’t have gardens quite big enough for that (and planning guidance would need changing I think). Either bigger Edwardian houses or council estates are better for that.

 

[Neen Sollars]

And how does that negate HS2 (South)?

Again, this 'solution' falls into the trap of assuming that HS2 is about London to Birmingham, and not about commuter capacity around those cities.

It's such a predictable response, that I even wrote an essay about it a month ago. I've used bits of it, which (with slight re-wording) address your post.

Hi I think there have been lots of posts above on the merits (or mostly not) of additional commuter capacity into London. I will add nothing to that. But as you can probably guess, in my book it should not be a priority because it is to focus on and to benefit London and the South East, which is not where govt stated policy is heading.
If my posts are predictable, then with respect so are yours.

 

[Neen Sollars]

Engineers can spend money. They can't however, break the laws of physics as you are expecting them to.

Who me? It was The Planner who raised the subject of engineering problems not me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or you have communal roof gardens

Wouldn't work. The UK isn't like that.

 

[Esker-pades]

Hi I think there have been lots of posts above on the merits (or mostly not) of additional commuter capacity into London. I will add nothing to that. But as you can probably guess, in my book it should not be a priority because it is to focus on and to benefit London and the South East, which is not where govt stated policy is heading.
If my posts are predictable, then with respect so are yours.

This is where I have a problem. There is a requirement to build additional (or improve existing) infrastructure in 'the North', but there is also a need to do so in London and the South East. Both need improvement.

HS2 isn't just about giving benefit to the latter area (as you prove by using some of it), but it should also do so. And, if you're not up for providing additional capacity to the places where people evidently want to go, what's the point?

My points are predictable because I've made them about 94 times on this thread alone.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Interesting article in this mornings Telegraph (who as a newspaper is very against HS2)

I quote a few lines -

Baroness Vere of Norbiton, a transport minister, praised “Victorian pioneers” for building the train lines which form the “vast part of our national railway”.
She also criticised “naysayers” who block such projects and praised the “courage” of politicians who see them through.
Speaking in the House of Lords in an HS2 debate on Thursday, Baroness Vere said: “Thinking back nearly 200 years to the 1830s, our predecessors were here debating not one, two or three but four new major train lines."...

That to me sounds optimistic and that the government`s thinking is to build it.

Well as she is currently parliamentary under secretary for Aviation within the Dep of transport its certainly a vote of confidence

 

[Meerkat]

Wouldn't work. The UK isn't like that.

A modern three story block of flats near me has a roof terrace.
Would work from me as I just want somewhere to sit outside of a summer evening.

 

[Neen Sollars]

And how does these extra passengers get seats on trains that are already full leaving New Street ?

6G sorry I do not understand your question. If you mean travelling north, they use HS2 to Manchester or Leeds. If you mean south to London, the extra capacity is on the Chiltern Main Line from Moor Street, 50% more by moving to 9 car IETs

 

[Neen Sollars]

Wrong, look at a HS2 map. The main line stops at Fradley in anticipation of Phase 2A where a spur line joins the WCML at Handsacre allowing trains to continue north.

Why would anyone at Birmingham Airport get on a people mover to Birmingham Interchange to go to Curzon St when they can just go to International and a get a train to New St?

a, Wrong, I wrote the "initial plan", ie the original plan was for HS2 to end in a field at Handsacre. It was only after uproar that the tie in to the WCML was planned.
b, Because you keep telling these boards the WCML if full

 

[Neen Sollars]

Worse. If everybody from Euston to the north figures out that Euston-New Street-Curzon Street-North is competitive journey time-wise, suddenly that's very overloaded Pendolinos and New Street station....

No, you would alight at Bham Intl and join HS2 north at Bham HS2 Intl Interchange. Both Leeds and Manchester reached in less than one hour from Bham Intl Interchange, some trains should go direct to Scotland via a higher speed ECML.

 

[Grumpy Git]

HS2 is too expensive. Too much of the cash goes into the pockets of those who either:

a) don't need it
b) don't deserve it

 

[JonathanH]

HS2 is too expensive. Too much of the cash goes into the pockets of those who either:

a) don't need it
b) don't deserve it

Is that any different to any construction project?

Are you somehow arguing for construction firms be nationalised and all their staff to be paid the minimum wage?

Alternatively, I think you are suggesting that investment should be aimed at the poorest in society and they will never use HS2 or the extra capacity on existing railway lines.

Would you be in favour of HS2 if all profits were spent on welfare and the health service? There is an argument that if it has a positive cost benefit profile it does benefit people who don't use it.

 

[The Planner]

a, Wrong, I wrote the "initial plan", ie the original plan was for HS2 to end in a field at Handsacre. It was only after uproar that the tie in to the WCML was planned.
b, Because you keep telling these boards the WCML if full

No it wasnt, it was always connecting with the WCML, do you really think it was only go to have trains to Curzon St? Handsacre is the junction with the WCML, not a field in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Ianno87]

No, you would alight at Bham Intl and join HS2 north at Bham HS2 Intl Interchange. Both Leeds and Manchester reached in less than one hour from Bham Intl Interchange, some trains should go direct to Scotland via a higher speed ECML.

Doesn't solve crowding betweem Euston snd International does it....

Oh, and the small matter of how long it takes all the occupants of a 400m train being dumped at Interchange to move transported, 20 at a time, via the peoplemover link. 18 times per hour....

 

[Grumpy Git]

Is that any different to any construction project?

Are you somehow arguing for construction firms be nationalised and all their staff to be paid the minimum wage?

Alternatively, I think you are suggesting that investment should be aimed at the poorest in society and they will never use HS2 or the extra capacity on existing railway lines.

Would you be in favour of HS2 if all profits were spent on welfare and the health service? There is an argument that if it has a positive cost benefit profile it does benefit people who don't use it.

No, but there always seems to be someone in the UK that can trouser cash from schemes like this with no apparent gain for the project as a whole.

I remember the new Wembley Stadium being one such disaster. Delays after delays while the cost goes through the roof.

Yes these are complex jobs, but there are so many with their fingers in the pie it makes me sick.

Add where did I mention the minimum wage? I mean fat cats who scratch each others backsides.

 

[Yindee8191]

Hi I think there have been lots of posts above on the merits (or mostly not) of additional commuter capacity into London. I will add nothing to that. But as you can probably guess, in my book it should not be a priority because it is to focus on and to benefit London and the South East, which is not where govt stated policy is heading.
If my posts are predictable, then with respect so are yours.

Not sure that’s where government policy is heading considering they just took millions from Northern councils and gave most of it to the Home Counties...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, but there always seems to be someone in the UK that can trouser cash from schemes like this with no apparent gain for the project as a whole.

Do you actually have any evidence of this? Any particular examples you can cite where a particular person substantially 'trousered cash' from a project without contributing to it?

 

[HSTEd]

Do you actually have any evidence of this? Any particular examples you can cite where a particular person substantially 'trousered cash' from a project without contributing to it?

Well the fact that these schemes always cost far more than all the international comparators is rather suspicious.

We now have a scheme that has somehow escalated to £100+bn.
How the hell did that happen?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well the fact that these schemes always cost far more than all the international comparators is rather suspicious.

We now have a scheme that has somehow escalated to £100+bn.
How the hell did that happen?

Is the comparison with international projects after taking into account the higher population density and resultant higher land values and greater need for tunnelling in the UK?

I do agree that the escalation to £100bn is very concerning, and certainly needs close looking into to figure out what happened. And I'm equally concerned that, even thinking about the cost of other rail-related projects in the UK, £100bn does seem high. But by itself that doesn't necessarily imply the corruption that @Grumpy Git seemed to be implying (for this and previous projects). It could be poor procurement processes, high costs because of no economies of scale somewhere, or maybe that for reasons that aren't obvious to us, the scheme really is much more complicated than we imagine. Like I say, it certainly needs investigating. I'd hate to think that rail projects in the future always turn out so expensive. But I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions.

 

[HSTEd]

Is the comparison with international projects after taking into account the higher population density and resultant higher land values and greater need for tunnelling in the UK?

It is now comparable or greater on a per route-km basis than a base tunnel project......

EDIT:

The current HS2 requirement can be met with about 500 route km of tunnels.

At the route-km figure of the Ceneri Base Tunnel that is £61bn
At the turn out cost of the Gotthard Base Tunnel we would be looking at £66bn
At the projected cost of the Koralm Base Tunnel we would be looking at ~£77bn
Whilst at the projected final cost of the Semmering Base Tunnel we would be looking at only ~£50bn

Whilst stations cost a lot of money..... they don't cost £40bn.
Considering the station now only has.... eight, and only five in a city centre?
(Euston, OOC, Birmingham International, Curzon Street, Toton Lane, Manchester Airport, Manchester and Leeds)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It is now comparable or greater on a per route-km basis than a base tunnel project......

Kinda. Doing a bit of Googling and comparing with the Gotthard base tunnel, we have: Gotthard = about £10 bn for 35 miles. HS2 is coming out at £100bn for 350 miles or so, so per mile is about the same. But I'm pretty sure the Gotthard tunnel didn't require constructing any underground stations (or any stations at all) which would presumably offset that HS2 is mainly open-air running. I'm guessing the Gotthard tunnel cost didn't include a brand new fleet of high speed trains. Also Gotthard appears to have a capacity of 2 passenger trains (120ish mph) and 6 freight trains (60ish mph) per hour, which is both massively slower and far lower capacity than HS2. That would presumably account for some of the cost of HS2. To my mind, that makes HS2 look not too far off reasonable by comparison.

(I appreciate that's just one comparison, other tunnels might produce different results, but I don't have time to look anything else up)

 

[HSTEd]

Kinda. Doing a bit of Googling and comparing with the Gotthard base tunnel, we have: Gotthard = about £10 bn for 35 miles. HS2 is coming out at £100bn for 350 miles or so, so per mile is about the same.

Well if we are building in tunnels we don't need 350 route miles, so we need to correct for that.
And as far as I can tell the Gotthard Base Tunnel didn't cost anything approaching £10bn.
It cost about 7.5

But I'm pretty sure the Gotthard tunnel didn't require constructing any underground stations (or any stations at all) which would presumably offset that HS2 is mainly open-air running.

The Gotthard Base Tunnel has two station caverns excavated within it.
Including one that was originally going to be used operationally through a several hundred metre lift (the 'Porta Alpina' scheme).

I'm guessing the Gotthard tunnel cost didn't include a brand new fleet of high speed trains.

The cost of a fleet of trains is negligible.
For example, the nine projected captive services would require under 30 formations.
Which implies a maximum of 60 trainsets.
60 200m Avelia Horizons would cost something like £1.4bn.
Even with the extra captive sets its not a significant expense.

(I appreciate that's just one comparison, other tunnels might produce different results, but I don't have time to look anything else up)

If you check my post I edited with the same calc for various base tunnel schemes.

 

[MarkyT]

The Gotthard Base Tunnel has two station caverns excavated within it.
Including one that was originally going to be used operationally through a several hundred metre lift (the 'Porta Alpina' scheme).

These are for emergency and maintenance purposes I understand. Fitting the Porta Apina site out for routine passenger use would probably be rather more difficult than its proponents envisaged, especially the lifts, and was considered detrimental to overall capacity without additional expensive tunnel tracks. While not ruled out indefinitely, the official position is that it is for future generations to determine whether they want Porta Alpina.

On the broader point, tunnelling is already being proposed widely on HS2, especially for the urban segments where there's no easy 'brownfield corridor' to exploit on or above the ground. Other tunnels are the extent they are in some cases primarily for environmental mitigation, in the Chilterns for instance. I feel sure that if tunnelling throughout would be cheaper, the team designing HS2 would have at least considered the possibility. They have already extended tunnelling on certain sections of Phase 1 over the initial proposals, with the Chiltern tunnel extended significantly, an Old Oak Common - Ruislip tunnel added, and another new one around Washwood Heath on Birmingham's Curzon Street approach.

 

[D365]

Engineers can spend money. They can't however, break the laws of physics as you are expecting them to.

I sure wish I could (with regards to physics at least), but as a recently graduated engineer, I can confirm that I have not been involved in any law breaking.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I sure wish I could (with regards to physics at least), but as a recently graduated engineer, I can confirm that I have not been involved in any law breaking.

That's good. I hear the physics police don't treat you too well if you break any laws of physics. Penalties can include up to 30 year's quantum entanglement.

 

[TrafficEng]

Well if we are building in tunnels we don't need 350 route miles, so we need to correct for that.
And as far as I can tell the Gotthard Base Tunnel didn't cost anything approaching £10bn.
It cost about 7.5

In comparing against the cost of HS2 (tunelling) it is worth noting that Gotthard Base Tunnel was constructed through rock, typically at great depth, and is a continuous length. The cost of construction per metre would be higher than average because of the type of material being excavated (hard) and everything needed for construction needs to be transported from the nearest portal to the face (and all waste transported in the opposite direction). The longer the bore the more this transport costs and the slower digging gets.

GBT was constructed with four (later 5) intermediate access tunnels to allow construction to take place on multiple faces at the same time, but the construction of these accesses also adds to the overall cost per metre.

HS2 has many much shorter tunnels which reduces the cost per metre because you have multiple working faces without needing to dig intermediate access points. As I understand it, most of the HS2 tunnelling will be in surface deposits and chalks (or other softer rocks). Although sands and gravels can be tricky to tunnel through, with modern techniques it is usually the case that softer materials are easier (=cheaper) to tunnel through than rock.

Also, some of the HS2 tunnel length will be shallow cut and cover - which compared to deep rock tunnelling is more like building on the surface.

So even if HS2 was constructed entirely in tunnel you should still expect the construction cost per metre to be less than the cost per metre of GBT (obviously allowing for inflation etc). Land costs are a different story though.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Is it possible that drainage and pumping water out could be a bigger issue with HS2?

 

[The Ham]

Hi I think there have been lots of posts above on the merits (or mostly not) of additional commuter capacity into London. I will add nothing to that. But as you can probably guess, in my book it should not be a priority because it is to focus on and to benefit London and the South East, which is not where govt stated policy is heading.
If my posts are predictable, then with respect so are yours.

Whilst there is an argument that capacity into London doesn't need to be a priority, there's a difference between not prioritising something and deliberately not providing something.

Given that rail travel to London is a major draw (we can discuss whether that's a good thing or not) then deliberately not providing for it will result in a worse business case for the start in the North project, that is likely to lead to one thing, the cancelling of the project.

At the very least it would result in many fewer passengers than would otherwise be the case. This would mean that there wouldn't be the premium payments from the train operation, which would leave the rest of the network poorer and harming future investment.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

No, but there always seems to be someone in the UK that can trouser cash from schemes like this with no apparent gain for the project as a whole.

I remember the new Wembley Stadium being one such disaster. Delays after delays while the cost goes through the roof.

Yes these are complex jobs, but there are so many with their fingers in the pie it makes me sick.

Add where did I mention the minimum wage? I mean fat cats who scratch each others backsides.

Nobody will be trousering anything here but the salaries being paid are pretty generous (i here people shouting we need the best people but given the current cost and schedule outturn that investment hasn't paid off).
As a Government agency HS2 has to reveal the salaries of all staff over 150k pa (see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/senior-officials-high-earners-salaries) and it actually has 48 people on the register and its HS2 CEO is also the best paid person (£650k) in the government and its associated agencies (HS2 being one of them). NR by comparison has 61 people but it is running the national railway system with its 35k employees. Also there will be a rake of consultants involved in this project creating a self fulfilling demand for ever more reports and oh more people to support it and check the work of others all for fees.

 

[Roger100]

A modern three story block of flats near me has a roof terrace.
Would work from me as I just want somewhere to sit outside of a summer evening.

Would it work for you if one of the other residents gave the run of the roof garden to their pit-bull, or carried out some other unsociable activity up there?