HS2

[GnuBee]

StevieBee said:

Well said and spot on.

HS2 is not really for us. It is for the next generation and goes beyond 20 mins quicker to Brum.

Yes but what were the other options on the table for spending what's going to be close to 100 billion?

The perception, rightly or wrongly, is that it's crap ton of money for exactly what you said a 20 min quicker trip.

I'd rather see the money shared across data/comms infrastructure and invested directly at a local level. The direction things are going in suggest that the generation for whom this may be will actually be benefited more by having pervasive data access than being able to get on one of those old fashioned rail things.

This does has all the hallmarks of a classic large scale Gov project; it'll cost more than they say and will deliver something that may well be outdated (in terms of the requirement not the technology) by the time it completes.

[ralphrj]

StevieBee said:

goes beyond 20 mins quicker to Brum.

One of the most irritating things about the HS2 argument is the often claimed "20 minutes quicker to Birmingham".

1. It is just as valid to say that with HS2 it will be quicker to go from Birmingham, which everyone will appreciate.

2. HS2 would actually save 23 minutes but that is only when compared to the fastest current train, which only goes once a day. HS2 will save 35 minutes on the usual journey time (a reduction of 41%).

3. The London to Birmingham stretch is only part of the route. The final route will probably go all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh so the Birmingham part will only make up 1 third of the route. The time saved on other parts is even bigger (1 hour quicker from London to Manchester, a reduction of 47%).

[Esseesse]

The thing I don't understand about HS2 is why the proposed route doesn't follow the pre-spoiled routes of either the M40 or M1/M6?

[ChemicalChaos]

Esseesse said:

The thing I don't understand about HS2 is why the proposed route doesn't follow the pre-spoiled routes of either the M40 or M1/M6?

That would make too much sense....




Anyway, I'm just going to leave this here, for those that still think HS2 is a good idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfRN-ZFaxh4

[waynedear]

BoRED S2upid said:

Anyone for a sweepstake on the final cost when it's completed that's if Pistonheads still exists when it's completed in several decades time. Hell I will have my hoverboard and flying shoes buy the time this is finished.

It will make the original cost of the London olympics and then the final cost look like pocket change.

[ralphrj]

GnuBee said:

Yes but what were the other options on the table for spending what's going to be close to 100 billion?

The second most irritating thing about HS2 is the multiplication applied to the costs to make it seem impossibly expensive.

Nobody knows how much something is going to cost when it will take 20 years to build. They can make an estimate but they won't know for certain.

Therefore when long term projects like HS2 are planned the costs are calculated on known, historic prices and adjusted for estimated future inflation.

In 2011 prices phase 1 and 2 of HS2 is planned to cost £42.6bn and even that figure is inflated by a contingency of £14.4bn to cover unknown issues. The true cost (in 2011 prices) if the route were to be built as is would be £28.2bn.

The difference in estimates of the final cost are due to different views on future inflation. HS2 opponents tend to use the most pessimistic inflation figures to come up with the highest figure possible which then sounds unbelievable at todays prices.

For example, HS2 might cost as much as £100 billion but applying the same inflation estimate to average earnings would have see them rise to more than £100,000 per annum and average house prices to more than £1 million. The projected figure is an illusion, it is the cost at todays prices that matters.

[iphonedyou]

Ross1988 said:

The capacity that HS2 will free up on the old lines, will allow for ETRMS to be fitted on the EC/WCML eventually, which will be a circa 50% increase in line capacity, as well as increase in freight using these lines.

The reason it will cost a fortune is because the signalling will be top class, and the track will be on will be on slabtrack, using a relatively new method (In the UK) where the initial cost is higher, but maintenance of the track is a lot less over the years, where as ballasted track has to replaced every 30 years or so, it's 80 for slabtrack, with no chance of 'wet beds' or cracked sleepers, and no requirement for tamping.

It does cost a fortune, but it will transform rail travel in this country, granted it will be years in the future, but when have we had a Government that invests in anything longer than their term in power?

Take electrical power production, all of our nuclear sites are getting on, and there is not long term solution to this, other than grants and subsidies for green power generation. With (until recently) little to no investment in the base load capacity.

I do feel sorry for people who have land/houses in the way of HS2 and I hope they are compensated appropriately.

I'm buying tamping trains at the minute. You're quite correct.

[dcb]

skyrover said:

Money would have been better spent finishing off the UK motorway network IMO

+1

According to UK Parliament

It is also worth reiterating that while 85% of passenger miles take place by car,
van and taxi, and 5% by bus and coach, just 8% are travelled on the railways.

The 8% includes National Rail, London Underground and trams.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselec...

So any UK railway looks like a side issue to the main transport issue, the roads.

I think any politician will look very foolish to chuck tens of billions
of UK taxpayer pounds at 8% of the problem, in preference to 85% of
the problem.

[bucksmanuk]

GnuBee said:

Yes but what were the other options on the table for spending what's going to be close to 100 billion?

This is my bugbear
What else do I get for the same £28/38/50/64 (insert number of choice) billion?
What other railways lines could be built?

Why does everyone want to travel in and out of London? London’s packed already, what about building up another area of the country?

What is the speed of a train going from London to Birmingham today that doesn’t stop?
How much demand is there for that train? Are these figures available? Where are they from, how were they obtained?

What about a train that goes from Oxford to Cambridge? - That would be just as useful.
When you hear that the government has issued a report, which pressure groups have 2 weeks to reply to, and its nearly 30,000 pages long, you just know something’s “up”. As relayed to me by someone in the Wendover pressure group.

In the 1970’s there was a train service from Glasgow, via Carlisle, Preston, and Birmingham New Street to Euston. It did the Preston to London bit in 2 hours and 14 minutes. This fact was plastered all over the bill boards at Preston station.

Still - planning it to go through the front garden at Eythrope, not just the grounds, the front garden, makes me wonder about some people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eythrope

Anyway it will get built. There will be enough consultancy roles for rejected MP’s at the next election (no matter what the party) for a nice soft comfortable landing in the outside world. It’s not their money after all is it?

I can see a date not too far off in the future; when we have a nice shiny new high speed train, and yet we will also have power cuts because we forgot to invest in some energy infrastructure…. HS2 will just sit there not having any HS at all.

[Vocal Minority]

Turn7 said:

Ross1988 said:

I do feel sorry for people who have land/houses in the way of HS2 and I hope they are compensated appropriately.

Because I sure thats going to happen.....

The law says anyone losing any property will be compensated to the Market Value of their property should HS2 be disregarded (so HS2 ltd can't get away with paying a 'blighted' value for the property). All calculatios must be made on the basis HS2 never existed.

The key point for debate will be who is and isn't compensated for 'blight' and any reduction in property values for those close to the route.

[iphonedyou]

dcb said:

+1

According to UK Parliament

It is also worth reiterating that while 85% of passenger miles take place by car,
van and taxi, and 5% by bus and coach, just 8% are travelled on the railways.

The 8% includes National Rail, London Underground and trams.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselec...

So any UK railway looks like a side issue to the main transport issue, the roads.

I think any politician will look very foolish to chuck tens of billions
of UK taxpayer pounds at 8% of the problem, in preference to 85% of
the problem.

I don't think that's what they're doing, though. I'd imagine they're looking at the GDP contribution made by that 8%, and what impact HS2 will have on growing it.

[Murph7355]

ralphrj said:

The second most irritating thing about HS2 is the multiplication applied to the costs to make it seem impossibly expensive.

...

In 2011 prices phase 1 and 2 of HS2 is planned to cost £42.6bn and even that figure is inflated by a contingency of £14.4bn to cover unknown issues. The true cost (in 2011 prices) if the route were to be built as is would be £28.2bn.

... .

I admire your optimism.

When was the last time a govt project of this scale ran to budget?

I would bet if we come back here in 20yrs and revisit this thread that (a) the thing still won't have been delivered and (b) the costs will make 100bn look optimistic.

White elephant in the making.

[cobra kid]

Ross1988 said:

The capacity that HS2 will free up on the old lines, will allow for ETRMS to be fitted on the EC/WCML eventually, which will be a circa 50% increase in line capacity, as well as increase in freight using these lines.

The reason it will cost a fortune is because the signalling will be top class, and the track will be on will be on slabtrack, using a relatively new method (In the UK) where the initial cost is higher, but maintenance of the track is a lot less over the years, where as ballasted track has to replaced every 30 years or so, it's 80 for slabtrack, with no chance of 'wet beds' or cracked sleepers, and no requirement for tamping.

It does cost a fortune, but it will transform rail travel in this country, granted it will be years in the future, but when have we had a Government that invests in anything longer than their term in power?

Take electrical power production, all of our nuclear sites are getting on, and there is not long term solution to this, other than grants and subsidies for green power generation. With (until recently) little to no investment in the base load capacity.

I do feel sorry for people who have land/houses in the way of HS2 and I hope they are compensated appropriately.

I'm hoping the company I work for gets the majority of the fastenings contracts.

[iphonedyou]

Murph7355 said:

I admire your optimism.

When was the last time a govt project of this scale ran to budget?

I would bet if we come back here in 20yrs and revisit this thread that (a) the thing still won't have been delivered and (b) the costs will make 100bn look optimistic.

White elephant in the making.

CRL is currently on budget (circa £16bn) - while admittedly smaller scale, it's still absolutely huge, and with the added complexity of being entirely London based and all the hassle that brings.

[ralphrj]

Murph7355 said:

When was the last time a govt project of this scale ran to budget?

There haven't been many projects of this scale to compare it to but the current Crossrail project is doing fine.

Originally forecast to cost £15.9bn it is now expected to cost £14.8bn. It will be 1 year late but that is as a consequence of the actions taken to achieve the £1.1bn saving not because it is running behind.

[iphonedyou]

goldblum said:

And none of these people are already employed?

I can only speak for myself, but on circa £500m projects I know the JV MC has recruited apprentices and graduates solely because of the work we were throwing their way. Those jobs didn't exist - and the graduate jobs are well paid with good benefits and long term prospects.

Not a small number of roles, either.

ETA: Goldblum's post has disappeared into the ether.

ETA2: Conclusive proof that time travel exists, folks. I quoted Goldblum before he typed his post. BRB, doing lottery.

[goldblum]

Ross1988 said:

goldblum said:

It's a shocking waste of money that will benefit no one outside London. We don't need it and it will make little difference to travel times in and out of London - for those that can afford it, anyway. I don't understand how the government claims it will 'create jobs' will work if the jobs are created by the very people paying for the work in the first place.

I guess we'll see in the future.

But of course it will create jobs? How will it not? I don't think I fully understand your last sentence. Are you saying how can a government create jobs if its paying for them in the first place?

Yes. the claim 'creating jobs' suggests the economy will expand and new people will have to be hired. That isn't the same if you're creating the business yourself. Maybe down the line some who worked on HS2 will be kept in employment, but my guess is the majority will not.

Ross1988 said:

Well the ownership of the rail will be transferred to Network Rail on completion, NR is a not for profit entity, all of its profits are legally bound to be re-invested into the network. NR makes its money by allowing train/freight operating companies to use there network for a nominal fee.

The majority of job creation, after construction is complete, will be from these companies. They will employ the people, who run/maintain the trains, while NR will employ/contract the people who run/maintain the railway.

There will be lots of jobs created from this.

And none of these people are already employed?

[goldblum]

iphonedyou said:

goldblum said:

And none of these people are already employed?

I can only speak for myself, but on circa £500m projects I know the JV MC has recruited apprentices and graduates solely because of the work we were throwing their way. Those jobs didn't exist - and the graduate jobs are well paid with good benefits and long term prospects.

Not a small number of roles, either.

Are these jobs secure once the line is up and running?

[iphonedyou]

goldblum said:

Are these jobs secure once the line is up and running?

Yes chum, no two year contracts or anything like that. Many were moved on to other roles even as the project continued (lots of places rotate graduates).

[goldblum]

iphonedyou said:

goldblum said:

Are these jobs secure once the line is up and running?

Yes chum, no two year contracts or anything like that. Many were moved on to other roles even as the project continued (lots of places rotate graduates).

What about the labourers and grafters? Nice and juicy for them one supposes, but where will they go when the work finishes? Mind you that could be a very, very long way off.