HS2, whats the current status ?

[Blue62]

rs1952 said:

Time for a thread bump.

I've just heard on the radio news that Chris Grayling, now Transport Minister and not exactly arch-EU supporter, saying that he has no plans to dump HS2.

So that's that little lie about the EU leading on HS2 laid to rest then

Off topic, but I wonder how many other pet dislikes of the PH massive are going to turn out to be Whitehall and not EU inspired projects after all?

I don't think HS2 was ever EU inspired, however, much of the funding was coming from the EU as I understand it, so if we are to exit then we need to find the cash from somewhere. Grayling has to support HS2 publicly for now because to cast any doubts at this stage would cause a sh*tstorm, but I suspect it is on it's knees right now, with less political will now that Cameron has gone and a serious funding issue.

[edh]

For once I agree with the rent seekers alliance

"The new PM should scrap #HS2 in favour of bold and cost effective infrastructure"

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/rich_man_s_toy_th...

[rs1952]

edh said:

For once I agree with the rent seekers alliance

"The new PM should scrap #HS2 in favour of bold and cost effective infrastructure"

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/rich_man_s_toy_th...

You've confused me. What are you agreeing with - the Taxpayers Alliance report or one sentence from it?

If it's the report, I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you. Your average loudmouth down the pub who thinks he knows everything could do a lot better, even after a skinful

The choice of the cover photograph is interesting. 43965, or 3965 as it was in LMS days, was a standard Midland Railway freight engine built in December 1921 and withdrawn in the autumn of 1959. They were sometimes pressed into passenger train work, as is shown in the photograph, but they had nothing to do with High Speed trains, even in the days when that meant rattling along at 60. Do the Taxpayers Alliance think that such engines are going to be used on HS2, or do tjhey intend this as "a bit of a larf" at the start of a "serious" report? Not a very good start, methinks...

I was going to post a detailed analysis of the report, but I got to 600 words and still hadn’t finished responding to the first of the “Key Findings” and even I started to get bored with it, let alone you lot who might have read it

So I shall summarise. The report is a complete load of dingo’s kidneys. Please come back to me with any specifics from it if you hold a dissimilar view

[anonymous-user]

Axionknight said:

cirian75 said:

jamoor said:

They need to build a road link between sheffield and Manchester.

It's amazing that london gets 2 crossrail projects yet 2 large northern cities have no decent road/rail connection.

My mate lives in Manchester and his jobs in Sheffield, he has given up commuting backwards and forwards each night, now stays in a cheap hotel Monday to Thursday night

Snake Pass route? That's a garbage road to commute on, especially in the winter time.

Woodhead pass is more likely, that's the route most used when going to Sheffield from Manchester.

[recycled]

By the time it is completed, it would not be adequate to serve its purpose. Look at the linked towns and imagine the population growth, if there is indeed a spike in industrial and trade booms in those towns?
Seems to be just another project that would make a select few very rich indeed.

[George111]

rs1952 said:

So I shall summarise. The report is a complete load of dingo’s kidneys.

This is where we get to with so many reports these days. One body writes a report (HS2 Ltd, Government etc) which is clearly a load of baloney which then obviously encourages a lot of, shall we say, amateurs, to dip their toe in the water. It's the result of the Government not using fact and solid research as a basis for their assumptions.

Doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's still a complete nonsense to claim there is going to be any financial benefit at the prices they are quoting.

[robinessex]

George111 said:

rs1952 said:

So I shall summarise. The report is a complete load of dingo’s kidneys.

This is where we get to with so many reports these days. One body writes a report (HS2 Ltd, Government etc) which is clearly a load of baloney which then obviously encourages a lot of, shall we say, amateurs, to dip their toe in the water. It's the result of the Government not using fact and solid research as a basis for their assumptions.

Doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's still a complete nonsense to claim there is going to be any financial benefit at the prices they are quoting.

It's already been shown, that the optimum speed to get the greatest passenger density is 40mph! Opps !

[rs1952]

George111 said:

rs1952 said:

So I shall summarise. The report is a complete load of dingo’s kidneys.

This is where we get to with so many reports these days. One body writes a report (HS2 Ltd, Government etc) which is clearly a load of baloney which then obviously encourages a lot of, shall we say, amateurs, to dip their toe in the water. It's the result of the Government not using fact and solid research as a basis for their assumptions.

Doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's still a complete nonsense to claim there is going to be any financial benefit at the prices they are quoting.

As nobody else seems particularly interested, I'll pick up on the matter of costs, as that was the first in the "report's" Key Findings.

report said:

Project costs are rising and are likely to be at least £88 billion

On page 2, they list the cost estimates that have appeared so far. In March 2010 the DfT estimated a cost of £33bn. After the consultations started, increased compensation payments were agreed with some of the protestors and additional work was added to the job, also to placate the objectors, such as increased lengths of tunnels, screening etc. Hardly surprisingly these matters put the estimated costs up to £50.1bn in 2013 and £55.7bn in 2015. Most of that last increase was accounted for by inflation.

The project is then criticised for spiralling costs. Damned if they do and damned if they don't is an expression that springs to mind.

In August 2013 a report was produced by Wellings whoever they or that is, but appears to be connected to the Institute of Economic Affairs. Googling them causes some concerns, to put it mildly, about their activities, but we'll let one ride for somebody else to pick up on. They estimated a cost of £80bn, and the Taxpayers Alliance have now come up with a figure of £87.5bn taking the Wellings figure and uprating it for inflation to 2015 prices. The Wellings report is entitled "The High Speed Gravy Train; Special Interests, Transport Policy and Government Spending" Not the sort of title that one would normally associate with an impartial piece of work, I would suggest.

How they arrived at their figure of £80bn is partially explained in the text on page 2 above the cost estimate table. It says:

report said:

The National Audit Office (NAO) report Progress with preparations for High Speed 2 notes that the £55.7 billion would also not include the funding for all of the development required in order for the full economic benefits to be achieved.5 For example this does not include the cost of regeneration around stations. If other such aspects of the project are not undertaken, many of the benefits of HS2 may not be and so it should be assumed that these other costs will arise.

"The cost of regeneration around stations" Excuse me? Since when were such things included in the cost of building a railway, or a road for that matter. By using the same logic, the new Bristol Arena which is being built on former railway land next to Temple Meads station should be charged to the GWR electrification scheme, and any trading estate built anywhere near Banbury since 1980 should be charged to the M40 motorway construction budget. This is quite simply not the way that these things are done.

Tnis is just one example of the drivel the "report" contains dressed up as serious analysis. If you read the report and you start to think any of it is plausible, go back a bit and read it again - you'd have been caught up in the hyperbole.

[hidetheelephants]

It's quite impressive how the estimated price for a mildly evolved form of a 19th century technology is ballooning; it makes Musk's hyperloop kiteflying exercise look a rational and sober infrastructure investment.

[Googie]

rs1952 said:

"The cost of regeneration around stations" Excuse me? Since when were such things included in the cost of building a railway, or a road for that matter. By using the same logic, the new Bristol Arena which is being built on former railway land next to Temple Meads station should be charged to the GWR electrification scheme, and any trading estate built anywhere near Banbury since 1980 should be charged to the M40 motorway construction budget. This is quite simply not the way that these things are done.

Tnis is just one example of the drivel the "report" contains dressed up as serious analysis. If you read the report and you start to think any of it is plausible, go back a bit and read it again - you'd have been caught up in the hyperbole.

The development referred around M40 etc wasn't paid for the taxpayer and that's the difference. In addition to being overbudget and late if ever built, all HS2 will achieve will be to make London more commutable and hence more dominant . The Project should be cancelled with the monies being spent on improved transport links between the major cities in the North of England.

[George111]

rs1952 said:

Tnis is just one example of the drivel the "report" contains dressed up as serious analysis. If you read the report and you start to think any of it is plausible, go back a bit and read it again - you'd have been caught up in the hyperbole.

But the same is true of the Government's report too. Whichever cost you take as being the truth and whatever you decide to add or subtract, the result is it's too expensive to make a positive impact on the economy.

If we need capacity then build capacity, not a white elephant which will probably cost us in the region of £100Bn by the time it's finished.

[MarshPhantom]

rs1952 said:

George111 said:

rs1952 said:

So I shall summarise. The report is a complete load of dingo’s kidneys.

This is where we get to with so many reports these days. One body writes a report (HS2 Ltd, Government etc) which is clearly a load of baloney which then obviously encourages a lot of, shall we say, amateurs, to dip their toe in the water. It's the result of the Government not using fact and solid research as a basis for their assumptions.

Doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's still a complete nonsense to claim there is going to be any financial benefit at the prices they are quoting.

As nobody else seems particularly interested, I'll pick up on the matter of costs, as that was the first in the "report's" Key Findings.

report said:

Project costs are rising and are likely to be at least £88 billion

On page 2, they list the cost estimates that have appeared so far. In March 2010 the DfT estimated a cost of £33bn. After the consultations started, increased compensation payments were agreed with some of the protestors and additional work was added to the job, also to placate the objectors, such as increased lengths of tunnels, screening etc. Hardly surprisingly these matters put the estimated costs up to £50.1bn in 2013 and £55.7bn in 2015. Most of that last increase was accounted for by inflation.

The project is then criticised for spiralling costs. Damned if they do and damned if they don't is an expression that springs to mind.

In August 2013 a report was produced by Wellings whoever they or that is, but appears to be connected to the Institute of Economic Affairs. Googling them causes some concerns, to put it mildly, about their activities, but we'll let one ride for somebody else to pick up on. They estimated a cost of £80bn, and the Taxpayers Alliance have now come up with a figure of £87.5bn taking the Wellings figure and uprating it for inflation to 2015 prices. The Wellings report is entitled "The High Speed Gravy Train; Special Interests, Transport Policy and Government Spending" Not the sort of title that one would normally associate with an impartial piece of work, I would suggest.

How they arrived at their figure of £80bn is partially explained in the text on page 2 above the cost estimate table. It says:

report said:

The National Audit Office (NAO) report Progress with preparations for High Speed 2 notes that the £55.7 billion would also not include the funding for all of the development required in order for the full economic benefits to be achieved.5 For example this does not include the cost of regeneration around stations. If other such aspects of the project are not undertaken, many of the benefits of HS2 may not be and so it should be assumed that these other costs will arise.

"The cost of regeneration around stations" Excuse me? Since when were such things included in the cost of building a railway, or a road for that matter. By using the same logic, the new Bristol Arena which is being built on former railway land next to Temple Meads station should be charged to the GWR electrification scheme, and any trading estate built anywhere near Banbury since 1980 should be charged to the M40 motorway construction budget. This is quite simply not the way that these things are done.

Tnis is just one example of the drivel the "report" contains dressed up as serious analysis. If you read the report and you start to think any of it is plausible, go back a bit and read it again - you'd have been caught up in the hyperbole.

I don't really care how much it costs, it isn't needed.

[Digga]

MarshPhantom said:

I don't really care how much it costs, it isn't needed.

I agree. Crossrail - an important project no doubt, but one with much smaller scope than HS2 - seemed to breeze through this process without significant issue.

I also want to see the promised Midlands/Northern Eurotunnel terminal sorted out. Done correctly, this could relieve a huge amount of the congestion in the South East.

[hidetheelephants]

Digga said:

MarshPhantom said:

I don't really care how much it costs, it isn't needed.

I agree. Crossrail - an important project no doubt, but one with much smaller scope than HS2 - seemed to breeze through this process without significant issue.

I also want to see the promised Midlands/Northern Eurotunnel terminal sorted out. Done correctly, this could relieve a huge amount of the congestion in the South East.

While we're at it, can Scotland get some direct eurostar services to the continent? We've only been waiting for 25 years since the promise was dangled in front of us as the payoff for our share of the chunnel.

[ralphrj]

hidetheelephants said:

We've only been waiting for 25 years since the promise was dangled in front of us as the payoff for our share of the chunnel.

What share of the Channel Tunnel do (or did) the Scots have?

[Berz]

ralphrj said:

hidetheelephants said:

We've only been waiting for 25 years since the promise was dangled in front of us as the payoff for our share of the chunnel.

What share of the Channel Tunnel do (or did) the Scots have?

It was originally envisaged that the Eurostar trains would run further north than London but that never happened. Instead we're stuck with connecting services that add time and money making it better for us to fly instead. Shame really.

DfT said:

North of England and Scotland (Manchester and Glasgow or Edinburgh): The original BRB proposal was to use the seven trainsets for day services on the WCML to Manchester and on the ECML to Edinburgh.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121107103953/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/europe/reviewofregionaleurostarserv3325?page=10

[ralphrj]

Berz said:

ralphrj said:

hidetheelephants said:

We've only been waiting for 25 years since the promise was dangled in front of us as the payoff for our share of the chunnel.

What share of the Channel Tunnel do (or did) the Scots have?

It was originally envisaged that the Eurostar trains would run further north than London but that never happened. Instead we're stuck with connecting services that add time and money making it better for us to fly instead. Shame really.

I'm well aware of the North of London/Regional Eurostar cancellation but Eurostar is not the Channel Tunnel.

Hidetheelephants post sounded to me as if he thought that Scotland/the North had paid for part of the Channel Tunnel when in fact it was privately funded.

[BlackLabel]

"The high-speed railway known as HS2 has cost more than £2bn of public money even before the legislation to build it has been passed by parliament."

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/2bn-spent-a...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3795113/Co...

"The newspaper also reported how HS2 had splashed out on a 'ridiculous' number of ecology and wildlife surveys. One farmer, Robert Brown, said he had been visited 46 times since January - at a cost of £200-£300 each time."

[loafer123]

BlackLabel said:

"The high-speed railway known as HS2 has cost more than £2bn of public money even before the legislation to build it has been passed by parliament."

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/2bn-spent-a...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3795113/Co...

"The newspaper also reported how HS2 had splashed out on a 'ridiculous' number of ecology and wildlife surveys. One farmer, Robert Brown, said he had been visited 46 times since January - at a cost of £200-£300 each time."

Blame the legislation, not HS2. Given how many newts found on development sites, it is a wonder they haven't become our overlords.

[Wozy68]

Knock it on the head and utilise the old Great Central line and make it a 125mph line to Birmingham. Do we really need mega speed lines in the UK?