HS2, whats the current status ?

[valiant]

Blue62 said:

I agree with much of what you say there, but I can't help but feel that HS2 will swallow up too much of the budget to the detriment of more pressing projects elsewhere, especially in the North and South West. I've yet to be convinced that it is money well spent, though fully accept the capacity argument I can't understand why we can't just build more lines along the existing WCM route?

Whilst you are right to be concerned about the ballooning costs of HS2, I can imagine the costs of widening the existing WCML would be equally frightening. Land would still have to be bought, villages and homes levelled, and stations, bridges, and other infrastructure rebuilt and you’d still have the capacity problems.

The disruption would also be immense and you'd have to close vast tracts of the existing line for months or even years at a time to build it. Simply ain’t going to happen.

It was wrong to sell HS2 as a way to shave time off your journey, it is there to increase capacity and to ensure reliability in both the new HS2 and the existing WCML. Passenger numbers along the Birmingham to London route are climbing by around 4-5% a year. Virgin Trains carried around 40m people last year and Chiltern Trains around 30m people. You can fiddle with train timings and improve a junction here and resignal a bit there but sooner or later you simply have to build another line to cope with increasing passenger numbers.

HS2 will be with us (if it’s built at all ) for 100+ years just as we’re riding on the bases of the Victorian railway today. We must stop looking so shortsightedly and be thinking 50, 60 years into the future.

Those asking why build HS2 when the north needs major investment in the existing railway. Shouldn’t we be asking why we cant be doing both?

[P5BNij]

At last some common sense, the entire project should be being pushed on the capacity issue rather than as a high speed one. Tomorrow morning I'll be working a 60mph freight train from Battersea, crossing London via Kensington Olympia and joining the WCML at Willesden, then onwards up to Rugby - all along the route I'll be passing (and be overtaken by some on the fast lines) numerous other trains of varying speeds with varying stopping patterns with very little headway between them, even after the morning peak the route will be at near full capacity.

Widening the WCML corridor any more is a none starter, it's already been looked at yet people keep coming back with the idea.

[Blue62]

valiant said:

Whilst you are right to be concerned about the ballooning costs of HS2, I can imagine the costs of widening the existing WCML would be equally frightening. Land would still have to be bought, villages and homes levelled, and stations, bridges, and other infrastructure rebuilt and you’d still have the capacity problems.

The disruption would also be immense and you'd have to close vast tracts of the existing line for months or even years at a time to build it. Simply ain’t going to happen.

It was wrong to sell HS2 as a way to shave time off your journey, it is there to increase capacity and to ensure reliability in both the new HS2 and the existing WCML. Passenger numbers along the Birmingham to London route are climbing by around 4-5% a year. Virgin Trains carried around 40m people last year and Chiltern Trains around 30m people. You can fiddle with train timings and improve a junction here and resignal a bit there but sooner or later you simply have to build another line to cope with increasing passenger numbers.

HS2 will be with us (if it’s built at all ) for 100+ years just as we’re riding on the bases of the Victorian railway today. We must stop looking so shortsightedly and be thinking 50, 60 years into the future.

Those asking why build HS2 when the north needs major investment in the existing railway. Shouldn’t we be asking why we cant be doing both?

I know that HS2 has always been about capacity but don't quite follow the argument that developing the existing WCM would be as expensive as HS2. One of the key reasons why HS2 is becoming prohibitively expensive is because of the cost of land, especially as there's no flexibility on bends to avoid expensive golf courses, businesses and housing developments, if this thing is to travel at 250mph. I'm not aware of any case study to compare the cost of HS2 against more capacity on the existing route, but if anyone can point me to it I'd be interested.

[Tuna]

valiant said:

Whilst you are right to be concerned about the ballooning costs of HS2, I can imagine the costs of widening the existing WCML would be equally frightening. Land would still have to be bought, villages and homes levelled, and stations, bridges, and other infrastructure rebuilt and you’d still have the capacity problems.

The disruption would also be immense and you'd have to close vast tracts of the existing line for months or even years at a time to build it. Simply ain’t going to happen.

It was wrong to sell HS2 as a way to shave time off your journey, it is there to increase capacity and to ensure reliability in both the new HS2 and the existing WCML. Passenger numbers along the Birmingham to London route are climbing by around 4-5% a year. Virgin Trains carried around 40m people last year and Chiltern Trains around 30m people. You can fiddle with train timings and improve a junction here and resignal a bit there but sooner or later you simply have to build another line to cope with increasing passenger numbers.

HS2 will be with us (if it’s built at all ) for 100+ years just as we’re riding on the bases of the Victorian railway today. We must stop looking so shortsightedly and be thinking 50, 60 years into the future.

Those asking why build HS2 when the north needs major investment in the existing railway. Shouldn’t we be asking why we cant be doing both?

It's a good question, but I'd probably prefer to see a proper cost/benefit analysis rather than what appears to be a 'grand gesture' vanity project approach to choosing which individual transport link should be upgraded.

If all those billions are being spent on threading a proverbial anchor chain through the eye of a needle, would they be better spent on some easier targets that deliver quicker and higher benefit?

[smack]

P5BNij said:

At last some common sense, the entire project should be being pushed on the capacity issue rather than as a high speed one. Tomorrow morning I'll be working a 60mph freight train from Battersea, crossing London via Kensington Olympia and joining the WCML at Willesden, then onwards up to Rugby - all along the route I'll be passing (and be overtaken by some on the fast lines) numerous other trains of varying speeds with varying stopping patterns with very little headway between them, even after the morning peak the route will be at near full capacity.

This train?

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H19951/2019...

[P5BNij]

smack said:

P5BNij said:

At last some common sense, the entire project should be being pushed on the capacity issue rather than as a high speed one. Tomorrow morning I'll be working a 60mph freight train from Battersea, crossing London via Kensington Olympia and joining the WCML at Willesden, then onwards up to Rugby - all along the route I'll be passing (and be overtaken by some on the fast lines) numerous other trains of varying speeds with varying stopping patterns with very little headway between them, even after the morning peak the route will be at near full capacity.

This train?

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H19951/2019...

No, another one which starts at Battersea and goes to Tunstead, just checked my diagram and it's later than I thought, it runs in the afternoon (a slight faux pah with the rostering has occurred!).

[rover 623gsi]

Tuna said:

It's a good question, but I'd probably prefer to see a proper cost/benefit analysis rather than what appears to be a 'grand gesture' vanity project approach to choosing which individual transport link should be upgraded.

If all those billions are being spent on threading a proverbial anchor chain through the eye of a needle, would they be better spent on some easier targets that deliver quicker and higher benefit?

i'm not trying to be clever or funny but don't you think that the 'powers that be' have thought of all that stuff and looked at all the options and that's why they came up with the idea for HS2?

For example, this was published back in 2012 The Economic Case for HS2: Value for Money Statement

Network Rail’s analysis indicates that the number of passengers standing on services into Euston in the peak hour could rise from 800 currently to between 1,900 and 2,200 by 2035. Crowding levels would also increase under RP2, albeit to a slightly lower level, with Network Rail forecasting between 1,500 and 2,000 standing passengers in the peak hour. This would be balanced by higher peak load factors of around 92 per cent.

[i]On the southern stretch of the West Coast Main Line, it is difficult to see what further infrastructure enhancements could be deployed to
cope with further increases in demand. In other locations, the increase in long distance services will mean that the scope for growth in freight and/or local or regional services will be severely restricted.[/i]

e.g. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

[popeyewhite]

P5BNij said:

it runs in the afternoon (a slight faux pah with the rostering has occurred!).

Higher Ronnie!

[Tuna]

rover 623gsi said:

i'm not trying to be clever or funny but don't you think that the 'powers that be' have thought of all that stuff and looked at all the options and that's why they came up with the idea for HS2?

For example, this was published back in 2012 The Economic Case for HS2: Value for Money Statement

The point being that it looks (in retrospect) like the economic case for HS2 was heavily cooked by political goals. Looking at how the cost has 'unexpectedly' ballooned, it makes a lot of sense to revisit that argument. Does it still make sense, bang for buck?

It could, of course, be the case that they just got the numbers massively, completely and unashamedly wrong - but it's hard not to think that they decided what they wanted to do and then tried to build a case around it.

[Blue62]

Tuna said:

The point being that it looks (in retrospect) like the economic case for HS2 was heavily cooked by political goals. Looking at how the cost has 'unexpectedly' ballooned, it makes a lot of sense to revisit that argument. Does it still make sense, bang for buck?

It could, of course, be the case that they just got the numbers massively, completely and unashamedly wrong - but it's hard not to think that they decided what they wanted to do and then tried to build a case around it.

From what I understand, the business case was marginal at the original estimate, so quite where it leaves us now is anyone's guess. That said, I do buy into the argument that a project on this scale will pay back for decades and in truth I have no idea of how the business case was formulated, if it's anything like the methodology used for the costings then it's badly flawed. I say all this as I have a good friend who is heavily involved at a reasonably senior level and likes to talk.

I am all for big, state sponsored infrastructure projects, but my point remains that could the money be better invested elsewhere?

[Tuna]

Blue62 said:

From what I understand, the business case was marginal at the original estimate, so quite where it leaves us now is anyone's guess. That said, I do buy into the argument that a project on this scale will pay back for decades and in truth I have no idea of how the business case was formulated, if it's anything like the methodology used for the costings then it's badly flawed. I say all this as I have a good friend who is heavily involved at a reasonably senior level and likes to talk.

I am all for big, state sponsored infrastructure projects, but my point remains that could the money be better invested elsewhere?

That's pretty much my reading of it as well - completely agree with you on this one.

[motco]

This is a recurring theme with all capital projects. The original budget was £33bn and via a series of steps memory of that has been erased and now it is admitted that the cost is likely to be not far short of £100bn. Any benefits will be too concentrated along a narrow corridor with too few travellers gaining anything from it. Meanwhile a huge sum is spent and thousands of people's lives will be adversely affected. I thought from the start that it would founder, then it began to look certain, now it looks more unlikely than it ever has.

[rover 623gsi]

Blue62 said:

Tuna said:

The point being that it looks (in retrospect) like the economic case for HS2 was heavily cooked by political goals. Looking at how the cost has 'unexpectedly' ballooned, it makes a lot of sense to revisit that argument. Does it still make sense, bang for buck?

It could, of course, be the case that they just got the numbers massively, completely and unashamedly wrong - but it's hard not to think that they decided what they wanted to do and then tried to build a case around it.

From what I understand, the business case was marginal at the original estimate, so quite where it leaves us now is anyone's guess. That said, I do buy into the argument that a project on this scale will pay back for decades and in truth I have no idea of how the business case was formulated, if it's anything like the methodology used for the costings then it's badly flawed. I say all this as I have a good friend who is heavily involved at a reasonably senior level and likes to talk.

I am all for big, state sponsored infrastructure projects, but my point remains that could the money be better invested elsewhere?

you can always spend money elsewhere but total UK govt spending on transport is already circa £30bn a year. HS2 is a 25-30 year project so the costs are spread over a long period and it will benefit the country for many decades after it has been completed.

[Blue62]

rover 623gsi said:

you can always spend money elsewhere but total UK govt spending on transport is already circa £30bn a year. HS2 is a 25-30 year project so the costs are spread over a long period and it will benefit the country for many decades after it has been completed.

None of which I necessarily disagree with, but could we get better returns elsewhere?

[valiant]

I understand that HS2 is divisive for many people for differing reasons and in many cases you’re right to be concerned but what is the answer?

The WCML is at capacity. It can’t be widened, only tinkered with which will only buy you a little time. Rail travel has been increasing for years and is predicted to continue to do so. Chiltern’s line is at near capacity and once past Neasden junction is at capacity. Moving block signalling (ERTMS) is one way but is horrendously complicated on a simple layout and is also incredibly expensive and has only been proved to work on the tube which is a different world completely and again just kicks the can down the road.

Roads are horribly congested and works to upgrade, expand or build new are just as likely to be expensive, be opposed and take years to get through planning before a spade goes in the ground and full automation is many decades away despite always being just around the corner.

Like it or not, rail passenger numbers are increasing. All lines in and out of London are horribly congested and that’s before we throw freight into the equation. At the moment there is precious little redundancy when things go wrong. Don’t do anything and it will eventually fall over.

What’s the answer?

[Murph7355]

rover 623gsi said:

you can always spend money elsewhere but total UK govt spending on transport is already circa £30bn a year. HS2 is a 25-30 year project so the costs are spread over a long period and it will benefit the country for many decades after it has been completed.

What are the quantifiable and material benefits? What is it expected to achieve? Is it really the most urgent need we have transport wise?

Even over that projected life span the final cost of this is likely to add 10% to the annual transport budget you note. Do those benefits over many decades offset that?

[motco]

A lot of standard lines could be built with the £100bn and they would serve far more people albeit not at the same speed. The British Isles is small and the best saving door to door even from doubling the track speed is quite insignificant. France is a lot bigger geographically and HS Rail makes more sense between the north and the south. Build more or reopen old lines but for standard expresses, not some vastly expensive single route ultra express.

[rover 623gsi]

Blue62 said:

None of which I necessarily disagree with, but could we get better returns elsewhere?

lots of rail, infrastructure, economic and political boffins looked into this years ago and the answer they came up with is 'no'. I'm not against a review of current spending but its nonsense to constantly claim (as many people do) that that there are loads of other better alternatives that haven't been considered.

HS2 is not the answer to all of the country's transport issues - no single project can be - but it does provide a very good answer to some very specific issues.

[rover 623gsi]

Murph7355 said:

rover 623gsi said:

you can always spend money elsewhere but total UK govt spending on transport is already circa £30bn a year. HS2 is a 25-30 year project so the costs are spread over a long period and it will benefit the country for many decades after it has been completed.

What are the quantifiable and material benefits? What is it expected to achieve? Is it really the most urgent need we have transport wise?

Even over that projected life span the final cost of this is likely to add 10% to the annual transport budget you note. Do those benefits over many decades offset that?

simply - it takes fast moving long distance services off already over crowded tracks thus releasing more capacity. It's actually that difficult a concept. You can't just add more trains or longer trains to existing services because the tracks are full up. HS2 creates capacity - the reduced journey times for inter city travellers are just a fortunate by product.

[popeyewhite]

rover 623gsi said:

simply - it takes fast moving long distance services...

Like what?