|
A group of "Growth Experts", presumably not pediatricians, claim today that the existence of this railway will boost the economy by £15 billion and will generate enough money in tax receipts (£50 billion) to pay for itself in ten years. Now, I may not be comparing like with like but I can't think of any project of this type that has even paid for itself. Concorde never did but isn't really comparable but look at all the Severn, Humber, Forth and QE2/Dartford Crossing that have never paid for themselves and never will. How will this train line be different and any predictions on when/if it will open and and at what final cost?
|
How will this train line be different
This time it's different (always).
any predictions on when/if it will open
If it opens: 5 years late
at what final cost?
Well no doubt it will pass through a refuge of threatened snails or frogs or toads or amphibians of one sort or another so there will be extra snail crossings and they will have to pay off the protestors etc etc.. Estimated £40 billion now so £100 billion after inflation...
Last edited by: madf on Wed 11 Sep 13 at 11:17
|
Are you really saying that the Dartford crossing has never paid for itself in economic terms? The cost of construction was paid off by the tolls many years ago and without it the South East would have ground to a halt. Actually a new crossing is desperately needed
You might have an argument with the Humber Bridge which is indeed a bit of a white elephant. HS2 seems to me a "nice to have" but whether its going to generate the traffic predicted is certainly open to debate.
|
>> all the Severn, Humber, Forth and QE2/Dartford Crossing that have never paid for themselves and
>> never will. How will this train line be different and any predictions on when/if it
>> will open and and at what final cost?
QE2/Dartford has paid for itself but the toll income is too much to forego so retained on the laughable basis of preventing congestion. I'd have thought the Severn should pay for itself as well.
The Humber bridge was a different case and allegedly a by-election bribe by then transport Minister Barbara Castle. Difficult to imagine though that we'd still have a choice of a supperannuated IOW ferry from Hull to New Holland or a long round trip via M180/M62 if circs in 1968/9 had been different.
The HS bit in the HS2 moniker misleads. The country needs new railway capacity as both the East and West Coast Main lines are rammed. Train operators have been refused new services out of Euston because of lack of viable and robust paths. Trying to add capacity to those lines while running services at required speed and frequency is impossible.
Its really a New North Line that is proposed. If you're going to build it then it makes no sense to re-create a Victorian railway - you build for what modern technology can deliver. But it's about capacity, the saving in journey time is a by-product.
The costs need looking at carefully and everything, particulalry contractors margins, squeezed until the pips squeak. Land in UK is expensive but I suspect there's far too much tunnel as sop to the NIMBYs. Similar environmental concerns were expressed about HS1, the line to the Channel Tunnel. tearing up the Kent Weald. I challenge anyone to look at that line now and suggest it's doing any meaninigful damage to the countryside. Fits in far better than the A2/M2 or M20.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Sep 13 at 11:47
|
Seems a rather large leap from recognising that there are inefficiencies on existing services to a higher speed service for the few who will be able to charge to expenses:) And this does not help the congestion in the SE much. From one pressure group:
"The Optimised Alternative comprises:
• 12 car trains (3 cars first, 9 cars standard)
• Grade separated junction at Ledburn
• Additional track south of Nuneaton
• ‘Stafford bypass’.
This delivers more than three times the standard class capacity in the ‘base’ used in the evaluation
of HS2, and with faster commuter trains doubles peak commuter capacity to Milton Keynes and
Northampton. Capacity increases can be delivered incrementally, as needed, at a total
infrastructure cost of £2.06 billion – Phase 1 of HS2 costs £17 billion, and delivers no benefits
until 2026."
Since this was penned the total HS2 has risen somewhat: from £30 billion to at least £50 billion. Opportunity costs?
|
|
The few times I have been over thr Humber bridge,I have been the only vehicle on it;you can't say that about Dartford!
|
@NIL
Can you supply a link to that pressure group's site? I cannot see how peak capacity can be doubled to MK on the work described.
Whichever way they go at a grade seperated Ledburn, even if commuter trains tilt and run at 125EPS like a Pendolino, there are still only 13 fast line slots an hour out of Euston. Peak trains to and from MK are already 12 cars, 10.5 standard/1.5 first (the centre section of coach B in each 4 car unit is first class). The hi-density seating in the 350/2 class units is hideously uncomfortable, no way can more seats be crammed in. The new 350/3 sets about to be delivered will revert to the 2+2 format of the 350/1 sets.
If some of that new capacity is on the slow lines the punters won't use it. Under present set up, for example, the 4 car 16:46 from Euston runs at 110mph to its first stop at MK which it reaches in 32mins. Passengers stand several deep on that rather than take next train at 16:50 which is a 100mph limited 12 car, takes 10 minutes longer and has ample seating.
The same issue arises with Christian Wolmar's 'solution' of letting commuters use 'spare' seats on peak Virgin services. They tried that from 1999 to 2004 with result that Virgin pax complained of standing while Silverlink services ran half empty. Why will it be different this time?
A grade seperated junction at Ledburn would require quite a bit of land and would be impossible to build while running the existing service. They cannot work effectively on the present junction while trains run because the Victorians skimped and the 'six foots' are unsafe as refuges.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Sep 13 at 13:06
|
>>Can you supply a link to that pressure group's site?
In one of the pdfs here I think, as it came up when I searched for a phrase. Haven't time to peruse just now.
What's a grade separated junction? Ledburn's just up the road from here; best known for the GTR.
www.betterthanhs2.org/
|
>> What's a grade separated junction?
A train crossing from down fast to down slow at Ledburn has to cross the up fast on the level, slowing southbound trains. A grade separated junction would use a flyover or burrow under to avoid that conflict.
|
As Bromp says, the new Line is needed for capacity reasons, not speed reasons. Tho if you are going to build a new railway, then not to make it HS would have been laughable.
Its a pity they did away with the Great Central Railway - HS2 more or less replicates that long lost line.
|
|
For what it is worth: www.betterthanhs2.org/ I cannot claim much knowledge of the rail system but HS2 has all the hallmarks of a misfit and resource hog. Double decker trains a la Netherlands? Just knock out a few old bridges or raise them a little. If HS2 sinks into the setting sun, I'll bet capacity issues are resolved.
Last edited by: NIL on Wed 11 Sep 13 at 19:46
|
>> For what it is worth: www.betterthanhs2.org/ I cannot claim much knowledge of the rail system
>> but HS2 has all the hallmarks of a misfit and resource hog. Double decker trains
>> a la Netherlands? Just knock out a few old bridges or raise them a little.
>> If HS2 sinks into the setting sun, I'll bet capacity issues are resolved.
Bit more than a few old bridges to run double deck trains.
Three busy London road bridges, several burrowing rail junctions, a 1.5mile tunnel and a rail overbridge (Marylebone Line) to modify between Euston and Kilburn That only gets you five miles from buffer stops.
The line from Kings Cross goes straight into Gasworks tunnel from station throat barely breaking daylight before Copenhagen tunnel. Further complicated by rail infrastructure including important freight links between the two tunnels. By which time you're most of the way to Finsbury Park.
Which all goes to illustrate why a new line is the only way to go.
|
Bromptonaut sums it up really. The current west coast line is a nightmare. There are currently three 9-11 carriage long trains from Manchester to London every hour alone, most of them packed. Then there is the Liverpool, Preston, Glasglow, Birmingham services all sharing the line at the southern end too.
In Manchester the line is also shared with lots of local traffic into Cheshire, Derbyshire and South Yorkshire.
I see no long term solution other than a new line.
Greater Manchester is now the biggest economy outside London, the West Midlands the second, and what HS2 will do is join a lot of countries wealth together.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 11 Sep 13 at 20:11
|
>>Greater Manchester is now the biggest economy outside London
The South East and Scotland may beg to differ.
|
|
The south east and Scotland are much bigger areas than Greater Manchester. I was talking about counties, and by London I mean Greater London.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 11 Sep 13 at 22:15
|
|
The M4 corridors GDP could buy Manchester twice over.
|
The West coast main line is not a main line as a single planned entity, merely a series of connected lines and as such is not suitable to high capacity or high speeds. Trying to push the WCML to HS has more or less been abandoned as technically impossible.
The East Coast main line could easily be pushed to HS, trouble is it misses out great chunks of England
|
|
"Three busy London road bridges, several burrowing rail junctions, a 1.5mile tunnel and a rail overbridge (Marylebone Line) to modify between Euston and Kilburn That only gets you five miles from buffer stops." Quite minor, much more rapid, and far cheaper than a whole new line for a negative return, which doesn't stop between London and Birmingham International, and bypasses Birmingham New Street. National Audit Office and many other organisations are singularly unimpressed by the woolly thinking and skewed accounting. A central part of the government’s economic case was that time spent on a train is unproductive, thus overweighting benefits to productivity if journey time is reduced. The Governments own advisers are disagreeing with the quoted returns. It started at £30 billion, and is now estimated at £80 billion by the IEA.
|
|
Obviously prefers band wagons to trains - likes to jump on every one.
|
HS2 seems a real waste of money to me - and it has done since it was first mooted.
Freight users have highlighted even more glaring issues as to clogging the current system for many years b4 the HS2 rail system becomes viable in connecting the North to the South
DT article
tinyurl.com/ovl8v23
|
Not exactly comparing like with like but, bearing this in mind this re two aircraft carriers
"In the latest budget, the Ministry of Defence is set to estimate the cost of the two ships at £6.2bn. Six years ago, when the contract was approved, costs were put at £3.65bn."
How much is the HS2 cost going to rise to?
|
Claimed Benefits of HS2 Railway Line - madf
