No s***, Sherlock. Who would have seen that coming?
www.bbc.com/news/business-50995116
|
|
Not sure if these are real numbers and review conclusions or whether Lord Berkeley is playing politics.
|
He has a personal axe to grind, is fervently anti HS2
That the project cost and timing will be larger and longer than planned is a given, that they will be as bad as he says isn't.
In the UK we dont actually need High Speed links, but we need more North South capacity.
|
>> In the UK we dont actually need High Speed links, but we need more North
>> South capacity.
I think that's an accurate summation. Do you have any feel for (a) project cost savings and (b) extended end to end journey times to (say) Leeds if we built it for 140mph rather than whatever line speed is proposed at present?
|
And yet the whole idea of ultra high speed broadband to all across the UK seemed to get poopooed and shut down... surely this would do far more and reach/connect so many people/companies than HS2 could ever do... I get face-face to meetings but I thought we were moving to commerce over the internet?
|
|
Its new railway line over a new route, in the scheme of things the costs of such very little between high speed or mid speed. Much tunneling is required in the southern part, so is being constructed to the older (ie not so high) loading gauge to save a few quid. North of Birmingham/Crewe it becomes a bit of a mishmash of new and existing track and hence less speed advantage
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 5 Jan 20 at 17:38
|
The original full scheme in 2011 was costed at around £30bn.
They are now estimating nearly 4 times the cost.
It is questionable whether when complete it will serve any real purpose, will at best benefit only those who would use a London - North rail route (almost no-one in the South West), and save a trivial number of minutes in journey time.
It is a complete shambles. It should be cancelled immediately and those responsible for so major a cxxk up fired without compensation.
|
>> It is questionable whether when complete it will serve any real purpose, will at best
>> benefit only those who would use a London - North rail route (almost no-one in
>> the South West), and save a trivial number of minutes in journey time.
The main rationale is capacity - the current lines out of Euston and Kings Cross are at or approaching the max number of trains and size of trains they can physically handle. The time savings are almost incidental gains from building a line to modern standards rather than using Victorian alignments with a few tweaks.
I've not got time to research/understand how £30billion rose to current estimates but I suspect changes of scope, surrenders to NIMBY lobbies leading to long expensive tunnels etc etc mean that comparing £30b direct to today's estimates is in apples v pears territory.
|
The original case was based on time saved. This was a complete nonsense as:
- time savings should be door to door - unless you live and meet in the terminal.
- it assumes something of value would be done with the time saved
- a 10 or 20 minute saving on the main rail segment of the journey is trivial
Subsequent iterations of the business case realised this was a nonsense and did make allowance for the need for extra capacity. But the cost of upgrading capacity need not include the costs of a high speed network.
HS2 costs are out of control. My belief is that the original cost estimates (made by rail network supporters) were very optimistic to get the project started in the hope that once started it would be difficult to stop even when the project cost (predictably) increased.
|
>> Subsequent iterations of the business case realised this was a nonsense and did make allowance
>> for the need for extra capacity. But the cost of upgrading capacity need not include
>> the costs of a high speed network
The 120 billion is an over egged case by a denier, Existing capacity is critically stymied, Upgrading existing routes is not practical (the west coast route is a nightmare) the cost of making a new line is not significantly increased by speed, so its not quite as black as you are painting
Looking back on HS1, equally as controversial, no-one now thinks it was a waste of money.
This is a small crowded island, major infrastructure is expensive because of the human impact and cost of land
|
>> The original case was based on time saved.
Where does that proposition come from?
I'm sure the media pushed time saved but everything I've ever seen, and I read Railway Press, has been based on capacity. I was a daily commuter to Euston from 1986 until 2012, initially from Watford and then from Northampton. From summer 12 to November 2013 I did 2 days home working/3 in London. The capacity constraints were evident throughout.
From 1999 to 2004 they were upgrading the line whilst trying to still run a service. It was awful, Repeated sessions of bustitution, not just at weekends but for whole weeks or fortnights. That was just track and signalling - improvements to tunnels or massive platform extensions are simply impossible while keeping the service going and probably ens up costing more than a new line.
|
>>> The original case was based on time saved.
>Where does that proposition come from?
>I'm sure the media pushed time saved
Time saved was the only bit simple enough to be able to mention in headlines. None of the rest could be used to cause outrage in 6 words.
|
I don’t know how much shorter journey times will be from Leeds to Kings X with HS2. It currently takes me 70 mins to get from Giggleswick to Leeds on the rattler, then a further 2 hours to London.
BB here out in the sticks is abysmal. Whoever is paying for HS2 would be better spending that money on improving rural BB.
|
|
Is capital expenditure on long term infrastructure *ever* a bad idea?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 5 Jan 20 at 18:30
|
|
In 50 years time will anyone be saying HS2 should never have been built? I doubt it. Does anyone now think the Victorians should not have invested in the railways?
|
>> In 50 years time will anyone be saying HS2 should never have been built? I
>> doubt it. Does anyone now think the Victorians should not have invested in the railways?
This country has a litany of expensive infrastructure additions to existing projects that were shorn of cost and pathetic reduction in original scope and fell well short of the planned benefits.
|
>> BB here out in the sticks is abysmal. Whoever is paying for HS2 would be
>> better spending that money on improving rural BB.
You chose to live in the boondocks because you appreciate what it brings you.
Not sure the rest of us need to pay more to get you faster access to cheap car hire sites. Fast rural broadband for you is of limited national benefit.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 5 Jan 20 at 19:16
|
This country is fast becoming a joke when it comes to public transport.
Morocco can even build a high speed line: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Boraq
HS2 may not be perfect but it will increase line capacity which is needed and may take some cars off the road which is a bonus.
|
>> Morocco can even build a high speed line: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Boraq
They cant, the french built and part financed it.
|
Not surprised.
The French already operate Thameslink, Southern, South Eastern, Great Northern, and Gatwick Express I believe.
Whereas the Germans run Arriva Trains Wales, Chiltern Railways, CrossCountry, Grand Central, and Northern Leaving the Dutch with Greater Anglia, Stansted Express and Scotrail.
Still, what with all that taking back control stuff............
|
In 50 years time trains as we now know them will not just be a piece of technology long past its prime, but the current equivalent of a horse and cart on an unsurfaced track.
Driverless vehicles will by then just be the accepted norm. They will distribute freight and transport people door to door.
Trains with their fixed start and stop points will still require transport to or from terminal to destination. Trains can only ever run on equally spaced rails - even other forms of electromagnetic propulsion require fixed tracks.
Longer term we should be planning to dig up railways and replace them with dedicated driverless modules. With their smaller size they will be able to divert from the tracks into city centres, housing estates etc as required.
They will be flexible and far better able to meet fluctuating demand levels, possibly operating on a call on demand app, rather than fixed schedules set months ahead of time. By "daisy chaining" individual modules the current road and rail network may need some local improvements but overall entirely capable of meeting capacity demands.
|
>> In 50 years time trains as we now know them will not just be a
>> piece of technology long past its prime, but the current equivalent of a horse and
>> cart on an unsurfaced track.
Fantasy.
|
>>
>> >> Morocco can even build a high speed line: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Boraq
>>
>> They cant, the french built and part financed it.
>>
But they have one in their country that stretches 201 miles. Who really cares who builds it. I suspect some of the companies building ours wont be British.
We have HS1 at 67 miles which was prone to funding issues.
|
We dont have 201 miles of line without stops, nor will we. Morocco is a big country with large areas of wilderness, with population centres a long way apart, the UK is not like that. Building lines there is cheap.
And as for HS1, its 67 miles, because thats the distance between the tunnel and london, did you want it moved further apart?
The idea was to link HS1&HS2 giving people of the north fast access to Europe, but as they voted to dump Europe clearly that is wasted on them.
|
|
Trade and is all about good connections. Build the transport links and trade and prosperity will follow. Always has been that way from the Romans with their road to Viking with their longships to canals and railways. No transport no commerce.
|
>..and may take some cars off the road which is a bonus.
The fares will need to be more competitive than they are now.
To give an example:
Most of my relatives live on the edge of the Peak District. It's about a 450 mile round trip to visit them. To do it by public transport means a taxi or bus (yuck) to Basingstoke station. A train to Waterloo. Underground to Kings X. Train to Sheffield. Tram to bus terminus. Bus or Taxi to their house. All carrying an overnight bag. The train fare booked in advance is around £110 off peak. Add on bus and tram fares and I'm looking at around £120 or using taxis probably £180. Door to door around 6hrs and if I want to stay longer or come home early I'm stuffed.
Doing the same journey in the car, working on fuel cost of 130ppl and a conservative 25mpg it will cost me about £110 in fuel so let's call it £150 including running costs. In reality there's always at least two of us travelling so the cost is £75pp. Door to door usually in 4 to 5hrs although I've done it in 3 and a bit.
For a family with kids you're looking at a huge difference in cost and flexibility.
|
This mirrors my experience. Sister lives in Harpenden and I live in Taunton and visit every approx 2 months. About 380 miles round trip.
For this Saturday (11th) train super saver return is £113. Plus underground (say) £3 + £7 taxi to Taunton station.
For two of us a return trip approx £240. I have to leave Harpenden no later than 18.52 or I won't get back to Taunton until the sun has risen on Sunday! Journey times are similar to the car - a little over 3 hours
In brief - trains are INFLEXIBLE and COSTLY. I will not be using them and as a taxpayer do not want to subsidise those who do!
|
>> and as a taxpayer do not want to subsidise those who do!
And if I do not want to subsidise education? The NHS? Rural buses? Old People's subsidised travel? Tax credits? Unemployment benefits? Disability benefits? etc. etc. etc. All of which my tax payments are used for, none of which I use myself.
Not wanting to feel like your tax payments are contributing towards something you don't use is typical of the selfish approach we have today.
We live in a society. A certain amount of what we do is for the good of that society, not solely for ourselves.
|
|
Isn't decentralising London cheaper, more equitable, and ultimately more of a vote winner?
|
Yes probably, and I believe a number of companies have already partially moved out of London.
However I remember when I worked for the Coal Board back in the 70s/80s there was discussion about moving the HQ away from London. It did happen to a fairly significant degree but due to interdependencies (e.g. with government and other industry HQs) it would never move 100% out of London.
|
>>more equitable
"more equitable" or "closer to equitable"?
To your point though, can a country the size of the UK have a distributed 'centre'?
|
>> In brief - trains are INFLEXIBLE and COSTLY. I will not be using them and
>> as a taxpayer do not want to subsidise those who do!
Neither of the capitalised words reflect in, any way shape or form, my own experience or that of my adult children.
I'd accept, for purposes of this discussion, that long distance trains are, for travelling as a family, rarely competitive with the perceived (as opposed to real) cost of a car travel. London is an obvious exception and, from here same goes for Birmingham, mainly because the train company, for many years, offered multi save tickets where three or four travel for price of two. The start point there is Northampton.
My daughter was at University in Sheffield from 2011 to 14. It was pretty easy for her to get a train between Sheffield and Wellingborough (about half an hour drive) with a range of cheap tickets. Similarly visits to or by her boyfriend who was at Uni in Southampton were easily facilitated on the at least hourly cross-country service from Southampton/Bournemouth to NE or NW which called at Banbury. Again a half hour drive and again lots of cheap fares.
I can visit my son in Liverpool for less than £20 return changing once at New Street. Last time we drove it cost more than that to park for two days!!
|
>> >> In brief - trains are INFLEXIBLE and COSTLY. I will not be using them
>> and
>> >> as a taxpayer do not want to subsidise those who do!
2.9 million commuter train journeys are made every day in the UK. 1 billion more rail journeys are made than in the mid-1990s and rail journeys are now at their highest level since the 1920s.
Imagine how inflexible our roads would become on a daily basis if it wasn't for trains
|
I wholeheartedly support HS2. My family use the train from Manchester to London many times a year, frequently with problems relating to signalling, track etc.
New track, new route, new rolling stock will improve time and more importantly reliability. It will also release the existing track for freight which will ease congestion and pollution via road traffic.
Yes, improve Broadband. But I don't want my children visiting grandma remotely, I want them to visit her in person.
HS2 should be extended to Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is claimed that journeys under 400 miles are best undertaken by train and certainly travel to Paris from London seems to be mostly by train these days. Connect Heathrow with Manchester and Birmingham airports as well. Don't do third runway, just make the connection rapid.
|
Further to that video conference meetings don't really work. They are a waste of time, just cheaper than wasting time getting face to face.
When a meeting is really necessary, then it will always be more effective face to face. Where it doesn't need to be faced to face, it doesn't actually need to happen at all.
Letting middle and usually ineffectual middle managers have video conference meetings is a cheap way of helping them feel more special than their minions without actually spending any large amount of money or any significant amount of time on it.
For people attending meetings that are actually required, then rail travel is superb. Effective, let's me work/prepare/relax or recover and reasonably efficient.
I love rail travel. Best for of travel there is. Often even Europe wide. Also a great place to have meetings and chats that you don't want to be obvious.
|
>> When a meeting is really necessary, then it will always be more effective face to
>> face. Where it doesn't need to be faced to face, it doesn't actually need to
>> happen at all.
Spot on. The Quango met monthly in London including people from various parts of England and statutory representation from Wales and Scotland. Quite a lot of money was spent providing video conference facilities to save on Anglo-Scottish travel only to find it didn't work. People getting together face to face, mingling over coffee and sandwich lunch and networking actually got stuff done. Remote attendees at substantive meetings were, well, sort of remote. Trying to organise sub committees around VC was like herding cats.
For all your cynicism about middle managers VC was actually a modest gain of telephone conferencing for sorting out pre and post meeting admin and general 'keep show on road' stuff.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 6 Jan 20 at 17:30
|
>>For all your cynicism about middle managers.....
I have, in my time, taken over a number of organisations requiring serious fixing.
Never yet have I found an entire workforce to be worthless. Sometimes a few needed to be weeded out, but by and large they simply need to be treated, rewarded, punished and cared for responsibly in accordance with what they are doing and what you want them to do. Their perceived lack of performance is almost always due to crap management.
Most Boards are ok. Often lacking in a sense of operational understanding, but by and large more competent and possessing of more integrity than the media would have you believe.
Then one has middle management. Of course for some middle management is a staging post and I am not including those. But for many it is the limit of their capabilities and the final resting place of the careers of so many in accordance with the Peter Principle. They are almost universally useless and do both their company and their departments/groups a massive disservice.
I am a naturally cynical person, but in this case I insist that it is realism, not cynicism.
|
|
.....it's quite amusing, watching a cull of middle management, to count how many of them move on to become consultants.......
|
Yes, it's always amusing when people are made redundant.
When organisations mess up it's always the fault of top management. Middle managers are often the glue that holds things together, and it's commonly the wrong ones who are culled - the work-shedders and blusterers often have a better survival rate, particularly in a blunt cost cutting exercise.
The amusing part is when the paid-off managers come back as consultants on twice the money.
|
>>Middle managers are often the glue that holds things together
The good ones are, certainly. The bad ones screw up the company and worse, the lives and careers of
>>and it's commonly the wrong ones who are culled
Sadly that is true.
Middle managers, along with being a common source of incompetence, are typically protected by nobody. If they are proficient and conscientious then they will be invisible.
Middle managers do not usually come back as consultants, though it is not unknown. It is usually long term employees who had no particular career path but who were important for what they knew or knew how to do.
They are usually brought back by incompetent middle managers.
|
>>When organisations mess up it's always the fault of top management.
At the core, usually. But resolving the mess doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of the people at fault.
Different skills.
|
|
Also, do not forget, redundancy is not method to deal with the 8ncompetence or behaviour of employees, it is an approach to address the number of people employed with a certain skill compared to the number of people with that skill required by the business.
|
>> Also, do not forget, redundancy is not method to deal with the 8ncompetence or behaviour
>> of employees, it is an approach to address the number of people employed with a
>> certain skill compared to the number of people with that skill required by the business.
>>
>>
Unfortunately it is sometimes used by senior management to justify their bonuses, even in an already profitable business - e.g. "Look at me, I slimmed the headcount and now I can get a £1m bonus."
Those left have to cover the same workload and find themselves working extra hours and under more pressure for no reward and end up looking elsewhere.
|
>> Yes, it's always amusing when people are made redundant.
>>
...I think my irony light has failed again...
|
>> ...I think my irony light has failed again...
You should have used a percontation point.
Wikipedia:
Irony punctuation is any proposed form of notation used to denote irony or sarcasm in text. Written English lacks a standard way to mark irony, and several forms of punctuation have been proposed. Among the oldest and most frequently attested is the percontation point proposed by English printer Henry Denham in the 1580s, and the irony mark, used by Marcellin Jobard and French poet Alcanter de Brahm during the 19th century. Both marks take the form of a reversed question mark, "?".
End quote.
Edit:
The forum software has reversed the question mark back again. How ironic.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Tue 7 Jan 20 at 17:53
|
|
Nope, that one's upside down...
|
>> Nope, that one's upside down...
Inverted
|
|
I don't think the reverse question mark has an ansi code, Never had an ascii code, I think it needs to be rendered. So not available on this system
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 7 Jan 20 at 18:31
|
>> >> Nope, that one's upside down...
>>
>> Inverted
>>
Ah. But is it chiral?
|
|
trust you to be thinking at the molecular level.
|
>>You should have used a percontation point.
...or maybe not...
:-S
|
www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2e2e/index.htm
The font in use here apparently does not support the reversed question mark.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 7 Jan 20 at 18:58
|
|
.......
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Tue 7 Jan 20 at 21:41
|
>> >> Yes, it's always amusing when people are made redundant.
>> >>
>> ...I think my irony light has failed again...
Yes I Have that problem. Sorry, pounced on that one.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51443421
Looks like the the government has given them the nod to carry on with the project.
|
A big train set doesn't seem like the sort of vanity project that would be enough satisfy BoJo.
Hence the nonsense bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland.....
Floppy-haired buffoon couldn't even manage a bridge from London to London so I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
Never got his floating airport either
|
|
I’m not claiming credit for this, but surely you could just rebuild Birmingham closer to London for a lot less than that, and make it nicer in the process ;)
|
|
You'd have to teach them to speak properly.
|
>> I’m not claiming credit for this, but surely you could just rebuild Birmingham closer to
>> London for a lot less than that, and make it nicer in the process ;)
Or spend the 150 billion improving Birmingham so that people don't want to come to London anyway.
The whole thing is a joke. If we could have it now it might be at least some use but 2040 or later? Will people still be commuting stupid distances in large numbers?
City centres are already being abandoned for shopping. Will demand for offices in them still be there in 20 years' time? Maybe so, but has anybody really considered it or have we just accepted that demand will always rise?
I have to travel into London, usually City end, for meetings a couple of dozen times a year. The sheer ridiculousness of all those people making that massive tidal movement twice every working day for a lifetime never fails to strike me. It took me 2.5 hours one day last week just to get there from 32 miles away as the crow flies. Many times the number of people face that every day than want to go from London to Birmingham And HS2 won't help because it will just go roaring through the surrounding devastated countryside without stopping.
|
Although the headline is HS2 goes ahead there seem to be devil/detail issues that are quite significant.
First of all the redevelopment of Euston will be removed from HS2 Ltd and managed as a separate project. Guardian reports that this is likely to result in services terminating at Old Oak Common for several years. Given that a considerable amount of work has been done around Euston it's not clear what that change means for current station users or the surrounding area.
There also appears to be some 'wiggle room' around acts of parliament required for next phase.
|
>> There also appears to be some 'wiggle room' around acts of parliament required for next
>> phase.
Subject of HS2 took up quite a bit of time on Radio 4's PM prog tonight.
First of all Bill Cash, MP for Stone (Staffs) who is against HS2, emphasising just how much latitude there is around segment beyond Birmingham. Potential game changers include Sir John Armitt being appointed to review the scheme beyond Birmingham and work on later stages being removed from HS2 Ltd in same way as Euston has been.
PM has also had a couple of features about a protest camp at Cubbington, a site on HS2 route near Leamington Spa. After some chat with protesters there the presenter segued to an interview with Andrew Adonis who, as Transport Minister in the Brown Government first proposed HS2. Lord Adonis reflected on the changed agenda for transport by 'reminding' us that Cubbington was once site proposed for London's third airport per the Roskill commission c1970/71.
Andrew needs to pay more attention to history and geography. The site Roskill advocated was Cublington (and its neighbour Wing) which is in Buckinghamshire. Ted Heath's government over ruled the Commission and decided on a Thames Estuary site at Maplin/Foulness which was then abandoned by Wilson after he was returned in 1974.
The Cublington site, by then renamed Stewkley, was briefly resuscitated in 79/80 before another Inquiry eventually went for what was the obvious solution all along - Stansted.
There is still, or at least was until very recently, the slogan 'No Airport Here' on a bridge over the West Coast Mainline near Tring.
|
I don't understand how a project that was marginal at £33bn is worth doing at £100bn+.
I am also very suspicious of the smoke and mirrors effect of transferring parts of the project to different initiatves - it has all the hallmarks of making it impossible to properly track the costs of the project against the original estimates.
It seems to be an expensive political statement to reassure those who "lent" Boris their votes that he is going to do something. In the process (in my view) he has squandered any savings that may have been made through Brexit - although these may have been illusory anyway!
|
Just done some rough maths..
London Euston to Birmingham New Street is 126 miles.
£100,000,000,000 / 126 is £749m per mile or £451k per yard!
Ouch!
|
|
Yes - but it's still cheaper than a Hockney!
|
>> Just done some rough maths..
>>
>> London Euston to Birmingham New Street is 126 miles.
>>
>> £100,000,000,000 / 126 is £749m per mile or £451k per yard!
>>
>> Ouch!
Like for like it's about the same per mile as a mway and cheaper than crossrail mile for mile.
|
>> Like for like it's about the same per mile as a mway and cheaper than
>> crossrail mile for mile.
>>
When I was at school motorways cost £1 million a mile.
According to the Bank of England's inflation calculator that would be £4.3 million today.
I guess someone is fibbing about inflation!?
|
>> I don't understand how a project that was marginal at £33bn is worth doing at
>> £100bn+.
>>
>>
One of the main reasons is due to the government changing the nature of the contract. The government now wants the contractors responsible for the next 30 for the maintenance. Obviously this is going to cost hence a big increase in costs.
|
First rule of understanding escalating prices for major (or even minor) works is to ensure you're comparing like with like.
All sorts has gone on with HS2 including additional tunneling to meet environmental and/or NIMBY objections and ground conditions on actual detailed line being much worse than in planning assumptions. Not sure if Euston was part of original plane either.
|
>> Although the headline is HS2 goes ahead there seem to be devil/detail issues that are
>> quite significant.
>>
>> First of all the redevelopment of Euston will be removed from HS2 Ltd and managed
>> as a separate project. Guardian reports that this is likely to result in services terminating
>> at Old Oak Common for several years.
I'm sure that will be a comfort to the landlord and users of the Bree Louise, a fine pub on Cobourg St, which was forced to close 2 years ago for HS2 (when the expected cost of the latter was £56bn, incidentally).
|
> I'm sure that will be a comfort to the landlord and users of the Bree
>> Louise, a fine pub on Cobourg St, which was forced to close 2 years ago
>> for HS2 (when the expected cost of the latter was £56bn, incidentally).
>>
I'm sure not but these things happen in big projects.
|
The consensus seems to be that "these things are inevitable in a major project"
This is utterly preposterous - we may as well not bother with feasibility studies and approvals processes. Just do what we "think" is right and not bother with the paperwork.
After all what does it matter that HS2 is 3 times the original price and 7 years late, Crossrail is a mere 25% over budget and only 3-4 years late.
It is our money (those of us who pay tax) and we should expect much better.
|
>>The consensus seems to be that "these things are inevitable in a major project"
>
>This is utterly preposterous
Had they said "these things are inevitable in a major ESTABLISHMENT project" they'd have been spot on.
I'm quite a good PM. A little while ago I was asked to take on a project [which ultimately was cancelled after losing £250m].
They offered me about £75k p.a. if I remember correctly, which is not the sort of money such a PM is worth.
They maintained they couldn't pay my rate and so preferred to carry on as they were and preferred the project to fail, achieve nothing and lose 1/4 billion.
Therein lies the problem - their thinking.
How many projects that I have managed or overseen has ever missed their timescale or their budget? None. Not one ever. (come close, but never actually happened).
But I don't fit in a Government Civil Service pay scale. So therefore they can't do it. They prefer to recruit people who will work within their payscale, even on such an exceptional job, without seeing the obvious.
FIdiots.
They pay peanuts, they get monkeys, even then they have civil servants dictate to the monkeys, and then they're all amazed when their projects go wrong.
|
|
Isn't the CEO of HS2, Mark Thurston being paid £650,000 per annum. Hardly peanuts.
|
m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Nf5avCUNP0M&t=1340
Here's a video i found that gives a bit more detail about the whole project.
|
>>Isn't the CEO of HS2, Mark Thurston being paid £650,000 per annum.
I said, fairly clearly I thought, PM.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 12 Feb 20 at 16:58
|
So they've curtailed HS2's eastern limb AND reduced the scope of Trans Pennine form a new line to upgrades of the Diggle etc routes.
So much for levelling up.
|
|
I think this will cost them votes next time around, especially in areas that 'lent' them their vote. I think the announcement is Thursday.
|
>> I think this will cost them votes next time around, especially in areas that 'lent'
>> them their vote. I think the announcement is Thursday.
Perhaps not as much as abandoning the 'triple lock'.
|
>> Perhaps not as much as abandoning the 'triple lock'.
Too true. Goodness knows how many lost votes that will cost them.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59320576
Announcement today of scaling back, not a great advert for leveling up is it.
|
Perhaps reality strikes. HS2 is the rail equivalent of a money pit.
It was mostly a vanity project - justified originally on the basis of the journey times saved, later on capacity constraints. Both cases were marginal!
The original cost estimates were woefully inadequate - now more than doubled. Zero confidence they won't increase further. It is also now about a decade later than planned.
It should never have been started. A complete waste of taxpayer funds. If it is not too late it should be cancelled completely - at least radically trimmed.
|
It may have been billed as high speed, but it is all about capacity. We dont need high speed links in the UK, distances are not large enough and population centres are pretty close to one another. Capacity is not sexy, capacity does not sell. If you are building capacity you might as well make it fast.
Routes out of london are full, the further north you get capacity is not an issue, more cross country route enhancements does offer more benefit all round.
However, Bojo won by convincing the electorate he would be levelling up. Publicly tho he has just kicked them back down in the pit.
|
People want to have opinions on everything these days.
To have an opinion for something, e.g. HS2, requires knowledge of benefits, costs, difficulty, long term investment, future planning and much more. Quite the challenge. It may even require the ability to see that something is better for the country, or others, without necessarily being of direct benefit to oneself.
To have an opinion against something requires the ability to say loudly "effin stupid, innit". To be repeated loudly, frequently, with small variations.
Hence the current success of the Daily Mail and the BBC's desperation to appeal to a similar audience.
|
>> It may have been billed as high speed, but it is all about capacity. We
>> dont need high speed links in the UK, distances are not large enough and population
>> centres are pretty close to one another. Capacity is not sexy, capacity does not sell.
>> If you are building capacity you might as well make it fast.
>>
>> Routes out of london are full, the further north you get capacity is not an
>> issue, more cross country route enhancements does offer more benefit all round.
Edit, and I meant to add Leeds is already well served by lots of Fast trains to/from London on the East Coast main Line, a line that by history, has always been fast due to geography.
|
>>A complete waste of taxpayer funds
Ah, that hallowed being, the 'taxpayer'. Funny how for the last few years any criticism of Government or State activity seems to require outrage on behalf of "the taxpayer".
|
|
I wonder if Bradford train station is getting moved or if that has been chopped. I don't use it, however I know some that do, by all accounts it's a PITA to use.
|
|
The mooted replacement of Bradford Interchange (the "new" combined bus and rail station which opened when I worked in Bradford 1973-74) was part of the Northern Powerhouse project so I wouldn't hold your breath.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-59332590
Looks like Bradford aren't getting a new station
|
It is plausible northerners are genuinely upset at the failure to deliver HS2. Or using cancellation as a way to express discontent at an unbalanced north and south, or political point scoring.
Other parts of the country mostly really don't care - save they would rather the money was spent on infrastructure that benefits them, not one they are never likely to use!
Environmental arguments may be justified. Otherwise rail makes little economic sense other than commuting into large urban areas.
Both road and air users pay far more tax than is spent on infrastructure. Rail fares need subsidies and are still uncompetitive. Building railway tracks, stations, car parking, access roads etc is no less disruptive than roads for which they provide only a small capacity offset.
Fast rail means few intermediate stops. Unless a journey starts and finishes close to a station, journeys require local transport legs. Comparing station to station time saving is daft - "door to door" is far more meaningful, albeit much less convincing.
|
>>"door to door" is far more meaningful,
Really?
My journey from home to office in London is 1 hour 45 minutes door to door. What does that tell you about my train journey?
|
Other parts of the country mostly really don't care - save they would rather the
>> money was spent on infrastructure that benefits them, not one they are never likely to
>> use!
I don't suppose people in Newcastle care much about crossrail 2, thats not to say that the government shouldn't.
>> Environmental arguments may be justified. Otherwise rail makes little economic sense other than commuting into
>> large urban areas.
I don't think anyone is proposing high speed rail between villages.
|
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transport-for-north-tfn-rail-b1960906.html
Ok its not quite as billed here, but there is no doubt, BoJo has an uncanny ability to pour oil on a raging fire.
|
...it probably won't be long until they remove the more expensive intermediate bits....
It's already a massive undertaking. I passed one of the construction camps near Brackley last week, it was on a ginormous scale.
|
>> It's already a massive undertaking. I passed one of the construction camps near Brackley last
>> week, it was on a ginormous scale.
We see the works in the Colne Valley near Denham on a regular basis.
Same.
|
>> news.sky.com/story/govt-refuses-to-deny-reports-that-hs2-may-not-run-to-london-euston-until-2038-if-at-all-12796300
>>
>> Looks like a further cut back in scope of the project.
There's already a lot of work been done at Euston the cost of which will presumably be thrown away.
|
|
...the NRM at York are already preparing to take Mallard out of mothballs....
|
A complete waste of money from the outset - an expensive vanity project.
Money already spent is gone - it is simply a case of salvage what can be salvaged, and stop all avoidable future spend now.
|
>> There's already a lot of work been done at Euston the cost of which will
>> presumably be thrown away.
Including the demolition of a good pub!
www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2016/03/22/Bree-Louise-Camden-fights-HS2
|
>> Hunt has said it will still go to Central London:
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/27/hs2-rail-may-not-reach-central-london-cost-project-soars
>>Coverage re Euston on BBC London this lunchtime.
If the Euston part is completed it will now by 2040.
Euston area is a building site and will be for 17 more years.
Terminating trains at Old Oak Common means then using the Elizabeth line into London and there is serious concern that passenger numbers will be too great.
A good time to bury the Euston story while the north is in the spotlight.
I wonder wht Labour will do with the project in two years time ?
ti
|
|
Shhh! mustn't let the Southerners know that you don't fall off the edge above Birmingham.
|
|
I am in Birmingham now, believe me it feels like the northern edge of the civilised world
|
|
...as Mike Harding was wont to say, "If the world had piles, that's where they'd be"...
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Thu 9 Mar 23 at 22:07
|
|
Saw him the other day...he lives locally and we have a mutual good friend so we often pass the time of day.
|
|
...yeah, I've chatted to him in a pub in Settle a few times. (I think he used to live in Horton?)
|
>> ...yeah, I've chatted to him in a pub in Settle a few times. (I think
>> he used to live in Horton?)
>>
Dentdale for many years. Never lived in Horton in R, but lower down the valley. I won’t say where, but I’ve been in his recording studio at home from where he used to produce his R2 folk show.
Less said about that the better.
|
|
Civilised? I've driven in some really dodgy places, including Cape Flats during apartheid, but Birmingham is the only place where my car has been hit by stray gunfire. At least I think it was stray...
|
|
...no, I was distracted...
|
Delaying construction and project completion does not reduce costs.
It merely prolongs the agony of an out of control waste of money.
|
>> Delaying construction and project completion does not reduce costs.
>>
...it passes the monkey to the next Government, though.
(Lots of kicking the can down the road whichever party is in charge)
|
|
...more likely setting the scene for it being Euston to Watford Junction....
|
|
A complete waste of money from its inception - should never have started. Should be cancelled to avoid pouring more money into what has become a vanity project bottomless pit.
|
Agree with Terry. It should have been a freight only line to add capacity without all the requirements for ultra high speed working .
Branches to local freight terminals like my local Trafford Park could have been upgraded fairly cheaply. Land once used for marshalling yards like Tinsley and Whitemoor could have been re-instated where electric locos were changed to diesel for onward journeys to cities before the cheap housing swallowed it all up.
Ted
|
At inception, pre-pandemic, it made sense. East Coast and West Coast lines were full up and Midland not that far off. Building to modern standards and for speed makes sense too.
The section from London to Birmingham is now way too far progressed to abandon.
Danger of cancelling the Manchester arm is that should traffic return to pre 2020 growth bits of the legacy railway will be overwhelmed and we'll have to start again. Eastern arm may yet need to be reinstated though there are options on old Midland infrastructure to upgrade things.
|
Justification for HS2 was originally based on journey time savings. Bit of a nonsense as valuing time assumes that something of value is achieved in the time saved, and revised the business case to reflect needed capacity improvements.
As an aside - if value were assigned to all public projects which save time we would double A&E capacity, treble the number of GPs, collect all rubbish twice a week, condense planning decisions into 10 minute slots etc.
Equally laughable - a high speed line is not required to improve capacity. Trains only operate at high speeds if they don't stop very often - they tend to be point to point transport bringing little or no local benefit.
The traffic levels upon which HS2 was justified also need to be re-examined. The original approval was in 2009 probably based upon data collected a few years before that. Since then - "net zero" concept, Covid, work from home, AI, ban to ICE from 2030 etc.
Funding a single project (HS2) has also limited other more local schemes which may otherwise have been funded - eg: northern powerhouse, south west services, to name but 2.
Get rid of it - it doesn't even deserve the honour of a decent burial!!!
|
>> Equally laughable - a high speed line is not required to improve capacity. Trains only
>> operate at high speeds if they don't stop very often - they tend to be
>> point to point transport bringing little or no local benefit.
We've countered/refuted your reasons for stopping it now upthread and there's no point on covering it all again.
However I'm struggling with the logic of the idea that a high speed line is not required to improve capacity.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, there are 14 slots an hour on the fast line out of Euston. Ten of those are used by fast services to Birmingham and points north. The other four are used by the outer commuter services to Leighton Buzzard and beyond or for additional/charter services.
If those ten services are moved to a new line, built for fast running, in what world does that not free up capacity?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 16 Sep 23 at 10:19
|
Additional lines will, of course, create extra capacity - but it does not need high speed lines.
High speed rail technology comes at a high cost - faster speeds impact routing requirements (gradients and curves), power supplies, track engineering, rolling stock, noise pollution etc.
This is fundamentally no different to faster cars which are typically larger, more powerful and more expensive and faster road speeds which need fewer intersections, junctions and roundabouts.
Capacity increases can be met with lines running at conventional speeds, or possibly even more creatively - eg: improved signalling, longer platforms, more rolling stock with increased service frequency.
|
>> Danger of cancelling the Manchester arm is that should traffic return to pre 2020 growth
>> bits of the legacy railway will be overwhelmed and we'll have to start again. Eastern
>> arm may yet need to be reinstated though there are options on old Midland infrastructure
>> to upgrade things.
>>
There's also the point that it being built could reduce traffic further, not always about stopping an increase.
Mind you the way it's been planned it's been made easy to build a leg to London and cut the rest. I've always thought the only to secure all legs was to build the legs towards/around London last not first.
|
HS2 costs out of control, says review - Bromptonaut
