HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) most definitely in the news today, with the Institute for Economic Affairs claiming that costs could reach almost double the current estimate, and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England claiming that construction would affect the lives of more than half a million people - this Guardian article is a good summarizer.

Also worth noting that the IEA report argues that their claimed ^80bn HS2 price tag could deliver ^320bn of value if spent on other projects. I suspect though, that road schemes would figure rather more prominently in the IEA proposals than the Squirrel Formula would allow...

Worth looking at Richard Wellings' other public utterances (Google him!) - we should all be wary when people called 'Richard' start making pronouncements about rail, particularly those with doctorates. Frankly I'm rather surprised at the Guardian for giving the man any publicity.

If you're in any doubt about where he's coming from, here's what he has to say about Britain's railways in general:

A far better option would be to move towards proper privatisation. Taxpayer subsidies could be phased out; loss-making lines could be closed; and investment could be restricted to those projects that were profitable.

Sound familiar?

[Lee]

He's nearly a laugh, but he's really a cry.

You haven't been out watching those pigs flying over Battersea Power Station again, have you?...

Still, why not quote from a song written by one of Maggie's biggest fans, when we are on the verge of class warfare...

...apparently.

[Red Squirrel]

He's nearly a laugh, but he's really a cry.

You haven't been out watching those pigs flying over Battersea Power Station again, have you?...

Still, why not quote from a song written by one of Maggie's biggest fans, when we are on the verge of class warfare...

...apparently.

Indeed I have - apologies for editing it out when I found a better quote; bad form.

[onthecushions]

I think that the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) issue has been muddled, as usual by sectional interest lobbying from the industries that want the contracts and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Regions that want infrastructure without the bill.

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) there are two issues; the desirability of TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse)'s operating on the InterCity (dates me!) network and the need for more capacity particularly on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line).

The capacity issue is I contend because of the amount of freight routed this way, especially South of Rugby, not because of IC^▸ (Inter City) (VWC) & LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) traffic.

The TGV issue depends on how far and at what cost the UK rail system can be made suitable.

The capacity issue could be addressed by reopening the 34 miles of the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) line between Calvert and Rugby, in many ways much the same route as HS2 but for freight mainly. While there will always be more congestion nearer London, there do seem to be a lot of disused loops etc closer in.


The TGV issue could be addressed by easing the curves on the main lines including some new stretches and improving clearances. Not every km of track needs to be cleared for 250mph. About 25% of UK main line route needs such  attention (our lines  were built to much better alignments than in mainland Europe).

I don't accept that this would be too disruptive; it was how BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) created the IC network in the 1960's and 70's.

I would like TGV's out of Paddington, as well.

OTC

(and  for today only, Capt Link Hogthrob)

[ellendune]

I think that the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) issue has been muddled, as usual by sectional interest lobbying from the industries that want the contracts and UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Regions that want infrastructure without the bill.

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) there are two issues; the desirability of TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse)'s operating on the InterCity (dates me!) network and the need for more capacity particularly on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line).

The capacity issue is I contend because of the amount of freight routed this way, especially South of Rugby, not because of IC^▸ (Inter City) (VWC) & LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) traffic.

The capacity issue could be addressed by reopening the 34 miles of the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) line between Calvert and Rugby, in many ways much the same route as HS2 but for freight mainly. While there will always be more congestion nearer London, there do seem to be a lot of disused loops etc closer in.

Yes you could do that but you still have to get it North of Rugby and South of Aylesbury.

The route from Rugby to Birmingham is heavily congested. I am not sure how much capacity there is on the Trent Valley route either. 

As for capacity south of Aylesbury...

The TGV issue depends on how far and at what cost the UK rail system can be made suitable.

The TGV issue could be addressed by easing the curves on the main lines including some new stretches and improving clearances. Not every km of track needs to be cleared for 250mph. About 25% of UK main line route needs such  attention (our lines  were built to much better alignments than in mainland Europe).

I don't accept that this would be too disruptive; it was how BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) created the IC network in the 1960's and 70's.

They did indeed do improvements.  To do that they had the advantage of a much less busy system.  I am sure the users of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Coffepot would understand the need to close Wooton Basset to Filton for an 18 month (?) blockade to sort the problems out like they did in the mid 70's. 

You could also do that to sections of the WCML to do widening.  What was that about a 365/24 railway?

[TonyK]

I swing both ways on this one. I see the logic of a new high-speed link from north to south, even though I am unlikely to ever take the journey. Certainly, I see the benefit of increased capacity on an overcrowded network. But I see the undoubted value of the beauty of the British countryside, something I value as much if not more so than the railway network.

I have argued against the current cost / benefit system of planning transport projects. Usually, with road it under-estimates costs and over-estimates benefits, whereas with rail it works the other way. I am not qualified to suggest whether HST^▸ (High Speed Train) is a good thing on that basis or not, but I strongly suspect that the truth is that it is close, maybe too close to call. In that case, I would go for it, because it would show commitment to the railways, it would provide construction jobs, and on past experience, it would solve more problems than the proponents suggest, and cause fewer problems than the opponents put forward.

[ellendune]

I swing both ways on this one. I see the logic of a new high-speed link from north to south, even though I am unlikely to ever take the journey. Certainly, I see the benefit of increased capacity on an overcrowded network. But I see the undoubted value of the beauty of the British countryside, something I value as much if not more so than the railway network.

I would rather see a 2 track railway going through the landscape than a 6 lane motorway!  Many of our railways blend in beautifully into the landscape.  How does HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) look ten years or so after it was built? I do not hear about any complaints of the noise from it either.

You could provide the capacity on the current alignments, but you would have to tear great swathes through most of the towns on the route.  I think you might find that is less popular than than going through the countryside. 

What all our economic models seem to miss is that high house prices in the South and South East are crippling this country. If we did not have to pay so much for housing then wages would be less and living standards higher. As a result the country would be more competitive.  Either we find some way of moving our economy North and West and take the heat out of the London bubble, or the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) (as opposed to London) will never be economically strong.  It is no coincidence that most of the opposition is coming from the South East.

Trying to fossilise some past idyll gives everyone a warm feeling (me included), but my children do not want to live in a museum, they want jobs and affordable housing.

Oh and the cost? How does it compare to the amount on money we put in the bail out the banks?

[Lee]

He's nearly a laugh, but he's really a cry.

You haven't been out watching those pigs flying over Battersea Power Station again, have you?...

Still, why not quote from a song written by one of Maggie's biggest fans, when we are on the verge of class warfare...

...apparently.

Indeed I have - apologies for editing it out when I found a better quote; bad form.

Ha ha, charade you are...

Only kidding - Indeed, it is very interesting that, in her Guardian article, Melissa Kite accuses David Cameron of manipulating the rest of society over HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) in much the same way as Roger Waters accused the animal substitutes of manipulating the rest of society in the song whose lyrics you originally quoted.

[Red Squirrel]

Scanning down the 'Rail News' aggregator, I'm staggered at how news organs of every stripe have reported on Dr Richard Beeching Welling's report on the costs of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

Some of the lazier one haven't even given Beechings the credit for making the figure up - they've just used it as though it were an accepted fact - and few of them seem to have found it necessary to point out that the IEA is so far to the right as to be in danger of meeting the communists coming the other way.

I remain slightly ambivalent about this project, but I do think HS2 Ltd need to up their media game if they actually want it to happen.

[stuving]

Scanning down the 'Rail News' aggregator, I'm staggered at how news organs of every stripe have reported on Dr Richard Beeching Welling's report on the costs of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

Some of the lazier one haven't even given Beechings the credit for making the figure up - they've just used it as though it were an accepted fact - and few of them seem to have found it necessary to point out that the IEA is so far to the right as to be in danger of meeting the communists coming the other way.

I remain slightly ambivalent about this project, but I do think HS2 Ltd need to up their media game if they actually want it to happen.

My reaction was similar - that's such an obvious ploy, why did so many news media fall for it? Granted it was  Sunday in August so there was never going to be a lot of other domestic news, but they were still very naive. No doubt you could also re-define the category of "costs" on their favourite projects to similar effect.

To pick up on another strand in this thread (or possible just a fibre in a strand) I thought much the same about the reporting of the recent survey showing a rise in house prices. The common view that this price rise is a good thing baffles me - do they really all believe that "what the country needs now is more expensive houses" or "our houses are too cheap"?

While I don't think that they were letting themselves be manipulated, there was a general reliance on "experts" who have a vested interest in driving more sales by more mortgage finance which - in the absence of more houses - gives them higher prices and hence fees too. I was struck by one who argued strongly in favour of more "affordable housing" - i.e. please will the government look after poor people outside the mainstream market, so supply in our market never catches up with demand.

Of course that is largely a London-centric view, but I doubt that prices are really sensibly low except is areas with serious economic problems. However, I have to say that I am not convinced that poor physical communications are the main reason for the jobs being concentrated in the South-East.

[Lee]

The IEA report, entitled "The High-Speed Gravy Train: Special Interests, Transport Policy and Government Spending", has been published and can be found here.

The last paragraph in particular of the IEA blurb is rather Beeching-esque, I have to say:

In addition to the direct costs, there will be even larger opportunity costs from the misallocation of transport investment. Institutional reform is needed to reduce the malign influence of rent-seeking special interests on transport policy. New infrastructure could then be provided on a more economically rational basis.

Here is a Railnews article on the report launch. It also contains the beginnings of a Pro-HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) response, largely along the lines of the IEA presenting a partisan view in line with its general policy of opposing major publicly-funded projects in favour of allowing the market to decide.

[Lee]

More Pro-HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) articles, examples here,here and here, with a general conclusion that the IEA have based their conclusions on back-of-the-fag-packet calculations.

Also some recognition of RS's point that pro-HS2 campaigners need to up their media game if they want to succeed.

There is even a poll for you to vote in, should you so choose...

[onthecushions]

I would rather see a 2 track railway going through the landscape than a 6 lane motorway!  Many of our railways blend in beautifully into the landscape.  How does HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) look ten years or so after it was built? I do not hear about any complaints of the noise from it either.

You could provide the capacity on the current alignments, but you would have to tear great swathes through most of the towns on the route.  I think you might find that is less popular than than going through the countryside. 

What all our economic models seem to miss is that high house prices in the South and South East are crippling this country. If we did not have to pay so much for housing then wages would be less and living standards higher. As a result the country would be more competitive.  Either we find some way of moving our economy North and West and take the heat out of the London bubble, or the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) (as opposed to London) will never be economically strong.  It is no coincidence that most of the opposition is coming from the South East.

Trying to fossilise some past idyll gives everyone a warm feeling (me included), but my children do not want to live in a museum, they want jobs and affordable housing.

Oh and the cost? How does it compare to the amount on money we put in the bail out the banks?

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) needs a core path of 25m width for 2 track (60m for 4 track), with another 25m each side affected. This compares with a 3 lane motorway width including verges of 35.6m.

A classic two track railway could fit in an 8.5m strip.

Perhaps the towns to have great swathes cut through them could have the tunnels planned for  Buckinghamshire farmland and villages.

As an exiled Northerner, I recall that transport  links can cut two ways, often draining the life out of the Regions.

Liverpool used to have its own Stock Exchange and Insurance Industry.

I'm not against HS2, just think we should concentrate upon outcome not process, the service to be delivered, not the "way and works".

Regards,

OTC

[ellendune]

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) needs a core path of 25m width for 2 track (60m for 4 track), with another 25m each side affected. This compares with a 3 lane motorway width including verges of 35.6m.

A classic two track railway could fit in an 8.5m strip.

When I look at a railway or a motorway in the landscape, it is the ballast area or the surfaced area that impacts most.  On a motorway that is 30 metres wide. 

I do not recall it being 25 metres wide on HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel). Is it to be fundamentally different on HS2?

The verges of both blend in in time.   

The 25 metres on either side that will be affected - what will it be affected by? Will this be green landscaping?

We need to differentiate between what will be affected for a short time during construction and what will ultimately be the visual impact.

[TonyK]

As another exiled Northener, I agree with OTC's point about the two-way flow. But why the big need for speed? Patrick McLoughlin was recently interviewed by The Times. In that, he said:

^One of the things I regret is that it^s been called ^High Speed 2^ it^s not primarily about speed. It^s about capacity and how do we carry on with the growth we are seeing on the railways. If you are going to create more capacity, you may as well build the best and go for a high-speed version as opposed to a traditional rail.^

It seems that the reason for a high-speed line is not the need for a high-speed line, but the need for a line, which might as well be built to high-speed specification. On that basis, the West of England Partnership's rubbish Metrobust scheme might as well be a rapid tram system.

I agree that Something Must Be Done. Railways are very much in the ascendancy again, and money spent now will be money well spent for the future. I would hope that this will not soak up all the available cash to the detriment of smaller projects like Portishead, Greater Bristol Metro, and one dear to my heart, Four Track Now! at Filton Bank.