And even the second leg of HS2 now gone

[Snicks918]

6 hours ago, Bob8 said:

I think many genuinely do not understand that the increased speed increases capacity. 

The last seven years has been an education in how little people often understand what they have strong convictions about.

This. I've lost count of the number of people who've told me they don't want to go to London, they want the money invested in local rail services. The reason you can't have more frequent local services is because of capacity constraints elsewhere on the rail network (Birmingham New Street is a massive bottleneck, for example).

By moving the long distance services onto a separate track you create more capacity on the existing rail lines to offer more frequent local and regional services. You can also run services closer together if they are all travelling at similar speeds, meaning more trains. I swear, every time I go to Birmingham I get stuck behind a delayed slow train and end up arriving 30 minutes late. Having the faster trains on a separate track addresses this. It also frees up additional freight capacity on the existing lines which has environmental benefits.

The only other way to address this capacity issue is to build additional conventional speed tracks alongside the West Coast Mainline but you would need to build 2 or 3 extra sets of tracks, which would require much more land and have more environmental impacts than HS2. Honestly they never should have named it HS2 because the speed is not really the main benefit.

There are a quite a few reasons why it's more expensive than building a similar project in other countries. A few I don't see mentioned a lot are 1. European high speed rail doesn't tend to go directly into city centres, and of course the cost of land and the complexity of construction is increased when you are dealing with any city. 2. The UK doesn't build infrastructure projects often enough to have a skilled workforce. Every time a new project starts up there is a substantial cost to upskill the workforce, supply chain, etc. 

[MARTINX9]

5 minutes ago, Snicks918 said:

 

There are a quite a few reasons why it's more expensive than building a similar project in other countries. A few I don't see mentioned a lot are 1. European high speed rail doesn't tend to go directly into city centres, and of course the cost of land and the complexity of construction is increased when you are dealing with any city. 2. The UK doesn't build infrastructure projects often enough to have a skilled workforce. Every time a new project starts up there is a substantial cost to upskill the workforce, supply chain, etc. 

I have got the AVE many times in Spain - it goes directly from the main city centre stations to the main city centre stations including Madrid Atocha, Barcelona Sants, Malaga, Valencia, Seville etc etc. Just as central as New Street, Piccadilly or Euston. All the high speed lines in Paris start from the main stations (no less central than Liverpool St or Paddington or Euston/Kings Cross St Pancras or London Bridge) - and run to other city centre stations like Marseille Saint Charles.

I expect that may just reflect the historic designs - and people living in flats not houses with gardens (like Boris's dad) nearby - but they can do city centre to city centre cheaply?

 

 

[Nick Cash]

17 hours ago, Nick Cash said:

It was why I think they’ll still go to Crewe and then review how best to continue. I hope, purely personally, that they stop in Birmingham and then review.

Shows how little I know! Delighted for my aged parents in law. It’s ruined a significant chunk of the last few years for them. Several good friends of theirs had to sell to HS2 and move away, some died having done so. 
 

If anyone wants to buy a house artificially cheaply near Newcastle then do a Rightmove search on Whitmore Heath.

[Trampa501]

2 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

I have got the AVE many times in Spain - it goes directly from the main city centre stations to the main city centre stations including Madrid Atocha, Barcelona Sants, Malaga, Valencia, Seville etc etc. Just as central as New Street, Piccadilly or Euston. All the high speed lines in Paris start from the main stations (no less central than Liverpool St or Paddington or Euston/Kings Cross St Pancras or London Bridge) - and run to other city centre stations like Marseille Saint Charles.

I expect that may just reflect the historic designs - and people living in flats not houses with gardens (like Boris's dad) nearby - but they can do city centre to city centre cheaply?

 

 

I was about to post the same thing. The lines also cross more mountainous and upland areas too, so more engineering know-how required. However they do cross much more land that isn't lived in to the same extent (population density wise) so the land is probably a lot cheaper to acquire (making an assumption here).

[Si1]

23 minutes ago, Snicks918 said:

4 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

I have got the AVE many times in Spain - it goes directly from the main city centre stations to the main city centre stations including Madrid Atocha, Barcelona Sants, Malaga, Valencia, Seville etc etc. Just as central as New Street, Piccadilly or Euston. All the high speed lines in Paris start from the main stations (no less central than Liverpool St or Paddington or Euston/Kings Cross St Pancras or London Bridge) - and run to other city centre stations like Marseille Saint Charles.

I expect that may just reflect the historic designs - and people living in flats not houses with gardens (like Boris's dad) nearby - but they can do city centre to city centre cheaply?

 

 

.

There are a quite a few reasons why it's more expensive than building a similar project in other countries. A few I don't see mentioned a lot are 1. European high speed rail doesn't tend to go directly into city centres, and of course the cost of land and the complexity of construction is increased when you are dealing with any city. 2. The UK doesn't build infrastructure projects often enough to have a skilled workforce. Every time a new project starts up there is a substantial cost to upskill the workforce, supply chain, etc. 

I've heard it's an accounting subtlety.

HS2's costs INCLUDE the new station and junction facilities at the major stops. Whereas continental rail projects tend to assign them to a separate budget.

Once removed, HS2 costs look similar to continental ones over similar landscape and population density.

 

 

[scottbeard]

1 minute ago, Trampa501 said:

I was about to post the same thing. The lines also cross more mountainous and upland areas too, so more engineering know-how required. However they do cross much more land that isn't lived in to the same extent (population density wise) so the land is probably a lot cheaper to acquire (making an assumption here).

Most of the cost of UK infrastructure like HS2 is all the bridges and tunnels around existing infrastructure

Building railway through fields is easy

Building it over the M42 or M40 without being allowed to just stop the motorway for a few weeks to do it is not easy or cheap

[NoHPCinTheUK]

I’ve been to Paris and all stations seem to be pretty central. 

[Si1]

1 minute ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

I’ve been to Paris and all stations seem to be pretty central. 

I think it's Japan where shinkansen stations are often off the city centre 

[Trampa501]

2 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Most of the cost of UK infrastructure like HS2 is all the bridges and tunnels around existing infrastructure

Building railway through fields is easy

Building it over the M42 or M40 without being allowed to just stop the motorway for a few weeks to do it is not easy or cheap

That makes sense. It's a big reason why we can't have double-decker trains like many European countries, that in themselves could close to double capacity. The existing platforms/stations could not cope with the numbers of passengers alighting, not to mention all the bridges/tunnels that couldn't allow bigger sized trains.

[Si1]

Can I also just say that I believe that Boris Johnson's recent 2019 election victory was the first time in maybe 60 years when the Tories made real inroads into the North the North actually voted for them.

They betrayed that inside one term that is absolutely shocking. I think they've lost the North again I cannot see anybody tolerating that up here the view is just the Tories hate the North and that's that.

[Si1]

2 minutes ago, Trampa501 said:

That makes sense. It's a big reason why we can't have double-decker trains like many European countries, that in themselves could close to double capacity.

Reason we don't have them in the main is because the British loading guage is generally smaller than on the continent despite same guage track

 

2 minutes ago, Trampa501 said:

The existing platforms/stations could not cope with the numbers of passengers alighting, not to mention all the bridges/tunnels that couldn't allow bigger sized trains.

 

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, Si1 said:

Can I also just say that I believe that Boris Johnson's recent 2019 election victory was the first time in maybe 60 years when the Tories made real inroads into the North the North actually voted for them.

They betrayed that inside one term that is absolutely shocking. I think they've lost the North again I cannot see anybody tolerating that up here the view is just the Tories hate the North and that's that.

I think it is part of the FPTP system that is disguises that few places give a party overwhelming support. If a party gets 60% of the vote for one party, it is overwhelming in a FPTP system, but would not seem so much in a PR system. 

Towns in which ambitious young people over the age of 18 are likely to have left are nowadays more likely to be Tory than they were, as age is more of a factor than class.

[Nick Cash]

And we’re still years away from the first HS2 train with actual fare paying passengers.

[Timm]

36 minutes ago, Snicks918 said:

This. I've lost count of the number of people who've told me they don't want to go to London, they want the money invested in local rail services. The reason you can't have more frequent local services is because of capacity constraints elsewhere on the rail network (Birmingham New Street is a massive bottleneck, for example).

This is interesting.

Thank you.

36 minutes ago, Snicks918 said:

By moving the long distance services onto a separate track you create more capacity on the existing rail lines to offer more frequent local and regional services. You can also run services closer together if they are all travelling at similar speeds, meaning more trains. I swear, every time I go to Birmingham I get stuck behind a delayed slow train and end up arriving 30 minutes late. Having the faster trains on a separate track addresses this. It also frees up additional freight capacity on the existing lines which has environmental benefits.

And I suppose those more local services would, by definition, be slower.

So HS2 would be High Spreed compared to the speed of services on existing track in the future.

Comparing the speed with existing long distance trains is missing the point.

[Confusion of VIs]

8 hours ago, Gbob said:

People drive cars

🤦‍♂️

[Confusion of VIs]

2 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

 

Around 75% of the total c£19bn costs of Crossrail/the Elizabeth line were met locally through borrowing by TfL and the Mayor of London funded from fare income, extra business rates and developer contributions. The entire cost of the £3bn overspend  was picked up by the Mayor on the back of taxes on London businesses. The government only picked up 25% - and even then one could argue it came from London businesses given their huge tax contributions. Same with the £1bn Northern line extension to Battersea Power station - funded locally.

 

Problem with HS2 is it is nationally funded - and therefore the entire costs are being met from the Treasury. Andy Burnham or Andy Street could probably barely borrow £1bn between them on the back of local businesses.

That is of course the problem - London projects happen as they pay their way and there is sufficient taxbase from local businesses to fund them. That isn't the case elsewhere - which is the problem!

+1 Levelling up always was an oxymoron.

Moving money away from the most viable projects/investments in favour of less viable projects based on political expediency is at best leveling down and a net loss for the country.  

[kzb]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67005036

Rishi Sunak said in a speech at the Conservative party conference that £36bn would be spent on alternative rail, road and bus schemes instead.

• Building the Midlands rail hub, connecting 50 stations
• Upgrading the A1, the A2, the A5 and the M6
• Building a Leeds tram system
• Funding the Shipley bypass, the Blyth relief road and 70 other road schemes
• Electrifying train lines in north Wales
• Resurfacing roads across the country
• Extending the £2 bus fare until the end of December 2024, which was due to rise to £2.50

He also said that he would protect £12bn to "better connect" Manchester and Liverpool - although this won't necessarily be with high speed rail.

it would be possible to get from Manchester to Hull in 84 minutes on a fully-electrified line under the new plans, known as "Network North". 

I'm not sure about the £2 bus fare being treated as an investment !

Also they should've been resurfacing the roads anyhow, that should not be treated as a special investment either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Timm]

3 hours ago, Nick Cash said:

Shows how little I know! Delighted for my aged parents in law. It’s ruined a significant chunk of the last few years for them. Several good friends of theirs had to sell to HS2 and move away, some died having done so. 
 

If anyone wants to buy a house artificially cheaply near Newcastle then do a Rightmove search on Whitmore Heath.

I'm sorry to hear this.

Not the only case, either

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-67006024
 

Quote

Mr Bardsley said the route would have come within 40 yards (37m) of his house and that an additional bypass would have left the place on "an island with no means of access".

"It was unbelievable," he said.

"They refused to compulsorily purchase it because it didn't knock the house down.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Timm

[TheChangeIsCast]

Another reason for the increased costs (versus comparable schemes in Europe) is that Hs2 was based on whole-of-life cost. For example, a concrete track slab is a massive capital expenditure for the project, but when you factor in the maintenance required for tracks laid on ballast over decades, it's possibly a good choice.

 

[TheChangeIsCast]

45 minutes ago, kzb said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67005036

Rishi Sunak said in a speech at the Conservative party conference that £36bn would be spent on alternative rail, road and bus schemes instead.

• Building the Midlands rail hub, connecting 50 stations
• Upgrading the A1, the A2, the A5 and the M6
• Building a Leeds tram system
• Funding the Shipley bypass, the Blyth relief road and 70 other road schemes
• Electrifying train lines in north Wales
• Resurfacing roads across the country
• Extending the £2 bus fare until the end of December 2024, which was due to rise to £2.50

He also said that he would protect £12bn to "better connect" Manchester and Liverpool - although this won't necessarily be with high speed rail.

it would be possible to get from Manchester to Hull in 84 minutes on a fully-electrified line under the new plans, known as "Network North". 

I'm not sure about the £2 bus fare being treated as an investment !

Also they should've been resurfacing the roads anyhow, that should not be treated as a special investment either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

it would be possible to get from Manchester to Hull in 84 minutes on a fully-electrified line under the new plans, known as "Network North". 

Possibly some smoke and mirrors going on with this one at least. Transpenine Route upgrade is an existing and ongoing project, worth billions, which is currently electrifying the lines between Manchester, Leeds and York. I spent two years recently working on it, massive project. So this isn't a new project, it's a project that is already happening.

https://thetrupgrade.co.uk/

[Si1]

 

[Si1]

10 minutes ago, TheChangeIsCast said:

Another reason for the increased costs (versus comparable schemes in Europe) is that Hs2 was based on whole-of-life cost. For example, a concrete track slab is a massive capital expenditure for the project, but when you factor in the maintenance required for tracks laid on ballast over decades, it's possibly a good choice.

 

Thanks 

[Si1]

4 hours ago, Bob8 said:

I think it is part of the FPTP system that is disguises that few places give a party overwhelming support. If a party gets 60% of the vote for one party, it is overwhelming in a FPTP system, but would not seem so much in a PR system. 

Towns in which ambitious young people over the age of 18 are likely to have left are nowadays more likely to be Tory than they were, as age is more of a factor than class.

I'm not sure northern towns full of over 50s are going to vote Tory either. I don't think this is demographic. It is class war.

[Blobsy]

Should have built a whole network in the 80s really.

“Here’s what you could have won…”

[Bob8]

2 minutes ago, Si1 said:

I'm not sure northern towns full of over 50s are going to vote Tory either. I don't think this is demographic. It is class war.

They are a more swayable group.

Before 1997, class was the main determinant of vote. That changed to the relative upward mobility of your group reaching a peak in brexit, and fluctuating since. It is notable that the big cities, Liverpool, Leeds, Hull, Newcastle are still solidly Labour, whereas the towns that young people leave (e.g. Leigh) had swings to the Tories.