Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 13:55 28 Mar 2024
- Man held over stabbing in front of train passengers
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
* Jet2 launches first flight from Liverpool airport
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1988)
Woman found murdered on Orpington to London train (*)

Train RunningCancelled
12:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
13:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
13:26 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
13:28 Weymouth to Gloucester
13:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
14:13 Par to Newquay
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
15:10 Newquay to Par
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:29 Weymouth to Gloucester
11:48 London Paddington to Carmarthen
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
12:42 Bristol Temple Meads to Salisbury
12:46 Avonmouth to Weston-Super-Mare
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:07 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
13:26 Okehampton to Exeter Central
14:05 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
Delayed
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
12:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 14:04:15 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[142] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[80] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[56] Return of the BRUTE?
[46] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[43] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[34] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 114
  Print  
Author Topic: HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion  (Read 393834 times)
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #375 on: August 24, 2013, 09:27:40 »

If the HS2 (The next High Speed line(s)) trains were all extended onto the classic lines then, as you point out there would need to be major works to lengthen platforms.
I'm not suggesting that ALL HS2 trains would extend onto the classic lines. Manchester services for example would still be captive to HS2, just they would call at Central Birmingham on the way to London/Kent. Personally, I think that'd be a much better use of the new capacity than the branching network of seperate trains for each destination currently proposed.

Doubling the most expensive part of the route (the tunnels under London) would not add a small amount to the scheme.
Ok, so doubling the tunnels under London would be expensive, but would it be cheaper to do it now or wait and see if we ever build a HS3 and/or Heathrow HSR link and then build the extra tunnels?

However, this part of my message:
Through stations would of course add to the cost of the scheme, but by small amounts compared to the huge total cost. If we're spending so much to build a new line we may as well spend a little more to do it properly.
, if you assume a 2-track Euston Cross, is probablly true. The additional cost may look expensive if quoted in isolation, but compared to the total cost of HS2 wouldn't be much.

Suggesting this sort of think is playing into the hands of the detractors who cannot bear that money should be spent on any public transport scheme outside London.

(^14bn for Crossrail and ^6bn for Thameslink - no problem - London deserves it, ^40 bn for Boris Island - no problem its a national hub that we are moving so that the rest of the nation can't use it - ^50bn for HS2 to benefit most of the rest of the country - far too expensive - just a sop to buy votes in 'the North')
I don't understand what you are getting at there. You seem to be suggesting that four-tracking HSR from Old Oak Common to Stratford is a scheme for London to benifit London. I don't see it like that at all.

The main (and almost the only) reason I support a new HSR line is capacity, the classic network is filling up and a step change in capacity is needed. The WCML (West Coast Main Line) is supposedly the 'most full' and serves some of the largest cities, so it makes sense to start there. However, that still leaves the GWML (Great Western Main Line), the lines out of Waterloo and, to a certain extent, the ECML (East Coast Main Line) with a capacity problem. Sooner or later, we might need a HSR link to relieve GWML capacity and that would need somewhere to go at the London end, that's what the 4-track Old Oak to Stratford suggestion is for.

You could even get the western rail access to Heathrow and capacity relief on the GWML east of Reading by building the Reading - Heathrow - Old Oak leg, selected trains could then run that way to Euston Cross (and perhaps extend to Kent on HS1 (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel)) instead of along the GWML and hence release paths into PAD» (Paddington (London) - next trains). If the border-controls pepole can work something out, it would also be possible to use the Euston Cross link to provide one or two services a day from mainland Europe to Bristol, joining the GWML at Old Oak Common.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« Reply #376 on: August 24, 2013, 10:12:15 »

...the basic fact the central Birmingham station (and the London and, to a lessor extent, Manchester ones) are planned to be termini sounds almost madness to me.

One of the very earliest publications explained quite clearly that a through station in the middle of Birmingham was impossible to build without huge amounts of demolition.  It is where it is (on a brownfield site) by a process of elimination.

Paul
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #377 on: August 24, 2013, 11:54:11 »

I don't understand what you are getting at there. You seem to be suggesting that four-tracking HSR from Old Oak Common to Stratford is a scheme for London to benifit London. I don't see it like that at all.

Sorry I was not clear.  What I was trying to say was that there are already those detractors who while making the case for massive investment in London, begrudge every penny spent elsewhere.  Every hint of extra cost at the moment give power to their arguments. 
Logged
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 977


View Profile
« Reply #378 on: August 24, 2013, 18:00:04 »

Why no option 4 for diverting freight?

Good point, but I am not sure where that leaves you since you would still be left with three incompatible traffic types on two railways.  Also there is nowhere to divert it to. the ECML (East Coast Main Line) and the MML» (Midland Main Line. - about) are both full - space is being made on the line up through Spalding. So the option would be to kick the freight off onto the roads.  I suppose my option 3 involved kicking the local services onto the roads.  However there is little road capacity so at least with option 4 we are saying build another Motorway to the North. Now I wonder how much that would cost?

So

Option 4) Divert all freight off the WCML (West Coast Main Line) onto the roads, cancel the electric spine and invest in a massive programme of road improvements.

So as a first stage how do we improve capacity from London & Southampton to the Midlands.  Ah yes widening the M3 from Southampton to Winchester (shouldn't be any opposition to widening that cutting through Twyford Down - no one objected the first time), a new M34 from Winchester to Oxford and a widening programme on the M40 to 5 lanes (through the Chilterns of course should be no problem).  Since it is for freight perhaps we should ban cars. 

I'm confused.

4-track railways handle  fast, semi-fast and stopping trains, vide the SWML (South Western Mail Line) and the elegant way the timetablers interweave the three types of service, mostly without conflict.

It's true that most railways approaching London are heavingly full but further out the grass grows longer, speech is slower and even the trains thin out. The capacity problem is essentially how to get North of Rugby, present soutions being the electric spine to Nuneaton and HS2 (The next High Speed line(s)).


HS2 goes past Aylesbury to Rugby as does the extant Great Central trackbed. South of Aylesbury there are two routes into London. It would probably even make sense to reinstate the GCML (Great Central Main Line) as well as building HS2, making it effectively (and economically) 4-track.

I don't understand why putting freight back on the roads should be an option.

OTC
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #379 on: August 24, 2013, 18:34:49 »

I don't understand what you are getting at there. You seem to be suggesting that four-tracking HSR from Old Oak Common to Stratford is a scheme for London to benifit London. I don't see it like that at all.

Sorry I was not clear.  What I was trying to say was that there are already those detractors who while making the case for massive investment in London, begrudge every penny spent elsewhere.  Every hint of extra cost at the moment give power to their arguments.
Ah, right. Thanks for the clarification.

...the basic fact the central Birmingham station (and the London and, to a lessor extent, Manchester ones) are planned to be termini sounds almost madness to me.

One of the very earliest publications explained quite clearly that a through station in the middle of Birmingham was impossible to build without huge amounts of demolition.  It is where it is (on a brownfield site) by a process of elimination.

Paul
What's wrong with using the proposed station site with a tunnel portal at the other end?

My idea is to use the same route into Birmingham and the same station site, with a new tunnel out of Birmingham.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #380 on: August 24, 2013, 18:55:06 »

What's wrong with using the proposed station site with a tunnel portal at the other end?

My idea is to use the same route into Birmingham and the same station site, with a new tunnel out of Birmingham.

It would have to be quite a deep tunnel as it would have to go under the current lines (as above is occupied by the GW (Great Western) route). The question is how far you have to go in tunnel before you find a surface route.  Tunnelling particularly tunnels of this size are really expensive.
Logged
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #381 on: August 24, 2013, 22:24:31 »

Interesting the terminal question. Maybe we should learn from elsewhere. The old Germany system relied heavily of single town terminal Haiuptbahnhofs.

With the adfvent of High Speed lines they are actively looking at making some exisitng termnal Stations Through ones. It's already been done in Kassel where a through station has been built just out of town think Bristol Parkway.

There might even be a thread on here about the fuss in Stuggart building a through station under a park!

To build additional terminal stations in Birmingahm Manchester and Leeds seems very outdated.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #382 on: August 24, 2013, 22:34:29 »

Interesting the terminal question. Maybe we should learn from elsewhere. The old Germany system relied heavily of single town terminal Haiuptbahnhofs.

With the adfvent of High Speed lines they are actively looking at making some exisitng termnal Stations Through ones. It's already been done in Kassel where a through station has been built just out of town think Bristol Parkway.

There might even be a thread on here about the fuss in Stuggart building a through station under a park!

To build additional terminal stations in Birmingahm Manchester and Leeds seems very outdated.

I don't know about Kassel, but the other project of tis type in Germany has been Berlin hbf.  However, this should be viewed in the context of a whole city that has undergone massive rebuilding over the last 20 years. With good planning therefore it has been possible to make space for the new station.  I know on no UK (United Kingdom) city that has been rebuilt to this extent in the same period. 
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #383 on: August 24, 2013, 23:03:24 »

What's wrong with using the proposed station site with a tunnel portal at the other end?

My idea is to use the same route into Birmingham and the same station site, with a new tunnel out of Birmingham.

It would have to be quite a deep tunnel as it would have to go under the current lines (as above is occupied by the GW (Great Western) route). The question is how far you have to go in tunnel before you find a surface route.  Tunnelling particularly tunnels of this size are really expensive.
The route I've plotted on Google Earth seems to require a tunnel of around 3.8 miles to leave the built-up area just south of the M5/M6 junction. Of that, I've routed about 1.5miles under the B4100 and A41, on the off-chance that following a road alignment rather than running under buildings make it marginlly cheaper (cut-and-cover perhaps? I doubt it though). From there my route follows the M6 (tunneling is so expensive that I'm guessing even if there isn't enough space to run alongside the motorway it would be cheaper to build a deck above the motorway than do more tunneling) out to the M54. I've also plotted a possible twisty chord, using what appear on the arial photos to be former rail alignments, from the main route north to a point on the Wolverhampton - Bescot Stadium line (for trains from Wolverhampton to access the HSR).
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #384 on: August 24, 2013, 23:35:39 »

This will be a long post, so sorry in advance. I'll try to stay firmly on track, but there are a couple of big quotes.

No shovel has yet turned a single sod in the HS2 (The next High Speed line(s)) construction, and already there is political trouble afoot. The project has hitherto enjoyed cross-party support within the coalition and the Labour opposition, as it had done when Labour was in government. The coalition called in the plans in 2010, but the task before Lord Mawhinney was not to decide whether or the not the scheme should proceed, but whether it should route not from Euston to Birmingham, but from St Pancras via Heathrow, something the Conservatives in opposition had argued for. IMO (in my opinion), the depth of the consensus on the need for a new route is adequately demonstrated by the result of the Mawhinney review. Though he had been transport secretary under John Major, his review supported the route put forward by HS2 Ltd, the company formed under Lord Adonis to develop the project.

Cross-party agreement is essential for a project of this magnitude, as it was with the Olympics. Without it from the get-go, I do not think we would have made it as far as we have by now. Planning and construction will take the lifetime of at least four governments. The Edinburgh tram system shows the perils. The previous Labour Scottish administration started the scheme in the face of hostility from the SNP opposition. It is only going ahead now because cancellation would cost more than completion (or because the SNP secretly always thought it made sense, but didn't want to be blamed if it went wrong). No-one would risk starting a project costing tens of billions if he thought it would be cancelled after years of work. Uncertainty causes delay and expense, as it did with Edinburgh, Crossrail and the Great Western electrification, announced and cancelled at least twice, though thankfully unstoppable now.

There have been grumblings from the back-benches, particularly those MPs (Member of Parliament) with rural constituencies that will be bisected, but not served, by the line, but support has been strong at higher levels until now. Alistair Darling, former Chancellor and Transport Secretary, took to the Times to argue for cancellation.

Quote
HS2 must terminate here. All change, please
Alistair Darling

 Last updated at 12:41PM, August 23 2013

 I can no longer back high-speed rail. There are better ways to spend ^50bn than on one line


 The great economist John Maynard Keynes is reputed to have said: ^When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?^

 We might ask the same question today. When it comes to HS2, the high-speed rail link from London to the Midlands and the North, the facts have changed. The projected cost has risen from about ^30 billion in 2010 to ^50 billion in July this year.

 In the past few days it^s been reported that the Treasury now believes the cost could top ^70 billion on just one railway line. To put this in perspective, the Department for Transport spends about ^9 billion a year on all capital projects, including roads, rail and other public transport.

 It is time to revisit the case for HS2.

 I am an enthusiast for the railways. By the time I left the Department for Transport in 2006, Britain^s railways were carrying more passengers than at any time since 1947. This was down to hugely increased investment by the last Labour Government.

 The railways were starved of investment from the late 1980s while the Conservative Government delivered a botched privatisation. We virtually rebuilt the West Coast Main Line, got rid of postwar rolling stock, improved the London Underground and finally gave the go-ahead to Crossrail.

 All this, however, depended on a commitment to maintain investment year-on-year and for decades to come. HS2 runs the risk of substantially draining the railways of money vital for investment over the next 30 years.

 My experience in government also makes me suspicious of big projects that can easily run out of control. In the Department for Work and Pensions it was IT. In transport the useless Railtrack had a plan to upgrade the West Coast Main Line that would have cost more than ^14 billion, and rising.

 It assumed that we could switch from trackside signals to onboard signalling: a technology that was still in development and untested at the time. The costs were eventually cut to ^8 billion by using tried and tested technology. The result was reduced journey times all the way to Glasgow.

 Politicians are always excited by ^visionary^ schemes. One thing I have learnt is that transport, rather like banking, is at its best when it is boring. That is when it tends to work. Political visions can easily become nightmares.

 So what is the case for HS2? The most compelling argument is that we will need increased capacity between London, the Midlands and the North West. That is true. But there are also severe capacity problems on commuter lines, particularly in the South East.

 And why high-speed trains? Certainly it^s handy to cut the journey time between Birmingham and London by half an hour. But at what cost?

 The economic benefit that is claimed will come from this is highly contentious. The business case depends on an assumption that passengers aren^t productive ^ that is, that they don^t work on the train. That may be true on a commuter train but not on long haul intercity services. Arguably, more work is done on the train than in the office.

 It is also claimed that we would then have a high-speed network, building on the existing link between the Channel Tunnel and St Pancras station in London. But this new line doesn^t link with St Pancras. Nor does it go to Paddington, which connects with Heathrow. Instead it goes to Euston, an already congested station.

 Then there is the cost. This is ^50 billion on current government estimates that can^t then be spent on upgrading the East Coast Main Line, the route to Bristol and South West or the lines out of Liverpool Street to East Anglia. Nor can it be put towards improving the much-needed links between cities outside London. Put it another way. If you gave England^s biggest cities ^10 billion each for economic development, would they spend it on HS2?

 The English regions have lagged behind London and the South East and Scotland in terms of growth. They could well do with ^50 billion of investment. I^d guess that they would spend it on smaller scale investment, on housing or transport.

 It^s not just the railways. Road improvements are needed too, as well as spending to upgrade bus services and cycle routes.

 And if we do want to be visionary, why can^t we decide what we are to do with Heathrow now instead of halfway through the next Parliament? Certainly if we spend ^50 billion on HS2 there will be no money for transport links to the proposed Boris Island or to any other new airport.

 The next Government and the one after that will be very short of money to spend on the infrastructure that we desperately need. To commit ourselves to spending so much on a project that rules out any other major schemes seems foolish. And the costs are not yet nailed down.

 The facts have changed. The case for HS2 was just about stateable in 2010. I don^t believe that it is today.

 It is not too late to revisit the project. We need to ask ourselves what we would gain if it goes ahead. Equally we must then ask ourselves what we will have to lose. Politics is about priorities. That will be especially so in the coming years.

The effect of this volte face is potentially enormous. Darling left front-bench politics after the Labour defeat in 2010, to spend more time with the Buds of May. His voice remains a big voice. Only two other people served in the Cabinet continuously throughout the Blair and Brown premierships (Gordon Brown and Jack Straw). Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are quoted as saying they support HS2, but will not do so if costs spiral. Two Eds may be better than one, but this is equivocation, surely.

Patrick McLoughlin has led the charge to shore up the project. He is quoted in today's Times:

Quote
Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, had earlier denied that crossparty support for the 225-mph line was weakening. ^The Labour Party are very much in support of HS2 and certainly when I met the core city leaders where HS2 will serve, all of them Labour Party members, they are very much in support.^

 He added: ^This scheme is very important to the infrastructure of this country and all big infrastructure projects are controversial. No doubt Alistair Darling knew that when he signed it off as Chancellor of the Exchequer.^

 Mr McLoughlin denied Mr Darling^s contention that HS2 would drain resources from other rail investment for the next 30 years, insisting that the Government was committed to putting billions into electrifying 880 miles of track over the next five years.

 ^The simple fact is Mr Darling says that it would be a nightmare if we do HS2. It would also be a nightmare if we didn^t do HS2 because what we have seen is a massive growth on our railways over the past 20 years.^

My own view is that they are both right, but McLoughlin is much more right than Darling. I say this even though my general political stance is closer to Darling's than McLoughlin's by a good cheap-day return.

Darling talks about "visionary" projects being glamorous, but says that transport works best when it is boring. I know what he means, but he has got it wrong. If a new railway is a necessity, then it ceases to be visionary unless the proposed vehicles are powered by Dilithium crystals or anti-matter. The high speed aspect could be visionary, but it makes perfect sense to me, at least, to future-proof and get the maximum benefit from the new line. I find support for this view from McLoughlin, again in a Times interview, this time from 22 June:

Quote
^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.^

Darling's view is more cautious, more small-c conservative. It is the same caution that scrapped the Bristol tramway and gave us instead a half-assed road building scheme in the Trojan horse of Metrobust. Darling, remember, was the man who agreed with Atkins' suggestion to rip up the Severn Beach line for a busway. He also turned down Manchester's Metrolink extension, although he relented in the face of the campaign of obstinacy that was mounted. The success of the latter two shows that he was wrong in those instances.

Darling says correctly that the business case for HS2 is crucial. This approach is exactly what got us Metrobust in Bristol rather than improvements to public transport, but he has a point. He destroys it by saying that people are productive on trains because they can work during the journey. He doesn't mention that they can't if the have to stand outside the toilet for the whole journey because of overcrowding. Capacity, not speed, is the clever bit of HS2. More people will be able to work on trains if it is built, because there will be more of them.

The cost is a bit of a red herring. On a project of this size, we will probably only be able to estimate the full cost about two years after the route is complete. Any figures quoted now will be the roughest of guesstimates. This is not to say that we should not control costs - far from it. Every stage of the route should be scrutinised with an intense scrute, and every best practice implemented.

On the terminal matter, the proposal is to use the former Curzon Street station. It was originally called Birmingham Station, but was renamed in 1852 as other stations opened. Although the Grade 1 listed former entrance is the only building to survive, the area has not been heavily developed since closure in 1966. It was then used as a Parcelforce depot until 2006. Birmingham City University have (had) plans for a new campus using some of the site, and Birmingham City Council planned to refurbish the entrance hall for rental to a quality tenant. iIt is, BTW (by the way), the oldest surviving example of monumental railway architecture in Britain. Continuing the line to New Street, Moor Street, or any other station would involve considerable demolition and/or tunneling, plus significant enlargement of the chosen station to reduce congestion. Birmingham Curzon Street ceased to be viable for passenger use because of being on the eastern edge of the city, giving rise to traffic problems even in the 1850s. It ceased to be a major interchange when New Street opened in 1854, but ceased passenger use in 1893. It has my support as the new terminus, but will need links to the other nearby stations.
Logged

Now, please!
trainer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1035


View Profile
« Reply #385 on: August 24, 2013, 23:41:12 »

The new Berlin Hauptbahnhof is superb and on many levels (literally) outstanding in Europe (not been outside myself - yet).  However, as has been stated, tunnels would probably be the answer in this country in our big cities.  The problem is, as with HS1 (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) near London, we will end up with a High Speed Underground service if we're not careful.  The London Underground is very good for speed and getting across the centre of the city - but boring.  Austrian railways are now beset with so many sound barriers, cuttings and tunnels on their 'improved' inter-city lines, they have become frustrating for those of us who rather liked the scenery.  Admittedly there are still many slower, attractive routes in that lovely country.

In this crowded isle, we will almost certainly sacrifice the traditional pleasant view from the train window in order to protect (rightly) neighbours to the railways.  HS2 (The next High Speed line(s)) will be an expensive way to transport business people around the country, but less attractive than the current lines for the leisure traveller, other than to get them to the 'nice' lines more quickly.

**Declaration of (lack of) interest: I shall probably be dead before it gets started let alone finished. (Aged 61 before you ask!)

[FTN posted as I wrote so apologies for not taking any of his substantive (and substantial) points on board, but I think he adds weight to my thinking about when/if it will ever happen]
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #386 on: August 25, 2013, 02:19:13 »

I wonder what the voter in Edinburgh South West makes of the plans to spend money on HS2 (The next High Speed line(s))?  What will it bring to him/her?  Will he / she be impressed by a sitting MP (Member of Parliament) who is prepared to take a line away from the party mantra?  Is HST2 a potential differentiator between Mr Darling and his opponents in 2015? What does the voter in a Labour party leadership election think of it?  I'm not a politician and I wouldn't know the answers to these questions, but I do wonder if the merit (or otherwise) of the project for the UK (United Kingdom) as a whole is only a part of what's driving support, or lack of support, in  number of quarters.

A project that's a vote winner when it's visionary and the major spend is many years away becomes far less pallettable as it gets closer to, especially if austerity on other projects at around the same time makes it viable to suggest that project "x" has been canned because the money is being spent on it.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« Reply #387 on: August 25, 2013, 02:54:22 »

My major concern is the ever rising project cost and the marginal BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio).

Current Goverment utterances on the project's total cost nearly always use the figure ^42.6bn. At least Alistair Darling is using the correct current figure of ^50.1bn. This includes the ^7.5bn for rolling stock. It is a little disingenuous of Ministers to omit this figure when stating the project cost. You can't have a railway without trains (pipe down TransWilts  Tongue). I guess ^50bn is a headline grabbing watershed figure that the Govt. would rather folk didn't concentrate on.

I agree with many that the IEA's figure of ^80bn was somewhat fanciful, seeing as it included so many irrelevant costs. However, a Financial Times article this week is quoting unnamed Treasury sources who put the current figure for phases one and two and rolling stock at ^73bn.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f331cde-0988-11e3-8b32-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2cvOTzwjw
(free registration may be required to view the article)

I'm still on the fence. I was leaning toward the anti- camp, but with ever increasing cost projections I'm now climbing down their side of the fence. I'm just not sure UK (United Kingdom) PLC can afford it.

I don't have any answers on the capacity issues, more reading up on that needed. But the cost concerns me.
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #388 on: August 25, 2013, 08:47:40 »

Current Goverment utterances on the project's total cost nearly always use the figure ^42.6bn. At least Alistair Darling is using the correct current figure of ^50.1bn. This includes the ^7.5bn for rolling stock. It is a little disingenuous of Ministers to omit this figure when stating the project cost. You can't have a railway without trains (pipe down TransWilts  Tongue). I guess ^50bn is a headline grabbing watershed figure that the Govt. would rather folk didn't concentrate on.

The ^42.6 bn is still the estimate. ^50.1 bn is the budget. The difference includes contingency. In setting this budget the Treasury is saying this far and no further. They have done this with the Olympics (and the project came in under budget) and Cross rail (so far on or under budget) and it has worked well.  It stops people sayign wouldn't it be nice if .... and continuing to add numerous small sums to the estimate that add up to a large sum.  Hence my comments earlier when people say changes would not cost much (even though some of them would have cost a lot).

So it is perfectly valid to still quote the ^42.6bn figure for the cost of the line as that is still the estimate. 
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4355


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #389 on: August 25, 2013, 08:52:27 »

My concern over HS2 (The next High Speed line(s)) now is not the cost, most accept its going to be in the order of ^40B +- the odd ^10B (ish), the real risk to HS2 is politicians posturing in the lead up to the next general election they all see it being fought on low public spending so none of them will want to commit to large price tag public items, I fear we are going bag to the 1980's of patch up and make do and mend
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 114
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page