Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
GWR advice during Coronavirus
Coffee Shop during Coronavirus
Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 08/07/2020 - Melksham RUG - ONLINE
15/07/2020 - Harness social media - ONLINE
22/07/2020 - Melksham Rail User Group
16/09/2020 - Melksham Rail User Group
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
July 02, 2020, 09:29:19 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[97] Great Western Railway: on-board catering, buffets, Travelling ...
[83] A review of LNER’s Azuma
[52] First WoE increased frequencies from 5th July
[44] Call for discounts for railcard users
[36] HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general dis...
[36] TransWilts leases Wiltshire Council land at Melksham Station f...
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69]
  Print  
Author Topic: HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion  (Read 217581 times)
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5058


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #1020 on: June 21, 2020, 12:08:03 pm »

Also worth noting that the BBC seems to have accepted the £106bn figure as though it was a fact or something...

When we bought our former house at auction and started doing it up, I resolved to keep a careful note of what it cost, but I don't really know the end result, nor what I should have counted as essential and what was more just decorative, nor whether I deduct the portion of the box of grommets that didn't get used or add back what I disposed of that saved money. HS2 is a far bigger proposition, and however it is measured, the real cost is never going to be known. £106 bn including trains seems to be this year's accepted guesstimate. Imagine what would happen if the Chancellor were to report that it cost a lot less on the day it opens.
Logged

Now, please!
Electric train
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3277


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


View Profile
« Reply #1021 on: June 22, 2020, 07:22:41 am »

Also worth noting that the BBC seems to have accepted the £106bn figure as though it was a fact or something...

When we bought our former house at auction and started doing it up, I resolved to keep a careful note of what it cost, but I don't really know the end result, nor what I should have counted as essential and what was more just decorative, nor whether I deduct the portion of the box of grommets that didn't get used or add back what I disposed of that saved money. HS2 is a far bigger proposition, and however it is measured, the real cost is never going to be known. £106 bn including trains seems to be this year's accepted guesstimate. Imagine what would happen if the Chancellor were to report that it cost a lot less on the day it opens.

Quite a good example.

When doing up a house, the costs of soft furnishings, doing the garden etc are often left out of people budgets.

What HS2 headline figure includes is all the "soft furnishings, the garden and a new car"  in other words the HS2 headline budget not only includes the construction of the line it also includes the final fit out of stations and rolling stock; on the other hand in France they just quote the cost of construction hence they build their highspeed railways cheaper
Logged

Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him.     
Dwight D. Eisenhower
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5058


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #1022 on: June 30, 2020, 03:18:32 pm »

Chris Packham, the BBC presenter, is to appeal against the refusal of the High Court judge to stop HS2 for him. The appeal, which will be heard on 8 July, will be a roly-poly appeal, being two appeals in one. The first part will decide if he does indeed have leave to appeal, and when that has been granted, the court will move immediately to consider if the trial judge erred in law when refusing the injunction. There are two further grounds he is asking the court to consider also. There are many reports about it, but this one from the Bucks Free Press (don't try saying that after a sufficiency of port or two) seems fairly complete, and isn't behind a paywall.

Quote
TV star Chris Packham HS2 appeal to be heard by court
By Kiera Gillies  @Kiera_BFP
Apprentice reporter

The Court of Appeal has decided to hear Chris Packham’s appeal regarding an application for permission for judicial review of the Prime Minister’s decision to proceed with the HS2 railway project.

The hearing has been listed for July 8, 2020.

Lord Justice Lewison held that the matter is of “considerable public interest” and ordered that a rolled-up hearing be listed before mid-July in light of the fact that further works by HS2 Ltd and its contractors are scheduled to take place.

A rolled-up hearing means that the court will first consider whether Mr Packham has permission to appeal and, if permission is granted, it will then immediately consider his application for judicial review.

On April 3 Mr Packham, represented by law firm Leigh Day, applied to the High Court for an interim injunction to stop the irreversible destruction of ancient woodlands pending the outcome of a substantive judicial review of the HS2 decision.

The High Court declined to grant an injunction and refused permission for judicial review and Mr Packham subsequently sought permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

Mr Packham’s appeal focuses on two grounds both concerning alleged failings in the way in which the Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary reached their decision to give the HS2 project the go-ahead. First, Mr Packham contends that the Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary were told (and so would have proceeded from an understanding) that the Oakervee Report set out a sufficient account of environmental impacts for the purpose of their decision to go ahead with HS2, when in fact it had not done so.

Second, that Mr Packham argues that the Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary failed to have regard to the implications of the Paris Agreement when they took the decision.

The Paris Agreement requires a restriction on the global increase in temperature by 2050.

Any addition in emissions between now and 2050 will negatively impact on such temperature increases and thereby on the commitments made under the Paris Agreement.

Mr Packham’s case states "that in fact the Prime Minister and Transport Secretary were not told this and so they failed to take into account the implications of the Paris Agreement, particularly as regards the increase in carbon emissions during the construction period of HS2 (which predates 2050)."

In his appeal Mr Packham also highlights that the UK has put in place a series of consecutive five-yearly carbon budgets to steadily reduce emissions over the intervening period between now and 2050.

He believes the UK is not currently on track to meet its fourth and fifth budgets (which cover the years 2023-2032) and that the construction emissions from HS2 would, therefore, further undermine the Secretary of State’s duty to meet these carbon budgets (under section 4(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008).

The appeal contends that the PM and Secretary of State were not informed about this issue before making their decision to go ahead.

Mr Packham said: “I am delighted that the Lord Justices see merit in hearing the appeal and that they have acknowledged the ‘considerable public interest’ in the case - a public interest which spans the heinous and irreparable damage done to ancient woodland, breeding birds, badgers and bats this Spring, the complete incompatibility of this project to the government’s obligations to address climate change, the appalling conduct of HS2 Ltd and its employees in a time of global crisis, and the future drain that the project will be on that public’s purse, which due to the pandemic is empty.

"The public have been conned by HS2, hopefully now we, the public, will see some justice.”

Tom Short, solicitor at law firm Leigh Day, said: “Our client is encouraged by the Court of Appeal’s decision to hear his case and its recognition of the considerable public interest in the matter.

"He was disappointed by the lower court’s decision and welcomes the scrutiny of environmental concerns around the HS2 project that a hearing in the Court of Appeal will bring, including in respect of climate change considerations.

"As this week’s CCC report has shown, surface transport is the single highest emitting sector in the UK since 2015 and is off track to contribute as required to achieve Net Zero and meet our Paris obligations.

"Our client believes that a major surface transport project that increases emissions is contrary to the UK’s climate obligations and seriously risks imperilling our future. Mr Packham has been buoyed by the tremendous support his case has received from members of the public and from environmental experts who provided witness evidence including the RSPB and the Woodland Trust.”

Mr Packham is represented by solicitors Tom Short and Carol Day, and paralegals Lewis Hadler and Rhiannon Adam, at law firm Leigh Day.

In short, a new electric railway is more polluting than doing nothing, and the Oakervee report was wrong. He is represented by law firm Field Leigh Day. I haven't included the photo because we all know what he looks like.
Logged

Now, please!
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 8192


View Profile
« Reply #1023 on: June 30, 2020, 03:27:40 pm »

Should this appeal fail, which court is next on the list?  Roll Eyes
Logged

To view my GWML Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5058


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #1024 on: June 30, 2020, 03:31:12 pm »

Should this appeal fail, which court is next on the list?  Roll Eyes

Diana Ross - the Supreme. After that, it would be the European Court if there is a matter of EU law involved that we are currently bound by. If it goes that far, we should have HS3 and HS4 built by the time judgment is handed down.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 04:34:31 pm by TonyK » Logged

Now, please!
rogerw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 944



View Profile
« Reply #1025 on: June 30, 2020, 05:11:53 pm »

Is he paying his own legal costs on this or are the taxpayers paying. If he has legal aid I think it is scandelous when so many much more worthy cases are refused..Perhaps the Giovernment should put in a claim for costs if he loses again
Logged

I like to travel.  It lets me feel I'm getting somewhere.
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5058


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #1026 on: June 30, 2020, 08:21:37 pm »

Is he paying his own legal costs on this or are the taxpayers paying. If he has legal aid I think it is scandelous when so many much more worthy cases are refused..Perhaps the Giovernment should put in a claim for costs if he loses again


I believe the case is crowd-funded. I can't imagine that legal aid would be available, but you never know. It costs £528.00 to lodge an application for an appeal to be heard, and £1,199 to lodge the appeal if that is successful. The court has already said that this is a matter of considerable public interest, so they probably won't saddle the loser with all of the winner's legal costs. The facts of the case were either agreed or found in the lower court, it's just the opinion that is in dispute. So there won't be legions of expert witnesses, just a small army of lawyers. It will be expensive, but not millions, I wouldn't have thought.
Logged

Now, please!
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5164


View Profile
« Reply #1027 on: Yesterday at 06:57:47 am »

Is he paying his own legal costs on this or are the taxpayers paying. If he has legal aid I think it is scandelous when so many much more worthy cases are refused..Perhaps the Giovernment should put in a claim for costs if he loses again


I believe the case is crowd-funded. I can't imagine that legal aid would be available, but you never know. It costs £528.00 to lodge an application for an appeal to be heard, and £1,199 to lodge the appeal if that is successful. The court has already said that this is a matter of considerable public interest, so they probably won't saddle the loser with all of the winner's legal costs. The facts of the case were either agreed or found in the lower court, it's just the opinion that is in dispute. So there won't be legions of expert witnesses, just a small army of lawyers. It will be expensive, but not millions, I wouldn't have thought.

Chris has already raised around £150,000 via crowdfunding for his legal challenge, his original target was £30,000, so I think you can all rest easy that he won't be an indeterminate or indefinite drain on public funds.........ironically unlike HS2!  Smiley
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5058


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #1028 on: Yesterday at 09:39:34 am »


Chris has already raised around £150,000 via crowdfunding for his legal challenge, his original target was £30,000, so I think you can all rest easy that he won't be an indeterminate or indefinite drain on public funds.........ironically unlike HS2!  Smiley

I'm also pleased to hear that poverty amongst lawyers is to be avoided yet again.
Logged

Now, please!
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 ... 67 68 [69]
  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 a customer 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). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page