HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

But HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) was never about speed; it was about capacity.  The capacity constraints north of Hansacre Junction means there is no increase in capacity to Crewe, Manchester, Liverpool and the North West and does nothing for the East Midlands and the North East.  

Weren't the original arguments only about capacity on the southern end of the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line)?

I've still got the CD^▸ (Capital Delivery)-ROM that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) released during Andrew Adonis's tenure. Back then it was only ever going to be London to Birmingham to be costed, funded and built. Once that line was up and running then the powers that be would look at extensions. Subsequent transport ministers and governments bloated 'HS2' leading to the shitshow we have today.

From day 1 I've never really been onboard with HS2. Yes, superfast trains are a nice thing to ride on, but my argument has always been that  spending on regional transport infrastructure, and other measures to aid business in the regions, would've been far better than tens of billions just to get a few folk to and from the capital 30 minutes quicker.

[Mark A]

It's that speed give HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) its capacity, but the major benefit is in the capacity released in the rail system - and Network Rail will have the gen on the length of the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) are pushed for capacity - if it's like the motorways a few years ago it'll be between London and Preston-ish for starters. And then, Manchester for one has capacity issues at the terminals and through the city.

Mark

[Kempis]

When I saw the line between Carlisle and Stranraer in the map on the cover of the Network North document, I wondered whether the government was considering reopening the Carlisle–Stranraer railway. But it turns out that the plan is to provide funding 'to deliver targeted improvements on the A75 between Gretna and Stranraer'.

Then I saw mention in the document of 'reopening Beeching lines to reconnect areas like County Durham, Burton, Stocksbridge and Waverley'. Could that mean extending the Borders line south from Galashiels to Hawick or even Carlisle? No: it turns out that Waverley is a proposed new station between Sheffield and Worksop.

More seriously, it seems counter-intuitive that electrification from Crewe to Holyhead has apparently been given priority over electrification from Chippenham to Bristol, Didcot to Oxford and Cardiff to Swansea. Chippenham to Bristol is mentioned only as a possibility, and the latter two routes are not mentioned at all, as far as I can see.

[grahame]

More seriously, it seems counter-intuitive that electrification from Crewe to Holyhead has apparently been given priority over electrification from Chippenham to Bristol, Didcot to Oxford and Cardiff to Swansea. Chippenham to Bristol is mentioned only as a possibility, and the latter two routes are not mentioned at all, as far as I can see.

It does, but taking a deeper look:
1. The people of North Wales loose because of the lack of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) to Crewe
2. Recent resignalling work in North Wales probably makes the infrastructure better known
3. The Avanti trains are already bi-mode on order, and TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales) is well into bi-mode locals which GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) is sadly not
4. There may be some constituencies along that way that are marginal

Chippenham to Bristol is interesting - as I read it, it's offered as a potential for the devolved spend by the Bristol (WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about) if I may be so bold) area which would eat up most of that money, and it's a re-announcement of something the government had budgeted for an withdrawn - "churning" or re-announcement?   It doesn't feel like new money, and without MetroWest electrification to Westbury or biMode trains, it is of limited or little benefit on local and regional trains.

[Mark A]

A small number of people at the core of a dying government has waved through a decision to cancel future phases of a major and transformative enhancement to the core of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s rail network that will bring widespread benefits far beyond that core.

They have done so at a time when the first and most expensive phase is part-built and not yet in use. They have conspicuously made this decision with no reference to others and even to its own department for transport. They are also attempting to take steps to load costs onto any decision to reverse this cancellation.

They attempt to shape the reaction to this epic abdication of governance by promising money, among other things, for a large programme of roadbuilding (and mending) a series of piecemeal enhancements to the rail network, including 'Reopenings'.

People and local politicians who take the stance of welcoming those 'Reopenings' and enhancements with a 'Look what's in this for my local area' really shouldn't take the bait - investment in new rail enhancements and infrastructure that's needed locally can happen anyway and in no way should be dependent on the sabotage of a critical national project supported by legislation passed by parliament and which is well under way.

Better for energies to be applied (immediately) to pulling the government back in line with its own national legislation on this - that also had cross-party support.

It's not theirs to cancel.

Mark

[ChrisB]

A small number of people at the core of a dying government has waved through a decision to cancel future phases of a major and transformative enhancement to the core of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s rail network that will bring widespread benefits far beyond that core.

A quick check back shows that every Government works the same way on all major projects, and are likely to whatever voting system is in force at the time. What are you asking for? A referendum to reverse any Government decision?

They have done so at a time when the first and most expensive phase is part-built and not yet in use.

And what is the difference between now & when it opens?

They have conspicuously made this decision with no reference to others and even to its own department for transport.

Errr, they held a cabinet meeting before his speech at which Mark Harper was involved. There is a video also that features Number 10, so it wasn't a decision taken on the spot.

They are also attempting to take steps to load costs onto any decision to reverse this cancellation.

Evidence, not hearsay please.

Better for energies to be applied (immediately) to pulling the government back in line with its own national legislation on this - that also had cross-party support.

The other  side can reinstate it in around 12 months then....they should have a serious majority to do as they please.

It's not theirs to cancel.

Oh Mark, pull yourself together - of course it is. Which party proposed the Bill, eh?

[Mark A]

It's not theirs to cancel.

Oh Mark, pull yourself together - of course it is. Which party proposed the Bill, eh?

More or less together, thanks, though certainly 'king furious. It is not 'Theirs to cancel' and this decision is expensive for every individual in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). They can certainly be challenged to put this before parliament.

Mark

[ChrisB]

As has already been explained to you, Parliament passed an *enabling* Bill. It therefore doesn't have to be followed through.

Also, one Government cannot tie another following Government to doing anything. Even if the original Bill got cross-party support.

[Mark A]

As has already been explained to you, Parliament passed an *enabling* Bill.

Chris, do you think you're possibly straying into being a tiny bit condescending? I have no legal training and am not well versed in parliamentary procedures. The ramifications of this decision, made in early September but announced yesterday with parliament in recess and with the pretense that it been decided that morning will be being explored by many with actual expertise and their thoughts and findings will emerge in due course. It's not impossible that this isn't a done deal.

Also, where physical objects and property is concerned, governments, statutory bodies, individuals can certainly throw obstacles in the way of their successors, thereby raising the cost barrier.

For example, a small example local to Bristol, thinking of Filton Bank. British Rail when they removed two tracks, could have sold some of the land as surplus to requirements. They did not, and Network Rail in due course were able to reinstate quad tracking at far less expense and disruption than if they'd had to reaquire the land and compensate its owners. If that had been the case, it's likely that the act of selling off the land (by a public body) would have constrained the future actions of Network Rail.

Mark

[Noggin]

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) Breakfast News and website presenting the scrapping of the line to Manchester as a done deal this morning - to be announced this afternoon.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66998692

Interesting brief from GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) yesterday on the GWR engineering works and plans for works and service at Old Oak Common.  Lots of disruption over coming years, platforms on all four lines, but it sounds unlikely that everything (especially long distance) will stop there. Especially if (!!) it only goes as far as Birmingham, why stop trains from South Wales, Bristol, Taunton, Oxford, Reading  there when there are other direct trains from those places to Birmingham?

Consider it like Stratford. A convenient stepping off point for outer London and Heathrow with the ability to act as a terminus when the line into Paddington is shut, HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is a bonus.

[Mark A]

They are also attempting to take steps to load costs onto any decision to reverse this cancellation.

Evidence, not hearsay please.

OK. The government's 'Network North' document, Paragraphs 30-37, starting with ''...we will deliver a 6-platform station
which can accommodate the trains we will run to Birmingham and onwards..."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/651d64646a6955000d78b2e0/network-north-transforming-british-transport.pdf

It's emerging that the intended funding for Old Oak Common to Euston is intended to be provided by the developers handling what will now be termed 'The Euston Quarter'.

Mark

[ChrisB]

As has already been explained to you, Parliament passed an *enabling* Bill.

Chris, do you think you're possibly straying into being a tiny bit condescending? I have no legal training and am not well versed in parliamentary procedures. The ramifications of this decision, made in early September but announced yesterday with parliament in recess and with the pretense that it been decided that morning will be being explored by many with actual expertise and their thoughts and findings will emerge in due course. It's not impossible that this isn't a done deal.

Yes, it is. And no,, I'm not - but you aren't listening to your fellow board members? Two of us have explained how Parliament works, and you are still clutching at straws. Should Labour win the next election, that will be their next opportunity to change the direction of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) II. It would need the Tory MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post (a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London), depending on context) to seriously revolt (& probably change Leader) to achieve a reversal. And as it doesn't need a vote to change plans, there is nothing an opposition can do otherwise.

Also, where physical objects and property is concerned, governments, statutory bodies, individuals can certainly throw obstacles in the way of their successors, thereby raising the cost barrier.

That won't be the first time a Government will have done that, no. But I see no evidence of that happening, and I don't thinkl that there's that much time available to this Parliament to do that again, except in wholesale, where I doubt any one company/body has enough money to pay for it. More likely is that owners that have lost their properties might want 'em back.

[grahame]

As I understand it, there's something of a contrast between the Beeching era during which closed and reduced railway infrastructure was sold off seemingly without possibility of re-instatement and some later closures and reductions where it has been possible to reverse the decision, all be it at significant cost.    Wondering which apparent approach is being taken here, though the slant is different because the line at least north of Birmingham hasn't even been built ...

[Mark A]

At the risk of this becoming a thread of 'Things wot closed and shouldn't have', thinking of post-Beeching but not related to changes of government, the Lincoln avoiding line, Closed 1983 and the formation quickly lost, causing users of the level crossing on one of the major routes into the city plenty of opportunity to reflect on the decision.

Mark

[grahame]

At the risk of this becoming a thread of 'Things wot closed and shouldn't have', thinking of post-Beeching but not related to changes of government, the Lincoln avoiding line, Closed 1983 and the formation quickly lost, causing users of the level crossing on one of the major routes into the city plenty of opportunity to reflect on the decision.

Mark

"On this day" is flagging up Barnstaple to Ilfracombe closed 5th October 1970