[Travel] HS2 to be scrapped?

[Iggle Piggle]

It's a great idea that would've made a massive difference to a lot of people. Now it just looks like those who will benefit are those living south of Birmingham (because SURELY there's no way they will scrap phase 1, as well as the other bits?), which is pathetic, given it was meant to transform rail travel for the whole country. You can see why northerners don't like southerners...

For someone who lives just South of Birmingham, I've yet to see what the benefit is. It's approximately 100 miles from Coventry to London and the fastest train takes 57 minutes which is comparable to the times from Brighton to London (which is nearer 65 miles, guess where I think the investment should really be). When everything is working - which is rarely is at the moment due to the strikes - It's not the Cov to London bit of the journey that is the problem, it is the time it takes to get from North to South London at rush hour. Furthermore, once HS2 is introduced the volume of passenger trains goes down from stations such as Coventry. Once introduced, HS2 will give me the option of a no doubt more expensive train journey whose time saving is negated by the time it takes to get to the station or fewer options from the current route.

I also have the misfortune of driving along the route Hs2 takes to Birmingham most working days (For about 8 years as well when it ends). It's constant roadworks, road closures and huge damage to the local environment all to deliver an expensive train set no one will use as they are all on MS Teams anyway. HS2 was only really useful when it went North of Birmingham which they are now likely to can.

 

[Berty23]

HS2 is vital national infrastructure and once built nobody would mention the cost again (exhibit A - the Channel Tunnel). It’s shameful they’ve already cut it back and indefensible they want to cut it back more.

This is the thing. If it cost 8 trillion would you still support it? I assume the answer is no. In which case how high can it get before you think it is a waste of money? We need to be careful not to fall into the sunk cost fallacy.

 

[A1X]

Complete waste of money, which should never have been started. The argument often advanced, that it would save 20 minutes or so on journeys between Birmingham and London, was never compelling, particularly as many/most business meetings are (post-Covid) conducted via Zoom or Teams.

The likely costs of continuing would be astronomical, given that 'stage 2' was not due to be completed until 2040; even since the project was given the green light over 13 years ago, the costs have more than doubled, from an envisaged £33 billion in 2010 to £71 billion this year, and rising all the time.

Surely better to spend the money upgrading and improving rail links and services in areas which are currently poorly served by public transport, or where ancient rolling stock is still being used? How will a super-fast rail service from London to Birmingham/Manchester benefit non-car drivers in places like Darlington, Hull or Mansfield?

On the other hand, if the Brum-Manchester link is scrapped (as the Brum-Leeds link was last year), it will be viewed as a major betrayal by many Red Wall voters in the north-west, who were promised HS2 as a major aspect of 'levelling-up', economic regeneration, new employment opportunities, and creation of a Northern Powerhouse.

Economically, scrapping HS2 make sense, but politically, it could be toxic in some regions.

The argument that it was about saving 20 minutes on a journey from London to Birmingham was a spurious one put forward either by those with a vested interest against the project or people who didn't understand it in the first place, and never the actual argument in favour of the project. It's about capacity, not speed. And unless we now have broadband capable of emailing shipping containers from Southampton to Glasgow then the Zoom or Teams argument is null and void.

This explains it better;



The "Spend it on the existing infrastructure" argument is also simply not borne out by reality. Any upgrade can only go so far, and if you want to start adding extra tracks that involves the cost of bulldozing thousands of homes and moving people out of them to do it, which would be enormous (not to mention pretty twisted). At the end of the day, you can only fit a certain number of trains on any given length of track. That's just physics.

As for the "economically scrapping it makes sense", so what about all the costs involved in the work so far? What happens to all the development already done? How much does it cost to break the contacts? Added on top of the capacity issues which necessitated the line in the first place and still exist, and will continue to exist. How much to fix them?

 

[Iggle Piggle]

My favorite UK rail story is still the one regarding the Coventry arena. They build a dedicated stop to specifically service the arena…then close it when events are on due to it being too busy.

This takes some beating.

Obviously wouldn’t happen in Germany.

As someone who is local, this was indeed the case. I am pleased to report the station is now open when there are events but that is where the good news ends. Last time I checked, there was one train an hour from Cov and they put on ONE extra carriage when there is an event.

Hold my beer Southern Rail.

 

[A1X]

This is the thing. If it cost 8 trillion would you still support it? I assume the answer is no. In which case how high can it get before you think it is a waste of money? We need to be careful not to fall into the sunk cost fallacy.

Something that is vital to the way the nation functions is worth it at basically any cost. How much did the Covid vaccine cost to roll out, or do we not care because it was so badly needed?

 

[GJN1]

I find it almost unfathomable that we cannot even build a railway. It is absolutely shocking.

We can't do any major infrastructure project. The Elizabeth Line was hugely delayed and over budget, the Olympics was decent in the end but not before it was massively over budget, likewise the Channel Tunnel and even the Millennium Dome.

We're a joke of a nation.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Unbelievably poor budgeting and a lot of company shareholders rubbing their hands. Costs were always going to go through the roof when there were bound to be other pressures on public finances. Why the hell they didn’t just sensibly upgrade the existing system at a fraction of the cost I have no idea. Just been to York on the existing network. Took an hour and three quarters to travel 205 miles - 125 mph! Jeeees - it must be possible to replicate this on other lines.

 

[Berty23]

Something that is vital to the way the nation functions is worth it at basically any cost. How much did the Covid vaccine cost to roll out, or do we not care because it was so badly needed?

That is a cop out though. You can’t just have an infinite pot of money and say any cost is fine. It is about how the money could be used if it was spent in a different way. So the discussion is about whether this is the best infrastructure to build or whether it should be something else.

The discussion could also be applied to schools, hospitals, etc etc. we can’t just have bottomless pots for things crucial to how the country operates.

What if it cost 15 trillion? Obviously it won’t. But if there is an upper limit then it means there is a limit so then it is about where that limit is before we think better going elsewhere.

 

[GJN1]

Unbelievably poor budgeting and a lot of company shareholders rubbing their hands. Costs were always going to go through the roof when there were bound to be other pressures on public finances. Why the hell they didn’t just sensibly upgrade the existing system at a fraction of the cost I have no idea. Just been to York on the existing network. Took an hour and three quarters to travel 205 miles - 125 mph! Jeeees - it must be possible to replicate this on other lines.

Also, the fact that it's not even going to go into central London now, or central Birmingham for that matter, makes it seem all the more idiotic.

 

[A1X]

Unbelievably poor budgeting and a lot of company shareholders rubbing their hands. Costs were always going to go through the roof when there were bound to be other pressures on public finances. Why the hell they didn’t just sensibly upgrade the existing system at a fraction of the cost I have no idea. Just been to York on the existing network. Took an hour and three quarters to travel 205 miles - 125 mph! Jeeees - it must be possible to replicate this on other lines.

Because it wouldn't have been a fraction of the cost, delivered at best a tenth of the benefits of HS2 and caused enormous disruption while doing so.

Your journey to York was up the ECML, that is less congested than the WCML but increasingly less so, mostly because freight which can no longer fit on the main bottleneck section of the WCML (Willesden Junction to Rugby) as that section is full. As that moves across to both the MML and ECML then those lines will start to slow down as well. The alternative is it moves to the motorways, with increased pollution and traffic as a result.

 

[A1X]

That is a cop out though. You can’t just have an infinite pot of money and say any cost is fine. It is about how the money could be used if it was spent in a different way. So the discussion is about whether this is the best infrastructure to build or whether it should be something else.

The discussion could also be applied to schools, hospitals, etc etc. we can’t just have bottomless pots for things crucial to how the country operates.

What if it cost 15 trillion? Obviously it won’t. But if there is an upper limit then it means there is a limit so then it is about where that limit is before we think better going elsewhere.

Alright, if you insist on playing with fantasy numbers, obviously it shouldn't go ahead if it cost multiple trillions. But it's also not going to, it's a railway line and not a space programme. I would flag it through at the current cost, and at considerably more than the current cost (I'm not going to put an arbitrary number on it as frankly I can't be arsed to work one out), but any cost has to factor in the potential benefits longer term to doing the work. Building HS2 now frees up rail space for other traffic, which in turn lowers traffic on motorways and spurs economic growth that way. It also helps to deflate the London house price bubble as people can commute from further away. These are huge economic wins for the country.

It's not always about the cost, you have to consider the value too.

 

[Berty23]

Alright, if you insist on playing with fantasy numbers, obviously it shouldn't go ahead if it cost multiple trillions. But it's also not going to, it's a railway line and not a space programme. I would flag it through at the current cost, and at considerably more than the current cost (I'm not going to put an arbitrary number on it as frankly I can't be arsed to work one out), but any cost has to factor in the potential benefits longer term to doing the work. Building HS2 now frees up rail space for other traffic, which in turn lowers traffic on motorways and spurs economic growth that way. It also helps to deflate the London house price bubble as people can commute from further away. These are huge economic wins for the country.

It's not always about the cost, you have to consider the value too.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. If the idea is to reduce London house prices by having more people commute into London then this will mean that house prices will increase elsewhere AND if more people are commuting to London that means the jobs are there. If the jobs are in London then they are not in the other parts of the country which will have the opposite effect of growth in areas won’t it?

I suspect that commuting to work will decrease again as the new generation whose lives have been based around relationships built virtually that they won’t need it. The current senior employers/decision makers are my generation (mid 40s) and older. If we played with mates we went to their houses. Now most evenings my kids are on calls with their mates while going about their business, homework, tidying room or whatever. Not even talking much of the time. They operate different to me and I suspect many of my generation. They find it insane the commuting to work when don’t need to.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Interesting that the tory conference is in Manchester in a couple of weeks

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think most people know, but some obviously don't that the reduction in journey time is just a by-product of a better line and trains. The whole point of HS2 is to increase capacity moving passengers onto the new lines and thereby freeing up the old lines for more freight to run during the day which in turn will take juggernauts off the roads.

Yep. Here is the history of it (below). Sadly the shocking mismanagement of the project by the tories is archetypal of how they have run everything for the last 13 years. And as every teenage boy should know, It's too late to pull out after you've ejaculated.

We can't do any major infrastructure project. The Elizabeth Line was hugely delayed and over budget, the Olympics was decent in the end but not before it was massively over budget, likewise the Channel Tunnel and even the Millennium Dome.

We're a joke of a nation.

But on the other hand we have the most complex and developed Health and Safety network in the world.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

It's just staggering isn't it. How on earth does it cost us 8x more than the Spanish to lay high-speed lines. We're even using the same company, a Spanish firm, to do the work.

The UK director of said firm says it's down to the planning. When they do a job in Spain, the government deals with all the stakeholders and gets the necessary permits so when the project starts, it's just about delivery. Apparently, in the UK we deal with these issues as we go which requires extra manpower and causes delays.

Even accounting for that, it's hard to understand the cost difference.

I can remember being in France near a TGV line in Burgundy many years ago and having a conversation about how they got things done. It was something like “the French government builds it and then asks questions afterwards.”
that’s probably an overstatement, but……..

incidentally another conversation years later revealed how angry people in Eastern France (Alsace/Strasbourg) were about not having a TGV line, as it was a serious economic issue in their eyes. On the one hand, its costs are frightening, but on the other hand maybe the South owes it to the North. I did see a tongue in cheek suggestion that they should have started it in the North. Would they leave the Southern bit unfinished and unconnected?

 

[Bakero]

I can remember being in France near a TGV line in Burgundy many years ago and having a conversation about how they got things done. It was something like “the French government builds it and then asks questions afterwards.”
that’s probably an overstatement, but……..

In the Spanish case ypou can guarantee the questions would've been asked before hand. They love a bit of bureaucracy and form-filling. Even if you want to paint you kitchen, you have to go to the town hall to get a licence.

incidentally another conversation years later revealed how angry people in Eastern France (Alsace/Strasbourg) were about not having a TGV line, as it was a serious economic issue in their eyes. On the one hand, its costs are frightening, but on the other hand maybe the South owes it to the North. I did see a tongue in cheek suggestion that they should have started it in the North. Would they leave the Southern bit unfinished and unconnected?

Andy Burnham was suggesting exactly that yesterday and I don't think his tongue was in his cheek. He was quite right too.

 

[jackalbion]

We need to build it to increase capacity, but of course the media outlets constantly talk about time. From a planning perspective at current levels the WCML up to Manchester is at Capacity. Southern cut back their Milton Keynes service to Watford to Increase capacity, it needs to go up on that route, and the only way to increase Capacity is to build HS2.

 

[jackalbion]

Unbelievably poor budgeting and a lot of company shareholders rubbing their hands. Costs were always going to go through the roof when there were bound to be other pressures on public finances. Why the hell they didn’t just sensibly upgrade the existing system at a fraction of the cost I have no idea. Just been to York on the existing network. Took an hour and three quarters to travel 205 miles - 125 mph! Jeeees - it must be possible to replicate this on other lines.

Its not about speed though its about Capacity. Fast trains need longer headways, so why not give them their own route. Theres no reason we can't build HS2 and upgrade the current network, but we ultimately have a government that has to rightly or wrongly, cut costs. We need to look at railways as a public good, that runs for the public benefit as it boosts the economy.

 

[beorhthelm]

Unbelievably poor budgeting and a lot of company shareholders rubbing their hands. Costs were always going to go through the roof when there were bound to be other pressures on public finances. Why the hell they didn’t just sensibly upgrade the existing system at a fraction of the cost I have no idea. Just been to York on the existing network. Took an hour and three quarters to travel 205 miles - 125 mph! Jeeees - it must be possible to replicate this on other lines.

vaguely recall that line is straight and fast because they wanted to be able to get mail London-Edinburgh overnight. many bits of network have corners every few miles as they swerve Earl Tufton's estate who wouldn't give permission, or deliberatly go through Lower Bessington because Lord Brompton wanted a station near the hunting lodge.

also thats why French and others have better high speed links, they put in a line from city A to city B, few stops or diversions to avoid La Marshe de Newt.