It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Even now, A C Grayling is invoking the devil to achieve just that.
I think he’s known as Jolyon Maugham QC.
I notice Jolyon hasn't posted on the tw@tter since the curious incident of the dog fox in the night.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lota bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
Non universal benefits, so child benefit was not paid for children living in Poland.
If that’s the answer, it’s a pretty weak one.
It was our strong currency and high wages, plus the English language, and company habits of recruiting directly in places like Poland, that drove the fundamentals of mass immigration.
What real deterrent would it have been in reducing immigration numbers to shave off £30 off a pay packet per week, before it was converted and repatriated back to Poland? And many of these migrants workers were young and single, and had no partners let alone children.
It might have made some difference at the margins (economic incentives always do) but we’d be talking something like knocking 20-30k net migrants off a figure of 300-350k (gross).
We still wouldn’t have had an emergency break, transitional or sectoral controls, or caps by visa, salary or qualification.
So, please forgive me if I’m a little sceptical of the ‘we had the tools, but chose not to use them’ argument.
There is a confusion about what Cameron tried to get in his renegotiation and about what was always legally permissible under EU law. See my earlier answer.
Thanks, I’ve seen your answer.
I’m afraid I’m not seeing how it makes the point I presume you’re arguing it does?
I answered your factual question about what levers EU states had to control FoM.
The other side of the levers are the pulls. A high minimum wage, self employment rules allowing you to never pay tax, and at the time ludicrously generous tax credit system that could easily double a minimum wage salary for a person with family back home.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
Increasing capacity on the west coast main line is not a paramount objective. It is highly desirable but not at any price. This price is ludicrously high.
Well I'm trying to steer away from class in favour of "values", but since you ask I am fairly certain he would be a 7 or below - i.e. a 6 since that's the only possible score below 7. Six is the lowest possible score.
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Even now, A C Grayling is invoking the devil to achieve just that.
I think he’s known as Jolyon Maugham QC.
I notice Jolyon hasn't posted on the tw@tter since the curious incident of the dog fox in the night.
Yes, that's the odd thing. Many of them seemed to think they were voting to cancel Brexit (LibDems, Greens...). Thick or what?
Just thick.
The auld Lang syne nonsense pissed me off a bit today. The position of most of those participating was our way or the highway. When we chose the Highway they were shocked. It did not compute. An ability to understand where we were coming from could have kept the show on the road, at least for now. We needed an associate status with greater autonomy. Had that been offered to Cameron we would have ended up with a much closer relationship than we will have now.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
It becomes not worth it when someone comes up with a better option that addresses the needs of the northern business community, otherwise you are effectively giving up on the north, saying it will never be worth making the investments that they are crying out for.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
Increasing capacity on the west coast main line is not a paramount objective. It is highly desirable but not at any price. This price is ludicrously high.
It may not be for you. It is for those of us who live near it. Or indeed, near the M6.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
It becomes not worth it when someone comes up with a better option that addresses the needs of the northern business community, otherwise you are effectively giving up on the north, saying it will never be worth making the investments that they are crying out for.
So you’d still go ahead if the price rises to £250 billion?
Yes, that's the odd thing. Many of them seemed to think they were voting to cancel Brexit (LibDems, Greens...). Thick or what?
I got the distinct impression Europe was getting sick to the back teeth of the remainer game playing (And the ERG with May) when they were negotiating with whoever was PM at the time.
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Even now, A C Grayling is invoking the devil to achieve just that.
I think he’s known as Jolyon Maugham QC.
I notice Jolyon hasn't posted on the tw@tter since the curious incident of the dog fox in the night.
Perhaps he has a cunning plan?
I think he’s more scared of getting a brush off.
He's vixen his story.....
Too late, it’s going to dog him for the rest of his life.
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Even now, A C Grayling is invoking the devil to achieve just that.
I think he’s known as Jolyon Maugham QC.
I notice Jolyon hasn't posted on the tw@tter since the curious incident of the dog fox in the night.
Perhaps he has a cunning plan?
As cunning as a fox with a degree....... oh wait the fox came to a sticky end, didn't it!
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
I fear that this may prove to be true. But the alternatives are years of planning wrangles and billions of pounds from getting a spade in the ground. I think that will prove decisive.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
It becomes not worth it when someone comes up with a better option that addresses the needs of the northern business community, otherwise you are effectively giving up on the north, saying it will never be worth making the investments that they are crying out for.
So you’d still go ahead if the price rises to £250 billion?
The point is, if we don’t do it now, it will cost that at some point and have to be built anyway. The real scandal of HS2 is that if Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had had a brain cell and an ounce of political courage between them it would have been built by now, probably for around £50 billion.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
It becomes not worth it when someone comes up with a better option that addresses the needs of the northern business community, otherwise you are effectively giving up on the north, saying it will never be worth making the investments that they are crying out for.
So you’d still go ahead if the price rises to £250 billion?
If it still offered a positive return for the northern economy then yes.
Until this is accepted as the only way to redress the UK economy nothing will change.
The north has had decades and decades of under investment, if that was not the case then HS2 would not cost remotely as much in one go, but you are now going to penalise the north for having not been invested in for decades by stopping the schemes that are now mega expensive but critical to address that backlog of investment.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
It becomes not worth it when someone comes up with a better option that addresses the needs of the northern business community, otherwise you are effectively giving up on the north, saying it will never be worth making the investments that they are crying out for.
So you’d still go ahead if the price rises to £250 billion?
The point is, if we don’t do it now, it will cost that at some point and have to be built anyway. The real scandal of HS2 is that if Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had had a brain cell and an ounce of political courage between them it would have been built by now, probably for around £50 billion.
The scandal is for over 100 years no new railway line has been built in the north.
it is going to take a long time and a lot of cash to rectify that, if we'd been building railway lines for the last 100 years in the north the headline figure would be far lower, but lets not punish those in the north for the decision not to invest there for decades
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
I am not an advocate for it but I do recognise the imperative of action. If we don’t we will still be debating the relative merits of the alternatives in another decade.
And yet, while it was a disaster at the time, it’s proved a rousing success 17 years on - if anything, too successful, as it’s now badly congested again.
Imagine the cost of doing this now, under current track conditions. Imagine the disruption, the changes required to existing stations, the compensation vastly inflating the expense.
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
I am not an advocate for it but I do recognise the imperative of action. If we don’t we will still be debating the relative merits of the alternatives in another decade.
and end up building new tracks to create new capacity at a load more cost than today
I have said repeatedly that Boris is not a right wing tory, he is very much a liberal and he has not surprised me in his actions so far. I did not vote for him, and at one time I resigned my membership as a result of his action against dissenting conservatives but that changed when he re-instated most of them, and to be honest he has impressed me on the upside since the GE
His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time
Hmm, we will see. I am watching him very VERY carefully. Open mind, that's only fair, but I will be surprised - and a little disappointed too - if he does not do something utterly appalling by Easter.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
Boris is Heseltine crossed with Berlusconi
Yes - nice - I can see that. Moderate Tory with a dash of populism.
I don’t buy this Heseltine comparison.
Heseltine seems to have been a politician with some principles and honour. And he had the honesty and courage to take on Mrs T in public when most of his colleagues were simply muttering in private and waiting for someone else to make a move.
He argued for investment in the north, not because it might have been politically expedient for him and his party, but because he believed it would have been the right thing to do.
I don’t see any of this reflected in our current PM.
Yes, there is a difference. Boris is, ultimately, a winner. Hezza lost
To be fair, every Government likes to sound tough on "culture" (whatever Goodwin means by that) in terms of talking tough on terorism and sounding like it knows what's it doing on national security.
Johnson is only imitating every PM in the last 40 years so nothing revolutionary.
As for being "left" on the economy I'm sure he's channelling his inner social democrat - David Owen would be proud.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
It can’t transmit by internet can it? Not even with Huawei’s help? Not that kind of virus?
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
It’s a good job then that you can post to PB and regale us with your wit while in quarantine.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
I am not an advocate for it but I do recognise the imperative of action. If we don’t we will still be debating the relative merits of the alternatives in another decade.
and end up building new tracks to create new capacity at a load more cost than today
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
Get in touch with Public Health England and get tested.
Imagine the kudos of being the first in your social circle to get Kung Flu.....
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
I always thought you would be responsible for the collapse of civilisation and our descent into an epoch of barbarism and appalling puns.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
It’s a good job then that you can post to PB and regale us with your wit while in quarantine.
Quarantine is not going to work. We need an inoculation.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
As of 1st February, all consultants are going to be on a million quid a year.
They just have to submit an invoice. What is the mechanism going to be to say no?
Is this any different to Crossrail.
Yet where was the public opposition to Crossrail that provided zero benefit to the north?
The point about Crossrail is that so far it has provided zero net benefit to anybody (well, except for Casino Royale).
Watching from the north as a strong supporter of HS2 that will benefit the north, the comparison between how HS2 and Crossrail is treated by the media and politicians tells you everything you ever need to know about why the country is so divided.
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
It’s a good job then that you can post to PB and regale us with your wit while in quarantine.
I think you’re safe. I’m lying in bed groggy with co-codamol and some unexpectedly good Barossa Shiraz. I cannot cough my germs past rcs’s firewall. I hope.
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
I always thought you would be responsible for the collapse of civilisation and our descent into an epoch of barbarism and appalling puns.
Yes. Soz. I feel like that black rat that jumped ship in Queenhithe, many years ago...
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
At the moment, based on the newly budgeted cost there is a benefit of £1.66 for every £1 spent on the first 60 years, after that every £ of benefit is a bonus.
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
I’ve linked to this report before. I’m linking to it again.
Yes, that's the odd thing. Many of them seemed to think they were voting to cancel Brexit (LibDems, Greens...). Thick or what?
Just thick.
The auld Lang syne nonsense pissed me off a bit today. The position of most of those participating was our way or the highway. When we chose the Highway they were shocked. It did not compute. An ability to understand where we were coming from could have kept the show on the road, at least for now. We needed an associate status with greater autonomy. Had that been offered to Cameron we would have ended up with a much closer relationship than we will have now.
Quite right. All that George Eliot guff (did I hear her called a poet by some Eurocrat?) about how only when parting do you get how much you love each other....If the EU had any sense they would offered just such a deal and all this trauma would probably never have happened.
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
Get in touch with Public Health England and get tested.
Imagine the kudos of being the first in your social circle to get Kung Flu.....
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
It’s a good job then that you can post to PB and regale us with your wit while in quarantine.
Quarantine is not going to work. We need an inoculation.
Can’t inoculate against the effects of PB. But if you want to try, you could either ask for a temporary ban, or post a brutally honest summary of how inferior Radiohead are to every other pop group.
Yes, that's the odd thing. Many of them seemed to think they were voting to cancel Brexit (LibDems, Greens...). Thick or what?
Just thick.
The auld Lang syne nonsense pissed me off a bit today. The position of most of those participating was our way or the highway. When we chose the Highway they were shocked. It did not compute. An ability to understand where we were coming from could have kept the show on the road, at least for now. We needed an associate status with greater autonomy. Had that been offered to Cameron we would have ended up with a much closer relationship than we will have now.
By Jean Claud Juncker's account it was offered to him. Cameron was a cock, and a europhile cock. His clever weeze was to up the stakes, because he thought that way he'd get us into everything with no semi-detachment.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
I’ve linked to this report before. I’m linking to it again.
The TLDR version is ‘Yes, it is needed.’ Not perhaps like oxygen, but very badly.
Northern businesses don't matter as much as southern ones.
Crossrail with a worse benefit cost ratio passes with almost no noise.
The north which has had zero investment in decades needs to catch up, yet can still offer a better benefit to cost ratio cannot have that investment due to the noise of investing a substantial amount away from the south.
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
Do a lot of Chinese tourists visit Bangkok these days?
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
At the moment, based on the newly budgeted cost there is a benefit of £1.66 for every £1 spent on the first 60 years, after that every £ of benefit is a bonus.
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
I’m all in favour of appropriate improvements to infrastructure. The trans pennine route is an outstanding candidate. It’s not a north-south thing at all (indeed, London is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of HS2).
Supporters of HS2 have completely lost their heads. The concept of value for money has been completely forgotten. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a cadre of professionals having a bean feast but at a time when public finances remain a disaster area, some regard needs to be had to the exorbitant costs that continue to pile up.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
At the moment, based on the newly budgeted cost there is a benefit of £1.66 for every £1 spent on the first 60 years, after that every £ of benefit is a bonus.
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
I’m all in favour of appropriate improvements to infrastructure. The trans pennine route is an outstanding candidate. It’s not a north-south thing at all (indeed, London is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of HS2).
Supporters of HS2 have completely lost their heads. The concept of value for money has been completely forgotten. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a cadre of professionals having a bean feast but at a time when public finances remain a disaster area, some regard needs to be had to the exorbitant costs that continue to pile up.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
At the moment, based on the newly budgeted cost there is a benefit of £1.66 for every £1 spent on the first 60 years, after that every £ of benefit is a bonus.
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
I’m all in favour of appropriate improvements to infrastructure. The trans pennine route is an outstanding candidate. It’s not a north-south thing at all (indeed, London is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of HS2).
Supporters of HS2 have completely lost their heads. The concept of value for money has been completely forgotten. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a cadre of professionals having a bean feast but at a time when public finances remain a disaster area, some regard needs to be had to the exorbitant costs that continue to pile up.
So what alternative do you put forward? Things can’t continue as they are. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues with HS2 is it will take years to build.
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
Do a lot of Chinese tourists visit Bangkok these days?
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
At the moment, based on the newly budgeted cost there is a benefit of £1.66 for every £1 spent on the first 60 years, after that every £ of benefit is a bonus.
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
I’m all in favour of appropriate improvements to infrastructure. The trans pennine route is an outstanding candidate. It’s not a north-south thing at all (indeed, London is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of HS2).
Supporters of HS2 have completely lost their heads. The concept of value for money has been completely forgotten. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a cadre of professionals having a bean feast but at a time when public finances remain a disaster area, some regard needs to be had to the exorbitant costs that continue to pile up.
You mean every council, chamber of commerce and nearly all northern mayors are wrong ?
Out of interests, did you oppose Crossrail which offered far less benefits for every £ spent or do you only have a problem when the money is spent improving the northern economy?
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
It can’t transmit by internet can it? Not even with Huawei’s help? Not that kind of virus?
I wouldn’t be so sure. I have been more or less permanently ill ever since I wrote a rude article about the Chinese in mid-December .....
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
At the moment, based on the newly budgeted cost there is a benefit of £1.66 for every £1 spent on the first 60 years, after that every £ of benefit is a bonus.
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
I’m all in favour of appropriate improvements to infrastructure. The trans pennine route is an outstanding candidate. It’s not a north-south thing at all (indeed, London is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of HS2).
Supporters of HS2 have completely lost their heads. The concept of value for money has been completely forgotten. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a cadre of professionals having a bean feast but at a time when public finances remain a disaster area, some regard needs to be had to the exorbitant costs that continue to pile up.
So what alternative do you put forward? Things can’t continue as they are. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues with HS2 is it will take years to build.
The alternative that I put forward is that proponents of HS2 go away and rethink from scratch the whole idea with some kind of concept of appropriate cost (which bears some kind of relationship with the cost of similar projects in other countries) and a credible plan for budgeting. This is an appalling waste of money that the country can ill afford.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
The case for building a new railway has been poorly presented for the 12yrs that HS2 existed
At the moment the UK railway network is terribly full, the WCML being the worst affected with it being the busiest mixed (commuter, regional, inter city and freight) railway on the planet, that is volume of trains per hour using the tracks cannot be matched anywhere
This causes all sorts of problems, as soon as one train is running late it will inevitably have a knock on effect on all the subsequent trains on the tracks, there is no spare capacity on the lines for the late runners to not adversely impact on other following services
Eventually the ripple effect will become bad enough to warrant cancellations to enable the service to be brought back to recover the timetable
That is a direct consequence of the over crowding on the tracks of the WCML and is felt all along from Euston and into all the major cities that the line serves
Additionally this impacts on services that only use the WCML for a short period, spreading across the wider network
Best way to fix this and improve the services across the legacy network to reduce delays and cancellations ?
We need to add capacity to the network to enable the service to recover and have slack to deal with late running services
Now the tube runs trains about every 1min on some lines, possible as the trains run at the same speed and stop at the same stations
Best way of adding as much capacity to the WCML is to aim for the same as the tube to have as much capacity as possible, that is have as similar services as possible using the line as possible operating at similar speeds as possible, ideally take away the high speed inter city services that have massive stopping distances and eat into track capacity leaving behind the slower commuter and freight services
This brings you to HS2, the best way of improving the existing services on the old lines is to add additional capacity to the existing railway, the best way of doing that is moving the higher speed trains away and leaving the existing network for commuting services and freight trains
The alternative, trying to add this capacity to the existing network was tried about 15 years ago with the WCML upgrade scheme that added very little extra capacity for great cost, the alternatives some are suggesting would see the WCML and ECML closed every weekend for at least the next 14 years and would add a tiny fraction of the capacity that HS2 will deliver to the existing network
Yes it is expensive, but it will last hundreds of years and would not seem remotely as expensive if we had as a nation being building this for the last 30 years like many other European
If HS2 isn't the answer to the issues facing the railways, the reality is the answer will be something very similar, the faster trains taken off the old tracks and put onto new tracks and that is going to be bloody expensive
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
"The point of no return" is a denial of the principle that bygones are bygones
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
The alternative that I put forward is that proponents of HS2 go away and rethink from scratch the whole idea with some kind of concept of appropriate cost (which bears some kind of relationship with the cost of similar projects in other countries) and a credible plan for budgeting. This is an appalling waste of money that the country can ill afford.
I’ve already listed all the realistic alternatives, which are all slower, more expensive, more disruptive and less effective.
There is a reason why we keep coming back to this. The reason is it’s the best option on grounds of cost and impact.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Indeed
Berkley was the deputy in the report.
He is very anti HS2 and comes up with invalidated costs and unachievable alternatives.
It Is his part of the report that quoted £106bn according to reports.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Max, you say? I suppose water might start flowing uphill the one time.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Max, you say? I suppose water might start flowing uphill the one time.
Are you familiar with the budgeted cost and the P95 cost for such schemes?
Seems to be much confusion on this generally across the population.
£86m is the budgeted cost, I do not think we have a new P95 cost.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Max, you say? I suppose water might start flowing uphill the one time.
Since that includes a £20 billion contingency, and much of the most expensive work is on the first section to Birmingham, I will be surprised if it exceeds that figure.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Max, you say? I suppose water might start flowing uphill the one time.
Are you familiar with the budgeted cost and the P95 cost for such schemes?
Seems to be much confusion on this generally across the population.
£86m is the budgeted cost, I do not think we have a new P95 cost.
I’m very familiar with the trend in costs of infrastructure projects. “Max” is not a word I associate with them.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Max, you say? I suppose water might start flowing uphill the one time.
Are you familiar with the budgeted cost and the P95 cost for such schemes?
Seems to be much confusion on this generally across the population.
£86m is the budgeted cost, I do not think we have a new P95 cost.
I’m very familiar with the trend in costs of infrastructure projects. “Max” is not a word I associate with them.
So why are you using a figure that is neither the budgeted nor P95 cost in any discussion?
The alternative that I put forward is that proponents of HS2 go away and rethink from scratch the whole idea with some kind of concept of appropriate cost (which bears some kind of relationship with the cost of similar projects in other countries) and a credible plan for budgeting. This is an appalling waste of money that the country can ill afford.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Max, you say? I suppose water might start flowing uphill the one time.
Are you familiar with the budgeted cost and the P95 cost for such schemes?
Seems to be much confusion on this generally across the population.
£86m is the budgeted cost, I do not think we have a new P95 cost.
I’m very familiar with the trend in costs of infrastructure projects. “Max” is not a word I associate with them.
So why are you using a figure that is neither the budgeted nor P95 cost in any discussion?
I'm confused.
That much is obvious from your inability to set any price at which HS2 would not be worth it.
For those unaware, the P95 cost is the cost that the modelling provides a 95% confidence that the scheme can be delivered within, the budgeted cost is the P50 cost, the cost there is a 50% chance the scheme can be delivered within.
With HS2, the media jump between the two repeatedly.
The alternative that I put forward is that proponents of HS2 go away and rethink from scratch the whole idea with some kind of concept of appropriate cost (which bears some kind of relationship with the cost of similar projects in other countries) and a credible plan for budgeting. This is an appalling waste of money that the country can ill afford.
"You're wrong until I tell you I'm right?"
Or at least that seems to be the Meeks' view.
HS2 advocates are long on north-south rhetoric and short on international comparisons of costings. There’s a reason for that.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
At the moment, based on the newly budgeted cost there is a benefit of £1.66 for every £1 spent on the first 60 years, after that every £ of benefit is a bonus.
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
I’m all in favour of appropriate improvements to infrastructure. The trans pennine route is an outstanding candidate. It’s not a north-south thing at all (indeed, London is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of HS2).
Supporters of HS2 have completely lost their heads. The concept of value for money has been completely forgotten. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a cadre of professionals having a bean feast but at a time when public finances remain a disaster area, some regard needs to be had to the exorbitant costs that continue to pile up.
So what alternative do you put forward? Things can’t continue as they are. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues with HS2 is it will take years to build.
A randomly selected idea for infrastructure -
1) Tesla charge $900,000 for one of these - https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/megapack - for that price you get 3MWh of storage 2) the total capacity of the UK electricity production industry is something like 85GW 3) So for £20Gb you could back up the entire national grid for 1 hour. 3) This would enable you to massively increase the percentage of power from renewables - maybe even get to the 100% renewable and nuclear figure.
For comparison Dinorwig stores 9.1GWh, which would cost 2 Billion to replicate in Megapack tech.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Max, you say? I suppose water might start flowing uphill the one time.
Are you familiar with the budgeted cost and the P95 cost for such schemes?
Seems to be much confusion on this generally across the population.
£86m is the budgeted cost, I do not think we have a new P95 cost.
I’m very familiar with the trend in costs of infrastructure projects. “Max” is not a word I associate with them.
So why are you using a figure that is neither the budgeted nor P95 cost in any discussion?
I'm confused.
That much is obvious from your inability to set any price at which HS2 would not be worth it.
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
At the moment, based on the newly budgeted cost there is a benefit of £1.66 for every £1 spent on the first 60 years, after that every £ of benefit is a bonus.
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
I’m all in favour of appropriate improvements to infrastructure. The trans pennine route is an outstanding candidate. It’s not a north-south thing at all (indeed, London is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of HS2).
Supporters of HS2 have completely lost their heads. The concept of value for money has been completely forgotten. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a cadre of professionals having a bean feast but at a time when public finances remain a disaster area, some regard needs to be had to the exorbitant costs that continue to pile up.
So what alternative do you put forward? Things can’t continue as they are. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues with HS2 is it will take years to build.
A randomly selected idea for infrastructure -
1) Tesla charge $900,000 for one of these - https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/megapack - for that price you get 3MWh of storage 2) the total capacity of the UK electricity production industry is something like 85GW 3) So for £20Gb you could back up the entire national grid for 1 hour. 3) This would enable you to massively increase the percentage of power from renewables - maybe even get to the 100% renewable and nuclear figure.
For comparison Dinorwig stores 9.1GWh, which would cost 2 Billion to replicate in Megapack tech.
I’m not totally convinced that would increase capacity on the WCML.
However, my battery is exhausted and so am I. I wish the company a pleasant evening.
For those unaware, the P95 cost is the cost that the modelling provides a 95% confidence that the scheme can be delivered within, the budgeted cost is the P50 cost, the cost there is a 50% chance the scheme can be delivered within.
With HS2, the media jump between the two repeatedly.
So P95 means that the odds of coming in under that figure are 1:19 ?
So there is no price that HS2’s advocates would not pay for it?
The point is Alistair that like it or not, it’s needed. And given that you have (uncharacteristically) not quoted a single realistic figure but just plucked inflated figures out of the air or uncritically accepted Berkeley’s lies, I don’t think you’re in a position to lecture.
Highly desirable, yes. Needed like oxygen, no. The cost has to be weighed against the benefit. As HS2’s advocates have satisfactorily shown on this thread, they are incapable of this basic step.
At the moment, based on the newly budgeted cost there is a benefit of £1.66 for every £1 spent on the first 60 years, after that every £ of benefit is a bonus.
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
I’m all in favour of appropriate improvements to infrastructure. The trans pennine route is an outstanding candidate. It’s not a north-south thing at all (indeed, London is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of HS2).
Supporters of HS2 have completely lost their heads. The concept of value for money has been completely forgotten. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a cadre of professionals having a bean feast but at a time when public finances remain a disaster area, some regard needs to be had to the exorbitant costs that continue to pile up.
So what alternative do you put forward? Things can’t continue as they are. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues with HS2 is it will take years to build.
A randomly selected idea for infrastructure -
1) Tesla charge $900,000 for one of these - https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/megapack - for that price you get 3MWh of storage 2) the total capacity of the UK electricity production industry is something like 85GW 3) So for £20Gb you could back up the entire national grid for 1 hour. 3) This would enable you to massively increase the percentage of power from renewables - maybe even get to the 100% renewable and nuclear figure.
For comparison Dinorwig stores 9.1GWh, which would cost 2 Billion to replicate in Megapack tech.
how does that help capacity issues for the major cities in the north of the country?
No joke. I’ve just come back from Bangkok, where I was in hotels and bars jammed with Chinese tourists and businessmen. And I have all the early symptoms of coronavirus
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
Oh god. Sounds like a plot line from some tedious Tom Knox novel.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
It becomes not worth it when someone comes up with a better option that addresses the needs of the northern business community, otherwise you are effectively giving up on the north, saying it will never be worth making the investments that they are crying out for.
So you’d still go ahead if the price rises to £250 billion?
The point is, if we don’t do it now, it will cost that at some point and have to be built anyway. The real scandal of HS2 is that if Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had had a brain cell and an ounce of political courage between them it would have been built by now, probably for around £50 billion.
The scandal is for over 100 years no new railway line has been built in the north
The Manchester Airport branch, Windsor link, Ordsall chord and the underground parts of the Tyne and Wear Metro would like a word.
For those unaware, the P95 cost is the cost that the modelling provides a 95% confidence that the scheme can be delivered within, the budgeted cost is the P50 cost, the cost there is a 50% chance the scheme can be delivered within.
With HS2, the media jump between the two repeatedly.
So P95 means that the odds of coming in under that figure are 1:19 ?
Other way around
P95 means there is a 5% chance the costs will be higher
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Max, you say? I suppose water might start flowing uphill the one time.
Since that includes a £20 billion contingency, and much of the most expensive work is on the first section to Birmingham, I will be surprised if it exceeds that figure.
Do the project North of Birmingham seems a good compromise if there needs to be any cost-cutting.
The alternative that I put forward is that proponents of HS2 go away and rethink from scratch the whole idea with some kind of concept of appropriate cost (which bears some kind of relationship with the cost of similar projects in other countries) and a credible plan for budgeting. This is an appalling waste of money that the country can ill afford.
"You're wrong until I tell you I'm right?"
Or at least that seems to be the Meeks' view.
HS2 advocates are long on north-south rhetoric and short on international comparisons of costings. There’s a reason for that.
Perhaps, but you can't just say its wrong and say come back when its right.
I'm thinking this through, and I have to say I'm with Meeks.
At present noone I know (And barely anyone I suspect save a few sui generis bods) commute from the East Midlands to London. Upon opening the line, with the housing price differential between London and Toton, basically a London (& perhaps some Birmingham) commuter hub will spring up there with extra demand created from London's ever bouyant jobs market. These won't replace journeys that would otherwise have taken place between Toton & Nearby (This works for other stations too) to London, simply enough extra demand will be created. The economic benefit is the creation of extra revenue from the London jobs market... it leads to an even MORE unbalanced economy I think and won't do a jot for carbon emissions. These next choices might seem a bit parochial as I have lots of friends I enjoy visiting in Manchester but either a decent Woodhead train or completion of the M67 motorway would be far superior spends I think.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
Max, you say? I suppose water might start flowing uphill the one time.
Since that includes a £20 billion contingency, and much of the most expensive work is on the first section to Birmingham, I will be surprised if it exceeds that figure.
Do the project North of Birmingham seems a good compromise if there needs to be any cost-cutting.
There are things that can be done in Manchester with NPR to reduce the HS2 budget.
Such as platform 15 & 16 on Piccadilly.
However, the savings are small and linked up planning across the DfT minimal.
For those unaware, the P95 cost is the cost that the modelling provides a 95% confidence that the scheme can be delivered within, the budgeted cost is the P50 cost, the cost there is a 50% chance the scheme can be delivered within.
With HS2, the media jump between the two repeatedly.
So P95 means that the odds of coming in under that figure are 1:19 ?
Other way around
P95 means there is a 5% chance the costs will be higher
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
No, the £106bn costings are not Lord Berkeley's figure. They are Oakervee's based on leaks of his draft report, leaks which the Government may be behind and are certainly not denying. Lord Berkeley has said that the costs are out of control and would be higher than that.
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
They are not Oakervee’s figures. His figure is £88 billion max.
"The draft report said there is a “considerable risk” that costs could rise by another 20% from the last estimate in September, which priced the scheme at £81bn-£88bn. The original budget was £34bn."
Huawei was a good decision. HS2 is a lousy decision. Such terrible value for money.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.
Which of them will triple capacity on the WCML?
What is the price at which you conclude HS2 is not worth it? Because for me £100billion is far in excess of that price.
£100 billion is not the price. £86 billion is the upper price. £106 billion is an estimated quoted by Lord Berkeley who like most of his family is a walking vested interest, and lazily repeated ad nauseam by journalists in London with an agenda and no regard for the facts.
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
Spec it for a top speed 50mph lower.
Saves tiny amount.
The costs are not in making straight line tracks, but in the planning, consultations, planning approval, legal shit....
Making the tracks marginally straighter saves nothing.
Comments
And in answer to your question, it’s at the moment somebody points out a cheaper, quicker alternative way of increasing capacity on the WCML. So far, this hasn’t happened because there isn’t one.
The auld Lang syne nonsense pissed me off a bit today. The position of most of those participating was our way or the highway. When we chose the Highway they were shocked. It did not compute. An ability to understand where we were coming from could have kept the show on the road, at least for now. We needed an associate status with greater autonomy. Had that been offered to Cameron we would have ended up with a much closer relationship than we will have now.
Explains why Berkley 'alternatives' are not really alternatives to HS2.
Until this is accepted as the only way to redress the UK economy nothing will change.
The north has had decades and decades of under investment, if that was not the case then HS2 would not cost remotely as much in one go, but you are now going to penalise the north for having not been invested in for decades by stopping the schemes that are now mega expensive but critical to address that backlog of investment.
it is going to take a long time and a lot of cash to rectify that, if we'd been building railway lines for the last 100 years in the north the headline figure would be far lower, but lets not punish those in the north for the decision not to invest there for decades
They just have to submit an invoice. What is the mechanism going to be to say no?
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-modernisation-of-the-west-coast-main-line/
And yet, while it was a disaster at the time, it’s proved a rousing success 17 years on - if anything, too successful, as it’s now badly congested again.
Imagine the cost of doing this now, under current track conditions. Imagine the disruption, the changes required to existing stations, the compensation vastly inflating the expense.
Because that is the alternative to HS2.
80-odd billion? I think you could add a nought.
It’s probably just a normal bug, but....
Yet where was the public opposition to Crossrail that provided zero benefit to the north?
Johnson is only imitating every PM in the last 40 years so nothing revolutionary.
As for being "left" on the economy I'm sure he's channelling his inner social democrat - David Owen would be proud.
You might find the actual NAO report of interest:
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/high-speed-two-a-progress-update/
What I find especially curious about this report is one reason (one among several) why coats have risen 30% in real terms is because of the greater cutting and tunnelling required to appease London’s satellites - the very people who are now saying this makes it too costly...
Imagine the kudos of being the first in your social circle to get Kung Flu.....
Will people die if it is not built no, but then again people would not have died if Crossrail was not built with a worse BCR, but that was approved with little opposition.
Suggest a scheme that provides greater support to people away from the south and all hell breaks loose.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480647/annex-demand-and-capacity-pressures.pdf
The TLDR version is ‘Yes, it is needed.’ Not perhaps like oxygen, but very badly.
Crossrail with a worse benefit cost ratio passes with almost no noise.
The north which has had zero investment in decades needs to catch up, yet can still offer a better benefit to cost ratio cannot have that investment due to the noise of investing a substantial amount away from the south.
Supporters of HS2 have completely lost their heads. The concept of value for money has been completely forgotten. Far be it from me to stand in the way of a cadre of professionals having a bean feast but at a time when public finances remain a disaster area, some regard needs to be had to the exorbitant costs that continue to pile up.
Out of interests, did you oppose Crossrail which offered far less benefits for every £ spent or do you only have a problem when the money is spent improving the northern economy?
I am becoming more than a little suspicious......
And as for vested interests, HS2 has been all about construction vested interests from day 1, with those with their fingers in the trough having every reason to conceal the costs for as long as possible in order to try and get the project past the point of no return.
The case for building a new railway has been poorly presented for the 12yrs that HS2 existed
At the moment the UK railway network is terribly full, the WCML being the worst affected with it being the busiest mixed (commuter, regional, inter city and freight) railway on the planet, that is volume of trains per hour using the tracks cannot be matched anywhere
This causes all sorts of problems, as soon as one train is running late it will inevitably have a knock on effect on all the subsequent trains on the tracks, there is no spare capacity on the lines for the late runners to not adversely impact on other following services
Eventually the ripple effect will become bad enough to warrant cancellations to enable the service to be brought back to recover the timetable
That is a direct consequence of the over crowding on the tracks of the WCML and is felt all along from Euston and into all the major cities that the line serves
Additionally this impacts on services that only use the WCML for a short period, spreading across the wider network
Best way to fix this and improve the services across the legacy network to reduce delays and cancellations ?
We need to add capacity to the network to enable the service to recover and have slack to deal with late running services
Now the tube runs trains about every 1min on some lines, possible as the trains run at the same speed and stop at the same stations
Best way of adding as much capacity to the WCML is to aim for the same as the tube to have as much capacity as possible, that is have as similar services as possible using the line as possible operating at similar speeds as possible, ideally take away the high speed inter city services that have massive stopping distances and eat into track capacity leaving behind the slower commuter and freight services
This brings you to HS2, the best way of improving the existing services on the old lines is to add additional capacity to the existing railway, the best way of doing that is moving the higher speed trains away and leaving the existing network for commuting services and freight trains
The alternative, trying to add this capacity to the existing network was tried about 15 years ago with the WCML upgrade scheme that added very little extra capacity for great cost, the alternatives some are suggesting would see the WCML and ECML closed every weekend for at least the next 14 years and would add a tiny fraction of the capacity that HS2 will deliver to the existing network
Yes it is expensive, but it will last hundreds of years and would not seem remotely as expensive if we had as a nation being building this for the last 30 years like many other European
If HS2 isn't the answer to the issues facing the railways, the reality is the answer will be something very similar, the faster trains taken off the old tracks and put onto new tracks and that is going to be bloody expensive
There is a reason why we keep coming back to this. The reason is it’s the best option on grounds of cost and impact.
Berkley was the deputy in the report.
He is very anti HS2 and comes up with invalidated costs and unachievable alternatives.
It Is his part of the report that quoted £106bn according to reports.
Seems to be much confusion on this generally across the population.
£86m is the budgeted cost, I do not think we have a new P95 cost.
Along, but first, whether to continue Crossrail LOL
I'm confused.
Or at least that seems to be the Meeks' view.
The figure quoted above is @ydoethur’s not mine.
With HS2, the media jump between the two repeatedly.
1) Tesla charge $900,000 for one of these - https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/megapack - for that price you get 3MWh of storage
2) the total capacity of the UK electricity production industry is something like 85GW
3) So for £20Gb you could back up the entire national grid for 1 hour.
3) This would enable you to massively increase the percentage of power from renewables - maybe even get to the 100% renewable and nuclear figure.
For comparison Dinorwig stores 9.1GWh, which would cost 2 Billion to replicate in Megapack tech.
I said at the point when it delivers less benefit to the north than it costs
At the moment it delivers £1.66 for ever £1 spent, a better ratio than Crossrail
Why do you want to stop the first investment in decades that adds benefit to the north, the best scheme after 12 years of refinement?
Is Goodwin openly accepting that anti-terrorism legislation is made based on how some people feel about Islam?
How many MPs have loony "Islamist" Remainer terrorists murdered?
However, my battery is exhausted and so am I. I wish the company a pleasant evening.
P95 means there is a 5% chance the costs will be higher
At present noone I know (And barely anyone I suspect save a few sui generis bods) commute from the East Midlands to London. Upon opening the line, with the housing price differential between London and Toton, basically a London (& perhaps some Birmingham) commuter hub will spring up there with extra demand created from London's ever bouyant jobs market.
These won't replace journeys that would otherwise have taken place between Toton & Nearby (This works for other stations too) to London, simply enough extra demand will be created.
The economic benefit is the creation of extra revenue from the London jobs market... it leads to an even MORE unbalanced economy I think and won't do a jot for carbon emissions.
These next choices might seem a bit parochial as I have lots of friends I enjoy visiting in Manchester but either a decent Woodhead train or completion of the M67 motorway would be far superior spends I think.
Such as platform 15 & 16 on Piccadilly.
However, the savings are small and linked up planning across the DfT minimal.
e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/20/hs2-costs-government-review-west-midlands-manchester-leeds
"The draft report said there is a “considerable risk” that costs could rise by another 20% from the last estimate in September, which priced the scheme at £81bn-£88bn. The original budget was £34bn."
The costs are not in making straight line tracks, but in the planning, consultations, planning approval, legal shit....
Making the tracks marginally straighter saves nothing.
I don't see why the public purse should pay.