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....
Just as well then that it was the other guy who used to work himself into a panic over the slightest little thing. And not you at all.
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...
Leeds has fast trains to London. Manchester has fast trains to London. They don't have fast trains between each other.
HS2 is not what the north needs or wants.
It is a project for South East commuters, with a couple of optional ad-ons to the north.
We can match capacity with demand into London by increasing home working, part-time working, flexible hours. Moving government departments (and the second chamber) out of London. Not giving WCML paths to cowboy cherry-picking operators running short trains to Blackpool.
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.
From the FT article...
Meanwhile, Andrew Haines, chief executive of Network Rail, has warned in a letter to Mr Shapps that plans to upgrade the northern rail network would be £15bn more expensive without HS2, according to a leaked letter.
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.
I suspect among HS2 advocates is a strong desire to think of themselves as modern Brunels and Stephensons.
Maybe with some Mallard and Flying Scotsman 'Britain leads the world' nostalgia.
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.
Shrug - you won, get over it. But they represent a lot of us much better than our Government does, and that's a legitimate point of view too.
Leeds has fast trains to London. Manchester has fast trains to London. They don't have fast trains between each other.
HS2 is not what the north needs or wants.
It is a project for South East commuters, with a couple of optional ad-ons to the north.
We can match capacity with demand into London by increasing home working, part-time working, flexible hours. Moving government departments (and the second chamber) out of London. Not giving WCML paths to cowboy cherry-picking operators running short trains to Blackpool.
All of that is too 21st century for the HS2 advocates.
There's an easy way to solve this HS2 dilemma, let's have a referendum on it! *ducks*
If HS2 is so great for the economy, let the private sector pay for it, run it and reap the profits.
I don't see why the public purse should pay.
Did you say the same about Crossrail or was that in London so did not matter?
Longer answer is the provide sector do not benefit from increased taxes over decades and decades, the state does.
The state is responsible for providing the conditions to enable the private sector to flourish, HS2 does that.
Crossrail is as equally useless to me as HS2, and I don't think that I was asked the question, but yes, I think that should have been paid for privately too. Same with power stations and Universities for that matter.
Are Labour still in favour (I know Burnham is !!) of HS2 ?
AFAICT the official position is that they're in favour, but if it costs more than a fiver it's because of Tory mismanagement/corrupt lining of pockets of their rich friends in the City.
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.
That depends upon what stage you are in the programme lifecycle.
Budgeting at P50 (with contingency) at the start makes sense. It doesn't in the final phases of the programme, when you have far greater scope and risk certainty (and contingency drawdown) so you should be budgeting at P80+, and P95+ in the handover phase.
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
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.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
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.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Which is what I understood. It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
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.
For someone who can get quite moist eyed about his own union, you seem somewhat ungracious about the possibility that folk might feel similarly emotional about another.
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
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.
For someone who can get quite moist eyed about his own union, you seem somehat ungracious about the possibility that folk might feel similarly emotional about another.
I wonder how emotional the SNP were when we confirmed our place in the EEC in the 1975 vote, which they campaigned against?
Perhaps they piped Scotland out of Strasbourg in protest, with tears and all.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
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.
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.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
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.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Which is what I understood. It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
Not much. The systems integration challenge is predicated on the automatic signalling system and train control, which will probably need new software.
It will allow increased gradients, curvature, fewer and shorter tunnels and lower civils costs, together with lower energy/opex. It might cut capacity a tad too.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
And for the most part their tickets will be tax-deductible, so the taxpayer's bung will continue indefinitely.
As I have argued before on here, the immediate solution to capacity on the WCML is to double the fares. Why should the taxpayer fund someone to live in Solihull and work in EC1?
There's an easy way to solve this HS2 dilemma, let's have a referendum on it! *ducks*
If HS2 is so great for the economy, let the private sector pay for it, run it and reap the profits.
I don't see why the public purse should pay.
Did you say the same about Crossrail or was that in London so did not matter?
Longer answer is the provide sector do not benefit from increased taxes over decades and decades, the state does.
The state is responsible for providing the conditions to enable the private sector to flourish, HS2 does that.
Crossrail is as equally useless to me as HS2, and I don't think that I was asked the question, but yes, I think that should have been paid for privately too. Same with power stations and Universities for that matter.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
Do you really think the low paid go on trains now or will in the future ?
I'm told that HS2 will allow 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London.
Yet nobody explains where the demand for 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London is going to come from.
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects.
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
Do you really think the low paid go on trains now or will in the future ?
I'm told that HS2 will allow 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London.
Yet nobody explains where the demand for 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London is going to come from.
You are missing the affect on the WCML of removing the high speed trains and putting them on HS2.
So yes, relatively low paid people from Stoke will benefit from HS2 by having vastly improved trains to Manchester and Birmingham as a result of HS2 freeing up the capacity on the WCML.
And there won't be 18tph from Leeds to London.
12 years HS2 has been in the planning, yet public awareness is almost zero.
There's an easy way to solve this HS2 dilemma, let's have a referendum on it! *ducks*
If HS2 is so great for the economy, let the private sector pay for it, run it and reap the profits.
I don't see why the public purse should pay.
Did you say the same about Crossrail or was that in London so did not matter?
Longer answer is the provide sector do not benefit from increased taxes over decades and decades, the state does.
The state is responsible for providing the conditions to enable the private sector to flourish, HS2 does that.
Crossrail is as equally useless to me as HS2, and I don't think that I was asked the question, but yes, I think that should have been paid for privately too. Same with power stations and Universities for that matter.
What a interestingly Thatcherite argument.
I have always been very dry on financial matters.
Why should the taxpayer take the risk? If it is a profitable venture then it should be easy to raise the money via bonds and shares.
I wouldn't object to government arranging planning permission and the like, but finance? No.
There's an easy way to solve this HS2 dilemma, let's have a referendum on it! *ducks*
If HS2 is so great for the economy, let the private sector pay for it, run it and reap the profits.
I don't see why the public purse should pay.
Did you say the same about Crossrail or was that in London so did not matter?
Longer answer is the provide sector do not benefit from increased taxes over decades and decades, the state does.
The state is responsible for providing the conditions to enable the private sector to flourish, HS2 does that.
Crossrail is as equally useless to me as HS2, and I don't think that I was asked the question, but yes, I think that should have been paid for privately too. Same with power stations and Universities for that matter.
What a interestingly Thatcherite argument.
I have always been very dry on financial matters.
Why should the taxpayer take the risk? If it is a profitable venture then it should be easy to raise the money via bonds and shares.
I wouldn't object to government arranging planning permission and the like, but finance? No.
Because the world over it is recognised that the length of time to make a return, to make the population wealthier is not going to be carried by the private sector.
The state has the benefit of additional tax revenue from increase economic activity that any business investing in the railway would never have also.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
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.
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
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.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Planning, consultation and legal shit delays the start and costs a bit in feasibility and design. But we're talking 10-15% of the cost, max, there.
About 50%+ will be in land purchase and big civils build. A lower spec gives you much more flexibility, on both counts, and you can lower the performance spec of the rolling stock too.
But, you will pay a permanent price in operational capacity.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
Is that the same Stoke that already has 3 or 4 fast trains per hour to Manchester?
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects.
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
And they're still not sure when it will do.
What is the current ETA for Crossrail to open? I mean, one that's actually going to happen not one that the Mayor's office would say is going to happen.
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.
For someone who can get quite moist eyed about his own union, you seem somehat ungracious about the possibility that folk might feel similarly emotional about another.
I wonder how emotional the SNP were when we confirmed our place in the EEC in the 1975 vote, which they campaigned against?
Perhaps they piped Scotland out of Strasbourg in protest, with tears and all.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
Do you really think the low paid go on trains now or will in the future ?
I'm told that HS2 will allow 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London.
Yet nobody explains where the demand for 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London is going to come from.
At some point you have to invest in the people who generate wealth, so they can be farmed to pay for the people who don't generate much wealth (via in- or out-of-work benefits). The real problem is surely that the capacity may not be needed at all so won't benefit either group much. This can presumably be answered with an assessment of productivity, work patterns, demography... I.e. if you just save housing costs for some London commuters, this is probably not worthwhile. If you can replace some regional flights and their wasteful time / emissions costs, it gets a lot better.
There's an easy way to solve this HS2 dilemma, let's have a referendum on it! *ducks*
If HS2 is so great for the economy, let the private sector pay for it, run it and reap the profits.
I don't see why the public purse should pay.
Did you say the same about Crossrail or was that in London so did not matter?
Longer answer is the provide sector do not benefit from increased taxes over decades and decades, the state does.
The state is responsible for providing the conditions to enable the private sector to flourish, HS2 does that.
Crossrail is as equally useless to me as HS2, and I don't think that I was asked the question, but yes, I think that should have been paid for privately too. Same with power stations and Universities for that matter.
What a interestingly Thatcherite argument.
I have always been very dry on financial matters.
Why should the taxpayer take the risk? If it is a profitable venture then it should be easy to raise the money via bonds and shares.
I wouldn't object to government arranging planning permission and the like, but finance? No.
Because the world over it is recognised that the length of time to make a return, to make the population wealthier is not going to be carried by the private sector.
The state has the benefit of additional tax revenue from increase economic activity that any business investing in the railway would never have also.
Britains existing lines were nearly all built by the private sector. Railways were nationalised in 1948.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
Why do the northern business community think HS2 is so important for their future prosperity ?
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
Do you really think the low paid go on trains now or will in the future ?
I'm told that HS2 will allow 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London.
Yet nobody explains where the demand for 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London is going to come from.
You are missing the affect on the WCML of removing the high speed trains and putting them on HS2.
So yes, relatively low paid people from Stoke will benefit from HS2 by having vastly improved trains to Manchester and Birmingham as a result of HS2 freeing up the capacity on the WCML.
And there won't be 18tph from Leeds to London.
12 years HS2 has been in the planning, yet public awareness is almost zero.
HS2 has been 12 years in the spending.
The public are very aware of that.
And do you really think that low paid people commute by train ???
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
On HS2, I would be quite happy to have a massive wealth transfer to the rich, if it was by way of bonuses for costs savings.
We have agreed the top cost as £106bn. Not a penny more. For every billion the final costs come in below that number, the management team gets a bonus of £200m. No reduction in spec guys. Just creative development methods......(and stripping out the padding you built in).
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects.
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
And they're still not sure when it will do.
Remind us what the promised costs and completion date of Crossrail were.
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.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Which is what I understood. It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
Not much. The systems integration challenge is predicated on the automatic signalling system and train control, which will probably need new software.
It will allow increased gradients, curvature, fewer and shorter tunnels and lower civils costs, together with lower energy/opex. It might cut capacity a tad too.
Is there no additional risk in building/ordering trains/track capable of the higher speeds ? Stuff like the physical forces on wheels are considerably higher - and it seems to be significantly higher than high speed rail already running elsewhere.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
Do you really think the low paid go on trains now or will in the future ?
I'm told that HS2 will allow 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London.
Yet nobody explains where the demand for 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London is going to come from.
You are missing the affect on the WCML of removing the high speed trains and putting them on HS2.
So yes, relatively low paid people from Stoke will benefit from HS2 by having vastly improved trains to Manchester and Birmingham as a result of HS2 freeing up the capacity on the WCML.
And there won't be 18tph from Leeds to London.
12 years HS2 has been in the planning, yet public awareness is almost zero.
HS2 has been 12 years in the spending.
The public are very aware of that.
And do you really think that low paid people commute by train ???
HS2 is a bit like the badger cull.....nobody wants it, but the govt is going ahead because it is lobbied by special interests.....
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.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Which is what I understood. It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
Not much. The systems integration challenge is predicated on the automatic signalling system and train control, which will probably need new software.
It will allow increased gradients, curvature, fewer and shorter tunnels and lower civils costs, together with lower energy/opex. It might cut capacity a tad too.
Is there no additional risk in building/ordering trains/track capable of the higher speeds ? Stuff like the physical forces on wheels are considerably higher - and it seems to be significantly higher than high speed rail already running elsewhere.
There's no real mechanical technical risk. It's proven technology.
Systems integration and safety is the real killer for railways. It doesn't cost enough (testing doesn't) so it always gets overlooked in the context of the overall budget versus the huge risk it carries.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
Why do the northern business community think HS2 is so important for their future prosperity ?
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
HS2 is for London's benefit.
If you doubt that then suggest building it from the North southwards and see what reaction you get.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
On HS2, I would be quite happy to have a massive wealth transfer to the rich, if it was by way of bonuses for costs savings.
We have agreed the top cost as £106bn. Not a penny more. For every billion the final costs come in below that number, the management team gets a bonus of £200m. No reduction in spec guys. Just creative development methods......(and stripping out the padding you built in).
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
If they could build something at a third of the cost, it would surely have already been proposed?
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
No, Network Rail, DfT and HS2 have been looking at what can be done for less for more than 12 years, costs have always been the biggest threat to fixing the capacity issues.
No one, literally no one, in 12 years has offered a better option, the FT article today highlights that Javid has accepted this after reviewing all available evidence over the last few weeks, there is no better or cheaper options otherwise it would be being followed.
It's expensive as we do not have the skills required, we live in a very crowded country and most importantly we have not invested in decades and decades in areas that are crying out for investment.
The fact that the rest of Europe and rich Asia have been trying to separate their high speed trains from slower trains for decades whilst we have not has left us with a huge cost to catch up.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
Is there any country in the world that spends nothing on infrastructure development?
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
Lots of things can generate returns and given that the sums for HS2 have been so spectacularly wrong already why should predictions of returns be believed ?
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
Why do the northern business community think HS2 is so important for their future prosperity ?
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
HS2 is for London's benefit.
If you doubt that then suggest building it from the North southwards and see what reaction you get.
You clearly know more than the northern business leaders and politicians who think differently.
It's normal though, why would anyone think that those in the north know what is best for them, those down south have done such a great job.
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.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Which is what I understood. It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
Not much. The systems integration challenge is predicated on the automatic signalling system and train control, which will probably need new software.
It will allow increased gradients, curvature, fewer and shorter tunnels and lower civils costs, together with lower energy/opex. It might cut capacity a tad too.
Is there no additional risk in building/ordering trains/track capable of the higher speeds ? Stuff like the physical forces on wheels are considerably higher - and it seems to be significantly higher than high speed rail already running elsewhere.
There's no real mechanical technical risk. It's proven technology.
Systems integration and safety is the real killer for railways. It doesn't cost enough (testing doesn't) so it always gets overlooked in the context of the overall budget versus the huge risk it carries.
Thanks for responding, Casino. It’s been educative.
What would be your guesstimate for a new E/W line from Hull to Liverpool ?
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
No, because the political risk is too high, as brilliantly illustrated by this thread.
HS2 95% confidence envelope would probably be 50-90bn over its whole life cycle. It's prolongation through systems integration challenges that will extend it further, but that'd be a few extra years at best.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Trust on UK infrastructure spending disappeared many years ago.
Well, it shouldn't have. We are extremely good at delivering big infrastructure projects.
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
And they're still not sure when it will do.
Remind us what the promised costs and completion date of Crossrail were.
14.8bn and delivery on 9th December 2018
18.25bn and open by December 2021 is the current forecast.
So that's 21% overbudget and 3 years late to deliver the most technically complex metro railway ever built*. That's actually quite good.
Brandenburg is going to be over 9 years late (and counting) and almost three times over budget. And airports are far simpler than railways.
(Incidentally, it's exactly where my firm were advising Government on outturn cost and date back in 2007-2008 when the bill was going through).
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
So those people who will benefit in Stoke of having new services into Birmingham and Manchester as a result of additional free'd up capacity on the WCML to have better access to labour markets are the richer in society ????
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
Do you really think the low paid go on trains now or will in the future ?
I'm told that HS2 will allow 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London.
Yet nobody explains where the demand for 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London is going to come from.
You are missing the affect on the WCML of removing the high speed trains and putting them on HS2.
So yes, relatively low paid people from Stoke will benefit from HS2 by having vastly improved trains to Manchester and Birmingham as a result of HS2 freeing up the capacity on the WCML.
And there won't be 18tph from Leeds to London.
12 years HS2 has been in the planning, yet public awareness is almost zero.
HS2 has been 12 years in the spending.
The public are very aware of that.
And do you really think that low paid people commute by train ???
HS2 is a bit like the badger cull.....nobody wants it, but the govt is going ahead because it is lobbied by special interests.....
Evening Tyson.
I was thinking about you today.
I seem to remember that during the 2009 swine flu panic you were willing to trade 10 years of Conservative government in exchange for swine flu not becoming the new Black Death.
Will you accept another 10 years of Conservative government for the coronavirus being controlled ?
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.
For someone who can get quite moist eyed about his own union, you seem somehat ungracious about the possibility that folk might feel similarly emotional about another.
I wonder how emotional the SNP were when we confirmed our place in the EEC in the 1975 vote, which they campaigned against?
Perhaps they piped Scotland out of Strasbourg in protest, with tears and all.
A real zinger of a point.
Yep, you have no answer to the point and you know it.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
Is there any country in the world that spends nothing on infrastructure development?
I am not suggesting spending nothing. I am quite neutral on HS2 being built. I just want it funded privately. I am certain that those Northern business leaders will be happy to have their savings invested in such a goldmine.
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
There is no ‘of this sort’. As Casino pointed out, a large part of the cost is simply acquiring the route, which makes it a different animal to a new railway elsewhere.
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.
That would actually deliver a meaningful cost saving.
Which is what I understood. It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
Not much. The systems integration challenge is predicated on the automatic signalling system and train control, which will probably need new software.
It will allow increased gradients, curvature, fewer and shorter tunnels and lower civils costs, together with lower energy/opex. It might cut capacity a tad too.
Is there no additional risk in building/ordering trains/track capable of the higher speeds ? Stuff like the physical forces on wheels are considerably higher - and it seems to be significantly higher than high speed rail already running elsewhere.
There's no real mechanical technical risk. It's proven technology.
Systems integration and safety is the real killer for railways. It doesn't cost enough (testing doesn't) so it always gets overlooked in the context of the overall budget versus the huge risk it carries.
Thanks for responding, Casino. It’s been educative.
What would be your guesstimate for a new E/W line from Hull to Liverpool ?
Dunno. I'd be guessing.
Depends on whether it's a totally brand new route, stations and tunnels (very expensive) or reusing many existing routes with some upgrades, new line chords and parkways and resignalling (much more affordable).
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
Is there any country in the world that spends nothing on infrastructure development?
I am not suggesting spending nothing. I am quite neutral on HS2 being built. I just want it funded privately. I am certain that those Northern business leaders will be happy to have their savings invested in such a goldmine.
What infrastructure spending would you approve of? You've already rejected rail, power plants and universities...
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
£100bn tends to do that.
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
But, they're often confusing sustained increases in operational expenditure with a one-off capital expenditure, which generates an investment return.
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
And the money doesn't just vanish into thin air, a good chunk of it will pay the salaries of those who are going to build the bloody thing.
Yup, that's correct. It will also generate jobs and training all the way up the route for SMEs and associated local growth around the new hubs of private business.
Yes, it is a trough for business to gorge on the public purse sure enough.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that the whole point of government infrastructure spending?
It is just business rent seeking rather than trying to earn an honest crust.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
Is there any country in the world that spends nothing on infrastructure development?
I am not suggesting spending nothing. I am quite neutral on HS2 being built. I just want it funded privately. I am certain that those Northern business leaders will be happy to have their savings invested in such a goldmine.
If you want HS2 privately funded, why not other schemes?
Is it any different from Crossrail for example which I doubt you ever posted that you wanted to be privately funded ?
I am curious to know if £100 billion, or whatever, is what a new railway of this sort costs. Could they build something nearly as good at, say, one third the cost? If they can, why is this particular railway so expensive? Finally, are we just making up for not putting serious investment into our railways for more than one hundred years?
If they could build something at a third of the cost, it would surely have already been proposed?
If £100 billion is the going rate, the question becomes whether it's worth having a new railway at all. You would say no if you think benefits of a new railway are marginal to non-existent. Otherwise you would probably take the investment hit on the grounds that this should have been done years ago.
One thing about HS2 which seems never to be remarked upon is that its a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
On HS2, I would be quite happy to have a massive wealth transfer to the rich, if it was by way of bonuses for costs savings.
We have agreed the top cost as £106bn. Not a penny more. For every billion the final costs come in below that number, the management team gets a bonus of £200m. No reduction in spec guys. Just creative development methods......(and stripping out the padding you built in).
Comments
Longer answer is the provide sector do not benefit from increased taxes over decades and decades, the state does.
The state is responsible for providing the conditions to enable the private sector to flourish, HS2 does that.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1222618962464210944
From what has been leaked the new P50 or P95 figure is £86bn, but given how it has been reported we do not know which it is.
Only when the reports are finally provided do we finally get the detail, which won't be reported in the media.
Javid says will get built
I suspect that is the revised P95 figure, but could be wrong.
However, look after yourself, and take it easy.
HS2 is not what the north needs or wants.
It is a project for South East commuters, with a couple of optional ad-ons to the north.
We can match capacity with demand into London by increasing home working, part-time working, flexible hours. Moving government departments (and the second chamber) out of London. Not giving WCML paths to cowboy cherry-picking operators running short trains to Blackpool.
Yes, if I am reading the FT article correctly.
Meanwhile, Andrew Haines, chief executive of Network Rail, has warned in a letter to Mr Shapps that plans to upgrade the northern rail network would be £15bn more expensive without HS2, according to a leaked letter.
Maybe with some Mallard and Flying Scotsman 'Britain leads the world' nostalgia.
Costs high, which really matters with this scheme
Demand very weak given low cost carriers
I was on Crossrail. I wasn't even earning a tenth of that.
Budgeting at P50 (with contingency) at the start makes sense. It doesn't in the final phases of the programme, when you have far greater scope and risk certainty (and contingency drawdown) so you should be budgeting at P80+, and P95+ in the handover phase.
That doesn't stop people having very strong views on it it seems.
I don't just mean the fatcats who will get richer from the direct spending on it.
But the users of HS2 will be concentrated among the higher parts of the socioeconomic scale.
It might also lower the technical risk, perhaps ?
Spend that on something and people then wonder why things which are relevant to them aren't getting the money they need.
It's not going to double or triple again from that. That's just silly.
Perhaps they piped Scotland out of Strasbourg in protest, with tears and all.
Confused.
Or are you still missing the point that HS2 is all about capacity ?
This will be a graded profile of spend, probably 5-6bn a year max at its peak, and will generate returns to the Exchequer through expansion of UK Plc in future years.
It will allow increased gradients, curvature, fewer and shorter tunnels and lower civils costs, together with lower energy/opex. It might cut capacity a tad too.
As I have argued before on here, the immediate solution to capacity on the WCML is to double the fares. Why should the taxpayer fund someone to live in Solihull and work in EC1?
I'm interested in where people see the saving from straightening some tracks.
Or whatever other savings would result from slowing the trains down.
FWIW the actual trains will be timetabled at 320km/h, same as Paris to Strasbourg
The tracks and trains whilst designed for 400km/h will only ever operate up to 360km/h to enable them to make up lost time on the timetable
I'm told that HS2 will allow 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London.
Yet nobody explains where the demand for 18 trains an hour between Leeds and London is going to come from.
I'm with Sammy Wilson even though he's a prick, build the Scottish-Irish bridge!
No one ever seems to mention the phantom Brandenburg airport in Berlin which the ultra efficient Germans have consistently and royally fucked up, and which still hasn't opened almost 15 years after construction started.
And they're still not sure when it will do.
So yes, relatively low paid people from Stoke will benefit from HS2 by having vastly improved trains to Manchester and Birmingham as a result of HS2 freeing up the capacity on the WCML.
And there won't be 18tph from Leeds to London.
12 years HS2 has been in the planning, yet public awareness is almost zero.
Why should the taxpayer take the risk? If it is a profitable venture then it should be easy to raise the money via bonds and shares.
I wouldn't object to government arranging planning permission and the like, but finance? No.
The state has the benefit of additional tax revenue from increase economic activity that any business investing in the railway would never have also.
Why spend £100bn on HS2 when there are other transport options or spending in areas such as education, housing, student debt, adult social care for example.
Or perhaps not borrowing and spending £100bn at all given the dreadful state of government finances.
About 50%+ will be in land purchase and big civils build. A lower spec gives you much more flexibility, on both counts, and you can lower the performance spec of the rolling stock too.
But, you will pay a permanent price in operational capacity.
Presumably they are all wrong ?
It's most odd that spending £10bn's on transport in London does not stir similar argurements that the money should be spent on education etc.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1222567351067054081
The public are very aware of that.
And do you really think that low paid people commute by train ???
We have agreed the top cost as £106bn. Not a penny more. For every billion the final costs come in below that number, the management team gets a bonus of £200m. No reduction in spec guys. Just creative development methods......(and stripping out the padding you built in).
Where were the complaints back then when the investment was in London and not the north?
km/h?
We're supposed to Brexit in 50 hours!
Systems integration and safety is the real killer for railways. It doesn't cost enough (testing doesn't) so it always gets overlooked in the context of the overall budget versus the huge risk it carries.
If you doubt that then suggest building it from the North southwards and see what reaction you get.
No one, literally no one, in 12 years has offered a better option, the FT article today highlights that Javid has accepted this after reviewing all available evidence over the last few weeks, there is no better or cheaper options otherwise it would be being followed.
It's expensive as we do not have the skills required, we live in a very crowded country and most importantly we have not invested in decades and decades in areas that are crying out for investment.
The fact that the rest of Europe and rich Asia have been trying to separate their high speed trains from slower trains for decades whilst we have not has left us with a huge cost to catch up.
Like I said, if there are profits to be made then selling stocks and bonds in HS2 should not be a problem at all.
It's normal though, why would anyone think that those in the north know what is best for them, those down south have done such a great job.
http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Robot-News/120-nph-leaders-call-for-hs2-to-be-delivered-in-full
What would be your guesstimate for a new E/W line from Hull to Liverpool ?
Let's give it to civil engineering contractors instead."
18.25bn and open by December 2021 is the current forecast.
So that's 21% overbudget and 3 years late to deliver the most technically complex metro railway ever built*. That's actually quite good.
Brandenburg is going to be over 9 years late (and counting) and almost three times over budget. And airports are far simpler than railways.
(Incidentally, it's exactly where my firm were advising Government on outturn cost and date back in 2007-2008 when the bill was going through).
I was thinking about you today.
I seem to remember that during the 2009 swine flu panic you were willing to trade 10 years of Conservative government in exchange for swine flu not becoming the new Black Death.
Will you accept another 10 years of Conservative government for the coronavirus being controlled ?
Huge amount will be spent on legal consultants to get 10,000's planning applications through local authorities.
Depends on whether it's a totally brand new route, stations and tunnels (very expensive) or reusing many existing routes with some upgrades, new line chords and parkways and resignalling (much more affordable).
Is it any different from Crossrail for example which I doubt you ever posted that you wanted to be privately funded ?