As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
One of the things that amuses me about HS2 is how similar the arguments have been to those advanced against the old London and Birmingham Railway. One peer went so far as to claim that it would destroy the social order and lead to rioting in the streets.
And yet, strangely, they all sold their land. At vastly inflated prices. I think ultimately the sum paid out was three times what was budgeted for.
Strangely, the railway cost almost exactly double the estimate - partly as a result (although Kilsby Tunnel played its part).
I don't remember HS2 cheerleaders saying that it would cost double the estimate back in 2010.
Although quadruple the estimate would be more accurate.
On the contrary I remember them being furious at any suggestion that it would cost more than £30bn.
A few years later they got furious at any suggestion it would cost more than £50bn.
A few years later they got furious at any suggestion it would cost more than £80bn.
A few years later they got furious at any suggestion it would cost more than £100bn.
What are we at now ? Is it £120bn or have we now reached £150bn ?
The Oakervee review put the cost at £81 billion.
This was partly due to inflated land prices and partly due to higher speeds than the original proposal.
Inflated land prices ?
Does that translate as land tends to appreciate in value over a period of decades ?
Well, yes. Surely you have noticed this phenomenon?
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
how best to improve connections into Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds if it is not HS2 ?
13 years of thinking you must have an answer, no other person opposed to HS2 has though.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
Actually, Leicester is listed as a possible station for HS2 services in the future. However, that is through the Midlands Engine Rail Scheme, which to be blunt strikes me as a lot of pie in the sky rubbish.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
how best to improve connections into Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds if it is not HS2 ?
13 years of thinking you must have an answer, no other person opposed to HS2 has though.
High Speed trains only truly make sense in big or biggish countries where you are talking of 200-300 miles+. There aren't many journeys in the UK between MAJOR population centres which are that length or more. London-Newcastle. London-Glasgow/Edinburgh. That's it?
America. China. France. Canada. Japan. Yes.
Here? No
But I also get the logic that if you have to build an entirely new line, because congestion, it might as well be high speed
A tweet about the new skyscrapers planned for the City, making the cluster even more incredibly dense, and hiding the Gherkin (which is a shame).
"London's skyline will be almost unrecognisable by the mid-2020s. New renders released by the City of London Corporation show how a number of recently approved #skyscrapers will impact the City once constructed - https://bit.ly/3hiaCJL #construction #architecture #london"
Many more towers are being built around the capital. Huge housing estates have just got planning permission. The corpse of Debenham's Oxford Street is still warm and there is already a plan to demolish and redevelop it. Olympia is being revamped and they are building an exquisite and enormous new theatre
Is this insane, after Covid and Brexit? Or is London just unstoppable?
My neighbour has just has his house valued at 2,650psf - for St John’s Wood that is just silly (I paid 1,580psf when I bought in 2016)
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
One of the things that amuses me about HS2 is how similar the arguments have been to those advanced against the old London and Birmingham Railway. One peer went so far as to claim that it would destroy the social order and lead to rioting in the streets.
And yet, strangely, they all sold their land. At vastly inflated prices. I think ultimately the sum paid out was three times what was budgeted for.
Strangely, the railway cost almost exactly double the estimate - partly as a result (although Kilsby Tunnel played its part).
I don't remember HS2 cheerleaders saying that it would cost double the estimate back in 2010.
Although quadruple the estimate would be more accurate.
On the contrary I remember them being furious at any suggestion that it would cost more than £30bn.
A few years later they got furious at any suggestion it would cost more than £50bn.
A few years later they got furious at any suggestion it would cost more than £80bn.
A few years later they got furious at any suggestion it would cost more than £100bn.
What are we at now ? Is it £120bn or have we now reached £150bn ?
The Oakervee review put the cost at £81 billion.
This was partly due to inflated land prices and partly due to higher speeds than the original proposal.
Inflated land prices ?
Does that translate as land tends to appreciate in value over a period of decades ?
Well, yes. Surely you have noticed this phenomenon?
Given I pointed it out I think that's a fair assumption.
The more pertinent question is did the people costing HS2 notice that phenomenon.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
Actually, Leicester is listed as a possible station for HS2 services in the future. However, that is through the Midlands Engine Rail Scheme, which to be blunt strikes me as a lot of pie in the sky rubbish.
The nearest HS2 station is the one halfway between Derby and Nottingham. HS2 passes through NW Leics but doesn't stop.
What is the point of a railway that only has 4 or so stops? It makes connecting services difficult.
A fresh conventional line would be cheaper, open up new towns to the railway and be environmentally better, as the energy required for a 100mph train is much less.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
You are right, they are not estimated at £100 billion. They are actually estimated at £110 billion.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
On HS2: The new trains won't tilt. Therefore, once they get onto the existing tracks north of Crewe, they will actually travel more slowly than the existing Pendolino trains.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?
The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?
The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
You are right, they are not estimated at £100 billion. They are actually estimated at £110 billion.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
You are right, they are not estimated at £100 billion. They are actually estimated at £110 billion.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
You seemingly mix P50 costs with P95 costs implying a naivety in understanding why this has not as much impact as you think it will.
It is not me making those claims but the Institute for Government. And you seem to be claiming that the costs will be closer to the P10 than the P50 which implies not so much naivety as downright dishonesty.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Paris to Lyon is only fifty miles further than London to Leeds.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
You are right, they are not estimated at £100 billion. They are actually estimated at £110 billion.
It makes sense to me, as Mike suggests, that just as the government gets a boost in Brexit areas such as Hartlepool it might suffer a contrary wind in seats such as Chesham and Amersham.. If it didn't the Tories would currently be sitting over 50% and they are well short of that. There therefore has to be areas where they are losing votes to offset the areas where they are gaining them.
The problem for the opposition is that this threatens to be 2015 redux where the majorities in safe Tory seats are pared away somewhat but they gain in what are the new marginals in the red wall improving the efficiency of their vote yet further. Eventually that paring will start to cost them seats but probably not this seat and probably not to the Lib Dems who are not in a good place.
Until material numbers of seats are being lost in the south east and south west the Tories threaten to be in an optimal position just as Blair was in his pomp. They are unlikely to come close to matching his efficiency, which was truly remarkable, but it looks plenty enough for a comfortable majority next time out.
Agree with most of this. Losing C an A to LDs (likely IMHO) would make lots of noise but would be a continuation of an ancient phenomenon going back to Orpington which generally makes no long term cultural difference.
The Tory invasion of non super urban WWC Labour is a real shift of sentiment by contrast and won't be over quickly.
The corresponding shift in Guardian/academic/posh seats away from Tories is of course also real but is very confined socially and geographically. There are only a finite number of them and I doubt if there are a lot more to find. And some urban seats, mostly in London will fall, but not enough to make up for the losses.
On HS2: The new trains won't tilt. Therefore, once they get onto the existing tracks north of Crewe, they will actually travel more slowly than the existing Pendolino trains.
Yes, a cut from 125mph max to 110mph, which is why you only save an hour to Glasgow overall.
However - how many places north of Wigan have pathing for 125mph? I don’t think it’s many.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
You seemingly mix P50 costs with P95 costs implying a naivety in understanding why this has not as much impact as you think it will.
It is not me making those claims but the Institute for Government. And you seem to be claiming that the costs will be closer to the P10 than the P50 which implies not so much naivety as downright dishonesty.
But you seemingly are unable to provide a better option than HS2 to deliver what it needs, you constantly quote figures from those opposed to the scheme yet have no idea why the current costs are what they are>
Why are you mixing the original P50 cost with P95 costs ? They are not comparable and simply suggest naivety or wishing to deceive.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
You are right, they are not estimated at £100 billion. They are actually estimated at £110 billion.
Do you honestly think that the overkill practices of phase 1 will continue in phas2 or they will adopt the HS2 level of design specification ?
Or do you not understand the reason for the cost increases ?
Yes I believe - and all the evidence shows it to be the case so far - that the estimates from Lord Berkeley are only likely to be inaccurate on the downside. Bear in mind that even HS2 are now estimating overall costs at £87 billion.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
You are right, they are not estimated at £100 billion. They are actually estimated at £110 billion.
Do you honestly think that the overkill practices of phase 1 will continue in phas2 or they will adopt the HS2 level of design specification ?
Or do you not understand the reason for the cost increases ?
Yes I believe - and all the evidence shows it to be the case so far - that the estimates from Lord Berkeley are only likely to be inaccurate on the downside. Bear in mind that even HS2 are now estimating overall costs at £87 billion.
£87bn is the current P95 cost.
So why are you comparing to the £32bn P50 original cost ?
Deceptive or not understanding what you are talking about ?
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Yep, I know all that. But I don't care. All I was saying is that I love the TGV, particularly how quiet and civilised it is, not just how fast.
And anyway, I should probably go away because I've just returned from a 60th birthday party (31 people, all outside) and am much the worse for wear. Hic.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
You are right, they are not estimated at £100 billion. They are actually estimated at £110 billion.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
You seemingly mix P50 costs with P95 costs implying a naivety in understanding why this has not as much impact as you think it will.
It is not me making those claims but the Institute for Government. And you seem to be claiming that the costs will be closer to the P10 than the P50 which implies not so much naivety as downright dishonesty.
But you seemingly are unable to provide a better option than HS2 to deliver what it needs, you constantly quote figures from those opposed to the scheme yet have no idea why the current costs are what they are>
Why are you mixing the original P50 cost with P95 costs ? They are not comparable and simply suggest naivety or wishing to deceive.
It is comparable because it was the P50 costs which were presented to Parliament as those on which to base the decision to go ahead with the project. And yet it now seems that the project will far exceed even the P90 costs.
In private companies - and I work on such projects all the time - such a gross underestimate gets you fired.
Edit: Not sure why you are using P95. The normal range is P10-P50-P90
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
You seemingly mix P50 costs with P95 costs implying a naivety in understanding why this has not as much impact as you think it will.
It is not me making those claims but the Institute for Government. And you seem to be claiming that the costs will be closer to the P10 than the P50 which implies not so much naivety as downright dishonesty.
But you seemingly are unable to provide a better option than HS2 to deliver what it needs, you constantly quote figures from those opposed to the scheme yet have no idea why the current costs are what they are>
Why are you mixing the original P50 cost with P95 costs ? They are not comparable and simply suggest naivety or wishing to deceive.
It is comparable because it was the P50 costs which were presented to Parliament as those on which to base the decision to go ahead with the project. And yet it now seems that the project will far exceed even the P90 costs.
In private companies - and I work on such projects all the time - such a gross underestimate gets you fired.
Do you even know what the P50 and P95 (never ever been P90) costs actually represent ?
Honest question.
I really doubt you realise the importance of the P95 cost given your confusion with P90.
Interesting fact about London skyscrapers: many of the tallest buildings in the City of London in the 70s and 80s don't exist now. They've been demolished to make way for even higher ones.
another fun fact is for a time the tallest tower in the country was the 26 storey Coop building in Manchester for a few months before the BT Tower (I think) was completed.
There has also, pre Covid, been talk of a new residential on River Street in Manchester to be 97 storeys and taller than the Shard. Won't happen.
Another fun fact: for 250 years the tallest building in the WORLD was Lincoln Cathedral. Then the spire fell down
To be fair it took the record from a building that had had it for multiple thousand years...
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?
The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?
The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?
That Berkeley review?
Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.
Of course not. You would rather believe the claims of those who actually have a massive financial interest in making sure the project goes ahead - HS2 themselves. And yet even their estimates have now more than doubled.
If only someone could send out some literature to the constituents from a polling expert to give them a steer on how to beat Boris.....
I recall a polling expert sending such a letter to Warrington South, telling Tory voters that only a vote for the Lib Dems could beat the Labour Party.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?
As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.
I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.
But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
It will do absolutely nothing to increase commuter capacity into Leeds except for anyone commuting from Sheffield. Trans-Pennine trains are totally rammed in normal times, as are those to Airedale, Wharfedale and Bradford. That is where we need investment and more capacity. Not HS2 which primarily increases capacity into London.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?
The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?
The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?
That Berkeley review?
Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.
Of course not. You would rather believe the claims of those who actually have a massive financial interest in making sure the project goes ahead - HS2 themselves. And yet even their estimates have now more than doubled.
But their costs have not doubled, unless you really do not understand what you are talking about and do not know what a P50 cost is and why it's the P95 that matters.
On HS2: The new trains won't tilt. Therefore, once they get onto the existing tracks north of Crewe, they will actually travel more slowly than the existing Pendolino trains.
Yes, a cut from 125mph max to 110mph, which is why you only save an hour to Glasgow overall.
However - how many places north of Wigan have pathing for 125mph? I don’t think it’s many.
I'm afraid I don't have the data for the speed and journey time differentials between tilt and non-tilt. However, if you are going from Crewe to Scotland it will be quicker on a Pendo.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?
The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?
The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?
That Berkeley review?
Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.
Of course not. You would rather believe the claims of those who actually have a massive financial interest in making sure the project goes ahead - HS2 themselves. And yet even their estimates have now more than doubled.
I would rather believe the claims of those who use actual evidence to support their statements. As Berkeley does not.
They may be wrong. However, so may Berkeley be, and given he’s been wrong all the way through and clearly has the largest of ideological axes to grind he has the bigger credibility gap.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
The entire point of creating 1 fast line is to separate out the slow and fast trains that currently run on the same line. It doesn't double capacity but increases it by 4/5 fold as far more local (so slower) trains can now run on the existing track.
P50 (the low HS2 costs) are the treasury model for cost of any scheme in the 50th percentile of confidence of delivery at or below that cost.
P95 is the cost the treasury uses to allocate money in terms of cost benefit calculations, that is there is a 95% chance that this cost will cover or exceed the cost of the scheme based on treasury modelling.
The P95 matters, the P50 and those original media reports were based on that figures, but the treasury was always working on the MUCH higher costs than the P50 and were approving them from day 1.
If only someone could send out some literature to the constituents from a polling expert to give them a steer on how to beat Boris.....
I recall a polling expert sending such a letter to Warrington South, telling Tory voters that only a vote for the Lib Dems could beat the Labour Party.
Somewhat an odd choice and logic that one? 🤔
We revealed how letters claiming to be from Mike Smithson, a “polling and elections expert” and sent by the Liberal Democrat party, advised: “The Liberal Democrats have the best chance to win seats from the Conservatives, keeping them from a majority.” – Only these letters have been sent to constituencies such as Chipping Barnet, where the LibDems are on a fraction of the votes of Labour and the Conservatives who are neck and neck.
The Liberal Democrats refused to answer questions about how many constituencies received similar letters and why there is no mention of the “polling and elections expert” being a Liberal Democrat.
We have received reports of the letter with its dodgy advice being sent to constituencies all over the UK. In seats such as Altrincham and Sale West (Tory 26,933 votes, Labour 20,507 and LibDem 4,051 in 2017), Bristol North West (Labour 27,400, Tory 22,639, LibDem 2,814) , Chipping Barnet (Tory 25,679, Labour 25,326, LibDem 3,012) , Durham ( Labour 26,772, Tory 14,408, LibDem 4,787 ) , Kensington (Labour 16,333, Tory 16,313, LibDem 4,724), Warrington South (Labour 29,994, Tory 27,445, LibDem 3,339 ), Warwick and Leamington ( Labour 25,227, Tory 24,021, LibDem 2,810) and York Outer (Tory 29,356, Labour 21,067, LibDem 5,910), letters such as those below have been sent. Words are almost identical.
On HS2: The new trains won't tilt. Therefore, once they get onto the existing tracks north of Crewe, they will actually travel more slowly than the existing Pendolino trains.
Yes, a cut from 125mph max to 110mph, which is why you only save an hour to Glasgow overall.
However - how many places north of Wigan have pathing for 125mph? I don’t think it’s many.
I'm afraid I don't have the data for the speed and journey time differentials between tilt and non-tilt. However, if you are going from Crewe to Scotland it will be quicker on a Pendo.
It would seem that there is a capacity constraint north of Preston, plus of course there is Shap Fell, which going north is quite slow, around 80mph. There are also capacity constraints north to Carlisle. Equally, there are still several sections at 125mph, more than I would have expected.
Interestingly, many of these kinks are in line to be ironed out because of HS2;
One thing I would be interested to know more about is, what is the proposed fate of the Pendolinos? They effectively become obsolete. I’m assuming some will continue to serve destinations like Rugby, Milton Keynes, Coventry, Lichfield. Possibly running from Wolverhampton, Stafford or Stoke. But they will also be quite old by then and the new Hitachi sets have more or less superseded them where they could have been cascaded. Maybe they’ll be headed for scrapping?
If only someone could send out some literature to the constituents from a polling expert to give them a steer on how to beat Boris.....
I recall a polling expert sending such a letter to Warrington South, telling Tory voters that only a vote for the Lib Dems could beat the Labour Party.
Somewhat an odd choice and logic that one? 🤔
We revealed how letters claiming to be from Mike Smithson, a “polling and elections expert” and sent by the Liberal Democrat party, advised: “The Liberal Democrats have the best chance to win seats from the Conservatives, keeping them from a majority.” – Only these letters have been sent to constituencies such as Chipping Barnet, where the LibDems are on a fraction of the votes of Labour and the Conservatives who are neck and neck.
The Liberal Democrats refused to answer questions about how many constituencies received similar letters and why there is no mention of the “polling and elections expert” being a Liberal Democrat.
We have received reports of the letter with its dodgy advice being sent to constituencies all over the UK. In seats such as Altrincham and Sale West (Tory 26,933 votes, Labour 20,507 and LibDem 4,051 in 2017), Bristol North West (Labour 27,400, Tory 22,639, LibDem 2,814) , Chipping Barnet (Tory 25,679, Labour 25,326, LibDem 3,012) , Durham ( Labour 26,772, Tory 14,408, LibDem 4,787 ) , Kensington (Labour 16,333, Tory 16,313, LibDem 4,724), Warrington South (Labour 29,994, Tory 27,445, LibDem 3,339 ), Warwick and Leamington ( Labour 25,227, Tory 24,021, LibDem 2,810) and York Outer (Tory 29,356, Labour 21,067, LibDem 5,910), letters such as those below have been sent. Words are almost identical.
P50 (the low HS2 costs) are the treasury model for cost of any scheme in the 50th percentile of confidence of delivery at or below that cost.
P95 is the cost the treasury uses to allocate money in terms of cost benefit calculations, that is there is a 95% chance that this cost will cover or exceed the cost of the scheme based on treasury modelling.
The P95 matters, the P50 and those original media reports were based on that figures, but the treasury was always working on the MUCH higher costs than the P50 and were approving them from day 1.
If the PM is three times the original P50 it shows that the cost estimate at the time if sanction wasn't even as good as an AACE Class 5 estimate. You would have expected it to be at AACE Class 3 by that stage.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
It costs around £200-500 million per mile to build a motorway, so 750 max, probably 325.
Or 325-160 on the actual likely cost of HS2.
Bear in mind, they’re more flexible but they take up more space, and the viaducts are more expensive to build. Plus, you have to put junctions in, which are not cheap.
Edit - incidentally, a new motorway is about to be built in Staffordshire. The lower estimate to dual an existing road was £200 million. It’s being budgeted at £1 billion, and may well bankrupt the M6 Toll company who are on the hook for half of it.
P50 (the low HS2 costs) are the treasury model for cost of any scheme in the 50th percentile of confidence of delivery at or below that cost.
P95 is the cost the treasury uses to allocate money in terms of cost benefit calculations, that is there is a 95% chance that this cost will cover or exceed the cost of the scheme based on treasury modelling.
The P95 matters, the P50 and those original media reports were based on that figures, but the treasury was always working on the MUCH higher costs than the P50 and were approving them from day 1.
If the PM is three times the original P50 it shows that the cost estimate at the time if sanction wasn't even as good as an AACE Class 5 estimate. You would have expected it to be at AACE Class 3 by that stage.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Main problem was the original P95 was £46bn (from memory) and that was based on 20% saving on construction techniques from HS1 based on 20 years of improvements.
They failed to materialise.
P95 rose to £56bn, the actual and real original cost that should have been the starting point.
The rise to £86bn is very much down to property costs and overly specific detailed design on phase 1, much stricter than HS1.
From memory and I will very happily be corrected, HS1 allowed for 10's mm of drift of embankments over 50 years after construction, HS2 phase 1 was in the low 1's mm which meant massive over design and risk aversion from those bidding to do the work.
Phase 2 is to be built with the same spec as HS1 i.e. 10's mm of give on embankments and not 1's mm.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
It has always struck me as bizarre that the A1 is now a motorway for huge chunks of its length, and yet they’ve never gone the whole hog and dualled the lot.
Particularly since the alternative roads across the hills are so very bad.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
The entire point of creating 1 fast line is to separate out the slow and fast trains that currently run on the same line. It doesn't double capacity but increases it by 4/5 fold as far more local (so slower) trains can now run on the existing track.
So you are saying that existing lines will be slower? Great.
Unless we fork out the extra for HS2, we pay more for a worse service.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why £150 billion? Even Berkeley isn’t suggesting HS2 will cost 70% of that.
If only someone could send out some literature to the constituents from a polling expert to give them a steer on how to beat Boris.....
I recall a polling expert sending such a letter to Warrington South, telling Tory voters that only a vote for the Lib Dems could beat the Labour Party.
Somewhat an odd choice and logic that one? 🤔
We revealed how letters claiming to be from Mike Smithson, a “polling and elections expert” and sent by the Liberal Democrat party, advised: “The Liberal Democrats have the best chance to win seats from the Conservatives, keeping them from a majority.” – Only these letters have been sent to constituencies such as Chipping Barnet, where the LibDems are on a fraction of the votes of Labour and the Conservatives who are neck and neck.
The Liberal Democrats refused to answer questions about how many constituencies received similar letters and why there is no mention of the “polling and elections expert” being a Liberal Democrat.
We have received reports of the letter with its dodgy advice being sent to constituencies all over the UK. In seats such as Altrincham and Sale West (Tory 26,933 votes, Labour 20,507 and LibDem 4,051 in 2017), Bristol North West (Labour 27,400, Tory 22,639, LibDem 2,814) , Chipping Barnet (Tory 25,679, Labour 25,326, LibDem 3,012) , Durham ( Labour 26,772, Tory 14,408, LibDem 4,787 ) , Kensington (Labour 16,333, Tory 16,313, LibDem 4,724), Warrington South (Labour 29,994, Tory 27,445, LibDem 3,339 ), Warwick and Leamington ( Labour 25,227, Tory 24,021, LibDem 2,810) and York Outer (Tory 29,356, Labour 21,067, LibDem 5,910), letters such as those below have been sent. Words are almost identical.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
You are right, they are not estimated at £100 billion. They are actually estimated at £110 billion.
You further accused Manchester Kurt of making unfounded statements. So far, I have not seen any from him.
Are you going to withdraw any of those statements?
I will of course withdraw the comment about the connections as that was based on a misreading of the plans.
The rest stands as it is based on documented evidence. The fact you choose to ignore that evidence simply because you don't like it says far more about your bias than mine.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
The entire point of creating 1 fast line is to separate out the slow and fast trains that currently run on the same line. It doesn't double capacity but increases it by 4/5 fold as far more local (so slower) trains can now run on the existing track.
So you are saying that existing lines will be slower? Great.
Unless we fork out the extra for HS2, we pay more for a worse service.
No - same speed, but more frequently as the multiple sections needed for HSTs will be freed up.
If only someone could send out some literature to the constituents from a polling expert to give them a steer on how to beat Boris.....
I recall a polling expert sending such a letter to Warrington South, telling Tory voters that only a vote for the Lib Dems could beat the Labour Party.
Somewhat an odd choice and logic that one? 🤔
We revealed how letters claiming to be from Mike Smithson, a “polling and elections expert” and sent by the Liberal Democrat party, advised: “The Liberal Democrats have the best chance to win seats from the Conservatives, keeping them from a majority.” – Only these letters have been sent to constituencies such as Chipping Barnet, where the LibDems are on a fraction of the votes of Labour and the Conservatives who are neck and neck.
The Liberal Democrats refused to answer questions about how many constituencies received similar letters and why there is no mention of the “polling and elections expert” being a Liberal Democrat.
We have received reports of the letter with its dodgy advice being sent to constituencies all over the UK. In seats such as Altrincham and Sale West (Tory 26,933 votes, Labour 20,507 and LibDem 4,051 in 2017), Bristol North West (Labour 27,400, Tory 22,639, LibDem 2,814) , Chipping Barnet (Tory 25,679, Labour 25,326, LibDem 3,012) , Durham ( Labour 26,772, Tory 14,408, LibDem 4,787 ) , Kensington (Labour 16,333, Tory 16,313, LibDem 4,724), Warrington South (Labour 29,994, Tory 27,445, LibDem 3,339 ), Warwick and Leamington ( Labour 25,227, Tory 24,021, LibDem 2,810) and York Outer (Tory 29,356, Labour 21,067, LibDem 5,910), letters such as those below have been sent. Words are almost identical.
I had almost forgotten about that, did we ever get a full list of which seate they were sent to? it would be interesting to see if there way a pattern, e.g. LD vote going up in all of them.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
Because it’s much easier to deal with narratives that confirm our views rather than facts which undermine them.
Or in the case of ManchesterKurt it seems it is easier to just ignore the facts and keep pumping out the same unfounded claims.
In this case, Richard, I would point out it was your claims that were unfounded. You said that anyone travelling on HS2 would have to change to access the existing network. ManchesterKurt dismissed your claims - as did I, providing evidence.
Your further claim that there needs to be further investment in existing rail also doesn’t stack up, for two good reasons: (1) because a lot of that is already going in, albeit not in the quantities I would like to see and (2) because without addressing the severe congestion on the main railways there are strict limits to how much benefit such spending will have. There is no point in buying new trains or laying new track if you have to keep switching to other trains through lack of pathways, as you yourself noted.
The need for investment is in rail connections that HS2 does not serve. Not everyone needs to connect to London. Indeed if you really want to improve the transport infrastructure in the north then build new tracks across the country not up and down it.
HS2 will be a massive white elephant which will never achieve what is claimed for it in terms of regeneration and levelling up (which is where this discussion started). It is £100 billion we could have spent far more wisely on real improvements in the North.
Richard, you are repeating cliches. Not addressing the point. You made an unfounded claim - which you haven’t withdrawn - and are now accusing another poster, who pointed out you were wrong, of making unfounded claims.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
You are right, they are not estimated at £100 billion. They are actually estimated at £110 billion.
You further accused Manchester Kurt of making unfounded statements. So far, I have not seen any from him.
Are you going to withdraw any of those statements?
I will of course withdraw the comment about the connections as that was based on a misreading of the plans.
The rest stands as it is based on documented evidence. The fact you choose to ignore that evidence simply because you don't like it says far more about your bias than mine.
The withdrawal of the first point is duly noted.
What evidence? You have presented a report that isn’t widely accepted and in fact cites no evidence. Look at the number of times he says ‘I believe.’
And again, I ask what unfounded claims Manchester Kurt has made.
If only someone could send out some literature to the constituents from a polling expert to give them a steer on how to beat Boris.....
I recall a polling expert sending such a letter to Warrington South, telling Tory voters that only a vote for the Lib Dems could beat the Labour Party.
Somewhat an odd choice and logic that one? 🤔
We revealed how letters claiming to be from Mike Smithson, a “polling and elections expert” and sent by the Liberal Democrat party, advised: “The Liberal Democrats have the best chance to win seats from the Conservatives, keeping them from a majority.” – Only these letters have been sent to constituencies such as Chipping Barnet, where the LibDems are on a fraction of the votes of Labour and the Conservatives who are neck and neck.
The Liberal Democrats refused to answer questions about how many constituencies received similar letters and why there is no mention of the “polling and elections expert” being a Liberal Democrat.
We have received reports of the letter with its dodgy advice being sent to constituencies all over the UK. In seats such as Altrincham and Sale West (Tory 26,933 votes, Labour 20,507 and LibDem 4,051 in 2017), Bristol North West (Labour 27,400, Tory 22,639, LibDem 2,814) , Chipping Barnet (Tory 25,679, Labour 25,326, LibDem 3,012) , Durham ( Labour 26,772, Tory 14,408, LibDem 4,787 ) , Kensington (Labour 16,333, Tory 16,313, LibDem 4,724), Warrington South (Labour 29,994, Tory 27,445, LibDem 3,339 ), Warwick and Leamington ( Labour 25,227, Tory 24,021, LibDem 2,810) and York Outer (Tory 29,356, Labour 21,067, LibDem 5,910), letters such as those below have been sent. Words are almost identical.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
Main problem was the original P95 was £46bn (from memory) and that was based on 20% saving on construction techniques from HS1 based on 20 years of improvements.
They failed to materialise.
P95 rose to £56bn, the actual and real original cost that should have been the starting point.
The rise to £86bn is very much down to property costs and overly specific detailed design on phase 1, much stricter than HS1.
From memory and I will very happily be corrected, HS1 allowed for 10's mm of drift of embankments over 50 years after construction, HS2 phase 1 was in the low 1's mm which meant massive over design and risk aversion from those bidding to do the work.
Phase 2 is to be built with the same spec as HS1 i.e. 10's mm of give on embankments and not 1's mm.
Also, I have read that in Phase 1 the DfT (possibly at the behest of the Treasury?) insisted on the contractors taking on all the risk of having to do remedial works later on. Unsurprisingly, the contractors promptly slapped a massive premium on the cost: far in excess of the actual risk. Presumably they couldn’t insure against the risk themselves, so had to cover any possible costs up front to avoid carrying the liability on their books?
For phase 2, the railway engineers appear to have talked some sense into the relevant sections of the government & costs are considerably lower as a consequence.
Main problem was the original P95 was £46bn (from memory) and that was based on 20% saving on construction techniques from HS1 based on 20 years of improvements.
They failed to materialise.
P95 rose to £56bn, the actual and real original cost that should have been the starting point.
The rise to £86bn is very much down to property costs and overly specific detailed design on phase 1, much stricter than HS1.
From memory and I will very happily be corrected, HS1 allowed for 10's mm of drift of embankments over 50 years after construction, HS2 phase 1 was in the low 1's mm which meant massive over design and risk aversion from those bidding to do the work.
Phase 2 is to be built with the same spec as HS1 i.e. 10's mm of give on embankments and not 1's mm.
Also, I have read that in Phase 1 the DfT (possibly at the behest of the Treasury?) insisted on the contractors taking on all the risk of having to do remedial works later on. Unsurprisingly, the contractors promptly slapped a massive premium on the cost, far in excess of the actual risk, but as a commercial outfit if you can’t insure against it then you have to cover the possible future cost if you don’t want to carry around a monstrous liability on your books for the next thirty years...
For phase 2, the railway engineers appear to have talked some sense into the relevant sections of the government & costs are considerably lower as a consequence.
Correct
The reality is the costs will almost certainly come in under the P95 costs as the mistakes that have driven up phase 1 costs have been learnt and won't be repeated on phase2.
Main problem was the original P95 was £46bn (from memory) and that was based on 20% saving on construction techniques from HS1 based on 20 years of improvements.
They failed to materialise.
P95 rose to £56bn, the actual and real original cost that should have been the starting point.
The rise to £86bn is very much down to property costs and overly specific detailed design on phase 1, much stricter than HS1.
From memory and I will very happily be corrected, HS1 allowed for 10's mm of drift of embankments over 50 years after construction, HS2 phase 1 was in the low 1's mm which meant massive over design and risk aversion from those bidding to do the work.
Phase 2 is to be built with the same spec as HS1 i.e. 10's mm of give on embankments and not 1's mm.
Also, I have read that in Phase 1 the DfT (possibly at the behest of the Treasury?) insisted on the contractors taking on all the risk of having to do remedial works later on. Unsurprisingly, the contractors promptly slapped a massive premium on the cost, far in excess of the actual risk, but as a commercial outfit if you can’t insure against it then you have to cover the possible future cost if you don’t want to carry around a monstrous liability on your books for the next thirty years...
For phase 2, the railway engineers appear to have talked some sense into the relevant sections of the government & costs are considerably lower as a consequence.
So basically Phase 1 has been gold-plated, while Phase 2 is being done to a budget?
With of course Phase 1 being the South and supposedly this is meant to be good for the North?
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
Main problem was the original P95 was £46bn (from memory) and that was based on 20% saving on construction techniques from HS1 based on 20 years of improvements.
They failed to materialise.
P95 rose to £56bn, the actual and real original cost that should have been the starting point.
The rise to £86bn is very much down to property costs and overly specific detailed design on phase 1, much stricter than HS1.
From memory and I will very happily be corrected, HS1 allowed for 10's mm of drift of embankments over 50 years after construction, HS2 phase 1 was in the low 1's mm which meant massive over design and risk aversion from those bidding to do the work.
Phase 2 is to be built with the same spec as HS1 i.e. 10's mm of give on embankments and not 1's mm.
Also, I have read that in Phase 1 the DfT (possibly at the behest of the Treasury?) insisted on the contractors taking on all the risk of having to do remedial works later on. Unsurprisingly, the contractors promptly slapped a massive premium on the cost, far in excess of the actual risk, but as a commercial outfit if you can’t insure against it then you have to cover the possible future cost if you don’t want to carry around a monstrous liability on your books for the next thirty years...
For phase 2, the railway engineers appear to have talked some sense into the relevant sections of the government & costs are considerably lower as a consequence.
So basically Phase 1 has been gold-plated, while Phase 2 is being done to a budget?
With of course Phase 1 being the South and supposedly this is meant to be good for the North?
Give me a break!
HS2 Phase 2 will be done to the same spec as HS1 and just about every other modern railway on the planet.
The mistakes of Phase 1 were massive risk aversion in the treasury and DfT.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
Main problem was the original P95 was £46bn (from memory) and that was based on 20% saving on construction techniques from HS1 based on 20 years of improvements.
They failed to materialise.
P95 rose to £56bn, the actual and real original cost that should have been the starting point.
The rise to £86bn is very much down to property costs and overly specific detailed design on phase 1, much stricter than HS1.
From memory and I will very happily be corrected, HS1 allowed for 10's mm of drift of embankments over 50 years after construction, HS2 phase 1 was in the low 1's mm which meant massive over design and risk aversion from those bidding to do the work.
Phase 2 is to be built with the same spec as HS1 i.e. 10's mm of give on embankments and not 1's mm.
Also, I have read that in Phase 1 the DfT (possibly at the behest of the Treasury?) insisted on the contractors taking on all the risk of having to do remedial works later on. Unsurprisingly, the contractors promptly slapped a massive premium on the cost, far in excess of the actual risk, but as a commercial outfit if you can’t insure against it then you have to cover the possible future cost if you don’t want to carry around a monstrous liability on your books for the next thirty years...
For phase 2, the railway engineers appear to have talked some sense into the relevant sections of the government & costs are considerably lower as a consequence.
So basically Phase 1 has been gold-plated, while Phase 2 is being done to a budget?
With of course Phase 1 being the South and supposedly this is meant to be good for the North?
Give me a break!
I don’t think any of that affects the quality in either phase. Just who is liable.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
The entire point of creating 1 fast line is to separate out the slow and fast trains that currently run on the same line. It doesn't double capacity but increases it by 4/5 fold as far more local (so slower) trains can now run on the existing track.
So you are saying that existing lines will be slower? Great.
Unless we fork out the extra for HS2, we pay more for a worse service.
Existing lines are slower right now, because they put both fast through traffic, local traffic & slow freight on the same lines & the fast traffic needs a lot of “line space”. Shift the fast traffic onto HS2 & you free up a lot of line capacity for local traffic, plus you get an extra N/S line so you only need to close one at weekends to do proper maintenance of the other one, instead of the current situation where maintenance is squeezed into Sundays & completely drops all traffic.
Main problem was the original P95 was £46bn (from memory) and that was based on 20% saving on construction techniques from HS1 based on 20 years of improvements.
They failed to materialise.
P95 rose to £56bn, the actual and real original cost that should have been the starting point.
The rise to £86bn is very much down to property costs and overly specific detailed design on phase 1, much stricter than HS1.
From memory and I will very happily be corrected, HS1 allowed for 10's mm of drift of embankments over 50 years after construction, HS2 phase 1 was in the low 1's mm which meant massive over design and risk aversion from those bidding to do the work.
Phase 2 is to be built with the same spec as HS1 i.e. 10's mm of give on embankments and not 1's mm.
Also, I have read that in Phase 1 the DfT (possibly at the behest of the Treasury?) insisted on the contractors taking on all the risk of having to do remedial works later on. Unsurprisingly, the contractors promptly slapped a massive premium on the cost, far in excess of the actual risk, but as a commercial outfit if you can’t insure against it then you have to cover the possible future cost if you don’t want to carry around a monstrous liability on your books for the next thirty years...
For phase 2, the railway engineers appear to have talked some sense into the relevant sections of the government & costs are considerably lower as a consequence.
So basically Phase 1 has been gold-plated, while Phase 2 is being done to a budget?
With of course Phase 1 being the South and supposedly this is meant to be good for the North?
Give me a break!
I don’t think any of that affects the quality in either phase. Just who is liable.
Correct
No one will ever notice that an embankment has moved 2mm or 20mm over 50 years.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?
The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?
The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?
That Berkeley review?
Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.
Of course not. You would rather believe the claims of those who actually have a massive financial interest in making sure the project goes ahead - HS2 themselves. And yet even their estimates have now more than doubled.
I would rather believe the claims of those who use actual evidence to support their statements. As Berkeley does not.
They may be wrong. However, so may Berkeley be, and given he’s been wrong all the way through and clearly has the largest of ideological axes to grind he has the bigger credibility gap.
Well the Institute for Government - whilst pointing out some areas they think Berkeley may be wrong - are happy to include his estimates.
Meanwhile HS2 themselves have now doubled their estimates.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
Main problem was the original P95 was £46bn (from memory) and that was based on 20% saving on construction techniques from HS1 based on 20 years of improvements.
They failed to materialise.
P95 rose to £56bn, the actual and real original cost that should have been the starting point.
The rise to £86bn is very much down to property costs and overly specific detailed design on phase 1, much stricter than HS1.
From memory and I will very happily be corrected, HS1 allowed for 10's mm of drift of embankments over 50 years after construction, HS2 phase 1 was in the low 1's mm which meant massive over design and risk aversion from those bidding to do the work.
Phase 2 is to be built with the same spec as HS1 i.e. 10's mm of give on embankments and not 1's mm.
Also, I have read that in Phase 1 the DfT (possibly at the behest of the Treasury?) insisted on the contractors taking on all the risk of having to do remedial works later on. Unsurprisingly, the contractors promptly slapped a massive premium on the cost, far in excess of the actual risk, but as a commercial outfit if you can’t insure against it then you have to cover the possible future cost if you don’t want to carry around a monstrous liability on your books for the next thirty years...
For phase 2, the railway engineers appear to have talked some sense into the relevant sections of the government & costs are considerably lower as a consequence.
So basically Phase 1 has been gold-plated, while Phase 2 is being done to a budget?
With of course Phase 1 being the South and supposedly this is meant to be good for the North?
Give me a break!
No, same quality, just a different apportioning of the risk. Turns out its much cheaper for the government to self-insure against 30 year risks than it is for private contractors to do so. Who would have thought it?
"Jason Dupasquier: Moto3 rider dies from injuries sustained in qualifying crash
Swiss Moto3 rider Jason Dupasquier has died in hospital from injuries he sustained in a three-bike crash during Saturday's qualifying session in Italy. Dupasquier, 19, was struck by another bike after falling and slid along the track at the Mugello Circuit."
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
I respectfully disagree
The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services
Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer
not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit
It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.
If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.
Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.
No you will not have to change.
HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.
Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.
To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.
And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.
There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.
But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.
As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.
Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.
If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?
Don't get it.
As an observer of HS2 from day one
Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?
Yes
And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.
The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.
They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.
But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.
It's like you have not been paying attention.
HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?
The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?
The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?
That Berkeley review?
Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.
Of course not. You would rather believe the claims of those who actually have a massive financial interest in making sure the project goes ahead - HS2 themselves. And yet even their estimates have now more than doubled.
I would rather believe the claims of those who use actual evidence to support their statements. As Berkeley does not.
They may be wrong. However, so may Berkeley be, and given he’s been wrong all the way through and clearly has the largest of ideological axes to grind he has the bigger credibility gap.
Well the Institute for Government - whilst pointing out some areas they think Berkeley may be wrong - are happy to include his estimates.
Meanwhile HS2 themselves have now doubled their estimates.
Please provide any links to show that HS2 think that costs have doubled on their estimates,
£46bn the original P95 is more than half of £86bn, the current P95.
As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.
'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.
“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”
Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero
Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.
And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds
It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns
That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.
But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.
Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).
It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities
It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.
So what would make a difference then?
Ooh. This is my special subject.
The research seems to suggest:
1. Devolution of powers and tax base 2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool 3. Local skills development 4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning 5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.
@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.
HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.
If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?
Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.
Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.
I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.
It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.
Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
It would make far more sense than HS2 👍
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
So why are the government not doing it then ?
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
Mostly because of fear of the green lobby, and bad media coverage that may come form it.
But also, because all the money has been spent of HS2 and other ;green' projects.
Comments
13 years of thinking you must have an answer, no other person opposed to HS2 has though.
HS2 is a done deal, but the congestion argument could be looking a bit weak if there isn't a very strong recovery in the next few years.
If you can show where Manchester Kurt is wrong, that’s fine. But until then, merely making further unfounded claims (costs are not projected at £100 billion, and the whole idea is to improve rail connectivity across the entire network) isn’t going to make you right and him wrong.
But a problem Scotland has is that its doing far less testing than England - only about a third of the per capita level.
America. China. France. Canada. Japan. Yes.
Here? No
But I also get the logic that if you have to build an entirely new line, because congestion, it might as well be high speed
Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/high-speed-2-costs
The more pertinent question is did the people costing HS2 notice that phenomenon.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1945/freight-rail-usage-and-performance-2020-21-q4.pdf
Unsurprisingly it held up better than passenger usage in 2020-21.
What is the point of a railway that only has 4 or so stops? It makes connecting services difficult.
A fresh conventional line would be cheaper, open up new towns to the railway and be environmentally better, as the energy required for a 100mph train is much less.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/high-speed-2-costs
You seemingly mix P50 costs with P95 costs implying a naivety in understanding why this has not as much impact as you think it will.
France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains
We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains
The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?
The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?
That Berkeley review?
Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic
We're back into the 40% range for national rail usage, so it is coming back slowly.
Or do you not understand the reason for the cost increases ?
https://twitter.com/xr_cambridge/status/1399041535505846274
Not rush hour crowded. But most seats taken and people standing? - yes
Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?
Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.
The Tory invasion of non super urban WWC Labour is a real shift of sentiment by contrast and won't be over quickly.
The corresponding shift in Guardian/academic/posh seats away from Tories is of course also real but is very confined socially and geographically. There are only a finite number of them and I doubt if there are a lot more to find. And some urban seats, mostly in London will fall, but not enough to make up for the losses.
Middle England remains Tory
However - how many places north of Wigan have pathing for 125mph? I don’t think it’s many.
Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur
Why are you mixing the original P50 cost with P95 costs ? They are not comparable and simply suggest naivety or wishing to deceive.
So why are you comparing to the £32bn P50 original cost ?
Deceptive or not understanding what you are talking about ?
And anyway, I should probably go away because I've just returned from a 60th birthday party (31 people, all outside) and am much the worse for wear. Hic.
You also claimed the costs of HS2 will be £110 billion based on a statement in a dissenting report by a longstanding critic of HS2 with several inaccuracies in it, published by a think tank also critical of HS2, ignoring the actual estimate of £81-87 billion from Oakervee (page 56) (who considered the higher claim and dismissed it - that’s on p.60). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870092/oakervee-review.pdf#page55
You further accused Manchester Kurt of making unfounded statements. So far, I have not seen any from him.
Are you going to withdraw any of those statements?
In private companies - and I work on such projects all the time - such a gross underestimate gets you fired.
Edit: Not sure why you are using P95. The normal range is P10-P50-P90
Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.
How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?
Honest question.
I really doubt you realise the importance of the P95 cost given your confusion with P90.
Somewhat an odd choice and logic that one? 🤔
They may be wrong. However, so may Berkeley be, and given he’s been wrong all the way through and clearly has the largest of ideological axes to grind he has the bigger credibility gap.
P50 (the low HS2 costs) are the treasury model for cost of any scheme in the 50th percentile of confidence of delivery at or below that cost.
P95 is the cost the treasury uses to allocate money in terms of cost benefit calculations, that is there is a 95% chance that this cost will cover or exceed the cost of the scheme based on treasury modelling.
The P95 matters, the P50 and those original media reports were based on that figures, but the treasury was always working on the MUCH higher costs than the P50 and were approving them from day 1.
But previous growth was far faster than was in the business model so immaterial.
The Liberal Democrats refused to answer questions about how many constituencies received similar letters and why there is no mention of the “polling and elections expert” being a Liberal Democrat.
We have received reports of the letter with its dodgy advice being sent to constituencies all over the UK. In seats such as Altrincham and Sale West (Tory 26,933 votes, Labour 20,507 and LibDem 4,051 in 2017), Bristol North West (Labour 27,400, Tory 22,639, LibDem 2,814) , Chipping Barnet (Tory 25,679, Labour 25,326, LibDem 3,012) , Durham ( Labour 26,772, Tory 14,408, LibDem 4,787 ) , Kensington (Labour 16,333, Tory 16,313, LibDem 4,724), Warrington South (Labour 29,994, Tory 27,445, LibDem 3,339 ), Warwick and Leamington ( Labour 25,227, Tory 24,021, LibDem 2,810) and York Outer (Tory 29,356, Labour 21,067, LibDem 5,910), letters such as those below have been sent. Words are almost identical.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/polling-expert-in-false-lib-dem-tactical-voting-advice-letters-disowns-them-169583/
Interestingly, many of these kinks are in line to be ironed out because of HS2;
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/506022/NES_Report.pdf#page29
One thing I would be interested to know more about is, what is the proposed fate of the Pendolinos? They effectively become obsolete. I’m assuming some will continue to serve destinations like Rugby, Milton Keynes, Coventry, Lichfield. Possibly running from Wolverhampton, Stafford or Stoke. But they will also be quite old by then and the new Hitachi sets have more or less superseded them where they could have been cascaded. Maybe they’ll be headed for scrapping?
Or 325-160 on the actual likely cost of HS2.
Bear in mind, they’re more flexible but they take up more space, and the viaducts are more expensive to build. Plus, you have to put junctions in, which are not cheap.
Edit - incidentally, a new motorway is about to be built in Staffordshire. The lower estimate to dual an existing road was £200 million. It’s being budgeted at £1 billion, and may well bankrupt the M6 Toll company who are on the hook for half of it.
They failed to materialise.
P95 rose to £56bn, the actual and real original cost that should have been the starting point.
The rise to £86bn is very much down to property costs and overly specific detailed design on phase 1, much stricter than HS1.
From memory and I will very happily be corrected, HS1 allowed for 10's mm of drift of embankments over 50 years after construction, HS2 phase 1 was in the low 1's mm which meant massive over design and risk aversion from those bidding to do the work.
Phase 2 is to be built with the same spec as HS1 i.e. 10's mm of give on embankments and not 1's mm.
Particularly since the alternative roads across the hills are so very bad.
But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.
Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.
Unless we fork out the extra for HS2, we pay more for a worse service.
The rest stands as it is based on documented evidence. The fact you choose to ignore that evidence simply because you don't like it says far more about your bias than mine.
Just make up a number and spend that much.
What evidence? You have presented a report that isn’t widely accepted and in fact cites no evidence. Look at the number of times he says ‘I believe.’
And again, I ask what unfounded claims Manchester Kurt has made.
The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.
For phase 2, the railway engineers appear to have talked some sense into the relevant sections of the government & costs are considerably lower as a consequence.
The reality is the costs will almost certainly come in under the P95 costs as the mistakes that have driven up phase 1 costs have been learnt and won't be repeated on phase2.
With of course Phase 1 being the South and supposedly this is meant to be good for the North?
Give me a break!
If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?
The mistakes of Phase 1 were massive risk aversion in the treasury and DfT.
Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.
No one will ever notice that an embankment has moved 2mm or 20mm over 50 years.
Meanwhile HS2 themselves have now doubled their estimates.
They can do what they wish.
"Jason Dupasquier: Moto3 rider dies from injuries sustained in qualifying crash
Swiss Moto3 rider Jason Dupasquier has died in hospital from injuries he sustained in a three-bike crash during Saturday's qualifying session in Italy. Dupasquier, 19, was struck by another bike after falling and slid along the track at the Mugello Circuit."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/motorsport/57299713
£46bn the original P95 is more than half of £86bn, the current P95.
But also, because all the money has been spent of HS2 and other ;green' projects.