The Indy is insistent. HS2 will NOT go to Euston and they will now “delay” the Manchester bit by 7 years which is tantamount to cancelling it

Extraordinary, explosive: if true. All those billions spent at Euston. Just sack everyone involved with this stupid idea

https://x.com/jenwilliams_ft/status/1706208341054169432?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Malmesbury said:

a

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

SandyRentool said:

AlsoLei said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular

How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?

Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB

Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes

Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes

No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.

Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours

Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience

I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.

But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.

Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.

Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?

The business case is shot for two reasons:

Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.

Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.

And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population

We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem

If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster

Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.

It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional

I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country

What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink

If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".

These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.

You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.

Do both.

Why is this all so frigging difficult?

That would be good too!

Glasgow, Manchester/Liverpool, Birmingham, Bradford/Leeds are the obvious candidates for massive tram systems given the number of car-dependent satellite towns.

But once you get going, you shouldn't stop. That's what's so infuriating - we build one new line (Edinburgh) and then fail to retain the expertise, or provide business certainty, by dawdling for a few years.

The Edinburgh tram system achieved one spectacular success.

It succeeded in convincing a generation of politicians that a tram project is political graveyard.

It need not be. Simply create a TramCo and they can offer a service to install a genuine bona-fide electrified six-car tram in Leeds and Ogdenville and North Haverbrook.

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

numbertwelve said:

MattW said:

Are we in the presence of Rishi Sunak Hail Mary Pass No. 89?

'I will make serious criminals serve their full sentences'.

I wonder if he has considered what the impact on life in prisons will be of removing the hope of early release?

Maybe he’s going to go for the ultimate Hail Mary Pass and pledge to bring back the death penalty.

I mean there’s not much left. And polls suggest it has support, though how strong that is remains to be seen (my view is that supporters are far more attracted to the idea of it than the implementation).

It's a policy that would play to the gallery. The more emotive they make their justification, Lucy Letby, Ian Huntley, Ian Watkins and maybe Gary Glitter the easier the sell. "Keir Starmer is so weak on criminality he supports Lucy Letby's murderous campaign against innocent babies". Might as well hang Starmer too, for his facilitation of criminality whilst DPP and his wokery.

It's coming! "Let him have it Chris!"

Good morning one and all.

If IRC ‘Chris’ was eventually released and became a plumber somewhere in the northern Home Counties.
In other words, a useful citizen.

I was more concerned about what happened to Derek.

Utterly shameful. But if there's a vote in in Rishi Rich's view will be " in for a penny, in for a pound".

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:

Are we in the presence of Rishi Sunak Hail Mary Pass No. 89?

'I will make serious criminals serve their full sentences'.

I wonder if he has considered what the impact on life in prisons will be of removing the hope of early release?

Does he mention the extra prisons needed to cope with this demand?

Not that I am aware of, but he needs to think first about the 15k (approx) people on remand in prison who are waiting for their trials.

Far better putting in place a functional court system than building more prisons to buffer the consequences of a failing court system.

We saw what such a stupid, short-sighted approach did to the immigration system.

Mexicanpete said:

OldKingCole said:

Mexicanpete said:

...

numbertwelve said:

MattW said:

Are we in the presence of Rishi Sunak Hail Mary Pass No. 89?

'I will make serious criminals serve their full sentences'.

I wonder if he has considered what the impact on life in prisons will be of removing the hope of early release?

Maybe he’s going to go for the ultimate Hail Mary Pass and pledge to bring back the death penalty.

I mean there’s not much left. And polls suggest it has support, though how strong that is remains to be seen (my view is that supporters are far more attracted to the idea of it than the implementation).

It's a policy that would play to the gallery. The more emotive they make their justification, Lucy Letby, Ian Huntley, Ian Watkins and maybe Gary Glitter the easier the sell. "Keir Starmer is so weak on criminality he supports Lucy Letby's murderous campaign against innocent babies". Might as well hang Starmer too, for his facilitation of criminality whilst DPP and his wokery.

It's coming! "Let him have it Chris!"

Good morning one and all.

If IRC ‘Chris’ was eventually released and became a plumber somewhere in the northern Home Counties.
In other words, a useful citizen.

I was more concerned about what happened to Derek.

Utterly shameful. But if there's a vote in in Rishi Rich's view will be " in for a penny, in for a pound".

I was contrasting what happened to Chris with what happened to poor, ‘simple’ Derek. His sister spent her life campaigning for some sort of review of how her brother was mistreated.

But I agree. Rishi Rich is likely to try anything.
Whether, if it works, he’ll actually go through with returning the country to the thirties, or he’ll be allowed to, is a different matter.
I hope!

MattW said:

JosiasJessop said:

SkillBuilder on heat pumps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOqBNmcFMBQ

Morning.

He's quite the rantaloon, isn't he? A lot of numbers pulled out of thin air. Howard Cox goes into heating engineering.

Apparently a doubling of heat pump sales in 2022 on the way to a target for 2028 is a "miserable failure".

Hmmm.

BTW The actual scheme he is ranting about is defined here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1146981/clean_heat_market_mechanism.pdf

Yes, he does rant: but then again, the credit trading stuff does seem a little ... opaque.

It seems the sort of scheme where a few people will make lots of money... and not necessarily make anything any more green.

.

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

RochdalePioneers said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

LostPassword said:

rottenborough said:

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

SandyRentool said:

AlsoLei said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular

How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?

Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB

Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes

Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes

No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.

Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours

Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience

I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.

But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.

Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.

Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?

The business case is shot for two reasons:

Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.

Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.

And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population

We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem

If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster

Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.

It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional

I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country

What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink

If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".

These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.

You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.

Do both.

Why is this all so frigging difficult?

As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.

We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.

Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.

And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.

Paying for it is simple. We are fiscally sovereign - we print the money we pay our debts in. As long as we spend it on something sensible the markets are happy to support it.

Infrastructure spending to bring us up to the same standards as Spain is sensible. Big infrastructure projects have a positive and long term economic benefit as well as a short term one as you build them.

So. Borrow. Invest. Gain a return on the investment. Capitalism.

That the fucking Tory Party no longer do capitalism - and have poisoned the well so badly that any capitalism is met with "eugh who will pay for that" is the reason why this country is as fucked as is it. But replacing capitalism with spivism was brilliant for the people who *own* the Tory party, so...

Printing money is not an ideal solution. And that boat sailed two years ago, its maxed out already.

The Bank of England selling the money it printed at a loss is considerably worse.

The calamitous mismanagement by the
Bank of England in the past a bit over 12 months, even worse than the mismanagement that had preceded for the prior 25 years, is really not good enough. Taxpayers are on the hook for virtually a blank cheque of the Bank selling money it printed at a loss now.

Its frankly not good enough to say the Bank of England is independent, then let them mismanage the bit of the economy they're responsible for then hand the bill to taxpayers. Its atrocious this growing scandal isn't getting more publicity and the buck should stop with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, not an 'independent' Bank.

You are getting hung up on whether the BofE makes a profit or not. It’s irrelevant.

They created money. This was used to buy government bonds *direct from the government* to fund spending. This increased the money supply.

They are now selling the bonds *into the market* for less than they paid.

The loss doesn’t matter - it’s just an accounting entry. More meaningful is it means that the impact of the monetary expansion isn’t being completely sterilised (which was the Bank’s hope). But that’s kind of inevitable given the issues of the last few years.

What I think your alternative is - holding the bonds to maturity - means that there is no accounting loss, but it also means that the monetary expansion is not reversed which will tend to put upwards pressure on asset price inflation (more money chasing the same amount of goods)

The bank is doing the right thing. It’s purpose is to execute on monetary policy not to make a profit.

A profit or not is irrelevant, I agree, but a loss is not irrelevant.

You are double-counting and that's not acceptable. You claim the loss is an accounting entry, but you can only come to that premise if you accept that the Bank was printing money and that the accounting 'loss' will just forever remain as printed money.

The Bank is still operating under the façade that its not printing money and that QT is "just an accounting exercise". The money creation was the accounting entry in the first place and that makes the loss of money very, very real.

That loss needs to be accounted for now. Either the Bank needs to write down its losses and publicly admit that it was lying to the public for years and that it was printing money and may print money again - and destroy its credibility. Or the Treasury needs to recapitalise the Bank from its losses and leave the taxpayers on the hook for that - which apparently is what is being done, because probably quite rightly having the Bank of England's reputation completely in tatters is not worthwhile. In which case the loss is very, very real.

Across the rest of the developed world other countries are not seeing their Banks engage in firesale of bonds at depressed values and those countries have comparable or lower rates of inflation, so its not even as if the policy is working well.

Furthermore if you're going to sell bonds or any other asset there's a right and a wrong way to do it. The wrong way, as is happening now and as happened with the gold under Gordon Brown is to pre-announce your intentions then have a firesale with the asset price depressed. That enriches spivs who can capitalise on your stupidity, but it is a stupid way to behave. The smart way to do it, as the Treasury has been doing with the Bank stocks it acquired is to announce after the fact when a sale has been done but to be circumspect about it until then, that way you can sell the assets at best value for money..

Leon said:

The Indy is insistent. HS2 will NOT go to Euston and they will now “delay” the Manchester bit by 7 years which is tantamount to cancelling it

Extraordinary, explosive: if true. All those billions spent at Euston. Just sack everyone involved with this stupid idea

https://x.com/jenwilliams_ft/status/1706208341054169432?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

They are howling at the moon. Cancel the leg to Euston? Sure - if you have scrapped the entire network beyond Delta Junction then you don't need Euston. Hell, reconfigure the thing so that HS2 trains continue down the Liz line and have done with it.

But - and its a big but. The infrastructure work for Euston is at an advanced stage. Unless they are going to tip 100k tons of concrete into it then the works will remain like that - a big scar. As will the works about to be delaycancelled north of Delta.

With so much already built and other kit already here (such as TBMs), and the existing railway creaking under 30% more passengers, the resumption will be an easy call for the next government.

Whilst I take their point about costs, they are responsible for that as well. The spec for ohase 1 is absurd - not the proposed running speeds, that the infrastructure needs to be able to withstand the breakup of the planet or else the contractor gets sued. Rejig the contracts to build them to TGV or AVE spec and we're good to go.

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Chris said:

The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023

But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…

I said it was failING and I said they had a couple of months to change that. If they’ve done it: huzzah

But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”


Let’s see

ISW is quite conservative in its assessments

It’s also a cheerleader for the Ukrainians in the defence establishment so you need to bear that in mind as well

I just read it. I know they are pro-Ukraine

I don’t see much cause for serious cheer. It’s still a painful slow grind. “Expect the war to continue into 2024…”

It reads to me like someone putting a positive gloss on a virtual stalemate (with SOME slow incremental gains by Ukraine)

But maybe that’s justified. Someone needs to cheerlead for Ukraine, esp as a potential Trump presidency looms. To reiterate, I think we should keep supplying weapons to
Kyiv, as long as they want to keep fighting

But we should give them our honest appraisal of the war, as well, even if it is negative

Then you don’t know how to read these reports. That’s extraordinarily positive overlaid with a note of caution.

Essentially the Ukrainian game plan is working: pinning the Russians at Bakhmut (which is politically important as the only gain they made in their last offensive) and attriting the forces in the south until they breakthrough to the coast.

The breakthrough is possibly close, helped by the Russians prioritising political objectives (“hold all ground”) over sound military doctrine (“trade space for attrition”)

I can read English. This is surely the key paragraph

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

The Indy is insistent. HS2 will NOT go to Euston and they will now “delay” the Manchester bit by 7 years which is tantamount to cancelling it

Extraordinary, explosive: if true. All those billions spent at Euston. Just sack everyone involved with this stupid idea

https://x.com/jenwilliams_ft/status/1706208341054169432?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

The delay is utterly meaningless frankly. It means the Northern leg will be determined by the incoming Labour government next year unless the polls change dramatically.

Over to you Starmer.

Is it meaningless ?
Presumably a policy change will have costs related to changes in contracts, even if it's looking several years ahead ( @Casino_Royale ?) ?

Only to change again in 12-18 months' time.

I note that after several years of intense work they seem to have downed tools at Euston. The cranes are still there but they never move

Almost as if they expect Euston to be abandoned…

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

The Indy is insistent. HS2 will NOT go to Euston and they will now “delay” the Manchester bit by 7 years which is tantamount to cancelling it

Extraordinary, explosive: if true. All those billions spent at Euston. Just sack everyone involved with this stupid idea

https://x.com/jenwilliams_ft/status/1706208341054169432?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

They are howling at the moon. Cancel the leg to Euston? Sure - if you have scrapped the entire network beyond Delta Junction then you don't need Euston. Hell, reconfigure the thing so that HS2 trains continue down the Liz line and have done with it.

But - and its a big but. The infrastructure work for Euston is at an advanced stage. Unless they are going to tip 100k tons of concrete into it then the works will remain like that - a big scar. As will the works about to be delaycancelled north of Delta.

With so much already built and other kit already here (such as TBMs), and the existing railway creaking under 30% more passengers, the resumption will be an easy call for the next government.

Whilst I take their point about costs, they are responsible for that as well. The spec for ohase 1 is absurd - not the proposed running speeds, that the infrastructure needs to be able to withstand the breakup of the planet or else the contractor gets sued. Rejig the contracts to build them to TGV or AVE spec and we're good to go.

Yep. This is Euston right now. If they abandon it what happens to all of that? What a shameful shameful debacle

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

The Indy is insistent. HS2 will NOT go to Euston and they will now “delay” the Manchester bit by 7 years which is tantamount to cancelling it

Extraordinary, explosive: if true. All those billions spent at Euston. Just sack everyone involved with this stupid idea

https://x.com/jenwilliams_ft/status/1706208341054169432?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

They are howling at the moon. Cancel the leg to Euston? Sure - if you have scrapped the entire network beyond Delta Junction then you don't need Euston. Hell, reconfigure the thing so that HS2 trains continue down the Liz line and have done with it.

But - and its a big but. The infrastructure work for Euston is at an advanced stage. Unless they are going to tip 100k tons of concrete into it then the works will remain like that - a big scar. As will the works about to be delaycancelled north of Delta.

With so much already built and other kit already here (such as TBMs), and the existing railway creaking under 30% more passengers, the resumption will be an easy call for the next government.

Whilst I take their point about costs, they are responsible for that as well. The spec for ohase 1 is absurd - not the proposed running speeds, that the infrastructure needs to be able to withstand the breakup of the planet or else the contractor gets sued. Rejig the contracts to build them to TGV or AVE spec and we're good to go.

Yep. This is Euston right now. If they abandon it what happens to all of that? What a shameful shameful debacle

All this assumes that the Tories dont' do a spiteful scorched earth retreat and order the 100kT of concrete tipped and the boring machines demolished in situ with explosive. Like TSR.2 production jigs, and many a Beeching closure such as the Belah viaduct.

Ye Twitter is simultaneously pointing out that if HS2 stops at Old Oak Common then

1. Central Birmingham to central London will take LONGER than it does now

2. The journey will require two train changes rather than zero as now

3. The OOC Solution will create other bottlenecks to the extent HS2 won’t actually free up greater access on the railways

So it means we will have created the worst, most pointless AND most expensive high speed rail way in the world

Leon said:

Ye Twitter is simultaneously pointing out that if HS2 stops at Old Oak Common then

1. Central Birmingham to central London will take LONGER than it does now

2. The journey will require two train changes rather than zero as now

3. The OOC Solution will create other bottlenecks to the extent HS2 won’t actually free up greater access on the railways

So it means we will have created the worst, most pointless AND most expensive high speed rail way in the world

What Leon said

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Ye Twitter is simultaneously pointing out that if HS2 stops at Old Oak Common then

1. Central Birmingham to central London will take LONGER than it does now

2. The journey will require two train changes rather than zero as now

3. The OOC Solution will create other bottlenecks to the extent HS2 won’t actually free up greater access on the railways

So it means we will have created the worst, most pointless AND most expensive high speed rail way in the world

What Leon said

He is not wrong.

Probably missed a lot of discourse about this over the weekend, but this is absolutely appalling from the Met:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/24/met-police-requests-support-from-army-after-officers-turn-in-firearms

Police obviously must be scrutinised for their use of force, especially lethal force, and the scrutiny should arguably be greater than for a typical civvy. Police are endowed with power and responsibility - if people don't do what they say a cop can just knick them and drag them away for a bit, they have the presumption of respect from most people and they have the ability to carry weapons that can kill or greatly harm people.

I also find the mindset that has seemingly come from the US that the life of a policeperson is somehow more important than the life of anyone else, and any risk they perceive is allowed to be neutralised, completely unacceptable. You aren't forced to be a copper, you ask to join. If you want to do that job, part of the idea is you protect and serve. That means that you are putting yourself in harms way to stop harm happening to others - and that should include potential perps because you don't know if a perp is guilty until they go through the process of justice. Any police officer handing in a gun now should not be allowed a gun again - they have signalled that they want to be cops not to uphold the process of law and order, but to be above it.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Penddu2 said:

While I was quietly confident about Wales chances v Australia, never in my wildest dreams did I expect that result. Not just the result but more importantly the performance. We were clinical and efficient - and error free. If we can repeat that performance we can beat anyone.

We will play Argentina or Samoa in QF - with the benefit of three weeks rest for most of the team (the draw has been extremely kind to Wales) and should push past them into the SF. In the SF anything can happen.....

It was very good, Penddu. Australia were awful but you can only beat what's in front of you. Sometimes poor opposition drags you down to their level, but it was the opposite here. Wales were clinical and composed. Not words that are always said of the National side!

The semi-final beckons. Who is it likely to be? Obviously they would be second favorites, whoever it is, but I think they would have a bit of a squeak against France. It's a 6-Nations side that they know well, and they wouldn't be overawed. NZ & SA probably have too much muscle and a flintier style.

Wales would beat England, I think, but it would be close...and fun!

Enjoy, whoever it is.


Edit: Btw I looked at the odds just before kick-off and was tempted to back Wales at evens, but kept the powder dry. What a mistake!

I have lost track of QF & SF permutations but it looks like Ireland v Wales and South Africa v Fiji which suggests a Ireland v South Africa rematch in the final...but you never know

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Chris said:

The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023

But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…

I said it was failING and I said they had a couple of months to change that. If they’ve done it: huzzah

But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”


Let’s see

ISW is quite conservative in its assessments

It’s also a cheerleader for the Ukrainians in the defence establishment so you need to bear that in mind as well

I just read it. I know they are pro-Ukraine

I don’t see much cause for serious cheer. It’s still a painful slow grind. “Expect the war to continue into 2024…”

It reads to me like someone putting a positive gloss on a virtual stalemate (with SOME slow incremental gains by Ukraine)

But maybe that’s justified. Someone needs to cheerlead for Ukraine, esp as a potential Trump presidency looms. To reiterate, I think we should keep supplying weapons to
Kyiv, as long as they want to keep fighting

But we should give them our honest appraisal of the war, as well, even if it is negative

Then you don’t know how to read these reports. That’s extraordinarily positive overlaid with a note of caution.

Essentially the Ukrainian game plan is working: pinning the Russians at Bakhmut (which is politically important as the only gain they made in their last offensive) and attriting the forces in the south until they breakthrough to the coast.

The breakthrough is possibly close, helped by the Russians prioritising political objectives (“hold all ground”) over sound military doctrine (“trade space for attrition”)

I can read English. This is surely the key paragraph


“The Ukrainian counteroffensive is in an extremely dynamic phase and ISW is not prepared to offer any confident forecast of events despite recent positive indicators. Recent promising reports of Ukrainian tactical progress, including breaking through some Russian field fortifications, in the Orikhiv area should not be read as a guarantee that Ukraine is on the cusp of a significant operational success. Observers should be patient with Ukraine's campaign design and should expect Ukraine’s counteroffensive to continue through winter
2023 and into spring 2024. Ukraine does not need to achieve a sudden and dramatic deep penetration to achieve success.”

I read that as a positive gloss on a modest breakthrough. But I hope your more positive spin on their positivity is positively judicious

That’s an important paragraph yes. And it’s much more positive than your interpretation

You can read English… but not military-bureaucratese

"The Home Secretary will travel to the US this week to make a speech on immigration in which she will question whether international conventions and legal frameworks designed more than 50 years ago are fit for purpose."

An international approach to asylum reform would be welcome, but the fag end of a government isn't really the best time to begin it...

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Looks like Brent Cross West station is being pushed back to December from October. Oh well.

Never mind, it'll make a nice Crimbo present to yourself. Bright side and all that.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Ye Twitter is simultaneously pointing out that if HS2 stops at Old Oak Common then

1. Central Birmingham to central London will take LONGER than it does now

2. The journey will require two train changes rather than zero as now

3. The OOC Solution will create other bottlenecks to the extent HS2 won’t actually free up greater access on the railways

So it means we will have created the worst, most pointless AND most expensive high speed rail way in the world

It is dumb AF.

It’s indescribably bad. If this is the result it will be the greatest infrastructure disaster in British history. I cannot think of its equal. Concorde?

At least Concorde looked glamorous in the end. It lifted the spirit even if it flopped on the market. Concorde!!

A £200 trillion high speed rail that only goes from outer Birmingham to south Neasden is not going to “lift the heart”

carnforth said:

"The Home Secretary will travel to the US this week to make a speech on immigration in which she will question whether international conventions and legal frameworks designed more than 50 years ago are fit for purpose."

An international approach to asylum reform would be welcome, but the fag end of a government isn't really the best time to begin it...

And Cruella is the last person on Earth you would trust to design it, or implement it

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Ye Twitter is simultaneously pointing out that if HS2 stops at Old Oak Common then

1. Central Birmingham to central London will take LONGER than it does now

2. The journey will require two train changes rather than zero as now

3. The OOC Solution will create other bottlenecks to the extent HS2 won’t actually free up greater access on the railways

So it means we will have created the worst, most pointless AND most expensive high speed rail way in the world

And that also means there will now be four railway termini to Birmingham: Euston, Marylebone, Paddington, and OOC.

Paddington will be indirect, however...

I stand corrected - for some reason I was convinced there was a direct service. Ta muchly.

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Ye Twitter is simultaneously pointing out that if HS2 stops at Old Oak Common then

1. Central Birmingham to central London will take LONGER than it does now

2. The journey will require two train changes rather than zero as now

3. The OOC Solution will create other bottlenecks to the extent HS2 won’t actually free up greater access on the railways

So it means we will have created the worst, most pointless AND most expensive high speed rail way in the world

It is dumb AF.

It’s indescribably bad. If this is the result it will be the greatest infrastructure disaster in British history. I cannot think of its equal. Concorde?

At least Concorde looked glamorous in the end. It lifted the spirit even if it flopped on the market. Concorde!!

A £200 trillion high speed rail that only goes from outer Birmingham to south Neasden is not going to “lift the heart”

Brunel's Atmospheric Railway? Tho' that was actually completed.

.

MattW said:

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

JosiasJessop said:

SkillBuilder on heat pumps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOqBNmcFMBQ

Morning.

He's quite the rantaloon, isn't he? A lot of numbers pulled out of thin air. Howard Cox goes into heating engineering.

Apparently a doubling of heat pump sales in 2022 on the way to a target for 2028 is a "miserable failure".

Hmmm.

BTW The actual scheme he is ranting about is defined here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1146981/clean_heat_market_mechanism.pdf

Yes, he does rant: but then again, the credit trading stuff does seem a little ... opaque.

It seems the sort of scheme where a few people will make lots of money... and not necessarily make anything any more green.

I think if the quotas are 4% (2023-4) rising to 6% (2024-2025) heat pump installations as a % of boiler installations, with each giving "one credit", and a trading possibility for surplus or shortfalls at the end of the year plus a financial penalty for shortfalls, the starting numbers are modest.

He does acknowledge that in his experience all boiler manufacturers he saw at the heating exhibition were already displaying heat pumps), then it is fairly modest.

Numbers are boiler installations in 2022 = approx 1.5-1.6 million. Heat pump installations in 2022 = 72k (but that includes newbuilds, which don't count towards credits). Supported boiler replacements seem to be about 50k-55k in 2022.

So the numbers are in the right area, but the risk as ever with this Govt is complexity and inadequate investment - as has killed several Green Deal and other schemes. We'll have to see if it encourages UK heat pump manufacture to grow.

AFAICS the actual scheme with the actual numbers is not live yet.

I don't understand why newbuilds wouldn't count.

I love my newbuild but the one thing that seems mad is it came with a gas boiler.

Retrofitting heat pumps onto old buildings is a challenge, why are new buildings still getting built with a view to retrofit them later on?

Seems to me like getting new builds onto heat pumps as standard would be a sensible move, especially since new builds should be (and ours is) very well insulated already, so ought to be able to be designed to be as suitable as possible from the get go.

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

RochdalePioneers said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

LostPassword said:

rottenborough said:

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

SandyRentool said:

AlsoLei said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular

How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?

Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB

Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes

Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes

No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.

Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours

Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience

I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.

But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.

Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.

Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?

The business case is shot for two reasons:

Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.

Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.

And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population

We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem

If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster

Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.

It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional

I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country

What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink

If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".

These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.

You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.

Do both.

Why is this all so frigging difficult?

As well as the money angle, the country simply doesn't have the workforce capacity. Pretty sure a PBer with direct experience (not naming 'cos I don't want to misattribute if I have remembered wrong) said that the country can only do one large Crossrail/HS2 project at a time. You would need to spend several years building that up before doing more, and you'd really want to be sure that you could afford to spend the future money on keeping that workforce employed on more projects in the future, or it would have been something of a waste.

We need a cross-party consensus on a 50% or 100% increase in infrastructure spending over the next 50 years, as a guaranteed %age of GDP (similar to Defence). That would give business the security to invest in more equipment and train more staff up.

Well, maybe, but if such a consensus came about as a result of political pressure from the voters then it would likely be a lot more durable.

And, anyway, that's the easy part. The difficult part is working out how to pay for it. Britain is in a deep, deep, hole, and still digging deeper. The implied drops in personal consumption that would be necessary to: close the budget deficit, close the current account deficit, keep up with the costs of the demographic transition *and* pay for increased infrastructure spending (let alone the funding crisis in social care, or demands for rearmament, or education, the financial collapse of local government, underfunding of the criminal justice system, etc, etc) must be pretty eye-watering.

Paying for it is simple. We are fiscally sovereign - we print the money we pay our debts in. As long as we spend it on something sensible the markets are happy to support it.

Infrastructure spending to bring us up to the same standards as Spain is sensible. Big infrastructure projects have a positive and long term economic benefit as well as a short term one as you build them.

So. Borrow. Invest. Gain a return on the investment. Capitalism.

That the fucking Tory Party no longer do capitalism - and have poisoned the well so badly that any capitalism is met with "eugh who will pay for that" is the reason why this country is as fucked as is it. But replacing capitalism with spivism was brilliant for the people who *own* the Tory party, so...

Printing money is not an ideal solution. And that boat sailed two years ago, its maxed out already.

The Bank of England selling the money it printed at a loss is considerably worse.

The calamitous mismanagement by the
Bank of England in the past a bit over 12 months, even worse than the mismanagement that had preceded for the prior 25 years, is really not good enough. Taxpayers are on the hook for virtually a blank cheque of the Bank selling money it printed at a loss now.

Its frankly not good enough to say the Bank of England is independent, then let them mismanage the bit of the economy they're responsible for then hand the bill to taxpayers. Its atrocious this growing scandal isn't getting more publicity and the buck should stop with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, not an 'independent' Bank.

You are getting hung up on whether the BofE makes a profit or not. It’s irrelevant.

They created money. This was used to buy government bonds *direct from the government* to fund spending. This increased the money supply.

They are now selling the bonds *into the market* for less than they paid.

The loss doesn’t matter - it’s just an accounting entry. More meaningful is it means that the impact of the monetary expansion isn’t being completely sterilised (which was the Bank’s hope). But that’s kind of inevitable given the issues of the last few years.

What I think your alternative is - holding the bonds to maturity - means that there is no accounting loss, but it also means that the monetary expansion is not reversed which will tend to put upwards pressure on asset price inflation (more money chasing the same amount of goods)

The bank is doing the right thing. It’s purpose is to execute on monetary policy not to make a profit.

A profit or not is irrelevant, I agree, but a loss is not irrelevant.

You are double-counting and that's not acceptable. You claim the loss is an accounting entry, but you can only come to that premise if you accept that the Bank was printing money and that the accounting 'loss' will just forever remain as printed money.

The Bank is still operating under the façade that its not printing money and that QT is "just an accounting exercise". The money creation was the accounting entry in the first place and that makes the loss of money very, very real.

That loss needs to be accounted for now. Either the Bank needs to write down its losses and publicly admit that it was lying to the public for years and that it was printing money and may print money again - and destroy its credibility. Or the Treasury needs to recapitalise the Bank from its losses and leave the taxpayers on the hook for that - which apparently is what is being done, because probably quite rightly having the
Bank of England's reputation completely in tatters is not worthwhile. In which case the loss is very, very real.

Across the rest of the developed world other countries are not seeing their Banks engage in firesale of bonds at depressed values and those countries have comparable or lower rates of inflation, so its not even as if the policy is working well.

Furthermore if you're going to sell bonds or any other asset there's a right and a wrong way to do it. The wrong way, as is happening now and as happened with the gold under Gordon Brown is to pre-announce your intentions then have a firesale with the asset price depressed. That enriches spivs who can capitalise on your stupidity, but it is a stupid way to behave. The smart way to do it, as the Treasury has been doing with the Bank stocks it acquired is to announce after the fact when a sale has been done but to be circumspect about it until then, that way you can sell the assets at best value for money..

No, I’m not double counting

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “you can only reach that conclusion if you accept that the Bank was printing money”. Of course it was printing money. That was the entire purpose of QE.

A “loss” is a P&L entry. It’s irrelevant for a government entity. What matters is sterilisation - a balance sheet item.

The Bank has two options: it can hold to maturity, which means that (a) QE will be fully sterilised at maturity but (b) M4 will remain inflated for longer; or (a) sell now and accept that the QE will not be fully sterilised.

They have made a judgement that it is better to bear down on inflation by partially sterilising as soon as possible.

Tactics around banks stocks and the BofE sales are not comparable. One is explicitly a matter of policy which should be transparent. The other is an asset that the government happens to own and therefore should be sold in a value maximising fashion.

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Chris said:

The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023

But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…

I said it was failING and I said they had a couple of months to change that. If they’ve done it: huzzah

But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”


Let’s see

ISW is quite conservative in its assessments

It’s also a cheerleader for the Ukrainians in the defence establishment so you need to bear that in mind as well

I just read it. I know they are pro-Ukraine

I don’t see much cause for serious cheer. It’s still a painful slow grind. “Expect the war to continue into 2024…”

It reads to me like someone putting a positive gloss on a virtual stalemate (with SOME slow incremental gains by Ukraine)

But maybe that’s justified. Someone needs to cheerlead for Ukraine, esp as a potential Trump presidency looms. To reiterate, I think we should keep supplying weapons to
Kyiv, as long as they want to keep fighting

But we should give them our honest appraisal of the war, as well, even if it is negative

Then you don’t know how to read these reports. That’s extraordinarily positive overlaid with a note of caution.

Essentially the Ukrainian game plan is working: pinning the Russians at Bakhmut (which is politically important as the only gain they made in their last offensive) and attriting the forces in the south until they breakthrough to the coast.

The breakthrough is possibly close, helped by the Russians prioritising political objectives (“hold all ground”) over sound military doctrine (“trade space for attrition”)

I can read English. This is surely the key paragraph


“The Ukrainian counteroffensive is in an extremely dynamic phase and ISW is not prepared to offer any confident forecast of events despite recent positive indicators. Recent promising reports of Ukrainian tactical progress, including breaking through some Russian field fortifications, in the Orikhiv area should not be read as a guarantee that Ukraine is on the cusp of a significant operational success. Observers should be patient with Ukraine's campaign design and should expect Ukraine’s counteroffensive to continue through winter
2023 and into spring 2024. Ukraine does not need to achieve a sudden and dramatic deep penetration to achieve success.”

I read that as a positive gloss on a modest breakthrough. But I hope your more positive spin on their positivity is positively judicious

That’s an important paragraph yes. And it’s much more positive than your interpretation

You can read English… but not military-bureaucratese

I don't think that is military in tenor at all. It is more pseudo-academic waffle which isn't surprising as ISW is a neocon think tank funded by murky DC money. The paragraph basically says they don't know what's going to happen which makes them just like the rest of us except they're getting paid to say it.

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

The Indy is insistent. HS2 will NOT go to Euston and they will now “delay” the Manchester bit by 7 years which is tantamount to cancelling it

Extraordinary, explosive: if true. All those billions spent at Euston. Just sack everyone involved with this stupid idea

https://x.com/jenwilliams_ft/status/1706208341054169432?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

The delay is utterly meaningless frankly. It means the Northern leg will be determined by the incoming Labour government next year unless the polls change dramatically.

Over to you Starmer.

Is it meaningless ?
Presumably a policy change will have costs related to changes in contracts, even if it's looking several years ahead ( @Casino_Royale ?) ?

Only to change again in 12-18 months' time.

Yes.

Also, and this isn't widely known, almost all the construction contracts at HS2 were let on a cost-plus basis (which means contractors are rewarded at their cost, plus their overhead, plus a - decent - profit) for any work they do, and compensated for any change or delay on top, which essentially means they take little to no risk.

This can happen when the scope and risk allocation isn't clear, such that the supply chain simply won't take on the works without it, which is exactly what has happened with HS2: the business case kept changing, and so did the core scope (which was overengineered to the original spec of speed, and then never revised to reflect the modified capacity argument) all the while as the network was meddled with on a CapEx basis whilst the line was porked out to deal with political challenges and objections. And, they still haven't made a decision on Euston.

It's a case study of poor sponsorship and client control.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Every single Met firearms officer "steps back".

When Lucy Letby was charged, no nurses stepped back.

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Chris said:

The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023

But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…

I said it was failING and I said they had a couple of months to change that. If they’ve done it: huzzah

But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”


Let’s see

ISW is quite conservative in its assessments

It’s also a cheerleader for the Ukrainians in the defence establishment so you need to bear that in mind as well

I just read it. I know they are pro-Ukraine

I don’t see much cause for serious cheer. It’s still a painful slow grind. “Expect the war to continue into 2024…”

It reads to me like someone putting a positive gloss on a virtual stalemate (with SOME slow incremental gains by Ukraine)

But maybe that’s justified. Someone needs to cheerlead for Ukraine, esp as a potential Trump presidency looms. To reiterate, I think we should keep supplying weapons to
Kyiv, as long as they want to keep fighting

But we should give them our honest appraisal of the war, as well, even if it is negative

Then you don’t know how to read these reports. That’s extraordinarily positive overlaid with a note of caution.

Essentially the Ukrainian game plan is working: pinning the Russians at Bakhmut (which is politically important as the only gain they made in their last offensive) and attriting the forces in the south until they breakthrough to the coast.

The breakthrough is possibly close, helped by the Russians prioritising political objectives (“hold all ground”) over sound military doctrine (“trade space for attrition”)

I can read English. This is surely the key paragraph

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

The Indy is insistent. HS2 will NOT go to Euston and they will now “delay” the Manchester bit by 7 years which is tantamount to cancelling it

Extraordinary, explosive: if true. All those billions spent at Euston. Just sack everyone involved with this stupid idea

https://x.com/jenwilliams_ft/status/1706208341054169432?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

The delay is utterly meaningless frankly. It means the Northern leg will be determined by the incoming Labour government next year unless the polls change dramatically.

Over to you Starmer.

Is it meaningless ?
Presumably a policy change will have costs related to changes in contracts, even if it's looking several years ahead ( @Casino_Royale ?) ?

Only to change again in 12-18 months' time.

I note that after several years of intense work they seem to have downed tools at Euston. The cranes are still there but they never move

Almost as if they expect Euston to be abandoned…

They don't have an instruction.

They will be charging for site overhead and mobilisation all the time, mind you.

"Long-Term Decisions for a Brighter Future:

Had no idea Sunak had decided that parody was the best way to try and rescue their poll deficit. Then you look at what they are going to do and its beyond parody.

Carnyx said:

eek said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Ye Twitter is simultaneously pointing out that if HS2 stops at Old Oak Common then

1. Central Birmingham to central London will take LONGER than it does now

2. The journey will require two train changes rather than zero as now

3. The OOC Solution will create other bottlenecks to the extent HS2 won’t actually free up greater access on the railways

So it means we will have created the worst, most pointless AND most expensive high speed rail way in the world

And that also means there will now be four railway termini to Birmingham: Euston, Marylebone, Paddington, and OOC.

Paddington will be indirect, however...

And there are stories about plans to close Marylebone and Fenchurch Street (because hey it's prime real estate and we want the cash)...

I hadn't heard those. Marylebone seemed to be doing very well with the new lines to e.g. Oxford via Banbury when I was last there.

I believe there were plans to close Marylebone and reroute the High Wycombe service into Marylebone and Aylesbury trains to stop at Amersham, in 1983.

The picture has changed completely now. The Chiltern Railway services are fabulous, massively improved from 1983 and hugely popular. Marylebone is going nowhere.

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

Ye Twitter is simultaneously pointing out that if HS2 stops at Old Oak Common then

1. Central Birmingham to central London will take LONGER than it does now

2. The journey will require two train changes rather than zero as now

3. The OOC Solution will create other bottlenecks to the extent HS2 won’t actually free up greater access on the railways

So it means we will have created the worst, most pointless AND most expensive high speed rail way in the world

Nah. We won’t.

I give you the Train to Nowhere.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/29/california-high-speed-rail-bullet-train

I think we win. They’ve only spent $5bn. We’re way ahead of that

Dura_Ace said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Chris said:

The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023

But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…

I said it was failING and I said they had a couple of months to change that. If they’ve done it: huzzah

But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”


Let’s see

ISW is quite conservative in its assessments

It’s also a cheerleader for the Ukrainians in the defence establishment so you need to bear that in mind as well

I just read it. I know they are pro-Ukraine

I don’t see much cause for serious cheer. It’s still a painful slow grind. “Expect the war to continue into 2024…”

It reads to me like someone putting a positive gloss on a virtual stalemate (with SOME slow incremental gains by Ukraine)

But maybe that’s justified. Someone needs to cheerlead for Ukraine, esp as a potential Trump presidency looms. To reiterate, I think we should keep supplying weapons to
Kyiv, as long as they want to keep fighting

But we should give them our honest appraisal of the war, as well, even if it is negative

Then you don’t know how to read these reports. That’s extraordinarily positive overlaid with a note of caution.

Essentially the Ukrainian game plan is working: pinning the Russians at Bakhmut (which is politically important as the only gain they made in their last offensive) and attriting the forces in the south until they breakthrough to the coast.

The breakthrough is possibly close, helped by the Russians prioritising political objectives (“hold all ground”) over sound military doctrine (“trade space for attrition”)

I can read English. This is surely the key paragraph


“The Ukrainian counteroffensive is in an extremely dynamic phase and ISW is not prepared to offer any confident forecast of events despite recent positive indicators. Recent promising reports of Ukrainian tactical progress, including breaking through some Russian field fortifications, in the Orikhiv area should not be read as a guarantee that Ukraine is on the cusp of a significant operational success. Observers should be patient with Ukraine's campaign design and should expect Ukraine’s counteroffensive to continue through winter
2023 and into spring 2024. Ukraine does not need to achieve a sudden and dramatic deep penetration to achieve success.”

I read that as a positive gloss on a modest breakthrough. But I hope your more positive spin on their positivity is positively judicious

That’s an important paragraph yes. And it’s much more positive than your interpretation

You can read English… but not military-bureaucratese

I don't think that is military in tenor at all. It is more pseudo-academic waffle which isn't surprising as ISW is a neocon think tank funded by murky DC money. The paragraph basically says they don't know what's going to happen which makes them just like the rest of us except they're getting paid to say it.

I read it at saying “ok we don’t know what’s really happening but good things MIGHT be happening so please please please keep funding Ukraine and don’t listen to the Putin types kthxbye”

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

The Indy is insistent. HS2 will NOT go to Euston and they will now “delay” the Manchester bit by 7 years which is tantamount to cancelling it

Extraordinary, explosive: if true. All those billions spent at Euston. Just sack everyone involved with this stupid idea

https://x.com/jenwilliams_ft/status/1706208341054169432?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

The delay is utterly meaningless frankly. It means the Northern leg will be determined by the incoming Labour government next year unless the polls change dramatically.

Over to you Starmer.

We need to start seriously considering the possibility that Rishi Sunak is in fact a wally.

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Chris said:

The ISW's daily assessment suggests that the Russians are now in deep trouble in Zaporizhia, having adopted a mistaken policy of trying to counterattack rather than falling back to conserve resources - probably for political reasons - and that "Ukrainian forces may be able to achieve an operationally significant breakthrough in the southern frontline" if three assumptions are correct. The ISW believes the assumptions are valid.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-24-2023

But…but… Leon assured us it was a failure…

I said it was failING and I said they had a couple of months to change that. If they’ve done it: huzzah

But I still have my doubts. Quite a few caveats in there. “May”, “suggests”


Let’s see

ISW is quite conservative in its assessments

It’s also a cheerleader for the Ukrainians in the defence establishment so you need to bear that in mind as well

I just read it. I know they are pro-Ukraine

I don’t see much cause for serious cheer. It’s still a painful slow grind. “Expect the war to continue into 2024…”

It reads to me like someone putting a positive gloss on a virtual stalemate (with SOME slow incremental gains by Ukraine)

But maybe that’s justified. Someone needs to cheerlead for Ukraine, esp as a potential Trump presidency looms. To reiterate, I think we should keep supplying weapons to
Kyiv, as long as they want to keep fighting

But we should give them our honest appraisal of the war, as well, even if it is negative

Then you don’t know how to read these reports. That’s extraordinarily positive overlaid with a note of caution.

Essentially the Ukrainian game plan is working: pinning the Russians at Bakhmut (which is politically important as the only gain they made in their last offensive) and attriting the forces in the south until they breakthrough to the coast.

The breakthrough is possibly close, helped by the Russians prioritising political objectives (“hold all ground”) over sound military doctrine (“trade space for attrition”)

I can read English. This is surely the key paragraph


“The Ukrainian counteroffensive is in an extremely dynamic phase and ISW is not prepared to offer any confident forecast of events despite recent positive indicators. Recent promising reports of Ukrainian tactical progress, including breaking through some Russian field fortifications, in the Orikhiv area should not be read as a guarantee that Ukraine is on the cusp of a significant operational success. Observers should be patient with Ukraine's campaign design and should expect Ukraine’s counteroffensive to continue through winter
2023 and into spring 2024. Ukraine does not need to achieve a sudden and dramatic deep penetration to achieve success.”

I read that as a positive gloss on a modest breakthrough. But I hope your more positive spin on their positivity is positively judicious

There was some interesting commentary from Ukraine over the weekend that the counteroffensive would continue over the winter.

A war of rapid manoeuvre might have been rendered impossible by the extensive defences and vast number of mines the Russians have been able to put in place - but the other side of the coin is that the tactics of painstaking grind Ukraine has been forced to develop (supported by more accurate artillery systems) can possibly continue through the winter.

Another angle I saw was that as the offensive was being mainly done by soldiers, and not armed vehicles, they are less affected by boggy conditions. Just as long as the artillery and support vehicles can get through to supply the people - and that's more likely if you're taking kilometres a week, rather than a day.

Malmesbury said:

a

Eabhal said:

rottenborough said:

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

SandyRentool said:

AlsoLei said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular

How has it proven unpopular? Have there been any polls?

Well, they've withdrawn the whole idea after floating it consistently in multiple papers and TV studios for days. So I don't know about the polling, but I suggest it wend down like a leather bucket of cold Irish sick with various MPs, businessmen, mayors, pundits, grandees, and political advisors who can read social media and PB

Was HS2 a bad idea badly done? Yes, and yes

Do we now have to follow through and finish the damn thing? Yes

No we don't. If it doesn't make sense any more, we should stop.

Sunk cost fallacy? Except this could easily have been applied to so many infra endeavours

Yes, we have to finish it now, and then learn from the sobering experience

I'm quite sure that the business case for it no longer looks as good as it once did, given all the fucking around that's been done to the project already.

But if they trash it, they might as well cancel all infrastructure projects for the next 20 years. Investors and contractors will see public projects as being too risky, and no-one will want to touch them.

Only this week, the government have been trying to find investment partners for the £30bn Sizewell C nuclear power plant, which will be the next biggest project after Hinkley Point C and HS2.

Who the fuck would sign up to invest in anything if HS2 collapses at this late stage?

The business case is shot for two reasons:

Former 5 day a week commuters either WFH permanently or adopting a hybrid pattern. So no need for extra commuter trains.

Business meetings being held in jimjams over Teams rather than in person. So no need for an Executive Relief Train to get folk from the northern wastelands into That London for 9am.

And yet high speed trains are successfully operated in countries like Italy, which isn't THAT much bigger than the UK, or in Spain, which has a much smaller population

We didn't need to go for this ultra-impressive high speed spec, that was a main part of the problem

If you watch a WCML train shooting through Essex my God they go fast. 100-150mph? You don't need faster

Erm, what are you on? West Coast trains in Essex? I don't think even the East Coast ones go through Essex.

It's late. I'm tired and mildy emotional

I have seen trains shooting through towns north of London and thought, "fucking hell, they're fast" - certainly fast enough for the UK. 200kph? We don't need 300kph. We are a small compact country

What we DO painfully need is metro systems in the north that interlink

If Sunak cancels HS2 but announces comprehensive tram networks for all northern cities and their suburbs, integrated with a new east-west intercity line, then you really would have some "levelling up".

These urban areas are perfect for trams, running full pelt between towns while replacing buses in the city centres. Have the same rolling stock everywhere, design standards etc, so it's easy to scale, and have one ticketing system across rail & tram, capped at £10 per day.

You don't have to tear up countryside or knock buildings down, as you just run them along the roads. Bypass the NIMBYs.

Do both.

Why is this all so frigging difficult?

That would be good too!

Glasgow, Manchester/Liverpool, Birmingham, Bradford/Leeds are the obvious candidates for massive tram systems given the number of car-dependent satellite towns.

But once you get going, you shouldn't stop. That's what's so infuriating - we build one new line (Edinburgh) and then fail to retain the expertise, or provide business certainty, by dawdling for a few years.

The Edinburgh tram system achieved one spectacular success.

It succeeded in convincing a generation of politicians that a tram project is political graveyard.

I think HS2 will likely follow the Edinburgh Trams and Crossrail "journey".

Political cowardice, incompetence, increased costs, lots of whining from the motoring lobby. Years or decades late.

And yet significantly higher patronage than expected. Over capacity immediately. Benefits not included in the business case appear out of nowhere.

Commuters jump out of their cars en masse. Increased footfall in local businesses. Huge economies of scale - the original line has seen a doubling of passengers itself, and Lothian Bus passenger numbers grew too.

BUILD IT