HS2 high-speed London-Birmingham route rail project - discussion

[Chilli.s]

Choo choo mutherfuckers gravy train a rollin

 

[SpookyFrank]

I know which I’d rather have

Neither? And also some new hospitals and a school or two and maybe a functional train service to somewhere that isn't London?

 

[T & P]

Neither? And also some new hospitals and a school or two and maybe a functional train service to somewhere that isn't London?

Yes, like most people I would love shiny TGVs all over the land like they enjoy in the Continent, but a fraction of the £107bn budget would be enough even in this country to reopen the entire portion of the network killed off by Beeching.

 

[pseudonarcissus]

Neither? And also some new hospitals and a school or two and maybe a functional train service to somewhere that isn't London?

Maybe. It’s interesting that there has been a huge public debate about HS-2 and pretty much no debate about Trident.
HS-2 will definitely be worth it if the M6 is rewilded into a nature corridor.

 

[teuchter]

a fraction of the £107bn budget would be enough even in this country to reopen the entire portion of the network killed off by Beeching.

You've got this all costed up, no doubt.

 

[Cid]

If you take England instead of the UK, then you'll find it's got a higher population density than Japan. Of course, perhaps you can get a similar result by excluding Hokkaido. Anyway, what's relevant is the areas you're actually trying to build the line through.

To be fair most of Japan's population is concentrated on narrow coastal bands, which is also where the Shinkansen routes are. The interior is mountainous and sparsely populated.

 

[T & P]

You've got this all costed up, no doubt.

No more than you or anyone else who isn’t an expert in the field, but I’d still be willing to bet reopening preexisting railway routes, many of which still free of obstructions and only requiring the relaying of the tracks and rehabilitation of the stations, would cost a shit lot less than 107bn even in this country.

I am puzzled by your apparent position on this. In other words, if it was your job to choose between restoring the routes and branch lines wiped off by Beeching and HS2, even assuming their cost would be the same, would you actually choose HS2?

 

[teuchter]

No more than you or anyone else who isn’t an expert in the field, but I’d still be willing to bet reopening preexisting railway routes, many of which still free of obstructions and only requiring the relaying of the tracks and rehabilitation of the stations, would cost a shit lot less than 107bn even in this country.

I am puzzled by your apparent position on this. In other words, if it was your job to choose between restoring the routes and branch lines wiped off by Beeching and HS2, even assuming their cost would be the same, would you actually choose HS2?

If you could restore all or even 95% of the lines (and stations and other necessary infrastructure) wiped out by Beeching, I'd quite possibly choose that. I am pretty confident it would be hugely more expensive than HS2 though.

Ideally we'd do both, and close most motorways.

 

[hash tag]

Dp

 

[hash tag]

I know which I’d rather have

 

[SpookyFrank]

Maybe. It’s interesting that there has been a huge public debate about HS-2 and pretty much no debate about Trident.
HS-2 will definitely be worth it if the M6 is rewilded into a nature corridor.

The press won't countenance a debate on nukes. Anyone even raising the issue is a mad terrorist or something.

 

[Dogsauce]

No more than you or anyone else who isn’t an expert in the field, but I’d still be willing to bet reopening preexisting railway routes, many of which still free of obstructions and only requiring the relaying of the tracks and rehabilitation of the stations, would cost a shit lot less than 107bn even in this country.

I am puzzled by your apparent position on this. In other words, if it was your job to choose between restoring the routes and branch lines wiped off by Beeching and HS2, even assuming their cost would be the same, would you actually choose HS2?

Very few routes closed by Beeching are free from obstruction, especially within built-up areas where you’d need to do the most work. That’s a lot of houses, supermarkets and industrial estates you’d need to buy off and knock down. Quite a lot of closed routes have roads built on them. Many of these routes closed in the first place because they were winding, slow, ran through sparsely populated areas, didn’t connect to places people wanted to go to and required a lot of maintenance (the bottom half of the Waverley route for example, so no it isn’t coming back despite the vocal campaigning by scenery enthusiasts). With even the most basic station costs 10-20 million, and reopening Bristol-Portishead where the track is still down and 75% still in use costing £200 million the money won’t go far at all. It’s also not just a case of putting the stations and track back, there’s stock and staff needed, timetabling, electrical supply, signalling (very expensive), capacity upgrades on connected routes which are busier than ever (you’d need to build stuff like HS2 has to allow this capacity). Most of this stuff is lost and gone.

(there are routes I would put back, but there are too many campaigns for scenic but completely unviable reopenings that drown out sensible suggestions)

 

[Artaxerxes]

Re population density: whereas it’s undoubtedly true of Europe, Japan has a more concentrated population density than the UK (347 vs 276 per sq. km.). Yet they still spend a minuscule amount per km compared to the UK. Complex tunnels under London are never going to account for all of the gargantuan price tag difference.

It helps that land and property are managed well Japan. Homes generally get pulled down every 20-30 years rather than being seen as permanent retirement pots.

The government tbf is also quite strict.

 

[MickiQ]

Another aspect of it that hasn’t been talked about much- as far as I have noticed myself anyway- is the environmental cost of the proposed speed.

I don’t have any links at hand to back it up right now but I am sure I remember reading articles in the past about how exponentially more energy demanding high speed travel gets once you get past the ‘standard’ 300 kph/ 190 mph speed.

There has been little or no information about the rolling stock they intend to use, but a speed of 250 mph (400 kph) has been widely touted throughout. This is a very high speed for non-mag railways, and I suspect the energy consumption difference between 300 and 400 kph is actually very substantial. For such a short distance between London and Scotland it seems extravagant.

True but it's still less than an aircraft against which it needs to travel fast enough to compete.

 

[Cid]

Another aspect of it that hasn’t been talked about much- as far as I have noticed myself anyway- is the environmental cost of the proposed speed.

I don’t have any links at hand to back it up right now but I am sure I remember reading articles in the past about how exponentially more energy demanding high speed travel gets once you get past the ‘standard’ 300 kph/ 190 mph speed.

There has been little or no information about the rolling stock they intend to use, but a speed of 250 mph (400 kph) has been widely touted throughout. This is a very high speed for non-mag railways, and I suspect the energy consumption difference between 300 and 400 kph is actually very substantial. For such a short distance between London and Scotland it seems extravagant.

Hence why they look like this:

Rather than:

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The long noses of those high speed units are for sound reduction rather that outright aerodynamics.

 

[Cid]

The long noses of those high speed units are for sound reduction rather that outright aerodynamics.

Fortunately they're closely linked.

 

[teuchter]

True but it's still less than an aircraft against which it needs to travel fast enough to compete.

This is the thing with the energy calculations; it's true that it increases exponentially with speed but variations in the energy used for traction can turn out not to be the most significant factor in determining overall energy use per passenger-km. Energy use per passenger-km depends a lot on things like how full you can run the trains and that is connected to how many people you can attract from other modes.

Anyone really interested in this can read this:

[PDF] Comparing environmental impact of conventional and high speed rail - Free Download PDF

Download Comparing environmental impact of conventional and high speed rail...

silo.tips

Also, the capacity of the line is related to how many trains per hour you can run and that is also connected to the speeds the trains can run at.

For those worrying about the environmental impact of building new lines, it's worth bearing in mind the fact that a high speed double track line (about 25m wide) can carry more passengers per hour than a six lane motorway (about 75m wide) and the faster the trains can run, potentially the more favourable that comparison becomes. So if the question of land take is sensitive (and it clearly is in the case of HS2) then there are good arguments for making most efficient use of that land, and that involves running at a greater speed.

 

[Teaboy]

I get some of these points, but 'frontier engineering' is over-egging the pudding a bit. It's London to Birmingham ffs. Eighty-odd miles. Mountains: nil, coastlines: nil, canyons: nil, bandits: thousands, but all of them already on the company payroll.

Well 'frontier' is clearly just a turn of phrase not literally the American frontier, this being said most of the things you describe would be a lot easier and cheaper to route a railway through than what HS2 is doing.

We have actually just completed deliveries to a project where bandits were a potential problem. Turns out armed guards are reasonably cheap, certainly cheaper than building a 1km long concrete basement in 7m of clay.

 

[hitmouse]

If anyone's free around Central London at lunchtime tomorrow:

HS2 Euston protest on Friday as bosses deny Unite access to construction workers

…

www.unitetheunion.org

A joint venture company consisting of Skanska-Costain-Strabag that is seriously hindering legitimate trade union access to construction workers building the Euston tunnels of the HS2 railway has been called out by Unite the union.

Unite construction members will be holding a central London demonstration outside the Skanska-Costain-Strabag Joint Venture site on Friday (6 August) over the consortium’s flouting of the HS2 agreement by not allowing union officials ‘meaningful’ access to the site.

The HS2 protest will be at the corner of Hampstead Road and Roberts Street NW1 3EL (close to Euston Station, London) from 12 midday to 14:00 on Friday (6 August).

The demonstration is the start of a long term campaign to stop the union-busting activities of companies like Skanska and Costain which are renowned for blacklisting union members.

Unite national officer for construction Jerry Swain said: “This joint venture made up of leading construction companies have union-busting ingrained in their DNA and a burning desire to break the strong bond between Unite and construction workers – that will never happen.

“These companies loathe Unite as we stand up for our members in all weathers fighting and campaigning for decent pay and employment conditions, as well as the highest possible health & safety standards in the industry.

“We have already found Costain/Skanska sites on HS2 where workers have been robbed of overtime rates, death and serious injury cover, paid holidays and workers paid through payroll companies - we don’t need to ask what they have to hide because we know.

“Now they are breaking the HS2 agreement by not allowing Unite officials’ meaningful access to the site – we will continue to protest at the unacceptable behaviour of this multi-national joint venture until they realise that agreements freely entered ino can’t be so easily discarded.

“These demonstrations will not only continue, with the ensuing reputational damage to the companies involved, but will spread to include other areas where Skanska-Costain-Strabag currently work. We will not stop until union officials are allowed on site.”

 

[teuchter]

 

[Badgers]

HS2's east leg set to be axed to save £40bn in mockery of PM's 'level up' pledge

The cost of HS2 has shot up from £32.7billion when approved and the eastern leg will now be all but axed despite Transport Secretary Grant Shapps vowing to build it in full as recently as May

www.mirror.co.uk

#worldbeating levelling up

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

This fucking country

 

[Badgers]

This fucking country

Spend the money on the NHS instead

 

[SpookyFrank]

Major projects body brands HS2 phase 2b ‘unachievable’ | Construction News

HS2 phase 2b has been given a red ‘unachievable’ rating by the Infrastructure Projects Authority. The ‘Y-shaped’ branches of the line between Crewe and

www.constructionnews.co.uk

This seems to be an internal government report, describing the Brum-Leeds and Crewe-Manchester branches as 'unachieveable'.

E2a: I realise this falls short of a final nail in 2b's coffin but I expect that'll either be slipped out under the radar while something worse is happening or just never officially confirmed.

Well, something worse is now happening and sure enough news of the likely shitcanning of HS2b has mysteriously leaked out of whitehall.

HS2's east leg set to be axed to save £40bn in mockery of PM's 'level up' pledge

The cost of HS2 has shot up from £32.7billion when approved and the eastern leg will now be all but axed despite Transport Secretary Grant Shapps vowing to build it in full as recently as May

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Badgers]

Wonder what the overall cost and waste is/will be.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Wonder what the overall cost and waste is/will be.

Both numbers will be the same.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The cost of HS2 has shot up from £32.7billion when approved in 2012 to £107.7billion.

 

[Badgers]

Both numbers will be the same.

But it will shave 20 minutes off the journey that hardly anyone will do

 

[Badgers]

The cost of HS2 has shot up from £32.7billion when approved in 2012 to £107.7billion.

Inflation?