HS2 high-speed London-Birmingham route rail project - discussion
- Thread starter Oswaldtwistle
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's not quite an argument against the link, though. It's an argument for nationalisation, if anything. None of us is surprised that the operations of capitalism leads to the rich being catered for preferentially, surely?
coley
Well-Known Member
http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/allister-heath/six-reasons-rail-plan-mistake
Bloke on NN last night, made a good case.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Presumably they'll be similar but a bit more, like HS1. It is a bit annoying being charged more for it, tbh.
As Crispy says, the dfT argue that fare prices will be similar to those on the existing network. Moreover, Birmingham City Council - which supports HS2 - evidently does not share Sandra Tuppen's concerns, and I suspect they'd be among the first to complain if they thought there was a risk of Brum being left only with super-expensive services.
Meanwhile, with respect, the question is still outstanding: if you oppose HS2, what is your alternative?
Because, of course, some hack for City AM counts as a rail expert.
Billy Bullshit strikes again...
*edit* At a wee dig around I see he's actually the editor, but so what? He's no more a 'rail expert' than most other hacks. Moreover, a rabidly right-wing paper like City AM is exactly where you'd expect to find that kind of scepticism about major capital projects.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
this.
Ted Striker
Foot's on the other hand
The mistake is not the rail link - it is that shit like this wasn't done 20 years ago. Granted, it's maybe not ideal but only really goes a smidgen of the way to the inevitable realisation that cars need to be fucked off pronto and much more needs to be spent on rail. Basically.
That's an anti-HS2 campaign site. The proposals you quote were submitted to Network Rail, among others for alternatives to HS2. From their report:
Moreover, we are talking about a route that has already had £10bn or thereabouts spent on it in the last decade, with enormous disruption. There is scope for further improvement, as NR acknowledges, but not as much as anti-HS2 campaigners are claiming and not without major cost and far more disruption than building a separate line would create.
coley
Well-Known Member
Mebbes a better alternative would be electric cars and the 32 billion spent on nuclear generation, just an idea.
coley
Well-Known Member
Ok, mebbes this will be more helpful, though i only had time to read the conclusions/Because, of course, some hack for City AM counts as a rail expert.
Billy Bullshit strikes again...
*edit* At a wee dig around I see he's actually the editor, but so what? He's no more a 'rail expert' than most other hacks. Moreover, a rabidly right-wing paper like City AM is exactly where you'd expect to find that kind of scepticism about major capital projects.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...&sig=AHIEtbTYUmrjB0zTA3ssL2iVp1Mk0pxASg&pli=1
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
People can still drive, if that's what they want. Most won't even have a choice unless the HS2 is built.
coley
Well-Known Member
Not an argument, more a casual observation.
That is rather more interesting. Thank you. I don't have time to read it line by line, but I have skimmed over it and read sections in detail. Its case against HS2 boils down to three principal allegations:
1. That the costs of HS2 have been underplayed and its benefits exaggerated, partly because of flawed modelling and partly because of wrong data being entered.
Tbh I'm very sceptical of the kind of modelling that's being done by both sides here. I don't pretend to understand the fine detail, but it looks to me as if most of these models rest on so many assumptions that their predictive power even in the near future is limited, and they become less and less certain as time goes on. I'm quite prepared to believe that the DfT's calculations of the benefits of HS2 are wrong, but no more convinced by PWC's alternatives.
2. That the economic justification for HS2 rests on benefits in the very long term, which cannot really be modelled, and which increase the risks and limit the benefits in the near term.
Seems to me that PWC are missing the point here. Long-term benefits are the whole point of HS2. No, they can't be modelled to their satisfaction, but see above. It comes down to more of a judgement call about whether far greater rail capacity than we have will be needed half a century from now, and whether there's any other way to provide it. The answer to the first is a fairly obvious yes - no-one really disputes that, although of course there's room to dispute the precise figures. As for the second, see below
3. That alternatives have not been given sufficient weight.
That PWC report is dated July 2011. Subsequently 51M (the anti-HS2 pressure group who commissioned it) produced the proposals rover07 quoted above for the consultation exercise, setting out alternatives to HS2, presumably partly on the strength of the PWC report. The Network Rail report I quoted above* was produced in response to those proposals (and some others) and, as the quotes above demonstrate, made a convincing case that upgrades to existing rail routes will not deliver the required capacity enhancement.
A few more general quibbles. Their rosy assessment of the impact of privatisation on the railways (pgh 1.5 onward) is highly questionable. Nor do they take any account of wider benefits from HS2 (2.9), including the environmental benefits of increased rail travel vis-a-vis greater air and road transport, the short-term boost to an economy through construction jobs etc, the impact of increased capacity on existing north-south routes (especially in terms of freight train paths) and so on. I'd say all of those were highly relevant, especially in the long term. IMHO, then, as well as being flawed in its own terms, this report is rather narrowly focused.
So, still not convinced!
*Apologies, I forgot to include the link: it's here: http://resources.knightfrank.com/getnewsresource.ashx?id=d8054791-f67f-41c7-8ef6-fd451db7a17a&type=1 Still can't work out how to post links on Xenforo
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Interesting. The only Dr. Sandra Tuppen I can find searching academic databases or google is an expert in early music, so may well be an "academic researcher", but isn't an expert or authority on transport.
I sort of agree with this. Much as I love trains (and I do intend to spend most of the summer visiting obscure stations like Peartree), I do find it odd that cost of construction = £32.7billion, estimated return from tickets = £27 billion, puts it at a 5billion deficit.
Where's the money coming from? I've heard a very interesting rumour about the Treasury asking local councils to hand their pension funds to the treasure for "construction" projects, on the basis that the Treasury will give the councils the money back. And not one of them has said yes yet. Wonder if the two are correlated....
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You still haven't got the point that the issue isn't train capacity, but rather line capacity, have you?
There's lot of sense in that head. I approached that response from how it will affect politics, not economics. As for the economics, I remain unconvinced either.
I bet these trains will run on oil too. might be interesting when that runs out....and the subsequent cost overrun. I wonder who'll pay for that.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Self-praise is no recommendation!
Well, it's an electrified line, so it's hard to tell whether the leccy will be from oil, gas or coal-fired stations or even from nuke stations, without analysing where the provision on the various areas comes from.
One Eurostar = 3 of the biggest wind turbines.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Really, what will need to be invented for this to not be the quickest way to get from central London to central Brum? Teleportation? The route itself - I obv. can't predict power supply - will be used for hundreds of years to come.
It makes cost-benefit analysis hopeless.
It makes cost-benefit analysis hopeless.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Can't we just nuke Birmingham? No need for £32 billion outlay, and no more Birmingham; Win, win.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No way am I travelling by transporter. What if the contract for the matter-reintegration software gets contracted out to one of the govt's usual favourites?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I'm not sure what it tells us but, fuck my old socks, this is a clever representation of HS2 in relation to the network - RECOMMENDED!!1!:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...2-hs2-rail-britain-mapped-animation?fb=native
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...2-hs2-rail-britain-mapped-animation?fb=native
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
Does anyone know why isn't the UK investing in the much faster maglev trains?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Because they are completely unsuitable for the UK. Reasons:
1. Incompatibility with the classic network. HS2 will be able to act as a 'feeder' to the rest of the network to the North, right away after phase 1. A maglev network would have to be built in one go, to all destinations.
2. Completely new operation, construction and maintenance requirements - no skill/facility sharing with existing rail.
3. Untested at this scale
4. Far greater speed is not needed when stations are less than 100 miles apart
Similar threads
