Not looking good for HS2

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
plodder
Catbabel
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by plodder » Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:39 am

UK asset management is in a shocking state. Stuff built in the noughties won’t have been documented properly.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:45 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:09 pm
Is the tunnel and cuttings all the way going to cause flooding problems? I'm thinking of that slopey Veravista photo of the tracks under a couple hundred of metres of water. You'd think they'd have a plan but, you know, Britain.
It'll probably be fine. Probably.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
veravista
Clardic Fug
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:29 pm
Location: Directly above the centre of the earth

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by veravista » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:09 am

Yeah, it's all down hill to London so they can deal with it.

User avatar
Brightonian
Clardic Fug
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Brightonian » Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:33 pm

That Chinese "bid" never existed: the Chinese ambassador says the bid letter was fake, and its return address was an office in Malaysia.
https://www.cityam.com/mystery-of-hs2-l ... ment-fake/

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Dorkwood
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:46 pm

RSPB have published a letter critical of HS2's approach to habitats and conservation, describing it as "worst practice". https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b ... -transport

It gives a decent overview of the arguments conservationists have been making about the project all along. Copying the whole text here (text is public), because people don't click links ;)
We have noted the claim that “there is a plan to ensure that this is one of the most environmentally
responsible infrastructure projects ever delivered in the UK
”. This is a welcome ambition, but sadly we feel
there is a wide gap between ambition and reality for HS2 and its impact on nature. We believe HS2 as
currently planned will cause a significant net loss of biodiversity and that the Government’s claim is unjustified.
The RSPB and the wider environment sector have worked hard over many years to engage with HS2 Ltd over
the mitigation and compensation package. However, on many important issues our advice has not been
followed. For example:
• Along with the Barn Owl Trust and four local Wildlife Trusts, we have said HS2 Ltd’s barn owl mitigation
plan will not work. We believe HS2 phase 1 will eventually kill a nationally significant number of barn owls,
and phase 2 will merely add to that toll.
• Much of the mitigation for bats in Buckinghamshire has been challenged by independent academic experts
as inadequate and ineffective. For example, Bechstein’s bats are one of the UK’s rarest mammals and
prefer mature woodland - newly planted hedgerows and woodlands will not help these animals.
• HS2 Ltd’s own figures currently suggest that Phase 1 will lead to a 3% net loss of replaceable habitats, and
17% loss for Phase 2a - thereby falling short of HS2 Ltd’s own objective of achieving no net loss of
biodiversity. This is after discounting unavoidable damage to irreplaceable ancient woodland, which cannot
be compensated for.

We do not think this is good enough. However, we are still prepared to work with HS2 Ltd, the Department for
Transport and other stakeholders to help make HS2 fit for purpose in the context of a climate and ecological
emergency. But, for us to justify our continued engagement we would need some assurances of the
Government’s positive intent. These are:

1) Each phase of HS2 must deliver a net gain for nature in its own right, as good or better than your
Government’s expectations for other forms of development. This would be in line with the recently-
launched National Infrastructure Committee Design Principles for National Infrastructure. We believe HS2
should strive for a minimum of 10% net gain but ideally go further, and deliver what nature needs which is
to begin to recover from its low baseline. There is no reasonable justification why major infrastructure
projects should be exempt from delivering net gain, especially as their fragmentation effects on Nature
Recovery Networks are likely to be profound. We applaud the East West Rail company for voluntarily
committing to delivering net gain, at least within the Bedford-Cambridge section. We call on you to ensure
that HS2 and other major infrastructure projects do the same, or even better.

2) It must be accepted that “compensation” for the loss of ancient woodland is not possible, no matter how
many new trees are planted. We understand that irreplaceable habitats have been excluded from the net
loss calculations, long after we argued for it during the consultations on the Environmental Statement and
our Hybrid Bill petition. More than that, HS2 Ltd must deliver the best mitigation package for irreplaceable
habitats that is possible given the state of the art.

3) As a matter of policy, HS2 and other major infrastructure projects must apply the same principles of the
ecological mitigation hierarchy the NPPF requires local authorities to follow. For example, when accounting
for impacts on nature in phases 2a and 2b, HS2 Ltd must not conflate mitigation and compensation, and
stop concluding that after taking compensation into account there are no residual adverse impacts on (for
example) designated sites and ecological networks.

4) A clear and independent audit of the carbon footprint of HS2 is needed, taking into account its construction
and lifetime performance, and predicted effects on other transport sectors including road freight and
aviation. The environmental sector has been criticised for not acknowledging the alleged carbon-saving
benefits of HS2 while drawing attention to its biodiversity impacts. And yet, the Oakervee Review merely
notes the potential for HS2 to contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions across the whole transport
sector. Unfortunately, many of the policy initiatives needed to bring this about do not yet exist - notably, an
integrated government strategy to encourage people to shift to greener transport modes. Until such
measures are put in place there is no guarantee that HS2 will bring about a major shift away from more
polluting forms of transport instead of fuelling further unsustainable growth and travel demand, and no firm
basis to claim otherwise.

5) Linked to the above point, the Government needs to show how the landmark ruling over the third runway at
Heathrow airport issued on 27 February 2020 will be applied to strategic design choices made over HS2.
This includes the Government’s continued unwillingness in this and other schemes to accept that Strategic
Environmental Assessment has a critical role to play in considering and addressing environmental issues.
This includes the implications of policies or plans for meeting carbon reduction targets.

6) Finally, we need to see HS2 Ltd and their contractors behaving responsibly and going beyond the letter of
the law when it comes to avoiding destruction of active nests of breeding birds and mitigating impacts on
other protected species. There can be no reason for large-scale clearance of trees, hedgerows and
woodlands in the breeding season except for Government pressure on HS2 Ltd to deliver the project
quickly. The RSPB advises HS2 Ltd and their contractors to avoid clearance work between early March
and the end of August.

We have already witnessed ethically and practically doubtful tactics such as Harris hawks being used in an
ill-informed attempt to deter birds from nesting in a wood, and notification to the Woodland Trust that
undergrowth from other ancient woodlands will be cleared as another tactic to try to deter birds from
nesting in places where later they might be destroyed. Such activities raise concerns about the
professional competence of the ecological advisors HS2 Ltd is using and they certainly cannot be held up
as environmentally responsible best practice.

We will consider any attempt by HS2 Ltd’s contractors to claim that destruction of active birds’ nests was
not intentional and was the incidental result of a lawful operation that could not reasonably have been
avoided, to be legally and morally dubious. Local people are watching events on the ground with keen
eyes and the RSPB is bound to advise them to contact the police when an offence under the Wildlife &
Countryside Act 1981 is suspected.

Unless we see clear commitment from the Government and HS2 Ltd on the above points the RSPB cannot
justify further positive engagement with you to try to improve this project, not least to our 1.2 million members,
many of whom are deeply concerned about HS2 and other major infrastructure projects. Far from being “one
of the most environmentally responsible infrastructure projects ever delivered in the UK” HS2 will stand as an
example of worst practice in the face of the climate and ecological emergency, one that cannot be repeated as
other major infrastructure projects are brought forward.

In the worsening climate and ecological emergency, it will be impossible to achieve the ambitions in the 25-
year Environment Plan if major infrastructure projects such as HS2 are allowed to do this amount of damage
as well as proceeding without a full understanding of the carbon footprint.
The RSPB, fwiw, are generally a sensible organisation, and employ a lot of scientists. Their campaigning is generally evidence-based. They also, IMHO, often shy away from fights with the political establishment, for fear of alienating their middle-England core membership. Their objections should be taken seriously (and should have been from the outset).
"Ecology without socialism is just gardening" - Chico Mendes

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:23 am

This is interesting.

Image
(from here)

Surface transport is the single largest sector of annual emissions. Most of that will be road vehicles, of course, and to reduce it means moving people in large bulk from petrol and diesel vehicles to cleaner forms. That'll mean a huge push to enhance renewable electricity generation, and then distributing it to electric cars, (and, according to this, roughly 27% of surface transport emissions are from vans and lorries). But, also, you need to get more people onto trains. And that means there needs to be more capacity. And that means HS2 - amongst other things.

HS2 isn't the answer on its own, but it is a huge part of it. It will free up a lot of capacity on the WCML, MML and ECML. There also needs to be wide scale electrification of other parts of the network, including the cross-country lines, northern suburban networks and plenty of mixed-use lines such as the North Wales main line, which should allow more freight, and removal of diesel trains. HS2 needs to be extended to reach Scotland, to encourage people away from short-haul domestic flights (reducing some of the "aviation & shipping" part as well). Probably there should be more consideration to opening old railway lines where there's a good likelihood of modal shift, and provide better routes to places such as the far South West than is currently provided (pretty much impossible to electrify at Dawlish for example).

And, obviously, there's encouragement of electrifying local buses, providing better services, maybe even subsidising local transport to be free such as in Luxembourg. The whole thing really does need a co-ordinated, centralised plan and a shitload of investment.

But HS2 is essential to all this. The sort of changes to emissions that surface transport needs to reach can't realistically be achieved without it. HS3, 4, 5 may all be needed too, possibly.

It's a good job, then, that no serious environmentalists are seeking to hold up or even stop the project because less than 0.1% of ancient woodland is set to be impacted by the route, isn't it? I mean, that'd be f.cking daft.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Dorkwood
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:23 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:23 am
It's a good job, then, that no serious environmentalists are seeking to hold up or even stop the project because less than 0.1% of ancient woodland is set to be impacted by the route, isn't it? I mean, that'd be f.cking daft.
Sorry, EPD, but this kind of dismissal confirms my suspicions that the transport sector hasn't even bothered to understand what conservationists are concerned about, let alone actually engaged with it.

Yes, HS2 would almost certainly deliver net CO2 benefits over its lifetime, and crucially in the short- to medium-term when most needed to stave off disaster. A proper carbon audit, including a range of scenarios viz. e.g. electrification of road/or and rail transport, would confirm this, but apparently hasn't been done. That would probably be a sensible move, given the recent precedent set by the Heathrow expansion case.

But delivering carbon benefits doesn't absolve a project from damaging biodiversity, which is already in an incredibly sh.tty state in the UK - especially the southeast where HS2 Phase 1 is to be built. The few, tiny fragments of protected area have been hard-won by very dedicated people volunteering their time over decades.

Destroying habitats is obviously bad. There are concerns about some of the proposed mitigation measures, that are apparently in fact destroying other habitats - e.g. planting new woodland on existing species-rich grassland with its own conservation value. The other issue I'd be very concerned about is habitat fragmentation - if one large, contiguous reserve becomes two small ones which could both be inadequate to maintain a viable population of target species.

The government and HS2 made a commitment to delivering net biodiversity gain from new infrastructure projects, but HS2 Phase 1 is still in fact planned to be a net loss, even of irreplaceable habitats like ancient woodland (though, contrary to your post, it's not only ancient woodland that will be affected). If the first phase doesn't bother to meet its commitments and falls out with the entire conservation community - on whose goodwill it depends to meet them - then there is also no hope for Phases 2, 3 and 4.

What would be 'f.cking daft' is making concessions at this early stage to a multi-billion pound development company that is going back on its conservation commitments. They absolutely should be able to deliver this project, with the benefits it will bring - the expertise is there, the funding could be found, but this haughty attitude of "oh well we're building trains so that's good for the environment you dopey tw.ts" is sh.tting in the bed.
"Ecology without socialism is just gardening" - Chico Mendes

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:47 pm

Well, I don't work for HS2, nor in projects, nor am I necessarily representative of the entire transport sector. It's a bit of a mistake to extrapolate from me up to that.

Chris Packham doesn't think it will deliver net CO2 benefits over its lifetime, and is proceeding with action to try to stop HS2 from happening at all. My argument is that that is farcical, and itself sh.tting in the bed.

Yes, presumably more could be done to make it a net gain rather than a net loss ("HS2 increases costs again!") but it is quite literally impossible to build a railway through the countryside without destroying something's habitat. Carbon audits will make near on f.ck all difference to the outcome of HS2 itself at this stage - the only thing that can reasonably be done is to improve what happens away from the permanent way to try to mitigate the problems caused.

But again though, we get into the problem of the railway being somehow made responsible for a fairly systemic government failure in relation to the environment over the last however many decades. Yes, more can be done, but it shouldn't be down to HS2 alone to somehow rescue what's left at the bottom of the barrel, without anyone bothering to look at how to fill the thing up again.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Woodchopper
Catbabel
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:47 pm
Yes, presumably more could be done to make it a net gain rather than a net loss ("HS2 increases costs again!") but it is quite literally impossible to build a railway through the countryside without destroying something's habitat.
Too late now, but would it have been better if they had decided at the start just to tunnel the whole way to Brimingham?

The Follo tunnel in Norway is 22 km long and works out at circa £168 million per kilometer. The London to Birmingham route is 190 km, which makes a total price of about £32 billion. Which seems to be less than the current estimates. Obviously a much longer tunnel has other problems. But still, at least people could just start building it and there would be far fewer protests.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:54 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm
Obviously a much longer tunnel has other problems.
This sentence is doing a lot of work, lol.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Woodchopper
Catbabel
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:01 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:54 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm
Obviously a much longer tunnel has other problems.
This sentence is doing a lot of work, lol.
Of course. But still, has anyone made a serious estimate of what it would have cost to tunnel the whole way?

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:08 pm

I doubt it, tbh, probably because no one has considered it a realistic thing to do. For various reasons, it's entirely unfeasible.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Woodchopper
Catbabel
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:14 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:08 pm
I doubt it, tbh, probably because no one has considered it a realistic thing to do. For various reasons, it's entirely unfeasible.
Fair enough.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Dorkwood
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:14 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:47 pm
Well, I don't work for HS2, nor in projects, nor am I necessarily representative of the entire transport sector. It's a bit of a mistake to extrapolate from me up to that.
I won't put you on too much of a pedestal ;) But it is an impression I've got from other commenters (mainly on tw.tter), as well as from conservationists who've tried to work with HS2.
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:47 pm
Chris Packham doesn't think it will deliver net CO2 benefits over its lifetime, and is proceeding with action to try to stop HS2 from happening at all. My argument is that that is farcical, and itself sh.tting in the bed.
AIUI no net carbon benefits was the conclusion from the last time lifetime carbon was studied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Spee ... _emissions Maybe there are more recent figures, but if true that wipes out pretty much the only positive environmental impact.

And I hadn't realised you were talking about Packham, sorry - I thought your post was in response to mine about the RSPB immediately above. The RSPB tend to be less, shall we say "dogmatic", than Packham (not least because they're a large organisation rather than a sole block who is literally employed to be a "personality" - he's great, but not always super nuanced).
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:47 pm
Yes, presumably more could be done to make it a net gain rather than a net loss ("HS2 increases costs again!") but it is quite literally impossible to build a railway through the countryside without destroying something's habitat. Carbon audits will make near on f.ck all difference to the outcome of HS2 itself at this stage - the only thing that can reasonably be done is to improve what happens away from the permanent way to try to mitigate the problems caused.

But again though, we get into the problem of the railway being somehow made responsible for a fairly systemic government failure in relation to the environment over the last however many decades. Yes, more can be done, but it shouldn't be down to HS2 alone to somehow rescue what's left at the bottom of the barrel, without anyone bothering to look at how to fill the thing up again.
This is all fair - HS2/railways in general shouldn't have to be going it alone. I think high-profile large projects are easier targets than e.g. roadbuilding, which tends to be incredibly piecemeal. Individual bits of road built recently are probably just as bad as any individual section of HS2, but it's much harder to target the energy at 10,000 local authorities than one company.

I think HS2 is being viewed as a test case for other projects - for instance, ABP is re-opening their attempt to build a container port at Dibden Bay in Southampton (in an internationally-protected wetland), which would also rest on promising to deliver net biodiversity gains. If developers can't be trusted to stick to their promises and regulators don't have the resources or will to enforce them then everything is f.cked.

FWIW I'm genuinely not familiar with the details of HS2 and don't have an axe to grind one way or t'other. What I'm commenting on is a repeated pattern of criticisms from respected environmental organisations being dismissed, with people making out the trainline should be built because they are doing some work to minimise damage and also carbon dioxide, but there are weaknesses in that perspective and I'm not convinced HS2 has got things right.

I expect it's partly the 'design by committee' problem of having a lot of stakeholders. They gambled on where the balance would lie between cost-efficiency and biodiversity conservation, and seem to have guessed wrong.

The government ought to allow some of the contingency funding earmarked for 'over-engineering' (referenced in this thread) to reduce environmental liabilities instead of engineering ones, IMHO.
"Ecology without socialism is just gardening" - Chico Mendes

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Dorkwood
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:15 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:14 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:08 pm
I doubt it, tbh, probably because no one has considered it a realistic thing to do. For various reasons, it's entirely unfeasible.
Fair enough.
Conservationists (including archaeologists, IIRC) have been calling for a lot more tunnel sections for at least a decade. I understand that the main argument against is that it's a lot more expensive.
"Ecology without socialism is just gardening" - Chico Mendes

User avatar
Sciolus
Stargoon
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Sciolus » Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:42 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:15 pm
Conservationists (including archaeologists, IIRC) have been calling for a lot more tunnel sections for at least a decade. I understand that the main argument against is that it's a lot more expensive.
See also Stonehenge.
I think high-profile large projects are easier targets than e.g. roadbuilding, which tends to be incredibly piecemeal. Individual bits of road built recently are probably just as bad as any individual section of HS2, but it's much harder to target the energy at 10,000 local authorities than one company.
The Times is reporting that the government's proposed zillion-pound road-building programme may be being paused for a bit because of the recent Heathrow case, so there may be hope. I doubt local authorities are building a significant number of roads these days (though housing developers probably are).

User avatar
Sciolus
Stargoon
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Sciolus » Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:49 pm

Anyway, on HS2: Given that we are assured that the reason it's needed is capacity, surely the thing to do is to drop the high-speed requirement, which is just willy-waving. Dropping the speed by 30% say would make a huge saving on financial and environmental costs, for instance:
- More flexibility on route since it can be curvier, which will help avoid expensive (financially and environmentally) land;
- Disproportionately less energy required by trains;
- Track can be less robust so less high-carbon concrete needed;
- Could serve more than two places;
- Less extreme design innovation so generally cheaper.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:00 pm

- Removes the entire point of the exercise, which is to take fast trains off the three main lines north out of London
- Doesn't encourage anyone to actually use it
- A bit cheaper, but not so significantly so as to make a huge difference - building any railway is expensive, you don't make it that much cheaper by lowering the spec
- Making a railway curvier means it takes up more land which means it is more expensive
- Changing the route now would be very expensive as it would require more parliamentary time, public consultation, recontracting, compensation to current contractors, time wasted selling off land
- Delays the benefits
- Removes any chance at all of encouraging modal shift from aeroplanes
- HS2 has always, from day one, been planned to serve more than two places, and claiming otherwise is utter, utter, utter, utter, utter horseshit; the constant stating of this point by people who should know better is deeply mystifying

But apart from that - yeah, great idea :roll:
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Sciolus
Stargoon
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Sciolus » Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:16 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:00 pm
- Removes the entire point of the exercise, which is to take fast trains off the three main lines north out of London
- Doesn't encourage anyone to actually use it
? Why does that require 225 mph trains, given existing lines are considerably slower?
- A bit cheaper, but not so significantly so as to make a huge difference - building any railway is expensive, you don't make it that much cheaper by lowering the spec
- Making a railway curvier means it takes up more land which means it is more expensive
More options can only make it cheaper.
- Changing the route now would be very expensive as it would require more parliamentary time, public consultation, recontracting, compensation to current contractors, time wasted selling off land
- Delays the benefits
- Removes any chance at all of encouraging modal shift from aeroplanes
So they should have stopped willy-waving 10 years ago.
- HS2 has always, from day one, been planned to serve more than two places, and claiming otherwise is utter, utter, utter, utter, utter horseshit; the constant stating of this point by people who should know better is deeply mystifying

But apart from that - yeah, great idea :roll:
Sorry, four.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:33 am

Sciolus wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:16 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:00 pm
- Removes the entire point of the exercise, which is to take fast trains off the three main lines north out of London
- Doesn't encourage anyone to actually use it
? Why does that require 225 mph trains, given existing lines are considerably slower?
If you're spending £80-£100bn, and you'll spend a very similar amount even if it's not specced to 225mph (the trains won't run at 225mph, they'll run at 200mph). And at the end of it, if people get to Birmingham or Manchester exactly as fast as they did before, or less than 10 minutes faster, then they'll wonder what the entire point of the spend was. Whereas if you're saving an hour off the journey time to Manchester, or 50 minutes to Leeds, then there actually seems a visible point to it, and people will be more likely to use it. If you're building a brand new line, there's no reason not to make it high speed, especially when serving 9 of the top 10 highest population urban areas in the UK.
Sciolus wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:16 pm
- A bit cheaper, but not so significantly so as to make a huge difference - building any railway is expensive, you don't make it that much cheaper by lowering the spec
- Making a railway curvier means it takes up more land which means it is more expensive
More options can only make it cheaper.
Wrong.
Sciolus wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:16 pm
- Changing the route now would be very expensive as it would require more parliamentary time, public consultation, recontracting, compensation to current contractors, time wasted selling off land
- Delays the benefits
- Removes any chance at all of encouraging modal shift from aeroplanes
So they should have stopped willy-waving 10 years ago.
First, your entire point with "willy-waving" is wrong, as stated above. Secondly, reducing speed will not encourage modal shift from aeroplanes.
Sciolus wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:16 pm
- HS2 has always, from day one, been planned to serve more than two places, and claiming otherwise is utter, utter, utter, utter, utter horseshit; the constant stating of this point by people who should know better is deeply mystifying

But apart from that - yeah, great idea :roll:
Sorry, four.
Nope. Not four either. Much more than that. You're aware that there are services running to places other than the termini, right?
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Pucksoppet
Snowbonk
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:13 pm
Location: Girdling the Earth

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Pucksoppet » Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:09 am

veravista wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:09 am
Yeah, it's all down hill to London so they can deal with it.
Shirley on the railways, it is always 'up' towards London?

User avatar
Aitch
Stargoon
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:53 am

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Aitch » Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:25 am

Doesn't higher speed mean you can fit more services on the line in a specific period as well? Thereby increasing the capacity a bit more?
Some people call me strange.
I prefer unconventional.
But I'm willing to compromise and accept eccentric
.

User avatar
Gentleman Jim
Snowbonk
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:38 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Gentleman Jim » Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:57 am

Pucksoppet wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:09 am
veravista wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:09 am
Yeah, it's all down hill to London so they can deal with it.
Shirley on the railways, it is always 'up' towards London?
only if you are travelling from west/south/east of London
ie Oi. Goin' up London on Sat'day :lol:
True friends stab you in the front

User avatar
Pucksoppet
Snowbonk
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:13 pm
Location: Girdling the Earth

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Pucksoppet » Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:33 am

Gentleman Jim wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:57 am
Pucksoppet wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:09 am
veravista wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:09 am
Yeah, it's all down hill to London so they can deal with it.
Shirley on the railways, it is always 'up' towards London?
only if you are travelling from west/south/east of London
ie Oi. Goin' up London on Sat'day :lol:
Wikipedia: Rail Directions: Up and Down

User avatar
Gentleman Jim
Snowbonk
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:38 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Gentleman Jim » Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:20 am

Pucksoppet wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:33 am
Gentleman Jim wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:57 am
Pucksoppet wrote:
Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:09 am


Shirley on the railways, it is always 'up' towards London?
only if you are travelling from west/south/east of London
ie Oi. Goin' up London on Sat'day :lol:
Wikipedia: Rail Directions: Up and Down
When I lived in Leeds, people talked about going DOWN to London
True friends stab you in the front

Post Reply