Not looking good for HS2

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:57 am

Obviously you've plucked the figure of £80 totally out of your arse there, but ignoring that, the totally unexpandable Birmingham New Street station is, unfortunately, totally unexpandable, which presents problems when some goon in a tupée has the bright idea of expanding it. Similarly, the at-full-capacity Birmingham New Street station is, unfortunately, at full capacity, which presents problems when some stupidly-haired tw.t suggests putting more trains through it.

So, given that it's totally unexpandable and at full capacity, the only other option is to put the HS2 trains somewhere else, preferably somewhere as close as possible. So, what joy then! when we discover from the easily-publicly-available documents that the new Curzon Street station will be a five minute walk away from New Street station.
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
lpm
Catbabel
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by lpm » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:13 am

Yes, but that station would require the removal of the Fox and Grapes Public House. Says it, right there on the plans. You can't remove the Fox and Grapes Public House.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:23 am

They're keeping the Eagle & Tun, the Woodman and the Midland Tavern, though! Can't say fairer than that. 75% is a good outcome.
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
science_fox
Stargoon
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:34 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by science_fox » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:33 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:57 am
Obviously you've plucked the figure of £80 totally out of your arse there, but ignoring that, the totally unexpandable Birmingham New Street station is, unfortunately, totally unexpandable, which presents problems when some goon in a tupée has the bright idea of expanding it. Similarly, the at-full-capacity Birmingham New Street station is, unfortunately, at full capacity, which presents problems when some stupidly-haired tw.t suggests putting more trains through it.

So, given that it's totally unexpandable and at full capacity, the only other option is to put the HS2 trains somewhere else, preferably somewhere as close as possible. So, what joy then! when we discover from the easily-publicly-available documents that the new Curzon Street station will be a five minute walk away from New Street station.
5 minutes can f.ck off. That's not 5 minutes train to train, that's at best front station door to station front door. And it's google 5 min which is fine for a fit person with no luggage, but a somewhat different proposition for a family with kids / any kind of mobility issues / luggage / rail/sleet/wind et al. In practise that's probably allowing 30min for a connection and hope your incoming service isn't delayed. By which time you've lost most of the gains you've predicted to make.

Given how much they're spending it's another small drop in the ocean to just add a platform and line (hey it's only 5min away anyway which is even quicker by train). It may mean knocking down some of Bham's back streets.

No I'm not a fan of widening the commuter belt to london to extend up to the midlands. A service to make a few business people's weekend retreats a bit easier isn't what we should be spending 100bn on. You could get a non-trivial amount of hospitals/teachers/bike lanes for that.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:34 am

These guys have a great idea! They've said that you can save billions off the cost of HS2 by avoiding the need to build the Old Oak Common section! That bit is estimated at around £8bn, and we don't need to spend that! We can save billions of pounds just by doing something completely different*!






*Which happens to cost £10bn.
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
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:37 am

science_fox wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:33 am
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:57 am
Obviously you've plucked the figure of £80 totally out of your arse there, but ignoring that, the totally unexpandable Birmingham New Street station is, unfortunately, totally unexpandable, which presents problems when some goon in a tupée has the bright idea of expanding it. Similarly, the at-full-capacity Birmingham New Street station is, unfortunately, at full capacity, which presents problems when some stupidly-haired tw.t suggests putting more trains through it.

So, given that it's totally unexpandable and at full capacity, the only other option is to put the HS2 trains somewhere else, preferably somewhere as close as possible. So, what joy then! when we discover from the easily-publicly-available documents that the new Curzon Street station will be a five minute walk away from New Street station.
5 minutes can f.ck off. That's not 5 minutes train to train, that's at best front station door to station front door. And it's google 5 min which is fine for a fit person with no luggage, but a somewhat different proposition for a family with kids / any kind of mobility issues / luggage / rail/sleet/wind et al. In practise that's probably allowing 30min for a connection and hope your incoming service isn't delayed. By which time you've lost most of the gains you've predicted to make.

Given how much they're spending it's another small drop in the ocean to just add a platform and line (hey it's only 5min away anyway which is even quicker by train). It may mean knocking down some of Bham's back streets.

No I'm not a fan of widening the commuter belt to london to extend up to the midlands. A service to make a few business people's weekend retreats a bit easier isn't what we should be spending 100bn on. You could get a non-trivial amount of hospitals/teachers/bike lanes for that.
Ah yes, just adding "a platform" and "a line". I'll let the DfT know, I'm sure they'll be keen to tap into your brilliant expertise on this subject.

ETA: I realise that I've already told you all this stuff before, in the other place, and you've deliberately forgotten because you enjoy being wrong on topics like this, but for the sake of anyone else reading, the walkway between Curzon Street and New Street already exists, is covered, is straightforward, and is undergoing some renovation. There's loads more that's hilariously bellended about your post but I honestly can't be arsed.
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: 183
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 » Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:16 pm

'5 minutes can f.ck off. That's not 5 minutes train to train, that's at best front station door to station front door. And it's google 5 min which is fine for a fit person with no luggage, but a somewhat different proposition for a family with kids / any kind of mobility issues / luggage / rail/sleet/wind et al. In practise that's probably allowing 30min for a connection and hope your incoming service isn't delayed. By which time you've lost most of the gains you've predicted to make.'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2GZoMBgJRw

User avatar
TimW
Sindis Poop
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:27 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by TimW » Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:56 pm

I'm guessing there will still be trains from London to New Street.

plodder
Catbabel
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by plodder » Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:46 pm

Maybe a bendy brummie boris bus could scoop em up and spit em out?

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Dorkwood
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:12 am

5 minutes is nothing. It takes that long to walk across Waterloo, or connect between different lines of the underground. Get a grip.
"Ecology without socialism is just gardening" - Chico Mendes

plodder
Catbabel
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:51 am

Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace and the Green Party are all strongly opposed to HS2.

I really, really want to see some more intelligence coming from the environmental movement. An ineffectual and irrelevant opposition is counterproductive - we saw this in the Labour party, and we've seen it in environmentalism for decades now.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Dorkwood
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:06 pm

The folks in charge of HS2 seem to have handled the environmental stuff really badly. (I've not been following it closely as I've been out of the country most of the time it's been kicking off)

There seems to be a perception in some quarters that just because trains are a bit less polluting in kg carbon/km terms than buses or private cars, the construction of railways should have carte blanche to have devastating impacts on biodiversity.

The UK has a tiny amount of natural habitat left, and stuff like bulldozing ancient woodlands with little more than a "suck it up, c.nts" to environmentalists is pretty inadequate in 2020.

I've not seen (though to be fair, I haven't looked) an explanation of why trashing habitat is worth it, when it was apparently possible to re-route the tracks around a golf course.

I'm not saying that the whole project should be scrapped, but there are certainly localised areas of environmental impact that seem to be very serious and haven't been addressed adequately.
"Ecology without socialism is just gardening" - Chico Mendes

User avatar
science_fox
Stargoon
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:34 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by science_fox » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:33 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:12 am
5 minutes is nothing. It takes that long to walk across Waterloo, or connect between different lines of the underground. Get a grip.
Get a grip yourself and be more aware of others who aren't as fit as you.

I can do it no problem. Not even a thought. Not true of everybody I travel with. Whether some trips are feasible will depend on how many 'five minute walks' there are which for those of lower mobility is a whole lot longer than five minutes and much harder too. Like I said it's fine for healthy business commuters. But while retro-fitting transport networks to account for everybody isn't practical, it's not unreasonable when you've got a carte blanche planning hand to do right and accessible for all (which doesn't just means ramps miles away at the side of a building) from the start.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Dorkwood
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:22 pm

science_fox wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:33 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:12 am
5 minutes is nothing. It takes that long to walk across Waterloo, or connect between different lines of the underground. Get a grip.
Get a grip yourself and be more aware of others who aren't as fit as you.

I can do it no problem. Not even a thought. Not true of everybody I travel with. Whether some trips are feasible will depend on how many 'five minute walks' there are which for those of lower mobility is a whole lot longer than five minutes and much harder too. Like I said it's fine for healthy business commuters. But while retro-fitting transport networks to account for everybody isn't practical, it's not unreasonable when you've got a carte blanche planning hand to do right and accessible for all (which doesn't just means ramps miles away at the side of a building) from the start.
Of course not everybody is equally mobile - I'm just pointing out that a 5 minute walk via a walkway is nothing remotely unusual in the UK transport network, so nothing unusually burdensome is involved in the Birmingham interchange.

And expanding the physical size and capacity of inner-city stations is probably going to be constrained by various things, so I'm not sure I'd say HS2 has "carte blanche" to connect to Birmingham New Street directly. I don't know the area directly, but a quick look on google maps suggests that the immediate surroundings of New Street contain a lot of shops, houses, theatres etc (as might be expected for a city centre), and these alone can't necessarily be bulldozed (especially considering financial and perhaps ethical considerations), nevermind all the other stuff along the way to get a new train line in and out. A site five minutes away seems pretty impressive, to be honest, as long as the walkway is reasonably accessible.
"Ecology without socialism is just gardening" - Chico Mendes

plodder
Catbabel
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:38 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:06 pm
The folks in charge of HS2 seem to have handled the environmental stuff really badly. (I've not been following it closely as I've been out of the country most of the time it's been kicking off)

There seems to be a perception in some quarters that just because trains are a bit less polluting in kg carbon/km terms than buses or private cars, the construction of railways should have carte blanche to have devastating impacts on biodiversity.

The UK has a tiny amount of natural habitat left, and stuff like bulldozing ancient woodlands with little more than a "suck it up, c.nts" to environmentalists is pretty inadequate in 2020.

I've not seen (though to be fair, I haven't looked) an explanation of why trashing habitat is worth it, when it was apparently possible to re-route the tracks around a golf course.

I'm not saying that the whole project should be scrapped, but there are certainly localised areas of environmental impact that seem to be very serious and haven't been addressed adequately.
What "suck it up, c.nts" stuff have you seen? Millions are being spent designing new habitats along the route. The route has minimised environmental impacts to an extraordinary degree, including tunnels under woodland. The guardian have been as dreadful as every other paper btw.

Suggest you follow this chap on twitter,, here's a taster:

https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status ... 8832691200

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Dorkwood
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:25 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:38 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:06 pm
The folks in charge of HS2 seem to have handled the environmental stuff really badly. (I've not been following it closely as I've been out of the country most of the time it's been kicking off)

There seems to be a perception in some quarters that just because trains are a bit less polluting in kg carbon/km terms than buses or private cars, the construction of railways should have carte blanche to have devastating impacts on biodiversity.

The UK has a tiny amount of natural habitat left, and stuff like bulldozing ancient woodlands with little more than a "suck it up, c.nts" to environmentalists is pretty inadequate in 2020.

I've not seen (though to be fair, I haven't looked) an explanation of why trashing habitat is worth it, when it was apparently possible to re-route the tracks around a golf course.

I'm not saying that the whole project should be scrapped, but there are certainly localised areas of environmental impact that seem to be very serious and haven't been addressed adequately.
What "suck it up, c.nts" stuff have you seen? Millions are being spent designing new habitats along the route. The route has minimised environmental impacts to an extraordinary degree, including tunnels under woodland. The guardian have been as dreadful as every other paper btw.

Suggest you follow this chap on twitter,, here's a taster:

https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status ... 8832691200
Probably mostly Guardian articles, to be fair ;) plus the odd comment from people who are normally sensible on stuff that I do know about. I'd be delighted to have my mind changed on the topic - that twitter thread is a decent start.

I'd read about the creation of new habitat, and I'm aware that there are some issues with some of the sites designated 'ancient woodland', but trying to create new stuff doesn't necessarily replace what's lost. This is especially important with things like woodland that develop over centuries, and where the new habitat will take much longer to establish than the time until the old habitat is destroyed. It's better than nothing, but this kind of 'offsetting' doesn't always work out that well.

Wasn't there a big hoo-hah over the tunnelling, with HS2 originally resisting the idea?
"Ecology without socialism is just gardening" - Chico Mendes

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:12 pm

Well yes, for two reasons - tunnelling is f.cking expensive, and being in a train that's in a tunnel for mile after mile is f.cking boring. Nonetheless, the railway is being stuck in tunnels and cuttings for considerable portions of its length, and at huge expense.

One of the interesting things that keeps happening with the HS2 wholesale destruction of ALL OUR COUNTRYSIDE is that people talk about the number of sites affected, but don't ever mention either the total land take affected, or the proportion of the national sites or total land affected (less than 1%, I believe). This is precisely the opposite of what usually happens when the media is keen to overstate the risks of, say, vaccines or things-that-cause-cancer. With those things you only ever hear about the relative risks, never the absolute ones. Ho hum.

ETA: I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread - the decisions made about the path of HS2 don't just have to contend with ancient woodland. They have to think about housinge, farmland, relief, waterways, geology, roads, other railways, electricity transmission, underground services, disused mines, optimal entry points into cities, optimal curvature of the track, burial sites, landmarks, great crested newts, and so on. There are huge amounts of things all competing to send the line one way or another, which is why it took summat like eight years to get royal assent for the first part of the project. It was in both commons and lords committees for years.
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."

plodder
Catbabel
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:31 pm

There are tunnels under woodland, and the total ancient woodland loss (new woodland will be planted including reuse of old soils etc) is equivalent to the far-more-damaging-yet-strangely-underreported Lower Thames Crossing, from Kent to Essex.

HS2 also provides capacity for loads of freight / passengers to stop using cars. If we don't do that, then the ancient woodlands will be f.cked anyway, as people build treehouses to avoid the rising seawater.

User avatar
Brightonian
Clardic Fug
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by Brightonian » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:43 pm

With The Saj's resignation, is it again not looking good for HS2?

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:45 pm

The Prime Minister himself supported it on Tuesday. What do you reckon?
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
dyqik
Dorkwood
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by dyqik » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:47 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:45 pm
The Prime Minister himself supported it on Tuesday. What do you reckon?
Scrapped by Friday.

The PM probably supported half the ministers he fired today on Tuesday.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Catbabel
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:51 pm

Sigh. Never mind. I'll leave you to it.
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
dyqik
Dorkwood
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by dyqik » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:32 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:51 pm
Sigh. Never mind. I'll leave you to it.
Sorry, that wasn't a serious suggestion, just cynicism and a brief musing on what it means to have the Prime Minister's/Club Board's Full Support.

User avatar
TopBadger
Stargoon
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by TopBadger » Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:30 pm

dyqik wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:32 pm
Sorry, that wasn't a serious suggestion, just cynicism and a brief musing on what it means to have the Prime Minister's/Club Board's Full Support.
I understood your meaning. Five years of rule by a power hungry capricious dictator... the man described as looking at which way the crowd was running before charging to lead it. All bets are off.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
nekomatic
Clardic Fug
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 pm

Re: Not looking good for HS2

Post by nekomatic » Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:59 pm

Is the reported claim that the Chinese can build HS2 in five years at half the cost simply too stupid to entertain, or is it too stupid to entertain entertaining?

Post Reply