Scrutable

shpalman wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 3:43 pm Sheep House Wood Concrete Bat Shed

Is this your first try at Wordle?

Dude, it's Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it's been illegal to disturb bats for over 40 years, don't act all surprised that your pet project isn't allowed to break the law with impunity.

Yes, Natural England are pretty dire. They are unresponsive, ill-informed and inconsistent. This may have something to do with the massive budget cuts and staff layoffs that they've experienced over the last 14 years. You know that £100 million you say you've spent on a "shed"? That was NE's entire budget for 2019. This whining particularly stinks the day after NE's Welsh counterpart NRW announced it was laying off another 120 people.

Sciolus wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 8:35 am Dude, it's Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it's been illegal to disturb bats for over 40 years, don't act all surprised that your pet project isn't allowed to break the law with impunity.

Yes, Natural England are pretty dire. They are unresponsive, ill-informed and inconsistent. This may have something to do with the massive budget cuts and staff layoffs that they've experienced over the last 14 years. You know that £100 million you say you've spent on a "shed"? That was NE's entire budget for 2019. This whining particularly stinks the day after NE's Welsh counterpart NRW announced it was laying off another 120 people.

Except not building it wouldn't be breaking the law, but hey. Oh and capex != opex. The point is not that there are parties interested in getting what they want. The point is that them getting what they want is over the top and an expensive barrier to overcome when combined with county councils getting what they want, which in the case of Bucks CC is to f.ck over HS2 as much as possible. The point is also that requiring over 8,000 consents after you've spent twelve years passing a law and approving funding to build it is an insane thing to expect construction projects to align with.

Nationally-critical infrastructure schemes should be able to be designated and have smoother passages which are informed by but not held up by local concerns.

I should say that the cantankerousness of my post above was directed at Thompson, not EPD, although the reference to "your pet project" may have may it seemed like I was being hostile to EPD. Apologies if that was the impression I gave.

That's not to say that EPD isn't talking out of his arse.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:34 pm

Sciolus wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 8:35 am Dude, it's Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it's been illegal to disturb bats for over 40 years, don't act all surprised that your pet project isn't allowed to break the law with impunity.

Yes, Natural England are pretty dire. They are unresponsive, ill-informed and inconsistent. This may have something to do with the massive budget cuts and staff layoffs that they've experienced over the last 14 years. You know that £100 million you say you've spent on a "shed"? That was NE's entire budget for 2019. This whining particularly stinks the day after NE's Welsh counterpart NRW announced it was laying off another 120 people.

[1] Except not building it wouldn't be breaking the law, but hey. [2] Oh and capex != opex. [3] The point is not that there are parties interested in getting what they want. The point is that them getting what they want is over the top and an expensive barrier to overcome when combined with county councils getting what they want, which in the case of Bucks CC is to f.ck over HS2 as much as possible. The point is also that requiring over 8,000 consents after you've spent twelve years passing a law and approving funding to build it is an insane thing to expect construction projects to align with.

Nationally-critical infrastructure schemes should be able to be designated and have smoother passages which are informed by but not held up by local concerns.

1. It definitely is illegal to disturb bats under WCA without a licence from NE, and I don't see anywhere in the HS2 act that nullifies that, unless you know otherwise. "Disturb" is drawn very widely, and includes things like damaging trees or other landmarks that bats use to navigate, or intrusive lighting.

2. I know that, but the fact that the two numbers are even comparable is remarkable. If an imperceptible fraction of HS2's budget had gone to NE, they might not have lost most of their experienced and competent (read: paid more than minimum wage) staff, and it might have been possible to come up with a solution sooner, cheaper and better. Sadly, we're stuck with the pennywise, pound foolish legacy of Osbornomics.

3. Unfortunately, the media reporting of Thompson's speech omitted the bits where he offered constructive proposals for how to improve the country's infrastructure without f.cking up its already badly f.cked up nature, and dwelled on the bits where he said "f.ck nature". I don't know why HS2 went down the wossname, act of parliament route, but the alternative NSIP/DCO process was set up precisely (in part) to make this sort of thing easier by encouraging early engagement and agreement. I suspect too many at HS2 have been subject to the arrogance of ignorance exemplified here.

Also, regarding HS2 specifically, I have already given a way to reduce their impacts and financial costs, but EPD rejected it on grounds that didn't make sense. Since the avowed purpose of HS2 is capacity rather than speed, simply drop the rated speed, which will allow for more and tighter bends, and therefore allow more options for routing around sensitive sites. But of course reducing the speed would have made Osborne's penis look smaller.

Now, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Thompson. I'm currently having hassle trying to get approval for a renewable energy scheme. NE are insisting that we demonstrate that there are no significant effects on a protected site (quite rightly), but they lack the competence to decide what is significant and what isn't, so it's deadlocked. The solution is to repair NE (and EA and the rest) so they become competent. Unfortunately, that's the opposite of what's happening. As well as the further hacking to bits of NRW mentioned above, in the Budget, Defra's funding was cut yet again. Utterly counterproductive.

Cor, I haven't written a good wall-o-text rant on here for ages.

Oh, and those nimbys whining about pylons spoiling the view can f.ck off too.

I’m sure you are correct on the Natural England bit, but I’m going to politely suggest that any proposed solution to an issue with something on the scale of HS2 that begins ‘Simply…’ is probably also arse-talking.

Sciolus wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2024 10:51 amI don't know why HS2 went down the wossname, act of parliament route, but the alternative NSIP/DCO process

I don’t know if the one precludes the other but it’s my understanding that any new railway in Britain needs an Act of Parliament, no?

Sciolus wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2024 10:51 am Oh, and those nimbys whining about pylons spoiling the view can f.ck off too.

Now this we can agree on.

nekomatic wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2024 11:02 am I’m going to politely suggest that any proposed solution to an issue with something on the scale of HS2 that begins ‘Simply…’ is probably also arse-talking.

It's a fair cop.

Sciolus wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2024 10:14 amAlso, regarding HS2 specifically, I have already given a way to reduce their impacts and financial costs, but EPD rejected it on grounds that didn't make sense. Since the avowed purpose of HS2 is capacity rather than speed, simply drop the rated speed, which will allow for more and tighter bends, and therefore allow more options for routing around sensitive sites. But of course reducing the speed would have made Osborne's penis look smaller.

I find it fascinating that you write as if you're the first person to think of this, and as if this wasn't considered whilst HS2 was in its route-planning stage twelve years ago.

The speed was selected for a host of reasons, including capacity as well maximising the benefits of the route, amongst other things. The route was selected based on the needs that drove, as well as a very, very large list of things to optimise between which included but extended beyond SSSIs and naturally-sensitive areas. That route is now set in two acts of parliament. The route for Phase 1 is under construction and the land for Phase 2a has already been purchased. The contracts for track design and construction are being signed as we speak, after an extraordinarily lengthy and complicated tendering process.

The route of HS2 can no more be "simply" changed than the route of the channel tunnel or the M25.

Oh and the point of opex not equalling capex is an important one - choices around budget for Natural England or any other body are absolutely f.ck all to do with HS2.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 11:58 am
I find it fascinating that you write as if you're the first person to think of this

Oh that's a keeper of a turn of phrase that is... wondering if I'd get away with deploying that in strategy meetings...

TopBadger wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 1:28 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 11:58 am
I find it fascinating that you write as if you're the first person to think of this

Oh that's a keeper of a turn of phrase that is... wondering if I'd get away with deploying that in strategy meetings...

Yup

I'm not talking about detailed design. I've spent a decent chunk of my working life optioneering for megaprojects, I know what's involved. And I know it's all about trade-offs, which is why Thompson is a jerk for whining about them.

I'm talking about the top-level strategic decisions (which I admit are way above my pay grade), like is it about speed or capacity, and does it go to Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, London or none of the above. It's obvious plenty of people have thought about those, and come to different decisions in a hopelessly flawed decision-making process (largely because of politicians).

Sciolus wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2024 9:23 am I'm not talking about detailed design. I've spent a decent chunk of my working life optioneering for megaprojects, I know what's involved. And I know it's all about trade-offs, which is why Thompson is a jerk for whining about them.

I'm talking about the top-level strategic decisions (which I admit are way above my pay grade), like is it about speed or capacity, and does it go to Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, London or none of the above. It's obvious plenty of people have thought about those, and come to different decisions in a hopelessly flawed decision-making process (largely because of politicians).

What I understand from EPD is that speed and capacity are the almost the same thing. As for where it goes, the phased option planning has been clear and static.

Let's be clear: Sunak's decision to cancel Phase 2 is amongst the worst strategic decisions made by any Government in my lifetime, including Brexit.

Prior to that point, there was reasonable agreement on the way forward. The decision around the Eastern Leg was stupid but understandable if NPR was delivered in full. But London-Manchester was - is - essential. And apparently if Sunak had been re-elected he was minded to cancel Phase One as well. There isn't a single person inside HS2 who thinks it was the right decision, and every single thing we've seen since then only goes to prove what a colossal heap of shite the whole thing was.

Sciolus' argument doesn't make any sense to me. SJT was complaining about the huge, huge costs that come with the byzantine planning system in this country, where the interests of different parties don't match up, and the absolutely ridiculous effort that anyone has to go to to get things approved. Which is a completely fair argument.

No one has talked about detailed design until Sciolus mentioned it. The route planning stage of around 2012 isn't anywhere near the detailed design stage - which HS2 will enter in February for the Phase One Rail Systems contracts. The decisions needed early about design speed (which isn't operating speed - some of the French TGV lines have been designed for 400kph) in order to guide route planning have been stuck to. That route planning was undertaken by people I'm in awe of, and had to weave the line in the most optimal route between reservoirs and rivers and SSSIs and woodland and electricity pylons and other railways and roads and gas mains and towns and villages and listed buildings and so on, whilst keeping inclines and turns to a minimum, and keeping the construction cost as efficient as possible. Those decisions are now captured in law and property. There isn't any change possible.

All of which is to say, there isn't a single path that HS2 could have chosen which would keep everyone happy. The decisions made were the best ones possible, and anyone who says they could have done a better job is either deluded or lying.

Blog post by a former member of a former parish, highlighting absurd thinking by local councillors:
I visited Britain's most expensive farm track

Brightonian wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 3:50 pm Blog post by a former member of a former parish, highlighting absurd thinking by local councillors:
I visited Britain's most expensive farm track

He's one of the presenters of the Abundance Agenda podcast.

Alot of councillors don't really understand their role and powers in regard to planning. I can give you plenty of examples where councillors (the elected people who make the decisions) have gone against the advice of officers (i.e. the paid council employees whose job it is to provide factual advice to councillors) only to have their decision overturned by inspectors (also professionals) on appeal, often with costs against the council. It's also often pretty obvious that some of the stated grounds for refusal are spurious, and the real reason is something different (as in the Jobbins story). For all they are elected to represent the will of the people, councillors don't actually have a great deal of discretion in planning decisions.

Bucks CC have absolutely no incentive to help HS2. That's because Bucks only gets trouble from HS2, and no advantage. You can get a direct train to Birmingham already from several stations in Bucks. Going via Euston to take HS2 will only cost more and take longer. So Bucks CC's approach to any request from HS2 is a DUP-like "Noooooooooo", until HS2 has worked out something that they can't say "Nooooooooooo" to, no matter how stupid or expensive that might be.

The effect of BucksCC's lack of cooperation is to make them do silly things that are to no one's advantage and only to drive the cost up. The bat tunnel came about because they Bucks no, no, no until the bat tunnel was proposed and they couldn't say no any more to that. And it is suggested it won't even work.

I think Bucks are still hoping against hope they will come up with the straw that breaks the camel's back and it gets cancelled. But really, this just makes us all poorer, and is very stupid. It's just one of the factors in Why Britain Is So Bad At Infrastructure These Days. There's lots and lots of stuff like this.

If we compare with HS1, then we might think in retrospect that building Ashford International station was pretty silly. It slightly was used for a while. I have a recollection of once stopping there on a train from Brussels, about 15 years ago. But apparently insufficient people used it to make it a commercial proposition. And now it is disused. Similarly at Ebbsfleet, where the international trains no longer stop. But at least Ashford International only cost £80m rather than £200m for a bat tunnel. And if it helped make Kent County Council more cooperative, then it may have saved its cost many times over. But that's really no way to solve the issue either. In France, they woudn't put up with any such nonsense.

And they are like this more widely. I could tell you the stupid story of how Bucks planning turned down my proposed extension, because my neighbour didn't like it, and then let me do something he liked even less, so making both of us worse off. But I'll save the details of that for another day....

Something for everyone in the HS2 Parliamentary Report

IvanV wrote: Tue Apr 29, 2025 7:58 am Bucks CC have absolutely no incentive to help HS2. That's because Bucks only gets trouble from HS2, and no advantage. You can get a direct train to Birmingham already from several stations in Bucks. Going via Euston to take HS2 will only cost more and take longer. So Bucks CC's approach to any request from HS2 is a DUP-like "Noooooooooo", until HS2 has worked out something that they can't say "Nooooooooooo" to, no matter how stupid or expensive that might be.

The effect of BucksCC's lack of cooperation is to make them do silly things that are to no one's advantage and only to drive the cost up. The bat tunnel came about because they Bucks no, no, no until the bat tunnel was proposed and they couldn't say no any more to that. And it is suggested it won't even work.

I think Bucks are still hoping against hope they will come up with the straw that breaks the camel's back and it gets cancelled. But really, this just makes us all poorer, and is very stupid. It's just one of the factors in Why Britain Is So Bad At Infrastructure These Days. There's lots and lots of stuff like this.

If we compare with HS1, then we might think in retrospect that building Ashford International station was pretty silly. It slightly was used for a while. I have a recollection of once stopping there on a train from Brussels, about 15 years ago. But apparently insufficient people used it to make it a commercial proposition. And now it is disused. Similarly at Ebbsfleet, where the international trains no longer stop. But at least Ashford International only cost £80m rather than £200m for a bat tunnel. And if it helped make Kent County Council more cooperative, then it may have saved its cost many times over. But that's really no way to solve the issue either. In France, they woudn't put up with any such nonsense.

And they are like this more widely. I could tell you the stupid story of how Bucks planning turned down my proposed extension, because my neighbour didn't like it, and then let me do something he liked even less, so making both of us worse off. But I'll save the details of that for another day....

Surely the way around that is some suitable bit of bribery to the county council to make up for all the faff of having a dirty great train line you can't easily use going through the middle of your countryside.

bjn wrote: Thu Jul 17, 2025 7:43 pm Surely the way around that is some suitable bit of bribery to the county council to make up for all the faff of having a dirty great train line you can't easily use going through the middle of your countryside.

Absolutely. Unfortunately illegal in Britain. In France, there is a build-first-compensate-later approach.

Here in Britain, if planning authorities determine that something is in the public interest, then you just get the power to go ahead regardless of detriments you impose on people. If something really is in the public interest, then it should be affordable to compensate people for those detriments.

IvanV wrote: Tue Apr 29, 2025 7:58 am Bucks CC have absolutely no incentive to help HS2. That's because Bucks only gets trouble from HS2, and no advantage.

There will be advantages, and a competent council would be looking at how best to exploit them.

Currently there are longer-distance trains running through Bucks stations and not stopping at any of them. Those will decrease in number. That will free up track for potential new services calling at Bucks stations.
There may also be fewer long-distance passengers on trains that do call at Bucks stations (I don't know).
There may be scope for extra freight trains that take traffic off Bucks roads.

All in all they'll be getting a chunk of rail capacity back and should be looking at what they'd like to see it used for.

TimW wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:34 am

IvanV wrote: Tue Apr 29, 2025 7:58 am Bucks CC have absolutely no incentive to help HS2. That's because Bucks only gets trouble from HS2, and no advantage.

There will be advantages, and a competent council would be looking at how best to exploit them.

Currently there are longer-distance trains running through Bucks stations and not stopping at any of them. Those will decrease in number. That will free up track for potential new services calling at Bucks stations.
There may also be fewer long-distance passengers on trains that do call at Bucks stations (I don't know).
There may be scope for extra freight trains that take traffic off Bucks roads.

All in all they'll be getting a chunk of rail capacity back and should be looking at what they'd like to see it used for.

That's really of more relevance to local authorities along the WCML. And the main interest is really further out up the WCML where some places get more patchy services, and where materially better services are being deterred by tight capacity on the fast line. The service on the Northampton line is really pretty good. So the potential to improve what is already good is unlikely to get you much back-scratch in return.

And moreover relevant to very few people in Bucks. The only WCML station within Bucks CC's area is Cheddington. It is a small village in a thinly populated area, and gets the remarkably good service of 2 trains per hour for such a little-used station. Denham on the Chiltern Line has three times the demand and had its off-peak service cut back to once an hour some years before Covid, due to weak demand. Stations in other local authority areas - Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes and Wolverton - are the local stations for some people in more northerly parts of Bucks. But these are going to be a small number of the users of these stations, as these parts of Bucks are mostly thinly populated.

A few Chiltern trains, mainly in the peak, run non-stop through Bucks, usually first stop one of the Bicester stations, both on the Birmingham and Oxford lines. And that won't change, as HS2 will take hardly anyone off those trains. People taking the Chiltern Line from London to Birmingham are already doing that as a conscious choice not to use the faster but more expensive services out of Euston. And Chiltern Line still has spare capacity. It runs fewer services than it ran before Covid, as demand is not fully restored. The direct Marylebone to Stratford-upon-Avon services have not been reinstated, for example.

IvanV wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 3:21 pm

TimW wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:34 am

IvanV wrote: Tue Apr 29, 2025 7:58 am Bucks CC have absolutely no incentive to help HS2. That's because Bucks only gets trouble from HS2, and no advantage.

There will be advantages, and a competent council would be looking at how best to exploit them.

Currently there are longer-distance trains running through Bucks stations and not stopping at any of them. Those will decrease in number. That will free up track for potential new services calling at Bucks stations.
There may also be fewer long-distance passengers on trains that do call at Bucks stations (I don't know).
There may be scope for extra freight trains that take traffic off Bucks roads.

All in all they'll be getting a chunk of rail capacity back and should be looking at what they'd like to see it used for.

That's really of more relevance to local authorities along the WCML. And the main interest is really further out up the WCML where some places get more patchy services, and where materially better services are being deterred by tight capacity on the fast line. The service on the Northampton line is really pretty good. So the potential to improve what is already good is unlikely to get you much back-scratch in return.

And moreover relevant to very few people in Bucks. The only WCML station within Bucks CC's area is Cheddington. It is a small village in a thinly populated area, and gets the remarkably good service of 2 trains per hour for such a little-used station. Denham on the Chiltern Line has three times the demand and had its off-peak service cut back to once an hour some years before Covid, due to weak demand. Stations in other local authority areas - Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, Milton Keynes and Wolverton - are the local stations for some people in more northerly parts of Bucks. But these are going to be a small number of the users of these stations, as these parts of Bucks are mostly thinly populated.

A few Chiltern trains, mainly in the peak, run non-stop through Bucks, usually first stop one of the Bicester stations, both on the Birmingham and Oxford lines. And that won't change, as HS2 will take hardly anyone off those trains. People taking the Chiltern Line from London to Birmingham are already doing that as a conscious choice not to use the faster but more expensive services out of Euston. And Chiltern Line still has spare capacity. It runs fewer services than it ran before Covid, as demand is not fully restored. The direct Marylebone to Stratford-upon-Avon services have not been reinstated, for example.

Ivan, it's not about taking people off of the trains, it's about taking trains off of the tracks, so more local services can run. You can't look at current local services and assume that they will stay the same.

dyqik wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 3:55 pm Ivan, it's not about taking people off of the trains, it's about taking trains off of the tracks, so more local services can run. You can't look at current local services and assume that they will stay the same.

This is only relevant to the point I was making about the Chiltern Line.

If you think that HS2 will release capacity on the Chiltern Line, why would that be?

Will the government tell Chiltern to stop selling people cheap tickets to Birmingham? Even HS1 (domestic) charges a premium to travel on it. So I imagine HS2 will too. Even the French do things like that. But the British Government continues, bizarrely, to have little enthusiasm for continental-style fares systems.

Would the government just tell Chiltern just to run fewer trains to Birmingham? Why would they do that? They make money by taking trains to Birmingham. They spent a bunch of money increasing capacity on the line to do it.

IvanV wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 5:00 pm

dyqik wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2025 3:55 pm Ivan, it's not about taking people off of the trains, it's about taking trains off of the tracks, so more local services can run. You can't look at current local services and assume that they will stay the same.

This is only relevant to the point I was making about the Chiltern Line.

If you think that HS2 will release capacity on the Chiltern Line, why would that be?

Will the government tell Chiltern to stop selling people cheap tickets to Birmingham? Even HS1 (domestic) charges a premium to travel on it. So I imagine HS2 will too. Even the French do things like that. But the British Government continues, bizarrely, to have little enthusiasm for continental-style fares systems.

Would the government just tell Chiltern just to run fewer trains to Birmingham? Why would they do that? They make money by taking trains to Birmingham. They spent a bunch of money increasing capacity on the line to do it.

No, it's likely relevant to all the lines. Removing the long distance trains, even from just near the terminus stations, allows new services, or services that run at different times.

If some services were underused, it may be because the timing of them was bad - e.g. commuter trains that arrive at destinations only a few minutes before 9am, or that leave to return too close to standard work ending times - or that they were a little too unreliable due to other rail traffic.