HS2

[Tangled Metal]

That comment was highlighting that everybody talking about how we'll all benefit from the extra capacity from HS2 were thinking only of people using HS2 and that people taking the train between Norwich and London will see no extra capacity benefits - yet those same people will be paying for it.

Ian

I got no benefit from cross rail route in London. Aiui that was a project for stockmarket types and barristers to get to work quicker, or at least that's one way I heard it described.

If all rail infrastructure had to benefit the nation as a whole we'd have never had any rail network. That's a weak argument. The idea of us all benefiting I suppose could come from increased tax take due to regional developments on the back of hs2. British economy grows near the hs2 line whether due to capacity on the line or capacity increases on other regional lines due to hs2. I guess then great Britain as a whole benefits. No different to infrastructure improvements in south east or London area.

I don't fully agree about every project being for equal benefit ov the entire population - clearly this does not happen or nowhere would even get a cycle path. But when such a lot is spent on one specific route when there are many smaller projects in need of money in may different places (e.g. reported need for significant investments for commuter lines around and between many towns & cites in the north). If we can afford that much money then are we spending it in the best way for greatest and widespread benefit?

London and South East is a good example of disproportionate infrstructure investiment causing resentment amongst those not "on the receiving end" e.g.

Transport gap: London gets £419 more per head than north of England

Transport spending in London has continued to dramatically increase at the expense of other parts of the country, according to an analysis of the latest government figures.

Ian

I don't agree with it neither. I'm just pointing out that I don't recall as many people and MPs complaining about the big London developments as there are against hs2. It seems it's ok to complain about northern benefiting projects but not London benefitting ones. Hypocrisy because I bet similar arguments apply for and against both developments. It's annoying especially since independent sources put hs2 at returning a significantly higher number of pounds of benefits per pound spent than many of the London based developments. Those are independent costs used not the hs2 Ltd ones so it's based on higher costs. Also equivalent to the way it was calculated for London rail infrastructure too.

Basically I say that if it's not right to build the hs2 then cross London rail project shouldn't have happened. It's time money got spent on infrastructure that benefits the north. Imho a complete ban on any centrally funded infrastructure for London until there has been a rebalancing of the UK economy would be a good policy decision. I'm sure you've read about that uk2070 report that said the regional development fund that's set up to take the money no longer going to eu that would have come back here should be quadrupled for many years to level our economy between London and other regions.

[Psamathe]

.....
I don't agree with it neither. I'm just pointing out that I don't recall as many people and MPs complaining about the big London developments as there are against hs2. It seems it's ok to complain about northern benefiting projects but not London benefitting ones. Hypocrisy because I bet similar arguments apply for and against both developments. It's annoying especially since independent sources put hs2 at returning a significantly higher number of pounds of benefits per pound spent than many of the London based developments. Those are independent costs used not the hs2 Ltd ones so it's based on higher costs. Also equivalent to the way it was calculated for London rail infrastructure too.

Mr Oakervee’s review, it has been reported, says that even with the extra costs there will be a benefit to the wider economy, though this has fallen from £2.30 for every £1 spent in 2017 to between £1.30 and £1.50 for every £1 spent this year. Given how badly the project has been run, there is every reason to be sceptical about these figures ...

...Basically I say that if it's not right to build the hs2 then cross London rail project shouldn't have happened. It's time money got spent on infrastructure that benefits the north. Imho a complete ban on any centrally funded infrastructure for London until there has been a rebalancing of the UK economy would be a good policy decision. I'm sure you've read about that uk2070 report that said the regional development fund that's set up to take the money no longer going to eu that would have come back here should be quadrupled for many years to level our economy between London and other regions.

Maybe the cross London rail project should not have happened (I don't know). Recent polls I've seen from northern town/cities is that there is more support for (less) money to be spent on their local train services (between northern towns & cities) than for a single line to speed people to London. I'd be more supportive of a scheme to improve local services as the benefits are spread wides, more places and people benefitting, we are not perpetuating the "communing is good" ethic, etc., etc.

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

With regard to flooding my personal (and totally unqualified/un-experienced) opinion is that speeding the flow of water is often not a good solution. Holding water back higher in the watershed through natural means can help a lot (release over a longer period and more percolation into the ground and better environments hold more water in the soils, etc.). I used to live in a water-mill and it was quite amazing how quickly the waters rose following heave rain - well maintained ditches and drains all speeding the water downstream where it caused levels to rise quickly causing floods.

Ian

That's what I was talking about. Loss of the small amount if 3 ancient woodland has very little effect on flooding or water flow. Judging by where the route would go the ancient woodland isn't having any effect on the places that seem to be at high risk of flooding.

As a retired whitewater kayaker I'm very much aware of water levels and effect of rain. My experience of kayaking in my region and across the UK gives me good insight into rainwater flow. I know from weather forecasts and actual rainfall in my area just how high rivers a hundred miles away in another catchment area will behave. We learnt to pick the rivers to paddle based on noting where it rained days before. Different rivers had different catchment characteristics which all affects how quickly water reaches them.

It's certainly an interesting topic. I reckon I would have liked to be in the business of looking into water flow through the environment. Unlikely to get the chance for that career do over though.

[Psamathe]

With regard to flooding my personal (and totally unqualified/un-experienced) opinion is that speeding the flow of water is often not a good solution. Holding water back higher in the watershed through natural means can help a lot (release over a longer period and more percolation into the ground and better environments hold more water in the soils, etc.). I used to live in a water-mill and it was quite amazing how quickly the waters rose following heave rain - well maintained ditches and drains all speeding the water downstream where it caused levels to rise quickly causing floods.

Ian

That's what I was talking about. Loss of the small amount if 3 ancient woodland has very little effect on flooding or water flow. Judging by where the route would go the ancient woodland isn't having any effect on the places that seem to be at high risk of flooding.
......

As I said before

...
It comes from a general lack of appreciation as to how critical the natural environment is to our existence. But even those so happy to sacrifice our environment now will probably regret it when e.g. we have no insects to pollinate our crops or when towns and cities flood because the environment that used to moderate water flow has been destroyed, or ...

With regard to flooding it was a general environmental comment NOT specifically related to HS2 (2nd time I've pointed this out now).

And it isn't 3 ancient woodlands

HS2 is the single biggest threat to the UK’s ancient woods, with 108 at risk of loss or damage.

It said at least 108 ancient woods would be affected by HS2 as a whole, with 63 suffering "direct loss" and damage due to noise, vibration, changes to lighting and dust.

and woodlands need to be considered as an envirnement and running a transport link through the middle does far more damage than the area of land taken by the tracks (even if you can prevent Network Rail's "scorched earth policies").

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

I think others put it better. Hs2 improves capacity on surrounding routes. This fallacy about speeding commuters is not the main benefits. Having said that, based on past form, you'll claim that statement is dodgy because once that got shown to be no benefit the supporters changed the story to N capacity. Again ignoring the ministerial speeches right from the beginning stating that capacity was the main benefit.

If you struggle to understand the various reasons for hs2 relieving other local routes. The simplest way to see it is observe the number of times local trains get delayed because of a mainline train being late, missing its slot and taking the slot of local trains instead. Take those Express trains off those routes and there's less delays for lower priority trains. Bear in mind local trains have less chances to recover delays than longer route, mainline trains.

[Tangled Metal]

https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/environment-sustainability/hs2-and-woodlands/
And the other side of the fence. 43 out of 52,000 ancient Woodlands. That's less than 0.01%. Out of these 43 woodland sites 80% are unaffected. There's also mitigation being undertaken such as woodland corridors along the route and between existing ancient woodland.

Aiui part of the issue with ancient woodland is the way modern developments cut between ancient woodland making the smaller entities less viable. This has been an old problem usually without mitigation. It seems there's some attempt at mitigation with hs2. Btw I learnt a lot about woodland working for BTCV doing work for local wildlife trusts and woodland trusts. Their full time rangers are very knowledgeable. You learn to see the details with them. The corridors linking ancient woodland. The sites that looked like ancient woodland but wasn't for some reason. All interesting stuff.

[Pete Owens]

I think others put it better. Hs2 improves capacity on surrounding routes. This fallacy about speeding commuters is not the main benefits.

This is the same as justfying the space programme based on spin off technology - hey look we spent billions putting a man on the moon - and look we now have non-stick frying pans.

If the idea is to boost capacity for local train services then spend the money building conventional commuter railways and electrifying the network. That way you will get a lot more capacity for a fraction of the cost. It won't be at all controversial; I don't think you will find any of the HS2 sceptics on this thread are opposed to building railways - just to a vastly expensive vanity project sucking all the investment that could otherwise be directed at unglamorous projects that would actually make a difference to local travellers.

[SA_SA_SA]

...

But what other routes are 'shovel ready' ? Once you have the track you can think about speeds.

[Jdsk]

f the idea is to boost capacity for local train services then spend the money building conventional commuter railways and electrifying the network. That way you will get a lot more capacity for a fraction of the cost.

There's at least one analysis of that for upgrading WCML rather than adding a new line. It shows the opposite. And the point about high speed passenger services adversely interacting with others is already made above.

But that case doesn't cover uplifting the new line to high speed. That has to stand on its own merits.

Electrifying the rest of the network doesn't compete with HS2 in a way that prevents both (and more). There's no single pot with a fixed amount of money in it. It looks to me to be an excellent idea, and we're seeing yet another set of compensating procurements for not doing it: bimode, trimode, battery systems in Wales etc.

Jonathan

[Oldjohnw]

At Cubbington near Leamington Spa a golf course was saved but a woodland is being destroyed.

[RickH]

With the destruction of ancient woodland - which is much more than old trees - a whole ecosystem is lost. The earth and soil has developed along with the trees and their grandfathers.

My understanding is that the quoted area (58 hectares) is area "impacted" rather than destroyed. They have plans to carefully dig up the soil where work will happen ro preserve it as much as possible & to replace it along with planting of native trees to minimise the long term impact further.

The tunnel through the Chiltern has been increased in length from the original plans (which has added to the cost) to reduce the impact on woodlands.

[mikeymo]

I think others put it better. Hs2 improves capacity on surrounding routes. This fallacy about speeding commuters is not the main benefits.

This is the same as justfying the space programme based on spin off technology - hey look we spent billions putting a man on the moon - and look we now have non-stick frying pans.

What a bizarre comparison. The "spin-off" of HS2 that is being talked about, is the extra capacity it will add, including on surrounding routes. It's a comment to do with related benefits in PRECISELY THE SAME INDUSTRY. And capacity that will be added to the WHOLE UK NETWORK.

Did anybody really claim that the main benefit of the space programme was non-stick, and that made it all worthwhile? Although, as it happens, non stick pans are something that millions of people actually do find useful. Mainly women that do unpaid work in kitchens.

[John Holiday]

Utter madness.
Have never had a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot extend existing infrastructure & run longer trains, rather than destroying huge swathes of valuable countryside by new line.
I know that the loading gauge is a constraint, as much of the bridge & tunnel infrastructure was built so long ago.
All for expanding rail use which would be much "greener ",but not at insane cost of HS2.

[mikeymo]

Utter madness.
Have never had a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot extend existing infrastructure & run longer trains, rather than destroying huge swathes of valuable countryside by new line.

How about the "reasonable explanation", repeated, over and over and over again, by people who actually seem to have some clue about how railways work, that having slow commuter trains and high speed long distance trains ON THE SAME TRACK, reduces capacity:

"A mix of train speeds is particularly damaging to route capacity"

Steer Davies Gleave (2013). Capacity on North-South Main Lines. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/286617/capacity-on-north-south-main-lines.pdf (page 6, 2.3)

Are they wrong? If so, please explain why.

[fullupandslowingdown]

faster trains need more headway which because of recent network rail policy of reducing signalling to decrease their staff and maintenance costs, means that fewer trains actually run on any given line. and as said, faster trains have priority over slower ones especially freight. and also with the existing system, even if you do somehow squeeze more trains into a given length of line, you still have the problem when these trains need to cross the paths of other trains, or go into stations.

I lost count of the number of accumulated hours of delay I experienced when I used to commute into Birmingham because of the lack of capacity in the station, and the approach lines. We would sail all the way from Leicester than about 5 miles from New Street we'd stop.

To significantly improve capacity on the existing system we would need to build more costly flyovers and unders at junctions so one service doesn't delay another. And increase the number of platforms at stations which is easier said than done within city confines, as the space needed isn't just a strip of land one platform and line wide, at the station, but the lines feeding it going back to the junctions where the congestion starts.

There is no simple solution to it all. If we were to have settled for the slower journey times of the 50s, then keeping the railways back then would have worked, but if you want speed, then something else has to give in this life. HS2 is a costly solution with loads of disadvantages such as the ancient woodlands and a few tory voter's homes, but as it is almost a stand alone system, unless the details are bodged, then it won't impede on the existing system in the same way that upgrades to the existing system does. Imagine how london underground would work if all the lines met at the stations, rather than pass over each other.