|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 5, 2023 23:05:01 GMT
Most land isn't owned by railways, or the government, its owned by farmers up to the fences. The freight was to go on the existing lines that was free of capacity that HS2 was freeing up. Anyone dealing in large projects will know its easier and cheaper to build new rather than try and rebuild against old. Well this article ( www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10423790/Upgrading-existing-rail-network-would-be-better-value-than-HS2-government-analysis-finds.html) from 2013 (way before HS2 costs got out of hand) seems to suggest the opposite - that upgrading the existing infrastructure would result in a much higher payback than HS2 - and this was buried in a government report analysing the relative costs. The government knew it was the best value option when they commissioned it. It was a vanity project from the outset. That's very interesting. Do we know if the actual analysis data is available anywhere? It sounds like the report was circulated within government and buried. As is often the case when you look a little deeper there are flaws such as: It says some trains would be at 140 mph, is that high speed? It says "HS2 will provide 13,000 seats during peak times, compared to just 3,000 for the alternative schemes" but a major problem is the old system is it's already at full capacity. It says: “The alternatives to HS2 would result in up to 14 years of weekend closures across the network on multiple routes resulting in significant disruption to the travelling public." Is that acceptable? I suspect if the proposal was viable it would have been given more of an airing in the last 10 years. It sounds to me like a cheaper scheme with minimal benefits in terms of increased capacity and reduced journey times, that simply marks time with demand and does not really move the country forward like the schemes in other countries reportedly do. It is also necessary to pose the question is it acceptable for 140+ mph trains to be flying through built up areas and villages which the old Victorian routes do? I think we have to accept that we have missed our chance to build a proper high speed network, if indeed we ever had one. What irks me is that after Spain joined the EU in 1986, they received vast aid from the EU to rebuild its infrastructure which had been sorely neglected during the Franco years. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Spain received EU funds for large infrastructure projects, such as the country’s 3,086km high-speed rail network (AVE), the world’s second largest after China’s. In 2001 Spain was allocated nearly 63% of the EU’s structural funds budget (US$27.8 billion). Overall, in absolute terms Spain is the country that has benefited the most from both structural and cohesion funds. Between 1989 and 2006 it was allocated (excluding the funds from the CAP) more than 100,000 million euros (at 1999 prices). In 2005 Spain received 7.878 billion euros from the structural and cohesion funds (24% of the total or 50% of the cohesion funds –1.386 billion euros–). Spain did have one problem, many of the years it was not able to spend all the money it was allocated!!! To build all the motorways, rail, port, and airport facilities Spain needed steel. While the UK was shutting down steelworks and putting 10,000s out of work, Spain was increasing its steel production. So who was providing this funding? You've guessed it. As Clarkson pointed out in one of his TV shows when he toured Europe many years ago, the net financial contribution the UK had made to the EU at that time matched the net financial gain Spain received in membership of the EU. This country was taken for a ride for 47 years and screwed by the EEC and the EU. In terms of wealth per head we have been left one of the poorest countries in western Europe from EU membership. The UK has been the EU's "Treasure Island", paying for the privilege of having a massive trade deficit with the EU.
fullfact.org/europe/is-the-uk-really-the-eus-treasure-island/ |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 5, 2023 23:13:31 GMT
Oh look more lies.
And probably means Euston will lose some platforms as more land is sold to property developers so less land for train tracks.
The Tories really hate this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Oct 5, 2023 23:13:46 GMT
it's not an economic barrier though. The freeing up the lines for more cargo and improved local services would help. Also environmentally it’s massive. More train use has to be encouraged to drive down car journeys. nah sorry I'm not having it. The only thing more pointless than half arseing it was starting it in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 5, 2023 23:18:14 GMT
The freeing up the lines for more cargo and improved local services would help. Also environmentally it’s massive. More train use has to be encouraged to drive down car journeys. nah sorry I'm not having it. The only thing more pointless than half arseing it was starting it in the first place. You’re not having that more cargo use will drive up the economy? And that more local use would too? And more connectivity for the north to the south would too? And that the benefits for the environment you would hope would help with the economy as climate change will cost us billions/trillions/our lives. All seem like pretty reasonable arguments to me. |
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Oct 5, 2023 23:24:33 GMT
nah sorry I'm not having it. The only thing more pointless than half arseing it was starting it in the first place. You’re not having that more cargo use will drive up the economy? And that more local use would too? And more connectivity for the north to the south would too? And that the benefits for the environment you would hope would help with the economy as climate change will cost us billions/trillions/our lives. All seem like pretty reasonable arguments to me. How much of our cargo is routed via train London through Manchester? Do we currently have a capacity issue there? |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 5, 2023 23:28:45 GMT
You’re not having that more cargo use will drive up the economy? And that more local use would too? And more connectivity for the north to the south would too? And that the benefits for the environment you would hope would help with the economy as climate change will cost us billions/trillions/our lives. All seem like pretty reasonable arguments to me. How much of our cargo is routed via train London through Manchester? Do we currently have a capacity issue there? I think the west coast main line has a massive capacity issue doesn’t it? Both places have big cargo terminals and Crewe which would be a key component of this whole thing has one of the biggest cargo depots in the country. Taking wagons off the road can only be a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Oct 5, 2023 23:35:20 GMT
How much of our cargo is routed via train London through Manchester? Do we currently have a capacity issue there? I think the west coast main line has a massive capacity issue doesn’t it? Both places have big cargo terminals and Crewe which would be a key component of this whole thing has one of the biggest cargo depots in the country. Taking wagons off the road can only be a good thing. I'm genuinely not sure. It was a genuine question. Practically speaking though, do I want to load my goods onto a wagon, drive them to unload at a train cargo terminal, unload back onto a wagon at the other end... Again, I've no idea of this is how it works! |
|
|
|
Post by kingdong on Oct 6, 2023 1:07:24 GMT
In Japan they are currently building the Maglev high speed train system between Tokyo and Nagoya, a distance very similar to London to Manchester. It is expected to take 40 mins to go between the 2 cities and 80% of the track will be underground. Unbelievably the construction cost for this around 60 Billion GBP.
Compare the cost of that vs. HS2...
|
|
|
|
Post by knype on Oct 6, 2023 3:25:16 GMT
It's always happened whether Tory or Labour, nothing will change! That just isn't true, as much as you'd like it to be. Always has done |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 6, 2023 6:33:18 GMT
This just stinks to high heaven of corrupt practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 6, 2023 6:40:21 GMT
Was shaving 50 mins from the journey from Manchester to London really ever worth it in the first place? The payback on this project was always tenuous. Having said that, stopping at Brum is even more fucking pointless. Idiots. Have you read any of the recent thread or the HS2 details? |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 6, 2023 6:40:59 GMT
This just stinks to high heaven of corrupt practice. Like a dictatorship |
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Oct 6, 2023 7:03:13 GMT
Was shaving 50 mins from the journey from Manchester to London really ever worth it in the first place? The payback on this project was always tenuous. Having said that, stopping at Brum is even more fucking pointless. Idiots. Have you read any of the recent thread or the HS2 details? Don't be coy. If you think I'm talking shite just say so. I'm a big fat lad, I can take it! |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 6, 2023 8:03:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Oct 6, 2023 8:03:44 GMT
This just stinks to high heaven of corrupt practice. Like a dictatorship The public didn't vote for Churchill in 1939 either....  sometimes strong decisive leadership with less consultation is needed to get timely results. |
|
|
|
Post by beautifulnorth on Oct 6, 2023 8:17:17 GMT
Call it 300m per mile and the rest backhanders.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 6, 2023 8:18:10 GMT
I think the west coast main line has a massive capacity issue doesn’t it? Both places have big cargo terminals and Crewe which would be a key component of this whole thing has one of the biggest cargo depots in the country. Taking wagons off the road can only be a good thing. I'm genuinely not sure. It was a genuine question. Practically speaking though, do I want to load my goods onto a wagon, drive them to unload at a train cargo terminal, unload back onto a wagon at the other end... Again, I've no idea of this is how it works! Containers. Computers do most of the work. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 6, 2023 8:49:29 GMT
The public didn't vote for Churchill in 1939 either.... sometimes strong decisive leadership with less consultation is needed to get timely results. Only problem is Sunak isn't strong, decisive or a leader. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 6, 2023 9:04:45 GMT
The public didn't vote for Churchill in 1939 either.... sometimes strong decisive leadership with less consultation is needed to get timely results. which Sunak isn't, and these aren't desperate times, you never vote for a leader anyway, you vote for your MP. |
|
|
|
Post by eddyclamp on Oct 6, 2023 9:05:38 GMT
The public didn't vote for Churchill in 1939 either.... sometimes strong decisive leadership with less consultation is needed to get timely results. Only problem is Sunak isn't strong, decisive or a leader. Some might say the opposite by cancelling HS2. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 6, 2023 9:18:52 GMT
That's very interesting. Do we know if the actual analysis data is available anywhere? It sounds like the report was circulated within government and buried. As is often the case when you look a little deeper there are flaws such as: It says some trains would be at 140 mph, is that high speed? It says "HS2 will provide 13,000 seats during peak times, compared to just 3,000 for the alternative schemes" but a major problem is the old system is it's already at full capacity. It says: “The alternatives to HS2 would result in up to 14 years of weekend closures across the network on multiple routes resulting in significant disruption to the travelling public." Is that acceptable? I suspect if the proposal was viable it would have been given more of an airing in the last 10 years. It sounds to me like a cheaper scheme with minimal benefits in terms of increased capacity and reduced journey times, that simply marks time with demand and does not really move the country forward like the schemes in other countries reportedly do. It is also necessary to pose the question is it acceptable for 140+ mph trains to be flying through built up areas and villages which the old Victorian routes do? I think we have to accept that we have missed our chance to build a proper high speed network, if indeed we ever had one. What irks me is that after Spain joined the EU in 1986, they received vast aid from the EU to rebuild its infrastructure which had been sorely neglected during the Franco years. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Spain received EU funds for large infrastructure projects, such as the country’s 3,086km high-speed rail network (AVE), the world’s second largest after China’s. In 2001 Spain was allocated nearly 63% of the EU’s structural funds budget (US$27.8 billion). Overall, in absolute terms Spain is the country that has benefited the most from both structural and cohesion funds. Between 1989 and 2006 it was allocated (excluding the funds from the CAP) more than 100,000 million euros (at 1999 prices). In 2005 Spain received 7.878 billion euros from the structural and cohesion funds (24% of the total or 50% of the cohesion funds –1.386 billion euros–). Spain did have one problem, many of the years it was not able to spend all the money it was allocated!!! To build all the motorways, rail, port, and airport facilities Spain needed steel. While the UK was shutting down steelworks and putting 10,000s out of work, Spain was increasing its steel production. So who was providing this funding? You've guessed it. As Clarkson pointed out in one of his TV shows when he toured Europe many years ago, the net financial contribution the UK had made to the EU at that time matched the net financial gain Spain received in membership of the EU. This country was taken for a ride for 47 years and screwed by the EEC and the EU. In terms of wealth per head we have been left one of the poorest countries in western Europe from EU membership. The UK has been the EU's "Treasure Island", paying for the privilege of having a massive trade deficit with the EU.
fullfact.org/europe/is-the-uk-really-the-eus-treasure-island/The Telegraph article is quoting a government report so I presume it's a matter of public record some where. It's hard to find an objective view on HS2 - it's either stuff that overstates the value from groups that if you scratch the surface have a vested interest in the project or stuff that overplays the alternatives from groups with an axe to grind - like the Tax Payers Alliance. My own take is that the business case was marginal at best and the reason it got the go ahead was because we wanted a nice shiny high speed train service because that's what other countries have - it was an ego trip. Now that the cost have spiralled there is no business case to continue - we'd just be chucking good money after bad. The bit about Spain is all very interesting but completely irrelevant to the HS2 decision. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 6, 2023 9:42:39 GMT
I think he means if Labour get in they will spend some money in the North. How I read it anyway. They are putting the money directly into the hoped for spin offs because they will generate more value per pound invested. Nice bit of selective quoting - you've missed out all the stuff I said about Labour having money to spend now that Tories have stopped draining the public coffers on a white elephant. I'm not a Tory and I'm not Labour but I don't feel the need to denigrate either of them them on everything they do just to prove my credentials. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 6, 2023 10:07:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 6, 2023 10:07:32 GMT
I'm not a Tory and I'm not Labour but I don't feel the need to denigrate either of them them on everything they do just to prove my credentials. That's a pretty poor comment from you, I actually thought you were better than that, absolutely no need to start with the (unfounded) personal jibes, I wouldn't do it to you. I (and millions of other people) have strong, passionate views on what has taken place here, you have an alternative view, which is absolutely fine but please don't attempt to belittle OUR views with such mocking remarks. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 6, 2023 10:44:34 GMT
Most land isn't owned by railways, or the government, its owned by farmers up to the fences. The freight was to go on the existing lines that was free of capacity that HS2 was freeing up. Anyone dealing in large projects will know its easier and cheaper to build new rather than try and rebuild against old. Well this article ( www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10423790/Upgrading-existing-rail-network-would-be-better-value-than-HS2-government-analysis-finds.html) from 2013 (way before HS2 costs got out of hand) seems to suggest the opposite - that upgrading the existing infrastructure would result in a much higher payback than HS2 - and this was buried in a government report analysing the relative costs. The government knew it was the best value option when they commissioned it. It was a vanity project from the outset. That article also states it isn't horses for courses though. Not as much capacity will be available, nothing about getting freight off the roads ... |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 6, 2023 10:52:14 GMT
Jesus wept.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 6, 2023 11:51:29 GMT
That's very interesting. Do we know if the actual analysis data is available anywhere? It sounds like the report was circulated within government and buried. As is often the case when you look a little deeper there are flaws such as: It says some trains would be at 140 mph, is that high speed? It says "HS2 will provide 13,000 seats during peak times, compared to just 3,000 for the alternative schemes" but a major problem is the old system is it's already at full capacity. It says: “The alternatives to HS2 would result in up to 14 years of weekend closures across the network on multiple routes resulting in significant disruption to the travelling public." Is that acceptable? I suspect if the proposal was viable it would have been given more of an airing in the last 10 years. It sounds to me like a cheaper scheme with minimal benefits in terms of increased capacity and reduced journey times, that simply marks time with demand and does not really move the country forward like the schemes in other countries reportedly do. It is also necessary to pose the question is it acceptable for 140+ mph trains to be flying through built up areas and villages which the old Victorian routes do? I think we have to accept that we have missed our chance to build a proper high speed network, if indeed we ever had one. What irks me is that after Spain joined the EU in 1986, they received vast aid from the EU to rebuild its infrastructure which had been sorely neglected during the Franco years. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Spain received EU funds for large infrastructure projects, such as the country’s 3,086km high-speed rail network (AVE), the world’s second largest after China’s. In 2001 Spain was allocated nearly 63% of the EU’s structural funds budget (US$27.8 billion). Overall, in absolute terms Spain is the country that has benefited the most from both structural and cohesion funds. Between 1989 and 2006 it was allocated (excluding the funds from the CAP) more than 100,000 million euros (at 1999 prices). In 2005 Spain received 7.878 billion euros from the structural and cohesion funds (24% of the total or 50% of the cohesion funds –1.386 billion euros–). Spain did have one problem, many of the years it was not able to spend all the money it was allocated!!! To build all the motorways, rail, port, and airport facilities Spain needed steel. While the UK was shutting down steelworks and putting 10,000s out of work, Spain was increasing its steel production. So who was providing this funding? You've guessed it. As Clarkson pointed out in one of his TV shows when he toured Europe many years ago, the net financial contribution the UK had made to the EU at that time matched the net financial gain Spain received in membership of the EU. This country was taken for a ride for 47 years and screwed by the EEC and the EU. In terms of wealth per head we have been left one of the poorest countries in western Europe from EU membership. The UK has been the EU's "Treasure Island", paying for the privilege of having a massive trade deficit with the EU.
fullfact.org/europe/is-the-uk-really-the-eus-treasure-island/The Telegraph article is quoting a government report so I presume it's a matter of public record some where. It's hard to find an objective view on HS2 - it's either stuff that overstates the value from groups that if you scratch the surface have a vested interest in the project or stuff that overplays the alternatives from groups with an axe to grind - like the Tax Payers Alliance. My own take is that the business case was marginal at best and the reason it got the go ahead was because we wanted a nice shiny high speed train service because that's what other countries have - it was an ego trip. Now that the cost have spiralled there is no business case to continue - we'd just be chucking good money after bad. The bit about Spain is all very interesting but completely irrelevant to the HS2 decision. I can't disagree with any of that. My point on Spain was other EU countries have benefitted hugely from EU membership, most recently Poland has received huge amounts of EU finance. But it has been very much at UK expense such that successive UK governments have had reduced resources to spend on our own infrastructure. The government priority now must be to complete HS2 and start to recoup the economic benefits. The Elizabeth Line is reportedly now yielding benefits having consumed vast amounts of tax payers money. www.railadvent.co.uk/2022/11/businesses-celebrate-six-months-of-success-since-elizabeth-line-opened.html |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 6, 2023 12:18:19 GMT
So it was purchased AFTER Sunak had made the video? You know, there really needs to be a full audit of everything that has been bought, from who and for how much, before a single square foot of it is sold back to anybody. I won't hold my breath though ... |
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Oct 6, 2023 13:38:07 GMT
HS2 latest.
Euston, we have a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 6, 2023 13:53:14 GMT
That's very interesting. Do we know if the actual analysis data is available anywhere? It sounds like the report was circulated within government and buried. As is often the case when you look a little deeper there are flaws such as: It says some trains would be at 140 mph, is that high speed? It says "HS2 will provide 13,000 seats during peak times, compared to just 3,000 for the alternative schemes" but a major problem is the old system is it's already at full capacity. It says: “The alternatives to HS2 would result in up to 14 years of weekend closures across the network on multiple routes resulting in significant disruption to the travelling public." Is that acceptable? I suspect if the proposal was viable it would have been given more of an airing in the last 10 years. It sounds to me like a cheaper scheme with minimal benefits in terms of increased capacity and reduced journey times, that simply marks time with demand and does not really move the country forward like the schemes in other countries reportedly do. It is also necessary to pose the question is it acceptable for 140+ mph trains to be flying through built up areas and villages which the old Victorian routes do? I think we have to accept that we have missed our chance to build a proper high speed network, if indeed we ever had one. What irks me is that after Spain joined the EU in 1986, they received vast aid from the EU to rebuild its infrastructure which had been sorely neglected during the Franco years. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Spain received EU funds for large infrastructure projects, such as the country’s 3,086km high-speed rail network (AVE), the world’s second largest after China’s. In 2001 Spain was allocated nearly 63% of the EU’s structural funds budget (US$27.8 billion). Overall, in absolute terms Spain is the country that has benefited the most from both structural and cohesion funds. Between 1989 and 2006 it was allocated (excluding the funds from the CAP) more than 100,000 million euros (at 1999 prices). In 2005 Spain received 7.878 billion euros from the structural and cohesion funds (24% of the total or 50% of the cohesion funds –1.386 billion euros–). Spain did have one problem, many of the years it was not able to spend all the money it was allocated!!! To build all the motorways, rail, port, and airport facilities Spain needed steel. While the UK was shutting down steelworks and putting 10,000s out of work, Spain was increasing its steel production. So who was providing this funding? You've guessed it. As Clarkson pointed out in one of his TV shows when he toured Europe many years ago, the net financial contribution the UK had made to the EU at that time matched the net financial gain Spain received in membership of the EU. This country was taken for a ride for 47 years and screwed by the EEC and the EU. In terms of wealth per head we have been left one of the poorest countries in western Europe from EU membership. The UK has been the EU's "Treasure Island", paying for the privilege of having a massive trade deficit with the EU.
fullfact.org/europe/is-the-uk-really-the-eus-treasure-island/The Telegraph article is quoting a government report so I presume it's a matter of public record some where. It's hard to find an objective view on HS2 - it's either stuff that overstates the value from groups that if you scratch the surface have a vested interest in the project or stuff that overplays the alternatives from groups with an axe to grind - like the Tax Payers Alliance. My own take is that the business case was marginal at best and the reason it got the go ahead was because we wanted a nice shiny high speed train service because that's what other countries have - it was an ego trip. Now that the cost have spiralled there is no business case to continue - we'd just be chucking good money after bad. The bit about Spain is all very interesting but completely irrelevant to the HS2 decision. The full business case was published in 2013 along with the alternatives which you reference in the Telegraph Article. Ironically the study was 50% Funded by EU, I believe is cost about £80M Whether you accept the findings as believable or are Grimm is an entirely different matter www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-one-full-business-case&ved=2ahUKEwiHzK2XwuGBAxVNh1wKHSnLDMgQFnoECCYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1LSI7QXI7_9BI1Z-FftPE0What is more bizarre is that in April,2020 Government issued an updated report confirming to Contractors "Notice to Proceed" Guess who was the Chancellor who oversaw the Financial Feasibility of this? www.gov.uk/government/news/government-provides-construction-sector-certainty-by-confirming-notice-to-proceed-on-high-speed-2The fun and games is unlikely to end there. It may be Rishi's intention to halt HS2 but to do so he will have to introduce Primary Legislation which will be debated and voted on in HoC
If some of the actions being posted here show Rishi exceeded his authority and deliberately kiboshed the Project he could be in very hot water
|
|
sometimes strong decisive leadership with less consultation is needed to get timely results. 
