No s***, Sherlock. Who would have seen that coming?
www.bbc.com/news/business-50995116
|
|
Not sure if these are real numbers and review conclusions or whether Lord Berkeley is playing politics.
|
He has a personal axe to grind, is fervently anti HS2
That the project cost and timing will be larger and longer than planned is a given, that they will be as bad as he says isn't.
In the UK we dont actually need High Speed links, but we need more North South capacity.
|
>> In the UK we dont actually need High Speed links, but we need more North
>> South capacity.
I think that's an accurate summation. Do you have any feel for (a) project cost savings and (b) extended end to end journey times to (say) Leeds if we built it for 140mph rather than whatever line speed is proposed at present?
|
And yet the whole idea of ultra high speed broadband to all across the UK seemed to get poopooed and shut down... surely this would do far more and reach/connect so many people/companies than HS2 could ever do... I get face-face to meetings but I thought we were moving to commerce over the internet?
|
|
Its new railway line over a new route, in the scheme of things the costs of such very little between high speed or mid speed. Much tunneling is required in the southern part, so is being constructed to the older (ie not so high) loading gauge to save a few quid. North of Birmingham/Crewe it becomes a bit of a mishmash of new and existing track and hence less speed advantage
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 5 Jan 20 at 17:38
|
The original full scheme in 2011 was costed at around £30bn.
They are now estimating nearly 4 times the cost.
It is questionable whether when complete it will serve any real purpose, will at best benefit only those who would use a London - North rail route (almost no-one in the South West), and save a trivial number of minutes in journey time.
It is a complete shambles. It should be cancelled immediately and those responsible for so major a cxxk up fired without compensation.
|
>> It is questionable whether when complete it will serve any real purpose, will at best
>> benefit only those who would use a London - North rail route (almost no-one in
>> the South West), and save a trivial number of minutes in journey time.
The main rationale is capacity - the current lines out of Euston and Kings Cross are at or approaching the max number of trains and size of trains they can physically handle. The time savings are almost incidental gains from building a line to modern standards rather than using Victorian alignments with a few tweaks.
I've not got time to research/understand how £30billion rose to current estimates but I suspect changes of scope, surrenders to NIMBY lobbies leading to long expensive tunnels etc etc mean that comparing £30b direct to today's estimates is in apples v pears territory.
|
The original case was based on time saved. This was a complete nonsense as:
- time savings should be door to door - unless you live and meet in the terminal.
- it assumes something of value would be done with the time saved
- a 10 or 20 minute saving on the main rail segment of the journey is trivial
Subsequent iterations of the business case realised this was a nonsense and did make allowance for the need for extra capacity. But the cost of upgrading capacity need not include the costs of a high speed network.
HS2 costs are out of control. My belief is that the original cost estimates (made by rail network supporters) were very optimistic to get the project started in the hope that once started it would be difficult to stop even when the project cost (predictably) increased.
|
>> Subsequent iterations of the business case realised this was a nonsense and did make allowance
>> for the need for extra capacity. But the cost of upgrading capacity need not include
>> the costs of a high speed network
The 120 billion is an over egged case by a denier, Existing capacity is critically stymied, Upgrading existing routes is not practical (the west coast route is a nightmare) the cost of making a new line is not significantly increased by speed, so its not quite as black as you are painting
Looking back on HS1, equally as controversial, no-one now thinks it was a waste of money.
This is a small crowded island, major infrastructure is expensive because of the human impact and cost of land
|
>> The original case was based on time saved.
Where does that proposition come from?
I'm sure the media pushed time saved but everything I've ever seen, and I read Railway Press, has been based on capacity. I was a daily commuter to Euston from 1986 until 2012, initially from Watford and then from Northampton. From summer 12 to November 2013 I did 2 days home working/3 in London. The capacity constraints were evident throughout.
From 1999 to 2004 they were upgrading the line whilst trying to still run a service. It was awful, Repeated sessions of bustitution, not just at weekends but for whole weeks or fortnights. That was just track and signalling - improvements to tunnels or massive platform extensions are simply impossible while keeping the service going and probably ens up costing more than a new line.
|
>>> The original case was based on time saved.
>Where does that proposition come from?
>I'm sure the media pushed time saved
Time saved was the only bit simple enough to be able to mention in headlines. None of the rest could be used to cause outrage in 6 words.
|
I don’t know how much shorter journey times will be from Leeds to Kings X with HS2. It currently takes me 70 mins to get from Giggleswick to Leeds on the rattler, then a further 2 hours to London.
BB here out in the sticks is abysmal. Whoever is paying for HS2 would be better spending that money on improving rural BB.
|
|
Is capital expenditure on long term infrastructure *ever* a bad idea?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 5 Jan 20 at 18:30
|
|
In 50 years time will anyone be saying HS2 should never have been built? I doubt it. Does anyone now think the Victorians should not have invested in the railways?
|
>> In 50 years time will anyone be saying HS2 should never have been built? I
>> doubt it. Does anyone now think the Victorians should not have invested in the railways?
This country has a litany of expensive infrastructure additions to existing projects that were shorn of cost and pathetic reduction in original scope and fell well short of the planned benefits.
|
>> BB here out in the sticks is abysmal. Whoever is paying for HS2 would be
>> better spending that money on improving rural BB.
You chose to live in the boondocks because you appreciate what it brings you.
Not sure the rest of us need to pay more to get you faster access to cheap car hire sites. Fast rural broadband for you is of limited national benefit.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 5 Jan 20 at 19:16
|
This country is fast becoming a joke when it comes to public transport.
Morocco can even build a high speed line: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Boraq
HS2 may not be perfect but it will increase line capacity which is needed and may take some cars off the road which is a bonus.
|
>> Morocco can even build a high speed line: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Boraq
They cant, the french built and part financed it.
|
Not surprised.
The French already operate Thameslink, Southern, South Eastern, Great Northern, and Gatwick Express I believe.
Whereas the Germans run Arriva Trains Wales, Chiltern Railways, CrossCountry, Grand Central, and Northern Leaving the Dutch with Greater Anglia, Stansted Express and Scotrail.
Still, what with all that taking back control stuff............
|
In 50 years time trains as we now know them will not just be a piece of technology long past its prime, but the current equivalent of a horse and cart on an unsurfaced track.
Driverless vehicles will by then just be the accepted norm. They will distribute freight and transport people door to door.
Trains with their fixed start and stop points will still require transport to or from terminal to destination. Trains can only ever run on equally spaced rails - even other forms of electromagnetic propulsion require fixed tracks.
Longer term we should be planning to dig up railways and replace them with dedicated driverless modules. With their smaller size they will be able to divert from the tracks into city centres, housing estates etc as required.
They will be flexible and far better able to meet fluctuating demand levels, possibly operating on a call on demand app, rather than fixed schedules set months ahead of time. By "daisy chaining" individual modules the current road and rail network may need some local improvements but overall entirely capable of meeting capacity demands.
|
>> In 50 years time trains as we now know them will not just be a
>> piece of technology long past its prime, but the current equivalent of a horse and
>> cart on an unsurfaced track.
Fantasy.
|
>>
>> >> Morocco can even build a high speed line: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Boraq
>>
>> They cant, the french built and part financed it.
>>
But they have one in their country that stretches 201 miles. Who really cares who builds it. I suspect some of the companies building ours wont be British.
We have HS1 at 67 miles which was prone to funding issues.
|
We dont have 201 miles of line without stops, nor will we. Morocco is a big country with large areas of wilderness, with population centres a long way apart, the UK is not like that. Building lines there is cheap.
And as for HS1, its 67 miles, because thats the distance between the tunnel and london, did you want it moved further apart?
The idea was to link HS1&HS2 giving people of the north fast access to Europe, but as they voted to dump Europe clearly that is wasted on them.
|
|
Trade and is all about good connections. Build the transport links and trade and prosperity will follow. Always has been that way from the Romans with their road to Viking with their longships to canals and railways. No transport no commerce.
|
>..and may take some cars off the road which is a bonus.
The fares will need to be more competitive than they are now.
To give an example:
Most of my relatives live on the edge of the Peak District. It's about a 450 mile round trip to visit them. To do it by public transport means a taxi or bus (yuck) to Basingstoke station. A train to Waterloo. Underground to Kings X. Train to Sheffield. Tram to bus terminus. Bus or Taxi to their house. All carrying an overnight bag. The train fare booked in advance is around £110 off peak. Add on bus and tram fares and I'm looking at around £120 or using taxis probably £180. Door to door around 6hrs and if I want to stay longer or come home early I'm stuffed.
Doing the same journey in the car, working on fuel cost of 130ppl and a conservative 25mpg it will cost me about £110 in fuel so let's call it £150 including running costs. In reality there's always at least two of us travelling so the cost is £75pp. Door to door usually in 4 to 5hrs although I've done it in 3 and a bit.
For a family with kids you're looking at a huge difference in cost and flexibility.
|
This mirrors my experience. Sister lives in Harpenden and I live in Taunton and visit every approx 2 months. About 380 miles round trip.
For this Saturday (11th) train super saver return is £113. Plus underground (say) £3 + £7 taxi to Taunton station.
For two of us a return trip approx £240. I have to leave Harpenden no later than 18.52 or I won't get back to Taunton until the sun has risen on Sunday! Journey times are similar to the car - a little over 3 hours
In brief - trains are INFLEXIBLE and COSTLY. I will not be using them and as a taxpayer do not want to subsidise those who do!
|
>> and as a taxpayer do not want to subsidise those who do!
And if I do not want to subsidise education? The NHS? Rural buses? Old People's subsidised travel? Tax credits? Unemployment benefits? Disability benefits? etc. etc. etc. All of which my tax payments are used for, none of which I use myself.
Not wanting to feel like your tax payments are contributing towards something you don't use is typical of the selfish approach we have today.
We live in a society. A certain amount of what we do is for the good of that society, not solely for ourselves.
|
|
Isn't decentralising London cheaper, more equitable, and ultimately more of a vote winner?
|
Yes probably, and I believe a number of companies have already partially moved out of London.
However I remember when I worked for the Coal Board back in the 70s/80s there was discussion about moving the HQ away from London. It did happen to a fairly significant degree but due to interdependencies (e.g. with government and other industry HQs) it would never move 100% out of London.
|
>>more equitable
"more equitable" or "closer to equitable"?
To your point though, can a country the size of the UK have a distributed 'centre'?
|
>> In brief - trains are INFLEXIBLE and COSTLY. I will not be using them and
>> as a taxpayer do not want to subsidise those who do!
Neither of the capitalised words reflect in, any way shape or form, my own experience or that of my adult children.
I'd accept, for purposes of this discussion, that long distance trains are, for travelling as a family, rarely competitive with the perceived (as opposed to real) cost of a car travel. London is an obvious exception and, from here same goes for Birmingham, mainly because the train company, for many years, offered multi save tickets where three or four travel for price of two. The start point there is Northampton.
My daughter was at University in Sheffield from 2011 to 14. It was pretty easy for her to get a train between Sheffield and Wellingborough (about half an hour drive) with a range of cheap tickets. Similarly visits to or by her boyfriend who was at Uni in Southampton were easily facilitated on the at least hourly cross-country service from Southampton/Bournemouth to NE or NW which called at Banbury. Again a half hour drive and again lots of cheap fares.
I can visit my son in Liverpool for less than £20 return changing once at New Street. Last time we drove it cost more than that to park for two days!!
|
>> >> In brief - trains are INFLEXIBLE and COSTLY. I will not be using them
>> and
>> >> as a taxpayer do not want to subsidise those who do!
2.9 million commuter train journeys are made every day in the UK. 1 billion more rail journeys are made than in the mid-1990s and rail journeys are now at their highest level since the 1920s.
Imagine how inflexible our roads would become on a daily basis if it wasn't for trains
|
I wholeheartedly support HS2. My family use the train from Manchester to London many times a year, frequently with problems relating to signalling, track etc.
New track, new route, new rolling stock will improve time and more importantly reliability. It will also release the existing track for freight which will ease congestion and pollution via road traffic.
Yes, improve Broadband. But I don't want my children visiting grandma remotely, I want them to visit her in person.
HS2 should be extended to Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is claimed that journeys under 400 miles are best undertaken by train and certainly travel to Paris from London seems to be mostly by train these days. Connect Heathrow with Manchester and Birmingham airports as well. Don't do third runway, just make the connection rapid.
|
Further to that video conference meetings don't really work. They are a waste of time, just cheaper than wasting time getting face to face.
When a meeting is really necessary, then it will always be more effective face to face. Where it doesn't need to be faced to face, it doesn't actually need to happen at all.
Letting middle and usually ineffectual middle managers have video conference meetings is a cheap way of helping them feel more special than their minions without actually spending any large amount of money or any significant amount of time on it.
For people attending meetings that are actually required, then rail travel is superb. Effective, let's me work/prepare/relax or recover and reasonably efficient.
I love rail travel. Best for of travel there is. Often even Europe wide. Also a great place to have meetings and chats that you don't want to be obvious.
|
>> When a meeting is really necessary, then it will always be more effective face to
>> face. Where it doesn't need to be faced to face, it doesn't actually need to
>> happen at all.
Spot on. The Quango met monthly in London including people from various parts of England and statutory representation from Wales and Scotland. Quite a lot of money was spent providing video conference facilities to save on Anglo-Scottish travel only to find it didn't work. People getting together face to face, mingling over coffee and sandwich lunch and networking actually got stuff done. Remote attendees at substantive meetings were, well, sort of remote. Trying to organise sub committees around VC was like herding cats.
For all your cynicism about middle managers VC was actually a modest gain of telephone conferencing for sorting out pre and post meeting admin and general 'keep show on road' stuff.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 6 Jan 20 at 17:30
|
>>For all your cynicism about middle managers.....
I have, in my time, taken over a number of organisations requiring serious fixing.
Never yet have I found an entire workforce to be worthless. Sometimes a few needed to be weeded out, but by and large they simply need to be treated, rewarded, punished and cared for responsibly in accordance with what they are doing and what you want them to do. Their perceived lack of performance is almost always due to crap management.
Most Boards are ok. Often lacking in a sense of operational understanding, but by and large more competent and possessing of more integrity than the media would have you believe.
Then one has middle management. Of course for some middle management is a staging post and I am not including those. But for many it is the limit of their capabilities and the final resting place of the careers of so many in accordance with the Peter Principle. They are almost universally useless and do both their company and their departments/groups a massive disservice.
I am a naturally cynical person, but in this case I insist that it is realism, not cynicism.
|
|
.....it's quite amusing, watching a cull of middle management, to count how many of them move on to become consultants.......
|
Yes, it's always amusing when people are made redundant.
When organisations mess up it's always the fault of top management. Middle managers are often the glue that holds things together, and it's commonly the wrong ones who are culled - the work-shedders and blusterers often have a better survival rate, particularly in a blunt cost cutting exercise.
The amusing part is when the paid-off managers come back as consultants on twice the money.
|
>>Middle managers are often the glue that holds things together
The good ones are, certainly. The bad ones screw up the company and worse, the lives and careers of
>>and it's commonly the wrong ones who are culled
Sadly that is true.
Middle managers, along with being a common source of incompetence, are typically protected by nobody. If they are proficient and conscientious then they will be invisible.
Middle managers do not usually come back as consultants, though it is not unknown. It is usually long term employees who had no particular career path but who were important for what they knew or knew how to do.
They are usually brought back by incompetent middle managers.
|
>>When organisations mess up it's always the fault of top management.
At the core, usually. But resolving the mess doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of the people at fault.
Different skills.
|
|
Also, do not forget, redundancy is not method to deal with the 8ncompetence or behaviour of employees, it is an approach to address the number of people employed with a certain skill compared to the number of people with that skill required by the business.
|
>> Also, do not forget, redundancy is not method to deal with the 8ncompetence or behaviour
>> of employees, it is an approach to address the number of people employed with a
>> certain skill compared to the number of people with that skill required by the business.
>>
>>
Unfortunately it is sometimes used by senior management to justify their bonuses, even in an already profitable business - e.g. "Look at me, I slimmed the headcount and now I can get a £1m bonus."
Those left have to cover the same workload and find themselves working extra hours and under more pressure for no reward and end up looking elsewhere.
|
>> Yes, it's always amusing when people are made redundant.
>>
...I think my irony light has failed again...
|
>> ...I think my irony light has failed again...
You should have used a percontation point.
Wikipedia:
Irony punctuation is any proposed form of notation used to denote irony or sarcasm in text. Written English lacks a standard way to mark irony, and several forms of punctuation have been proposed. Among the oldest and most frequently attested is the percontation point proposed by English printer Henry Denham in the 1580s, and the irony mark, used by Marcellin Jobard and French poet Alcanter de Brahm during the 19th century. Both marks take the form of a reversed question mark, "?".
End quote.
Edit:
The forum software has reversed the question mark back again. How ironic.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Tue 7 Jan 20 at 17:53
|
|
Nope, that one's upside down...
|
>> Nope, that one's upside down...
Inverted
|
|
I don't think the reverse question mark has an ansi code, Never had an ascii code, I think it needs to be rendered. So not available on this system
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 7 Jan 20 at 18:31
|
>> >> Nope, that one's upside down...
>>
>> Inverted
>>
Ah. But is it chiral?
|
|
trust you to be thinking at the molecular level.
|
>>You should have used a percontation point.
...or maybe not...
:-S
|
www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2e2e/index.htm
The font in use here apparently does not support the reversed question mark.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 7 Jan 20 at 18:58
|
|
.......
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Tue 7 Jan 20 at 21:41
|
>> >> Yes, it's always amusing when people are made redundant.
>> >>
>> ...I think my irony light has failed again...
Yes I Have that problem. Sorry, pounced on that one.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51443421
Looks like the the government has given them the nod to carry on with the project.
|
A big train set doesn't seem like the sort of vanity project that would be enough satisfy BoJo.
Hence the nonsense bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland.....
Floppy-haired buffoon couldn't even manage a bridge from London to London so I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
Never got his floating airport either
|
|
I’m not claiming credit for this, but surely you could just rebuild Birmingham closer to London for a lot less than that, and make it nicer in the process ;)
|
|
You'd have to teach them to speak properly.
|
>> I’m not claiming credit for this, but surely you could just rebuild Birmingham closer to
>> London for a lot less than that, and make it nicer in the process ;)
Or spend the 150 billion improving Birmingham so that people don't want to come to London anyway.
The whole thing is a joke. If we could have it now it might be at least some use but 2040 or later? Will people still be commuting stupid distances in large numbers?
City centres are already being abandoned for shopping. Will demand for offices in them still be there in 20 years' time? Maybe so, but has anybody really considered it or have we just accepted that demand will always rise?
I have to travel into London, usually City end, for meetings a couple of dozen times a year. The sheer ridiculousness of all those people making that massive tidal movement twice every working day for a lifetime never fails to strike me. It took me 2.5 hours one day last week just to get there from 32 miles away as the crow flies. Many times the number of people face that every day than want to go from London to Birmingham And HS2 won't help because it will just go roaring through the surrounding devastated countryside without stopping.
|
Although the headline is HS2 goes ahead there seem to be devil/detail issues that are quite significant.
First of all the redevelopment of Euston will be removed from HS2 Ltd and managed as a separate project. Guardian reports that this is likely to result in services terminating at Old Oak Common for several years. Given that a considerable amount of work has been done around Euston it's not clear what that change means for current station users or the surrounding area.
There also appears to be some 'wiggle room' around acts of parliament required for next phase.
|
>> There also appears to be some 'wiggle room' around acts of parliament required for next
>> phase.
Subject of HS2 took up quite a bit of time on Radio 4's PM prog tonight.
First of all Bill Cash, MP for Stone (Staffs) who is against HS2, emphasising just how much latitude there is around segment beyond Birmingham. Potential game changers include Sir John Armitt being appointed to review the scheme beyond Birmingham and work on later stages being removed from HS2 Ltd in same way as Euston has been.
PM has also had a couple of features about a protest camp at Cubbington, a site on HS2 route near Leamington Spa. After some chat with protesters there the presenter segued to an interview with Andrew Adonis who, as Transport Minister in the Brown Government first proposed HS2. Lord Adonis reflected on the changed agenda for transport by 'reminding' us that Cubbington was once site proposed for London's third airport per the Roskill commission c1970/71.
Andrew needs to pay more attention to history and geography. The site Roskill advocated was Cublington (and its neighbour Wing) which is in Buckinghamshire. Ted Heath's government over ruled the Commission and decided on a Thames Estuary site at Maplin/Foulness which was then abandoned by Wilson after he was returned in 1974.
The Cublington site, by then renamed Stewkley, was briefly resuscitated in 79/80 before another Inquiry eventually went for what was the obvious solution all along - Stansted.
There is still, or at least was until very recently, the slogan 'No Airport Here' on a bridge over the West Coast Mainline near Tring.
|
I don't understand how a project that was marginal at £33bn is worth doing at £100bn+.
I am also very suspicious of the smoke and mirrors effect of transferring parts of the project to different initiatves - it has all the hallmarks of making it impossible to properly track the costs of the project against the original estimates.
It seems to be an expensive political statement to reassure those who "lent" Boris their votes that he is going to do something. In the process (in my view) he has squandered any savings that may have been made through Brexit - although these may have been illusory anyway!
|
Just done some rough maths..
London Euston to Birmingham New Street is 126 miles.
£100,000,000,000 / 126 is £749m per mile or £451k per yard!
Ouch!
|
|
Yes - but it's still cheaper than a Hockney!
|
>> Just done some rough maths..
>>
>> London Euston to Birmingham New Street is 126 miles.
>>
>> £100,000,000,000 / 126 is £749m per mile or £451k per yard!
>>
>> Ouch!
Like for like it's about the same per mile as a mway and cheaper than crossrail mile for mile.
|
>> Like for like it's about the same per mile as a mway and cheaper than
>> crossrail mile for mile.
>>
When I was at school motorways cost £1 million a mile.
According to the Bank of England's inflation calculator that would be £4.3 million today.
I guess someone is fibbing about inflation!?
|
>> I don't understand how a project that was marginal at £33bn is worth doing at
>> £100bn+.
>>
>>
One of the main reasons is due to the government changing the nature of the contract. The government now wants the contractors responsible for the next 30 for the maintenance. Obviously this is going to cost hence a big increase in costs.
|
First rule of understanding escalating prices for major (or even minor) works is to ensure you're comparing like with like.
All sorts has gone on with HS2 including additional tunneling to meet environmental and/or NIMBY objections and ground conditions on actual detailed line being much worse than in planning assumptions. Not sure if Euston was part of original plane either.
|
>> Although the headline is HS2 goes ahead there seem to be devil/detail issues that are
>> quite significant.
>>
>> First of all the redevelopment of Euston will be removed from HS2 Ltd and managed
>> as a separate project. Guardian reports that this is likely to result in services terminating
>> at Old Oak Common for several years.
I'm sure that will be a comfort to the landlord and users of the Bree Louise, a fine pub on Cobourg St, which was forced to close 2 years ago for HS2 (when the expected cost of the latter was £56bn, incidentally).
|
> I'm sure that will be a comfort to the landlord and users of the Bree
>> Louise, a fine pub on Cobourg St, which was forced to close 2 years ago
>> for HS2 (when the expected cost of the latter was £56bn, incidentally).
>>
I'm sure not but these things happen in big projects.
|
The consensus seems to be that "these things are inevitable in a major project"
This is utterly preposterous - we may as well not bother with feasibility studies and approvals processes. Just do what we "think" is right and not bother with the paperwork.
After all what does it matter that HS2 is 3 times the original price and 7 years late, Crossrail is a mere 25% over budget and only 3-4 years late.
It is our money (those of us who pay tax) and we should expect much better.
|
>>The consensus seems to be that "these things are inevitable in a major project"
>
>This is utterly preposterous
Had they said "these things are inevitable in a major ESTABLISHMENT project" they'd have been spot on.
I'm quite a good PM. A little while ago I was asked to take on a project [which ultimately was cancelled after losing £250m].
They offered me about £75k p.a. if I remember correctly, which is not the sort of money such a PM is worth.
They maintained they couldn't pay my rate and so preferred to carry on as they were and preferred the project to fail, achieve nothing and lose 1/4 billion.
Therein lies the problem - their thinking.
How many projects that I have managed or overseen has ever missed their timescale or their budget? None. Not one ever. (come close, but never actually happened).
But I don't fit in a Government Civil Service pay scale. So therefore they can't do it. They prefer to recruit people who will work within their payscale, even on such an exceptional job, without seeing the obvious.
FIdiots.
They pay peanuts, they get monkeys, even then they have civil servants dictate to the monkeys, and then they're all amazed when their projects go wrong.
|
|
Isn't the CEO of HS2, Mark Thurston being paid £650,000 per annum. Hardly peanuts.
|
m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Nf5avCUNP0M&t=1340
Here's a video i found that gives a bit more detail about the whole project.
|
>>Isn't the CEO of HS2, Mark Thurston being paid £650,000 per annum.
I said, fairly clearly I thought, PM.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 12 Feb 20 at 16:58
|
So they've curtailed HS2's eastern limb AND reduced the scope of Trans Pennine form a new line to upgrades of the Diggle etc routes.
So much for levelling up.
|
|
I think this will cost them votes next time around, especially in areas that 'lent' them their vote. I think the announcement is Thursday.
|
>> I think this will cost them votes next time around, especially in areas that 'lent'
>> them their vote. I think the announcement is Thursday.
Perhaps not as much as abandoning the 'triple lock'.
|
>> Perhaps not as much as abandoning the 'triple lock'.
Too true. Goodness knows how many lost votes that will cost them.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59320576
Announcement today of scaling back, not a great advert for leveling up is it.
|
Perhaps reality strikes. HS2 is the rail equivalent of a money pit.
It was mostly a vanity project - justified originally on the basis of the journey times saved, later on capacity constraints. Both cases were marginal!
The original cost estimates were woefully inadequate - now more than doubled. Zero confidence they won't increase further. It is also now about a decade later than planned.
It should never have been started. A complete waste of taxpayer funds. If it is not too late it should be cancelled completely - at least radically trimmed.
|
It may have been billed as high speed, but it is all about capacity. We dont need high speed links in the UK, distances are not large enough and population centres are pretty close to one another. Capacity is not sexy, capacity does not sell. If you are building capacity you might as well make it fast.
Routes out of london are full, the further north you get capacity is not an issue, more cross country route enhancements does offer more benefit all round.
However, Bojo won by convincing the electorate he would be levelling up. Publicly tho he has just kicked them back down in the pit.
|
People want to have opinions on everything these days.
To have an opinion for something, e.g. HS2, requires knowledge of benefits, costs, difficulty, long term investment, future planning and much more. Quite the challenge. It may even require the ability to see that something is better for the country, or others, without necessarily being of direct benefit to oneself.
To have an opinion against something requires the ability to say loudly "effin stupid, innit". To be repeated loudly, frequently, with small variations.
Hence the current success of the Daily Mail and the BBC's desperation to appeal to a similar audience.
|
>> It may have been billed as high speed, but it is all about capacity. We
>> dont need high speed links in the UK, distances are not large enough and population
>> centres are pretty close to one another. Capacity is not sexy, capacity does not sell.
>> If you are building capacity you might as well make it fast.
>>
>> Routes out of london are full, the further north you get capacity is not an
>> issue, more cross country route enhancements does offer more benefit all round.
Edit, and I meant to add Leeds is already well served by lots of Fast trains to/from London on the East Coast main Line, a line that by history, has always been fast due to geography.
|
>>A complete waste of taxpayer funds
Ah, that hallowed being, the 'taxpayer'. Funny how for the last few years any criticism of Government or State activity seems to require outrage on behalf of "the taxpayer".
|
|
I wonder if Bradford train station is getting moved or if that has been chopped. I don't use it, however I know some that do, by all accounts it's a PITA to use.
|
|
The mooted replacement of Bradford Interchange (the "new" combined bus and rail station which opened when I worked in Bradford 1973-74) was part of the Northern Powerhouse project so I wouldn't hold your breath.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-59332590
Looks like Bradford aren't getting a new station
|
It is plausible northerners are genuinely upset at the failure to deliver HS2. Or using cancellation as a way to express discontent at an unbalanced north and south, or political point scoring.
Other parts of the country mostly really don't care - save they would rather the money was spent on infrastructure that benefits them, not one they are never likely to use!
Environmental arguments may be justified. Otherwise rail makes little economic sense other than commuting into large urban areas.
Both road and air users pay far more tax than is spent on infrastructure. Rail fares need subsidies and are still uncompetitive. Building railway tracks, stations, car parking, access roads etc is no less disruptive than roads for which they provide only a small capacity offset.
Fast rail means few intermediate stops. Unless a journey starts and finishes close to a station, journeys require local transport legs. Comparing station to station time saving is daft - "door to door" is far more meaningful, albeit much less convincing.
|
>>"door to door" is far more meaningful,
Really?
My journey from home to office in London is 1 hour 45 minutes door to door. What does that tell you about my train journey?
|
Other parts of the country mostly really don't care - save they would rather the
>> money was spent on infrastructure that benefits them, not one they are never likely to
>> use!
I don't suppose people in Newcastle care much about crossrail 2, thats not to say that the government shouldn't.
>> Environmental arguments may be justified. Otherwise rail makes little economic sense other than commuting into
>> large urban areas.
I don't think anyone is proposing high speed rail between villages.
|
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transport-for-north-tfn-rail-b1960906.html
Ok its not quite as billed here, but there is no doubt, BoJo has an uncanny ability to pour oil on a raging fire.
|
...it probably won't be long until they remove the more expensive intermediate bits....
It's already a massive undertaking. I passed one of the construction camps near Brackley last week, it was on a ginormous scale.
|
>> It's already a massive undertaking. I passed one of the construction camps near Brackley last
>> week, it was on a ginormous scale.
We see the works in the Colne Valley near Denham on a regular basis.
Same.
|
>> news.sky.com/story/govt-refuses-to-deny-reports-that-hs2-may-not-run-to-london-euston-until-2038-if-at-all-12796300
>>
>> Looks like a further cut back in scope of the project.
There's already a lot of work been done at Euston the cost of which will presumably be thrown away.
|
|
...the NRM at York are already preparing to take Mallard out of mothballs....
|
A complete waste of money from the outset - an expensive vanity project.
Money already spent is gone - it is simply a case of salvage what can be salvaged, and stop all avoidable future spend now.
|
>> There's already a lot of work been done at Euston the cost of which will
>> presumably be thrown away.
Including the demolition of a good pub!
www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2016/03/22/Bree-Louise-Camden-fights-HS2
|
>> Hunt has said it will still go to Central London:
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/27/hs2-rail-may-not-reach-central-london-cost-project-soars
>>Coverage re Euston on BBC London this lunchtime.
If the Euston part is completed it will now by 2040.
Euston area is a building site and will be for 17 more years.
Terminating trains at Old Oak Common means then using the Elizabeth line into London and there is serious concern that passenger numbers will be too great.
A good time to bury the Euston story while the north is in the spotlight.
I wonder wht Labour will do with the project in two years time ?
ti
|
|
Shhh! mustn't let the Southerners know that you don't fall off the edge above Birmingham.
|
|
I am in Birmingham now, believe me it feels like the northern edge of the civilised world
|
|
...as Mike Harding was wont to say, "If the world had piles, that's where they'd be"...
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Thu 9 Mar 23 at 22:07
|
|
Saw him the other day...he lives locally and we have a mutual good friend so we often pass the time of day.
|
|
...yeah, I've chatted to him in a pub in Settle a few times. (I think he used to live in Horton?)
|
>> ...yeah, I've chatted to him in a pub in Settle a few times. (I think
>> he used to live in Horton?)
>>
Dentdale for many years. Never lived in Horton in R, but lower down the valley. I won’t say where, but I’ve been in his recording studio at home from where he used to produce his R2 folk show.
Less said about that the better.
|
|
Civilised? I've driven in some really dodgy places, including Cape Flats during apartheid, but Birmingham is the only place where my car has been hit by stray gunfire. At least I think it was stray...
|
|
...no, I was distracted...
|
Delaying construction and project completion does not reduce costs.
It merely prolongs the agony of an out of control waste of money.
|
>> Delaying construction and project completion does not reduce costs.
>>
...it passes the monkey to the next Government, though.
(Lots of kicking the can down the road whichever party is in charge)
|
|
...more likely setting the scene for it being Euston to Watford Junction....
|
|
A complete waste of money from its inception - should never have started. Should be cancelled to avoid pouring more money into what has become a vanity project bottomless pit.
|
Agree with Terry. It should have been a freight only line to add capacity without all the requirements for ultra high speed working .
Branches to local freight terminals like my local Trafford Park could have been upgraded fairly cheaply. Land once used for marshalling yards like Tinsley and Whitemoor could have been re-instated where electric locos were changed to diesel for onward journeys to cities before the cheap housing swallowed it all up.
Ted
|
At inception, pre-pandemic, it made sense. East Coast and West Coast lines were full up and Midland not that far off. Building to modern standards and for speed makes sense too.
The section from London to Birmingham is now way too far progressed to abandon.
Danger of cancelling the Manchester arm is that should traffic return to pre 2020 growth bits of the legacy railway will be overwhelmed and we'll have to start again. Eastern arm may yet need to be reinstated though there are options on old Midland infrastructure to upgrade things.
|
Justification for HS2 was originally based on journey time savings. Bit of a nonsense as valuing time assumes that something of value is achieved in the time saved, and revised the business case to reflect needed capacity improvements.
As an aside - if value were assigned to all public projects which save time we would double A&E capacity, treble the number of GPs, collect all rubbish twice a week, condense planning decisions into 10 minute slots etc.
Equally laughable - a high speed line is not required to improve capacity. Trains only operate at high speeds if they don't stop very often - they tend to be point to point transport bringing little or no local benefit.
The traffic levels upon which HS2 was justified also need to be re-examined. The original approval was in 2009 probably based upon data collected a few years before that. Since then - "net zero" concept, Covid, work from home, AI, ban to ICE from 2030 etc.
Funding a single project (HS2) has also limited other more local schemes which may otherwise have been funded - eg: northern powerhouse, south west services, to name but 2.
Get rid of it - it doesn't even deserve the honour of a decent burial!!!
|
>> Equally laughable - a high speed line is not required to improve capacity. Trains only
>> operate at high speeds if they don't stop very often - they tend to be
>> point to point transport bringing little or no local benefit.
We've countered/refuted your reasons for stopping it now upthread and there's no point on covering it all again.
However I'm struggling with the logic of the idea that a high speed line is not required to improve capacity.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, there are 14 slots an hour on the fast line out of Euston. Ten of those are used by fast services to Birmingham and points north. The other four are used by the outer commuter services to Leighton Buzzard and beyond or for additional/charter services.
If those ten services are moved to a new line, built for fast running, in what world does that not free up capacity?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 16 Sep 23 at 10:19
|
Additional lines will, of course, create extra capacity - but it does not need high speed lines.
High speed rail technology comes at a high cost - faster speeds impact routing requirements (gradients and curves), power supplies, track engineering, rolling stock, noise pollution etc.
This is fundamentally no different to faster cars which are typically larger, more powerful and more expensive and faster road speeds which need fewer intersections, junctions and roundabouts.
Capacity increases can be met with lines running at conventional speeds, or possibly even more creatively - eg: improved signalling, longer platforms, more rolling stock with increased service frequency.
|
>> Danger of cancelling the Manchester arm is that should traffic return to pre 2020 growth
>> bits of the legacy railway will be overwhelmed and we'll have to start again. Eastern
>> arm may yet need to be reinstated though there are options on old Midland infrastructure
>> to upgrade things.
>>
There's also the point that it being built could reduce traffic further, not always about stopping an increase.
Mind you the way it's been planned it's been made easy to build a leg to London and cut the rest. I've always thought the only to secure all legs was to build the legs towards/around London last not first.
|
news.sky.com/story/money-is-not-infinite-grant-shapps-hints-at-change-to-hs2-plans-as-northern-line-looks-set-to-be-scrapped-12968732
More setting the ground for a cancellation beyond brum i think.
I agree with what Burnham said, if it had been built the other way around there'd be no chance the last leg to London would be cancelled.
|
>> More setting the ground for a cancellation beyond brum i think.
It's almost as if they're setting it up to be a White Elephant. Billions sunk into a line from Old Oak Common to Birmingham which means a journey from WC2 to Birmingham takes longer than on the current Pendolino service from Euston.
Given OOC's proximity to Paddington could that be a terminus delivered at far less cost than Euston?
|
The whole project from conception and the original business case has been an illustration of staggering incompetence.
There are far more useful projects related to the national transport infrastructure which could have generated a bigger benefit far more quickly.
Cancel ASAP. It is not about positioning, electioneering or politics. It is basic governance that taxpayers money is spent responsibly, not poured into a literal black hole for the benefit of contractors and to save face of those who should be held to account.
|
>> Cancel ASAP. It is not about positioning, electioneering or politics. It is basic governance that
>> taxpayers money is spent responsibly, not poured into a literal black hole for the benefit
>> of contractors and to save face of those who should be held to account.
>>
Not a literal black hole. A metaphorical black hole - possibly, but not an actual black hole.
|
|
That depends on how you read 'black hole'. If you consider the meaning to be that of a region of intense gravity, then yes but if a tunnel can also be a black hole, then there are several black holes along the route.
|
>> The whole project from conception and the original business case has been an illustration of
>> staggering incompetence.
You can have your own opinions Terry but not your own facts.
The case, pre pandemic, was about capacity. Kings Cross and Euston were full. As a commuter from the latter at the time of conception I can confirm it was.
Personal experience 1999-2002 also tells me you cannot upgrade a line and run a proper service at the same time.
I agree the cost has gotten out of kilter but remain to be convinced that it's all down to incompetence, staggering or otherwise. An awful lot of tunneling and deviations to the route is at the behest of Nimbyism in the Home Counties.
>> There are far more useful projects related to the national transport infrastructure which could have
>> generated a bigger benefit far more quickly.
Such as?
|
I'm afraid I don't know London train stations or their layout in relation to each other particularly well. So I can't if there's a better layout/idea for that end of the line.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 24 Sep 23 at 10:49
|
>> Given OOC's proximity to Paddington could that be a terminus delivered at far less cost
>> than Euston?
>>
www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/stations/old-oak-common/
|
|
Major infrastructure projects about to be abandoned, our schools are literally crumbling, Two year waits for medical treatments, Doctors on strike, corrupt police forces, what a pathetic second rate nation we have become.
|
|
Speaking as someone who has regular occasion to travel from the north to London and back, and by default has heard the views of many who also do, the common thread of opinion seems to be not so much dissatisfaction with the current journey times, but a deep concern at the exorbitant costs of fares.
|
|
Whenever I have been in a mainline train, it has generally been full to capacity and then some. Clearly the fare is not too high for most.
|
>> Whenever I have been in a mainline train, it has generally been full to capacity
>> and then some. Clearly the fare is not too high for most.
Peak hour/anytime fares likely to suit business travel are one market.
Off peak/fixed train is another. London to Inverness well under £100.
|
London (Kings Cross) to Inverness is 538 miles and a little over 9 hours driving - say 11/12 hours with 3 stops. Fuel cost would be ~£70 assuming 50 mpg + £? for tyre wear etc. With more than one in the car there is no contest in terms of cost vs train.
Driving 500+ miles may be regarded as onerous. So EasyJet fly from Gatwick and Luton with fares of £50-150. A fair comparison with off-peak trains would be (say) £60-80. Flight time is ~90 minutes.
There are also several coaches a day from Inverness to London with fares below £30 - although the 12-15 hour journey requires some stamina.
Personal choice would depend largely on (a) door to door time which in turn depends on precise destination and starting point, and (b) cost.
Conclusion. Off peak train loses to air travel on both costs and time grounds. It loses against cars on cost particularly with two or more occupants. A (somewhat doubtful) argument for train could be made only if the door to door time largely avoided travel to/from termini.
As a technology trains function well (albeit with high fares) on commuter routes into major urban areas, and (again at a fairly high subsidised cost) between major city centres. As a social service providing transport for those unable to access other modes ......... the jury is out.
|
>> Conclusion. Off peak train loses to air travel on both costs and time grounds. It
>> loses against cars on cost particularly with two or more occupants. A (somewhat doubtful) argument
>> for train could be made only if the door to door time largely avoided travel
>> to/from termini.
>>
>> As a technology trains function well (albeit with high fares) on commuter routes into major
>> urban areas, and (again at a fairly high subsidised cost) between major city centres. As
>> a social service providing transport for those unable to access other modes ......... the jury
>> is out.
I used Inverness as an example because I've recent direct knowledge. Presently on the Western Isles, ferry to Ullapool tomorrow then (overnight) train back to Euston. The basic rail fare was as above.
We added sleeper reservations bringing the return cost up to £550. That was cheaper than anything Easy (Luton) or Loganair (Brum) could do by the time you'd added baggage etc to the deal. Added complication that Easy's timings vary by day of the week which adds complexity picking up a hired campervan and slotting in with Cal Mac ferry times.
Driving is doable but ruled out on time - fitting in with camper hire would have meant two overnights.
Trains from London to Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool or Newcastle beat the plane into a cocked hat. Leeds and Liverpool no longer even have an air service to London. Edinburgh is marginal time wise too. Approx journey time four hours forty; get to Heathrow etc and from Turnhouse to Edinburgh near to that.
Plenty of trains at around £85 single.
I think leisure rail travel is back at levels close to pre-pandemic. If the emptiness of Northampton Station's car park is any indication commuting has died down massively. Government will have to deal with that.
The economics of the rail industry have been screwed up by the pandemic. I'm relying on recollection here but I thought, pre-pandemic most long distance operators were free of subsidy. Commuter travel never was and never will be. However my recent train trips off peak to London from Northampton have been well filled to the point of people standing.
You are clearly of a mindset that trains are yesterday's story, which is a legitimate viewpoint but not, IMHO/IME one that can be properly supported by facts.
|
|
I like travelling by train. When I last flew from Gatwick earlier in the year I took the train from Norwich and it worked out quite well although we were half an hour late arriving. Was expensive compared to the car though. I'm flying from Heathrow in a couple of weeks time but won't be using the train because of the the cost and the the ongoing threat of rail strikes. A shame really but i want reasonable prices and reliability when I travel
|
>> the exorbitant costs of fares.
>>
I recommend Trainline - other sites are available. Buy your tickets six weeks in advance, be flexible with day and time of travel and it is normally much cheaper.
www.thetrainline.com/
|
I use Trainline Duncan. Trouble is, I rarely know much in advance when I’ll want to travel, and when I do, it’s usually at a peak time to accommodate a working day.
Journey times aren’t really the issue, west coast trains are already fairly quick.
Fortunately, it won’t matter to me for much longer. Already pricing hammocks…
;-)
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Sun 24 Sep 23 at 15:43
|
I see it was confirmed today in turn there's going to be replaced by Northern Rail. Although this seems to be rehash of projects already ongoing and items cancelled brought back that the PM cancelled not that long ago.
It leaves labour in a bit of a bind, back it or back the government leaves them open to criticism. I'm guessing that's why they are steering clear of any mention of levelling up. Something on the face of it they should be in the lead on.
|
It's a bit much to criticise Labour for keeping its powder dry when the crooks are still moving, and removing, thr goalposts.
As for suddenly being the party of change when they've been governing for 13 years, I don't think even the dimmest voter is going to accept that.
They are seeking wedge issues based on trivia like stopping an imaginary war on motorists and reversing non-existent taxes when practically none of the key public services is working properly - social care, NHS, public transport, school buildings, road maintenance, water and sanitation, justice, policing, prisons...their obsession with low tax has resulted in a massive hidden deficit for whatever government comes next to deal with.
I keep thinking they must have reached peak shameless, then they prove me wrong. They are both totally incompetent and thoroughly dishonest.
|
>> It's a bit much to criticise Labour for keeping its powder dry when the crooks
>> are still moving, and removing, thr goalposts.
>>
It was an observation I see its not easy, however they are the opposition and the change on HS2 was signalled quite some time ago. Difficult or not they should have a position on this.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 4 Oct 23 at 20:15
|
|
Depends whether Labour make up their policies on the back of an envelope in response to the latest polling, or do it properly. The Cons are already having trouble explaining how the cancellation yields £32bn, and a lot of the newly announced northern projects had already been promised. I'd love to see their workings.
|
|
Well they can take their time and wait, although I don't think stating if they are against or for the completion of HS2 is much too ask. It's hardly making policy on the hoof. I would think they already taken a policy stand on HS2 already.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 4 Oct 23 at 21:09
|
I thought I read earlier that some relatively senior Labour figure had refused to commit to restarting it.
While I'm not keen on u-turns, I feel that Rishi has shown some balls in taking the decision. Doesn't mean I admire him but it is showing leadership, like it or not. Maybe Labour could learn from that :-) It's a bit pathetic but entirely predictable that he'd get knocked whatever he does.
|
>> I thought I read earlier that some relatively senior Labour figure had refused to commit
>> to restarting it.
>>
...seems quite a sensible stance to me. They have no idea what the situation will be if/when they are in a position to take that decision. Announce now that they are going to restart it (a year down the line?) and they face a prospect of a scorched-earth policy in the interim inflating the costs/difficulty dramatically (don't think for a minute that the current Government wouldn't do that - much of the other expenditure announcements are designed to put a monkey on a future Labour Government's back, should that arise).
Frankly, I can see no practical or political purpose being served by the Labour Party taking an overt stance on HS2 at the moment.
The decision has been already made by Government; given the current majority there is little they can do to affect that*, and as above, if/when they can have a practical effect, it will likely be a year down the line, and against a very different background.
It suits the Labour party to have the falling-out over HS2 contained largely within the Conservative Party in Government (with a bit of stirring by local rather than national politicians keeping the pot boiling).
*the only political reason for taking a stance would be if sufficient of the Government MPs rebelled, and the decision was forced to a vote. Under those circumstances opposing the Government position might bring them down (it ain't going to happen though; too much self-interest amongst Tory MPs to allow that).
I'm not a great fan of some of the opposition inaction, but in the face of an overwhelming majority, a Government that is falling apart, and a decision that can't practically be overturned, keeping the powder dry seems a canny move.
Patently, one would like to see considerably more detail on many things at manifesto time, but until then....
|
>> I thought I read earlier that some relatively senior Labour figure had refused to commit
>> to restarting it.
And when exactly would Labour have reached a decision or obtained the information to make it.?
HS 2 was a cross party commitment.
>> While I'm not keen on u-turns, I feel that Rishi has shown some balls in
>> taking the decision. Doesn't mean I admire him but it is showing leadership, like it
>> or not. Maybe Labour could learn from that :-) It's a bit pathetic but entirely
>> predictable that he'd get knocked whatever he does.
I might have more respect for the decision if I believed there had been a proper process. Like costing, funding or even a parliamentary announcement. I don't.
Commentators who've had a go at costing the 'new' plans for the north have been guesstimating likely cost. They think it's a lot more than the £36m supposedly released by cancellation. On the other hand, he promised the dualling of the A64. Which had already been promised by Johnson 4 years ago. And dualling of the A1, also previously announced.
I have less than zero respect for liars and bluffers. Our prime minister is an embarrassment.
|
HS2 had cross party support a long time ago.
Apparently Network Rail has not been consulted on the new "plans". Should Labour shoot from the hip just because Sunak has?
Inter alia, I understand Sunak promised to quadruple the number of trains between Sheffield and Leeds. Simon Calder, the travel writer, had asked if any rail boffin can explain just how that works as there are already 5 per hour in each direction.
|
It is right that HS2 2nd phase is cancelled. The project is grossly over budget, several years late, and only ever marginally justified by creative accounting to meet a political need.
Whether the cancellation was economically or politically motivated could be debated.
Some Tories find cancellation unattractive because they were complicit in its original approval and dislike the implicit criticism, but cancellation probably appeals to the Truss wing
That many in the north west are unhappy is no surprise Sunak may see wider benefits in funding smaller projects likely to deliver far quicker. Promising new stations, road upgrades, better buses etc etc in marginal constituencies could be a vote winner.
Politically it gives Labour a problem - will they assert "we will deal with it in office", endorse the policy (unlikely), announce they complete what has been started. Indecision can look like prevarication.
Sunak wants a new political play book. He is using issues which are emotive - immigration, EV delay to 2035, HS2, 20mph limits. It attempts to differentiates his premiership from both his predecessors and Labour. They are potential vote winners. He needs to take risks!
Starmer has thus far made Labour a largely policy free zone, The strategy (???) is traditional opposition - too early, too late, too little, too much, etc + "we are not the Tories" What emerges at the Labour party conference will be critical.
Many (on this forum) are adamant that EVs are the work of the devil, being tough on immigration is a vote winner even though some may find it morally repugnant, HS2 is a waste of money which fails to provide any benefit to those living remote from the route
Labour risk failing to communicate effectively that which they would do which opens them up to criticism at best and even ridicule. Why vote for them if they don't know what they would do differently.
Last edited by: Terry on Thu 5 Oct 23 at 01:52
|
I don't really buy the idea things are likely so different in a year that's its impossible for labour to state any position on this.
More broadly I wonder if this reluctance to take any position on anything too soon, may become too little too late. Although all the polls show Labour 17/18 points clear, I'm not sure that's firm support. Sunaks wedge issue plan has been around a few months if it starts to work and the lead shrinks to 10 points the PM may be returned to office.
I've no crystal ball and accept I might be wrong, but we'll see.
Seems quite a few of the road building plans had been cancelled by the PM a few months ago anyway. As to plans like Bradfords new station, Johnson announced it and then cancelled it. Much like new and expanded tram systems proposed, I'll believe it when i see it
|
I’m not convinced that HS2 will be at the forefront of many peoples minds when they are deciding what party to vote for.
|
>>
>> Labour risk failing to communicate effectively that which they would do which opens them up
>> to criticism at best and even ridicule. Why vote for them if they don't know
>> what they would do differently.
What a ridiculous question. In case you hadn't noticed, there isn't an election this week.. when there will be one is within Sunak's Control. Don't you think there will be a manifesto when the GE comes?
I'll give you a reason. Right now, the Conservatives have zero regard for objective, observable truth.
They are also trying to brand Starmer as flip flopping. He would have to be insane to promise anything at this juncture other than to scrutinize the proposals, which have not been announced in parliament, then properly to identify, evaluate, and consider the options. He was not consulted on the decision which, btw, was made last week despite Sunak claiming no decision had been made - the video of his announcement was made at Downing Street before he went to Manchester. KS has no incentive at all to produce a knee jerk response which I would guess is what the desperate Sunak wants him to do.
I will preempt somebody saying that all politicians lie, Labour would be worse etc. The mendacity of the current government is on another level.
Had the same levels of dishonesty been shown 10 years ago there would have been resignations, but the incremental deterioration to where they are now is analogous to the boiled frog effect. The faithful are not surprised, shocked, or even disapproving of the lies that Labour wants to tax meat or tell people when they can travel.
I deplored Rayner's language at the time, she was right. Scum. How many examples do you need?
|
So how does being the Opposition ever work if they can't possibly voice an opinion on stuff they aren't privy to? What's the point of being the Opposition? It's really not tricky - HS2 is being scaled down - good or bad?
Starmer simply doesn't want to give an opinion until he sees which way the wind blows with the voters. Can't say I blame him for that but don't try to fool me that it's anything else. :-)
|
HS2 speculation has been ongoing for years but reached a crescendo over the last few weeks.
It does not need careful examination of the figures to reach a conclusion. It is a abysmally conceived and managed project, which 14 years ago may have seemed a good idea.
It is now just political. Labour have had plenty of time to form a view, talk to those affected etc etc. That they chose not to respond can evidence prevarication and indecision which Sunak will play for all it is worth.
Starmer needs to decide how and when to respond. He is playing in the same political game as Sunak. I believe policy will be heavily influenced by the impact on voter intentions, figures will be massaged to provide the answer he wants, and timed to get maximum political value.
However decent and committed they are to the public good (most on both sides are), without power politicians are impotent. Labour understandably crave power. The Tories have had 13 years to accumulate a "history", and IMHO have wasted most of the last 6 with Brexit.
Labour have almost no current baggage. Back in 2010 Labour were trying to defend their "history" which included financial crisis, increasing unemployment, national debt increases, war in Iraq, expenses scandal to name but a few. They rightly lost the election.
I do not believe either party is fundamentally bad or evil - circumstances drive their behaviours which are stressed by the exercise of power, and avoided in opposition.
|
“do not believe either party is fundamentally bad or evil - “‘
I wouldn’t say the right wing of the Tory party were evil, just thoroughly unpleasant people.
Effectively the election is already won by labour. All they have to do is let the Tory party tear itself apart and it’s doing a pretty good job at that.
|
That sounds naive, just no offence intended. This isn't a yes or no answer.
Opposition is there to scrutinize and challenge, in parliament, and no doubt will. You might also have noticed that the Cons at the moment are behaving like the opposition, not only continually attacking Labour but making up lies to do it. I'd give them nothing that wasn't carefully thought out and tested.
As it happens, I'm pretty sure the simple "business case" hasn't added up for a long time. On that basis London to Birmingham should probably also be cancelled.
Sunak says the facts have changed. They changed a long time ago. This idea goes right back to Gordon Brown, when the cost estimate was no more than £25bn IIRC. Sunk cost is about £10bn and writing that off could be our least loss. North of Brum it's probably a billion, a mere 1/37th of the failed track and trace exercise, so by pure logic we should probably at least put it in abeyance while a proper decision is made.
You're using this to characterise KS but really there's no need for Labour to add a knee jerk reaction to the debate this week or next.
The Cons are now routinely minimising parliamentary scrutiny. The first response from Labour must be to probe the proposals that have been dressed out with a bundle of at least partly recycled promises. There really is no plan - the point is the electioneering action man propaganda. It defies belief that they would cancel a national infrastructure project just to pursue a populist agenda of course but I'm sure it has a bearing on the timing, the carpy process and the manner of the announcement.
While the 12 year old SPADs in no. 10 are making up non existent policies to cancel and writing the culture war script, Sunak is also fighting a leadership challenge. His biggest enemies are Truss, Braverman, Badenoch, Patel and a considerable number of his own MPs. I doubt whether Labour has much to gain by lowering itself to the same level. There seems to be about 25% of the voters who make up the faithful, and Labour is unlikely to make inroads there. Save the ammunition.
Best let them get on with it. Surely only the dim and deluded are fooled by Sunak's poor attempt at personating Johnson.
Apology for the stream of thought.
|
The I front page headline sums up Keir's position today.
"Sunak turns on 13 years of Tory rule with spending trap for Starmer"
twitter.com/theipaper/status/1709680000545309156
The trap I assume being that if KS promises to restore HS2, he will have to fund the £36bn. because it's already promised for other transport/road projects in the north. Best just to leave the problem with the Cons until Sunak deigns to call an election.
In general, I am frustrated, or at least impatient, at Labour's and the Lib Dems's apparent lack of vim at the moment. In particular I think they could both be calling out the Brexit disaster. But that will keep too. It's not as if it will get better or that the Cons could suddenly fix it. They must know they are in for a pasting, hopefully at the critical point.
Sunak might think his best chance is if Ed Davey decides the LD's will be the Rejoin party, which would split the progressive vote and let the Cons back in.
I'm counting no chickens. Davey and Starmer should be trying to work something out, although I suspect they aren't.
|
No need for an apology - I can understand your viewpoint. I have been less than impressed over the last 6 years with the Tories, despite supporting them on a more philosophical level:
- I was a firm (and disappointed) remainer
- choice for leader in 2019 would have been Rory Stewart (idealist)
- second place was Jeremy Hunt who I thought sound
- Boris was blessed with great talents and equally (ultimately destructive) flaws
- Boris lost touch with reality and simply li ed - he got what he deserved
- Liz Truss was not to be trusted from the outset and effectively incompetent
- Sunak to my my is rational and fair (as is Sir Kier).
- Sunak may aspire to be a Thatcher but he is not in the Johnson mould.
- the Tory party is beset by division in the ranks
- Tory election victory is unlikely - all Sunak can do is try to narrow the gap.
- Tories have 13 years of baggage, Labour have a largely clean slate
Politicians (on both sides) are individually generally decent and honest. Most could make a better living with far less intrusion and stress outside politics.
As politicians they crave control - without it they are largely impotent. against a dominant majority, they are completely impotent.
As a group their actions are dominated by the hunger for power - selective truths, cover ups, ambiguity, etc come to the fore. These behaviours are not only the preserve of the Tories.
There are some similarities with the Blair Brown years:
- Blair had the same election winning charm possessed by Boris.
- forced out - internal wrangling + failings in Iraq war, weapons of mass, destruction, etc
- many though him economical with the truth (lying??)
- Brown succeeded - a decent man lacking charisma.
- wrong man wrong time - carried the can for rising unemployment and financial crisis.
Looking forward, assuming a Labour majority - possibly small depending on LibDems and SNP:
- for 2 or 3 years any problems can conveniently be laid at the door of their predecessors
- with a following wind on the economy, inflation, unemployment they may get a second term
- by then it is they who will be carrying the baggage of 8-10 years in government
- they will start to adopt the behaviours we currently see from the Tories
- cover up, announcing the same projects as new multiple times, internal tensions etc
Perhaps I am cynical - perhaps Labour are and will be political paragons. But "I simply don't believe it" - to quote Victor Meldrew.
|
Not so sure this is so much stating policy rather spinning the situation against the Tories. I mean there is obvious truth in what he says (e.g. that the government was now about to cancel contracts and release land it had bought for the project) but I don't recall their full unqualified support for it being evident recently.
I suspect they are breathing a huge sigh of relief that the Tories have done the deed they may have had to do on taking office.
|
It suits the sit on the fence strategy to be critical of government - wrecking ball - to justify being unable to commit.
I doubt that cancelling Phase 2 now makes the project irrecoverable. It was not due to open until between 2035-2041. A delay of a year now is almost noise in a project due to take 13-18 years.
There is a case to be made that disrupting resources and teams adds cost. Against that it avoids more wasted time and money, and in particular avoids entering into long term onerous contracts.
|
A recent article from the Guardian, a paper usually associated with left of centre, listing some of the key Starmer policy U turns. There may be others more recently.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/04/u-turns-labour-keir-starmer-tuition-fees-income-tax
This is not to suggest Sir Kier (or any other politician) is wrong to reconsider his views in the light of new information and a changing landscape. But to the cynical me it does evidence some (or substantial) flex on policy and principles to meet electoral goals.
|
I am very well aware of Starmer's historic opposition to HS2. But it has always been Labour supported.
The circumstances now are very different to those obtaining in 2015-16, both in regard to the project and to the outlook for the UK economy.
I hesitate to pontificate too much on the wisdom of HS2 because there are very few truly fully qualified to do so and I am not one of them. Suffice to say I was very sceptical before it was finally signed off because, whilst there was definitely a strong case for big investment in rail connections I didn't think it followed that very high speed trains were so important. But now that we are here, it's certainly a different question.
Whatever, I think it is morally wrong and very cynical of Sunak unilaterally to cancel a cross party, long term strategic project particularly a year before a general election. Given Johnson's enthusiasm for it I would also imagine that many Con members and voters who elected him don't think he has a mandate to do it either.
If he really believed it was necessary perhaps he should have put it in the Con manifesto for an early GE.
|
It seems Sir Kier now supports HS2 having preciously objected, and Rishi now doesn't want it presumably having previously voted for it.
Both cite changed circumstances. Both have acted against previous views of their respective parties.
Not very much to separate them save that they came to different conclusions on broadly the same data and changed circumstances.
Whilst HS2 is/was a major and emotive infrastructure project, it is not the stuff over which general elections need to be called.
When an election is called or forced, I aspire to clarity on the unambiguous intentions of each party - not carefully crafted words which ultimately commit neither to anything.
|
>I am very well aware of Starmer's historic opposition to HS2. But it has always been Labour supported.
But Starmer is now leader of the party. His troops will have to toe the leader's line won't they? Starmer won't want to be seen selling his long held principles for a few grubby votes will he?
>Whatever, I think it is morally wrong and very cynical of Sunak unilaterally
>to cancel a cross party, long term strategic project...
Since when did morality count for anything in politics? And, of course it's cynical. He's drowning in a sea of sewage and grasping at anything he thinks will keep him afloat.
>If he really believed it was necessary perhaps he should have put it in the
>Con manifesto for an early GE.
Good idea. Lets call a General Election every time a PM makes a decision that someone doesn't like.
|
My point was not that it needed a GE, but that there should been been parliamentary involvement and some level of scrutiny or cross party engagement.
I don't think a GE should be fought on it any more than there should have been a Brexit referendum.
|
|
My understanding is that there will be a vote in the HoC on this as there's an act of Parliament created to support the building of hs2.
|
>> My understanding is that there will be a vote in the HoC on this as
>> there's an act of Parliament created to support the building of hs2.
Do you remember where you saw that?
The fact that an act authorises HS2 doesn't necessarily mean it has to go ahead.
OTOH I'd not be surprised if the current government sought to repeal it as part of their scorched earth policy.
|
Sky news, apparently the act sets out exactly what hs2 is. If hs2 changes from that in any significant way, then the act has to be modified via a vote.
That's not word for word but what i took the explanation to mean.
|
"scorched earth policy"
Well if people are asking where you saw things... where did you see that one?
|
|
...probably in my contribution above (;-) ), but the phrase "salting the earth" has subsequently been widely used in conjunction with HS2. (The government reportedly planning to remove "safeguarding" of the land on the route, and selling back (or on) land and properties already acquired under CPOs).
|
Was just about to post but TnE beat me too it.
Article in today's Graun which I saw on my tablet while at brekky (in a hotel for the weekend) but can't find now to link to uses exactly that 'salting the earth' phrase.
I think normal political practice, courtesy even, when making a major change ot what was previously a consensus policy so near an election would be to leave the route safeguarding in place and not to repeal enabling legislation.
Even if not used as per current HS2 plan a new alignment between Brum and Crewe/Manchester has civic value.
Requiring a new government, even if it were another new 'Conservative' one to go back to square one seems like little more than spite.
|
>> My understanding is that there will be a vote in the HoC on this as
>> there's an act of Parliament created to support the building of hs2.
That will be more or less irrelevant if as reported Sunak is already "salting the land" by putting the land acquired for the line etc. up for sale.
|
|
When a government is approaching the end of its term it should not be rushing through decisions like this, outwith the manifesto, with such irrevocable long-term implications. Doubly so when Sunak's mandate has been challenged even within his own party, and he is boasting about a new form of government.
|
Incidentally, I notice Starmer has ventured upon announcing a policy or two, including something on housing.
Hope he doesn't get too carried away just yet. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. I see Sunak's promised plans for reallocation of the money from HS2 are rapidly coming unravelled. There is no way this has been properly worked through.
inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunaks-36bn-rail-plan-already-unravelling-with-pledge-u-turn-and-euston-hs2-leg-in-doubt-2667404#:~:text=Rishi%20Sunak's%20promise%20to%20scrap,doubts%20appeared%20over%20several%20schemes.
|
|
Apparently the land has to be sold due to public sector equality duty, whatever that is. Mentioned by the PS.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 7 Oct 23 at 11:42
|
>> Apparently the land has to be sold due to public sector equality duty, whatever that
>> is. Mentioned by the PS.
I'd be very interested in what bit of the PSED has been interpreted as requiring that....
|
I'd be very interested in what bit of the PSED has been interpreted as requiring
>> that....
>>
Dunno, but it came from the Perm Sec of the Dept Of Transport.
|
Her written statement contains these words:
"The decision to cancel parts of the HS2 programme will require primary legislation and required processes to lift or alter safeguarded land will need to be followed. The decision has been made in compliance with the public sector equality duty."
Given the context, I can only take that as meaning the decision to cancel has been taken in line with PSED (though even that would be a tenuous thread), not that the safeguarding (or relaxation of that) is required by PSED.
(Frankly, it would be very difficult to make any connection between land safeguarding and PSED - unless, for example, they'd bought up all the travellers encampments on the route ;-) )
|
You may not like legislation being pushed through but AIUI there is no rule against it.
The convention is that no legislation can be passed which binds a successor party. Cancelling HS2 could be reversed - whether it makes sense is a different issue.
It is unclear what constitutes "close to an election" - a month, six months, a year.
Were such a restriction on the actions of the majority party in place we would be reduced to government for (say) three years, then stalled for 1-2 years.
A daft way to go - particularly as the next government may be the same as the current should they win a further term (possibly unlikely in this case).
|
|
I agree. I'm thinking of responsible behaviour, not rules. Too much to expect from a Conservative PM? This is the sort of idiotic game they play in the USA.
|
I largely agree with you re responsible behaviour..
A question - would a Labour government towards the end of their term with a low probability of victory in a coming election seek to force through populist legislation against Tory opposition.
The answer in my (cynical) opinion is "yes". You are of course at liberty to judge otherwise.
|
>> I largely agree with you re responsible behaviour..
>>
>> A question - would a Labour government towards the end of their term with a
>> low probability of victory in a coming election seek to force through populist legislation against
>> Tory opposition.
>>
>> The answer in my (cynical) opinion is "yes". You are of course at liberty to
>> judge otherwise.
Populist? I'm not convinced that it will gain them any votes, especially as it becomes evident that the accompanying promises contained substantial misrepresentations and outright nonsense.
I do believe Labour would be less likely to burn bridges like this, or at least Starmer would. They have their own snakes of course but the essential conviction behind Labour still comes from a different place and for now at least there is more capacity for shame.
|
|
The PM who sent a tweet with an accompanying photo of him in a private jet saying he had made decisions on what’s best for the railway…
|
This is the Guardian article I could not find on their website, as opposed to the app, this morning:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/05/sunaks-spiteful-sale-of-land-intended-for-hs2-dashes-hopes-of-revival
As that spells out although HMG have resolved to remove the protection of the Birmingham Crewe bit of HS2 other sections, including the eastern arm to Yorkshire remain safeguarded.
It's very difficult to see that as anything other than a political choice and one made to spite the possibility of the werstern limb being resuscitated by a later government.
As regards the Public Sector Equality Duty here's what HMG's own website says:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-equality-duty
Can anybody explain to me how those principles, the application of which to, for example, DWP decision making I'm using on a daily basis in my work, oblige the government to sell off land purchased for the cancelled bit?
|
...as I posted above, with a quote from the Permanent Secretary's report, I don't think she linked PSED to the removal of safeguarding at all.
It reads to me as though she was saying the decision to cancel HS2 was taken with PSED "in mind". (It simply reads like a bit of @rse-covering boilerplate was deemed required in the report).
|
>> It reads to me as though she was saying the decision to cancel HS2 was
>> taken with PSED "in mind". (It simply reads like a bit of @rse-covering boilerplate was
>> deemed required in the report).
Boiler plate, @rse for the covering of, is about as far as I could stretch it.
No doubt sales of the land, should that go ahead, will be PSED compliant too.
|
HS2 costs out of control, says review - Bromptonaut
