London to Birmingham rail link...

[andy at handiwork]

Well lets enter into a Dutch auction with other countries to see who can provide the least protection for their workers.

[max_tranmere]

I will personally be furious if most of the contractors, train builders, etc, are foreign firms. They probably will be though. And I agree this is largely a Cameron vanity project.

Seperate subject, but one thing I was reminded of with all this was just how vast the Royal Bank of Scotland bail out was. This huge, complex, super railway from London to Birmingham will cost ?32b, yet the bailout for just ONE BANK (RBS) was one and a half times that at ?45b. Incredible, when you compare the figures!

[sparky]

Wayne wrote

Its a Cameron vanity project, his been caught out because eventually some people worked out that he didn't actually have any ideas how to make jobs as opposed to slashing them and as he had destroyed everything else that creates jobs its the only thing left in the ideas cupboard.

....


Yes it will provide jobs for construction workers, both those currently in work and maybe some who would otherwise be unemployed for a few years.

Sadly no doubt much of the equipment will inevitably be imported and the new trains will be designed and substantially built abroad. At best any work in the UK will just be some cosmetic fitting out as proposed for the Hitachi IEP trains if they are ever ordered.

Once built how many people will be required to operate and maintain the network - at best a few hundred.

As to the idea that once completed it will indirectly create a significant number new jobs so long term cover the costs and more, rather than being alternative travel option for existing passengers, can anyone give a credible realistic explanation as to how/why this is envisaged as IMO total bullsh1te?

Of course by the opening day Cameron, Greening etc will be long gone and living very comfortably even if their ears burn now and again when blamed for the drain on Government funds....

[David Johnson]

There's a lot of misconceptions in this thread.

First of all, time savings. Currently the fastest trains euston to birmingham are about 1 hr. 15 mins to 1hr 25 mins. The HS2 link is expected to do the journey in about 50 mins. Given supporting project documentation prior to government approval tends to rely on a certain amount of optimism, my guess would be that this would be the very best time that could be done and not the average.

Secondly, cost. A cost of 32 billion has been mentioned.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/high_spe ... costs-3227

The above link suggests: the widely-reported ?32.7 billion cost of HS2 is indeed based on DfT figures, however these only refer to the initial construction costs of the scheme; however, considering longer term costs such as rolling stock and maintenance, the cost is actually estimated at closer to ?65 billion based on these factors alone; some of these costs will likely be offset via income and other benefits for the scheme, as the DfT makes clear.

This leads us nicely to the question of cost to the consumer. If you buy an Anytime fare, it is currently about ?158 return. Anybody travelling from New Street to Euston on a daily basis on the HS2 would soon find:

Its still a hell of a long jourrney if you add in the time for getting from home to New Street and from Euston to work.

It will cost an eye watering amount for an annual ticket that 95%+ of the population could never possibly afford.

Personally I am pleased to see the Tory controlled government has indirectly accepted its economic plan expressed at the beginning of its time in government i.e. we sack hundreds of thousands in the public sector and that frees up the private sector to grow and take up the slack is total, fucking bollocks.

As a result we are now back in the Keynesian world of digging holes and filling them in again.

Personally I think there are much better, more cost effective metaphorical holes to dig and fill in.

CHeers
D

[Lizard]

It's a complete and utter waste of money. Think about all that cash, and what it could buy, all to knock a few minutes of a train journey. What about having a referendum on all spending over ?10b.

[max_tranmere]

Interesting points there. I agree with what you say. I wonder if, years after the thing has opened, if anyone will really notice a huge improvement in one's ability to travel from the Midlands to London and vice-versa.

[max_tranmere]

I don't think that would be a good thing. Everyone would just oppose every bit of very large Government expenditure. "Think of all the doctors and nurses that could pay for..." would be the cry.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]There's a lot of misconceptions in this thread.

First of all, time savings. Currently the fastest trains euston to birmingham are about 1 hr. 15 mins to 1hr 25 mins. The HS2 link is expected to do the journey in about 50 mins. Given supporting project documentation prior to government approval tends to rely on a certain amount of optimism, my guess would be that this would be the very best time that could be done and not the average.[/quote]

True, though I think you miss an important point about people. Getting to London 'under an hour' sounds a reasonable journey time. Getting to London in 'an hour and 25 mins' is less appealing. Yes, it's only 20-35 mins faster but it's under an hour. Sound stupid? It is, but people fall for it which is why we still see things priced at 99p rather than ?1. Why that new hatchback is ?11,995 instead of ?12,000.

[quote]Secondly, cost. A cost of 32 billion has been mentioned.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/high_spe ... costs-3227

The above link suggests: the widely-reported ?32.7 billion cost of HS2 is indeed based on DfT figures, however these only refer to the initial construction costs of the scheme; however, considering longer term costs such as rolling stock and maintenance, the cost is actually estimated at closer to ?65 billion based on these factors alone; some of these costs will likely be offset via income and other benefits for the scheme, as the DfT makes clear.[/quote]

I think it's worth noting (since you only mentioned the London - Birmingham link in your first paragraph) that the ?33billion estimate is the total cost of all lines, including the Manchester & Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds routes.

[quote]This leads us nicely to the question of cost to the consumer. If you buy an Anytime fare, it is currently about ?158 return. Anybody travelling from New Street to Euston on a daily basis on the HS2 would soon find:

Its still a hell of a long jourrney if you add in the time for getting from home to New Street and from Euston to work.

It will cost an eye watering amount for an annual ticket that 95%+ of the population could never possibly afford.[/quote]

The cost to travellers, and fearing a two-tier network where we have a set of lines for the rich and a set of lines for everyone else is the only thing I seriously worry about.

[quote]Personally I am pleased to see the Tory controlled government has indirectly accepted its economic plan expressed at the beginning of its time in government i.e. we sack hundreds of thousands in the public sector and that frees up the private sector to grow and take up the slack is total, fucking bollocks.

As a result we are now back in the Keynesian world of digging holes and filling them in again.

Personally I think there are much better, more cost effective metaphorical holes to dig and fill in.[/quote]

It's well known that the budget for this project doesn't start until 2015 so it's costing us nothing for the next three years and even then it's spread over a decade. It's also important to point out that what we're already spending ?16billion on the Crossrail project, which only really affects London and Essex, and that ?16billion has been spread over a shorter time period. The financial burden of this project finishes in 2015 and so monies used for this will be transferred onto the next big rail project.

Given that the costs won't start until 2015; given that a proportion of that cost will just be money transferred from the Crossrail project anyway and given that it's a modern, faster system that has the potential to help spread the wealth further northwards and given that it should ease congestion on current lines I say that it's a good thing.

Cancelling HS2 now doesn't mean more money for hospitals and schools tomorrow.

[David Johnson]

"True, though I think you miss an important point about people. Getting to London 'under an hour' sounds a reasonable journey time"

No. You miss the key point.

You discussed elsewhere in this thread, the possibility of people regularly commuting to London from Birmingham. The 50 minutes, (I repeat I expect this to be the optimistic time for the reason I have already explained) is just one part, not necessarily the biggest part of the overall journey.

"I think it's worth noting (since you only mentioned the London - Birmingham link in your first paragraph) that the ?33billion estimate is the total cost of all lines, including the Manchester & Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds routes."

No. This is incorrect.

The overall cost of the project is ?33 billion. That is correct. There is no commitment to go to Liverpool. What has been discussed is a Y shape from Birmingham going to Leeds and Manchester. And phase 2 is still to have a consultation period.

"The cost to travellers, and fearing a two-tier network where we have a set of lines for the rich and a set of lines for everyone else is the only thing I seriously worry about".

Apart from being wrong in worrying about this as the "only thing I seriously worry about" - you should pay attention to the history of technical failure and projects being scaled back to meet more realistic objectives on the railway, you are right to worry about costs to the punters.

If you hadlooked at any detail you would know that the cost of a season ticket from Reading to London Paddington, a notoriously overcrowded and crap journey, is over ?3, 500 a year for an approximately 30 minute journey in rundown rolling stock in many cases. Unless this line is very, very heavily subsidised, the vast majority of people will never be able to afford this.

"It's well known that the budget for this project doesn't start until 2015 so it's costing us nothing for the next three years "

No. This is wrong.

There are very specific setup costs covering ?millions that have to be carried out in the runup to 2015.

"given that it's a modern, faster system that has the potential to help spread the wealth further northwards"

This is pure guesswork as I have often had to point out to you in many of your views. And I suspect you have zero information to back this "potential" up. Start searrching now! You could argue more cogently that the opposite is true. The faster it takes to make a journey by rail or road the more likely for a company to centralise and do without outlying depots etc. For example, for a long while you could travel from London to Newcastle in 2hrs 50, a distance three times as long as that from Euston to Birmingham.

The North East has the highest unemployment rate in England.

Not a glowing endorsement!

I realise your reply might be something on the lines of

"To be fair that could mean that unemployment in Newcastle might be even higher without the fast rail link" .

Like I said, pure guesswork.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]"True, though I think you miss an important point about people. Getting to London 'under an hour' sounds a reasonable journey time"

No. You miss the key point.

You discussed elsewhere in this thread, the possibility of people regularly commuting to London from Birmingham. The 50 minutes, (I repeat I expect this to be the optimistic time for the reason I have already explained) is just one part, not necessarily the biggest part of the overall journey.[/quote]

Well, talking of speed, given that drivers will, quite regularly, speed, run ambers, cut people up, overtake on bends and be an overall menace just to save a few minutes in their cars I'd argue saving 15-35 mins per journey (30-70 mins a day) is a large improvement that many will be thankful of. The shadow transport secretary, Maria Eagle's only complaint isn't that they're going ahead with HS2, but that they're not going ahead to Leeds and Manchester fast enough. It seems all three main parties are in general agreement that it's a good thing.

[quote]No. This is incorrect.

The overall cost of the project is ?33 billion. That is correct. There is no commitment to go to Liverpool.[/quote]

Just Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds, then. My main point was that reading your previous post you specifically talked about the London - Birmingham route in one paragraph and then in the next talked about costs, which may mislead people into thinking it was just the London - Birmingham route that would cost ?33billion. The estimated cost of the London - Birmingham route is ?17billion over 11 years.

[quote]"It's well known that the budget for this project doesn't start until 2015 so it's costing us nothing for the next three years "

No. This is wrong.

There are very specific setup costs covering ?millions that have to be carried out in the runup to 2015.[/quote]

Millions, yes. But all the alternatives to HS2 would have some sort of set-up and planning costs so thought it irrelevant to the argument. That is unless your alternative is to do nothing.

[quote]"given that it's a modern, faster system that has the potential to help spread the wealth further northwards"

This is pure guesswork as I have often had to point out to you in many of your views. And I suspect you have zero information to back this "potential" up.[/quote]

You're pulling me up on something I say has 'potential'? While I agree there's a difference between rationalism and empiricism I think it essential we have both. I think it's reasonable to assume a shorter commute would influence a decision about whether to move closer to work or not and from those that stay I think it just as reasonable that making money in the capital and spending it in your home town is a way of transferring wealth. If, in reality, it doesn't work that way then one can hardly be castigated for trying, given the logic.

[quote]You could argue more cogently that the opposite is true. The faster it takes to make a journey by rail or road the more likely for a company to centralise and do without outlying depots etc. For example, for a long while you could travel from London to Newcastle in 2hrs 50, a distance three times as long as that from Euston to Birmingham.[/quote]

True, but I can't see how that logic is any more cogent than mine. As long as it's cheaper to have depots and offices outside London then businesses will consider it. Being that bit closer to the capital via something like HS2 will (it is hoped) make that consideration more appealing.

I'm not sure shutting down all airports, motorways, railways and A roads around Newcastle will help the city in anyway, unless you're a local farrier.