HS2where?

[helen]

There is a big blue engine shed, on the left, just before the train gets into Manchester Piccadilly station from the south. It was once to be the home of Eurostar “Le Eurostar habite ici”. I know this because there was a big sign on it saying so. Thirty years ago Eurostar trains were a common sight on the west coast main line being tested ahead of the start of direct services between Manchester, Paris and Brussels. It didn’t happen. The train could not compete with the plane was the reason given. And we were all saved from having a train with the word ’Euro’ in its name.

Manchester had to settle for the Ordsall Chord. 540 metres of track linking Piccadilly and Victoria Stations across the city for the first time, thus creating a direct route between lines from the east, Leeds, Bradford etc, and Manchester Airport. It took from 1830 until 2017 to complete that job but they got there in the end.
The Ordsall Chord cuts directly across the path of the original 1830 Manchester/Liverpool line, the world’s first passenger railway (Stephenson's Rocket and all that). By 1850 they were well on the way to having a national network.

Now the Observer reports that a meeting is scheduled between Jeremy Hunt and Rishi Sunak early next week to discuss the cancelation of the section of HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester. They are keen that the announcement is made before the start of the Conservative Party conference, in Manchester, next Saturday.
One source said:
“He has to do it before Tories go to Manchester. To do it there would be inconceivable. It would be a kick in the teeth for the city. So doing it before seems to be the plan.”

This looks like a wise move by the bean counters. it makes little sense to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure for a country that may soon be closing down. And still less to spend it on railways to places that don’t even vote Conservative.

Managed decline is the sensible course.

[rowlf]

13 hours ago, helen said:

There is a big blue engine shed, on the left, just before the train gets into Manchester Piccadilly station from the south. It was once to be the home of Eurostar “Le Eurostar habite ici”. I know this because there was a big sign on it saying so. Thirty years ago Eurostar trains were a common sight on the west coast main line being tested ahead of the start of direct services between Manchester, Paris and Brussels. It didn’t happen. The train could not compete with the plane was the reason given. And we were all saved from having a train with the word ’Euro’ in its name.

Manchester had to settle for the Ordsall Chord. 540 metres of track linking Piccadilly and Victoria Stations across the city for the first time, thus creating a direct route between lines from the east, Leeds, Bradford etc, and Manchester Airport. It took from 1830 until 2017 to complete that job but they got there in the end.
The Ordsall Chord cuts directly across the path of the original 1830 Manchester/Liverpool line, the world’s first passenger railway (Stephenson's Rocket and all that). By 1850 they were well on the way to having a national network.

Now the Observer reports that a meeting is scheduled between Jeremy Hunt and Rishi Sunak early next week to discuss the cancelation of the section of HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester. They are keen that the announcement is made before the start of the Conservative Party conference, in Manchester, next Saturday.
One source said:
“He has to do it before Tories go to Manchester. To do it there would be inconceivable. It would be a kick in the teeth for the city. So doing it before seems to be the plan.”

This looks like a wise move by the bean counters. it makes little sense to spend large amounts of money on infrastructure for a country that may soon be closing down. And still less to spend it on railways to places that don’t even vote Conservative.

Managed decline is the sensible course.

Well, those illegal aliens must have a place to stay. And the bean counters have only so much money. I suppose it's a matter of priorities.

[ruby]

Well I didn't know about the big blue engine shed. There is an interesting YouTube video about how the railways have been messed up. In it Andy Burnam, a guy that seems to know what he is doing, said that they put in a brand new viaduct in the approach to Manchester, but did not update the tracks either side. Never mind though when Starmer gets in he can cancel all of it and make those bits that are finished cycle ways, then add a 20 mph speed limit on the M1 and M6 so nothing moves. There will be a lot of cyclists though, of course except the ones that crash into each because they think they are the only people that own the road or have fell off that viaduct. I know Manchester is bit farther north than Essex, but when I had to travel to Cologne to do development work we found it quicker to go by car. Sure the plane is quicker but then you have to add in travel to the airport, parking,  bus from car part to airport that never seems to come, check in time which can be 2 hours, a plane ride of an hour and then all the delays at the other end picking up testing kit etc from the hold. Finally a taxi to the destination. By car about 4 hours including channel crossing using the tunnel, by plane a bit longer and less convenient. The train is even quicker if you use Eurostar, one of guys regularly used to do it for meetings. If they do ever finish HS2 you are talking trains doing 150 mph, link it up with HS1 and you are in the continent quicker than a plane. Trouble is it is handled by Politicians, so it is never going to happen.

[LoveShapelyLegs]

don't blame conservatives and don't blame the bean counters.  it's called simple economics.  there are cheaper ways to get from manchester to paris, and cheaper ways to get to birmingham from manchester.  the marketplace -- in other words, people making their own economic decisions based on price, timetable, convenience, comfort -- determined these rail lines are not cost-efficient nor cost-effective.   nothing to do with the government or the private (where applicable) rail companies.  

if you must search for someone to blame, blame unions and the workforce.  labour costs are 75% of the total cost of operation -- and that's a fact.  unions demand staffing levels and hold companies hostage for pay scales and benefits.  workers today in england, like in the US, don't want to work -- no one wants to work.  everyone wants to stay home and receive 60% of what they could be making through some form of payment scheme.  thank covid for that dynamic.  

mind you, the biggest cost with rail systems is the infrastructure costs -- tracks, signal systems, trains, inventory -- which are not the labour market's costs. 

the double whammy of capital costs and labour costs make rail unfeasible unless highly subsidized.  and this is where the good old government comes in -- subsidies.  because they always are looking out for the "little guy"  and "the pensioner".    that endless black hole of money and tax........

 

 

[Alteredbhoy]

30 minutes ago, LoveShapelyLegs said:

don't blame conservatives and don't blame the bean counters.  it's called simple economics.  there are cheaper ways to get from manchester to paris, and cheaper ways to get to birmingham from manchester.  the marketplace -- in other words, people making their own economic decisions based on price, timetable, convenience, comfort -- determined these rail lines are not cost-efficient nor cost-effective.   nothing to do with the government or the private (where applicable) rail companies.  

if you must search for someone to blame, blame unions and the workforce.  labour costs are 75% of the total cost of operation -- and that's a fact.  unions demand staffing levels and hold companies hostage for pay scales and benefits.  workers today in england, like in the US, don't want to work -- no one wants to work.  everyone wants to stay home and receive 60% of what they could be making through some form of payment scheme.  thank covid for that dynamic.  

mind you, the biggest cost with rail systems is the infrastructure costs -- tracks, signal systems, trains, inventory -- which are not the labour market's costs. 

the double whammy of capital costs and labour costs make rail unfeasible unless highly subsidized.  and this is where the good old government comes in -- subsidies.  because they always are looking out for the "little guy"  and "the pensioner".    that endless black hole of money and tax........

 

 

What a ludicrously simplistic and partial use of economics to confirm your anti-public transport views. You compare apples with pears, include costs on one side of the equation, but not the other in order to justify your small state position.

I can elucidate further if you wish, but I suspect you would rather tell us your views than consider whether they are correct.

[LoveShapelyLegs]

18 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

What a ludicrously simplistic and partial use of economics to confirm your anti-public transport views. You compare apples with pears, include costs on one side of the equation, but not the other in order to justify your small state position.

I can elucidate further if you wish, but I suspect you would rather tell us your views than consider whether they are correct.

the other side of the equation, dummy, is the fare prices can never cover the cost of operation of a train route.  any schoolboy knows this.  revenues from customer purchases of tickets is only on average 40% of the cost coverage. duh.  hence, government subsidies.  duh.  always insolvent.  but a necessary mode of transport for millions. 

socialism at its best and worst -- providing transit for the masses, and losing money on the program.  

duh. 

i am not anti public transport.  i use it here in london and love it.  and i pay nothing with my over 60 pass.  i figure this is the best revenge on a system which overtaxed me whilst i worked for 40 years to feed those on the dole.  

[rowlf]

37 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

I can elucidate further if you wish, but I suspect you would rather tell us your views than consider whether they are correct.

Puleeeze, no more 'elucidatin'. I believe you've spread more than your fair share!

[Alteredbhoy]

52 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Puleeeze, no more 'elucidatin'. I believe you've spread more than your fair share!

See rowlf playbook rule 14, deliberate muddling or misspelling of words.

[LoveShapelyLegs]

1 hour ago, rowlf said:

Puleeeze, no more 'elucidatin'. I believe you've spread more than your fair share!

he eats at gold star.  and too many onions.  no wonder why he's a cranky old bastard.  

[Alteredbhoy]

1 hour ago, LoveShapelyLegs said:

the other side of the equation, dummy, is the fare prices can never cover the cost of operation of a train route.  any schoolboy knows this.  revenues from customer purchases of tickets is only on average 40% of the cost coverage. duh.  hence, government subsidies.  duh.  always insolvent.  but a necessary mode of transport for millions. 

socialism at its best and worst -- providing transit for the masses, and losing money on the program.  

duh. 

i am not anti public transport.  i use it here in london and love it.  and i pay nothing with my over 60 pass.  i figure this is the best revenge on a system which overtaxed me whilst i worked for 40 years to feed those on the dole.  

Well, we'll ignore your immediate resorting to abuse to hide the paucity of your arguments.

But your first statement, which you were so unsure about that you had to state that it was a fact was that 75% of the costs were labour costs. Followed shortly by a statement that over half the costs were due to maintaining the infrastructure. Can you see the difficulty?

But then your argument compares the costs of fares to the price motorists might pay. Except that the rail fare includes an element of cost of the infrastructure, whereas the cost of a car journey is unlikely to do so. Similarly, the rail fare includes the cost of train purchase, whereas a motorist will disregard the purchase of their vehicle, treating it as already paid.

Similarly, the market does not cost in any amount for pollution and the costs of dealing with it. I imagine these are much greater for the cumulative car journeys of a train load of commuters.

They average subsidy per train journey in England has fallen over recent years from £3.85 per passenger journey to just over £2. This is pretty minimal. I don't know what the equivalent figure for car journeys is, and to be honest given the disparity in volumes of journeys and their distances, I think it may not be a good comparitor. But unlike you, I'm not prepared to just make up a number to support my prejudices.

As for 40 years paying tax to fund the dole, you appear unaware that Jobseekers Allowance and its successor benefit accounts for only about 1% of DWP expenditure.

But don't let the truth affect your opinion.

[rowlf]

5 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Well, we'll ignore your immediate resorting to abuse to hide the paucity of your arguments.

But your first statement, which you were so unsure about that you had to state that it was a fact was that 75% of the costs were labour costs. Followed shortly by a statement that over half the costs were due to maintaining the infrastructure. Can you see the difficulty?

But then your argument compares the costs of fares to the price motorists might pay. Except that the rail fare includes an element of cost of the infrastructure, whereas the cost of a car journey is unlikely to do so. Similarly, the rail fare includes the cost of train purchase, whereas a motorist will disregard the purchase of their vehicle, treating it as already paid.

Similarly, the market does not cost in any amount for pollution and the costs of dealing with it. I imagine these are much greater for the cumulative car journeys of a train load of commuters.

They average subsidy per train journey in England has fallen over recent years from £3.85 per passenger journey to just over £2. This is pretty minimal. I don't know what the equivalent figure for car journeys is, and to be honest given the disparity in volumes of journeys and their distances, I think it may not be a good comparitor. But unlike you, I'm not prepared to just make up a number to support my prejudices.

As for 40 years paying tax to fund the dole, you appear unaware that Jobseekers Allowance and its successor benefit accounts for only about 1% of DWP expenditure.

But don't let the truth affect your opinion.

Are you going to prosecute?

[helen]

3 hours ago, ruby said:

Well I didn't know about the big blue engine shed. There is an interesting YouTube video about how the railways have been messed up. In it Andy Burnam, a guy that seems to know what he is doing, said that they put in a brand new viaduct in the approach to Manchester, but did not update the tracks either side

The Ordsall Chord is a viaduct. Short but it did involve a complicated river crossing. The consensus is that it has reduced congestion at Piccadilly.
The problem is, Piccadilly is a terminus for trains from the south. There are only two platforms at the side of the station that allow through traffic north/south (the only ones in the city), and the new line feeds into these two platforms which have long been close to their capacity. Government penny‑pinching has stopped the station being upgraded to get the full benefit of the new line. The cost would be measured in millions, not billions.
Andy Burnham is right, such compromises do not happen in London.

[ruby]

5 hours ago, helen said:

The Ordsall Chord is a viaduct. Short but it did involve a complicated river crossing. The consensus is that it has reduced congestion at Piccadilly.
The problem is, Piccadilly is a terminus for trains from the south. There are only two platforms at the side of the station that allow through traffic north/south (the only ones in the city), and the new line feeds into these two platforms which have long been close to their capacity. Government penny‑pinching has stopped the station being upgraded to get the full benefit of the new line. The cost would be measured in millions, not billions.
Andy Burnham is right, such compromises do not happen in London.

Yes that was exactly what he said, those compromises happen everywhere. It is not so important but they knocked our local station down to rebuild it, then ran out of money, so we know get a portacabin. They upgraded London Bridge a couple of years ago but that was a horrendous upheaval perhaps they didn't want the same issues in Manchester. Alternatively the building of the viaduct overran the project finances so that is where they stopped. HS2 now takes all the money, what little there is.

[Felicity Arkwright]

Me and my Milkman were discussing HS2 this morning. We both think Rishi should decide to continue HS2 to Manchester or abandon the whole project.  It will be cheaper to cut the losses rather than continue with an expensive train track from the outskirts of London to Birmingham where nobody wants to travel to. 

[rowlf]

1 hour ago, Felicity Arkwright said:

Me and my Milkman were discussing HS2 this morning. We both think Rishi should decide to continue HS2 to Manchester or abandon the whole project.  It will be cheaper to cut the losses rather than continue with an expensive train track from the outskirts of London to Birmingham where nobody wants to travel to. 

You and your milkman shouldn't cry over spilt milk.

[dappi]

30 minutes ago, rowlf said:

You and your milkman shouldn't cry over spilt milk.

Once again, you have no idea about this or anything else you post.

I get plenty of feedback about your cowardice and how you try to ignore my critical posts.

[Felicity Arkwright]

25 minutes ago, rowlf said:

You and your milkman shouldn't cry over spilt milk.

Hello rowlf,  me and my Milkman never discuss spilled milk. HS2 will not help my Milkman because there is no longer any milk trains. Milk trains were better for the environment than the lorry milk tankers on the roads. Also better for the environment to buy from your local Milkman who supply milk in real glass reusable bottles  instead of milk contained in plastic containers that are bought in supermarkets.

[Merseyman45]

My own personal opinions on this hs2 was that it was always going to cost an obscene amount of money and I couldn't fathom out why it was being done. Digging up half of the countryside to shave 30 mins of a trip from Manchester to London was madness.

It's been mentioned on here by the op that Labour costs for this project are 75% of the budget, but this doesn't surprise me as this thing is colossal and these people building it don't come cheap.

I know this profject was green lit before covid hit but you now have to look at the economics, inflation is high, less people using trains and spiralling costs ie materials and labour, tough desicions have to be made its just a shame so much has been thrown at this already and will have been wasted.

I think to come this far now and write it off isn't the right thing to do either, the goverment have got themselves into an expensive mess and may as well finish the job and connect to Manchester.

 

 

[helen]

8 hours ago, Merseyman45 said:

My own personal opinions on this hs2 was that it was always going to cost an obscene amount of money and I couldn't fathom out why it was being done. Digging up half of the countryside to shave 30 mins of a trip from Manchester to London was madness.

It's been mentioned on here by the op that Labour costs for this project are 75% of the budget, but this doesn't surprise me as this thing is colossal and these people building it don't come cheap.

I know this profject was green lit before covid hit but you now have to look at the economics, inflation is high, less people using trains and spiralling costs ie materials and labour, tough desicions have to be made its just a shame so much has been thrown at this already and will have been wasted.

I think to come this far now and write it off isn't the right thing to do either, the goverment have got themselves into an expensive mess and may as well finish the job and connect to Manchester.

There is a lot of discussion about why it costs ten times as much to build a high speed railway in the UK compared with France, (it sounds unlikely but it is the number being quoted). The obvious answer would seem to be, let the French build it. Other European countries have built thousands of miles while we have been dithering over 150 or so. And a lot has been spent putting the line underground to appease the nimbys of the home counties.

I heard a discussion on TV about why the UK and USA in particular are so bad at big infrastructure projects. They didn’t come up with an answer but my view is it may have something to do with the more laissez faire political ideology of the two countries compared with others. The governments don’t really believe it is their job. They believe the market should provide even though they know the market won’t. So they do it reluctantly. They treat infrastructure as an optional extra to be built only if it can be seen as ‘cost effective’ in the short term.

We need a national fibre optic grid but we are not getting one because the market cannot see a profit in it and government doesn’t think it is their job. Other countries have done it and moved on.

Some things have to be built, despite the cost, because they are needed.

[rowlf]

10 minutes ago, helen said:

There is a lot of discussion about why it costs ten times as much to build a high speed railway in the UK compared with France, (it sounds unlikely but it is the number being quoted). The obvious answer would seem to be, let the French build it. Other European countries have built thousands of miles while we have been dithering over 150 or so. And a lot has been spent putting the line underground to appease the nimbys of the home counties.

I heard a discussion on TV about why the UK and USA in particular are so bad at big infrastructure projects. They didn’t come up with an answer but my view is it may have something to do with the more laissez faire political ideology of the two countries compared with others. The governments don’t really believe it is their job. They believe the market should provide even though they know the market won’t. So they do it reluctantly. They treat infrastructure as an optional extra to be built only if it can be seen as ‘cost effective’ in the short term.

We need a national fibre optic grid but we are not getting one because the market cannot see a profit in it and government doesn’t think it is their job. Other countries have done it and moved on.

Some things have to be built, despite the cost, because they are needed.

Huh! I've always thought it was because the two countries spend so much on welfare, handouts, that infrastructure sucked hind teat to these entitlements.

Despite the cost, layabouts need a new large screen telly every so often.

[Alteredbhoy]

9 hours ago, Merseyman45 said:

It's been mentioned on here by the op that Labour costs for this project are 75% of the budget, but this doesn't surprise me as this thing is colossal and these people building it don't come cheap.

The poster who mentioned that was referring to costs of running a railway, not specifically the building of HS2. But the same poster also claimed that in addition to the 75% attributable to staff costs a further 50%  could be attributed to infrastructure costs.

You don't need to have an accountancy qualification to conclude that he didn't know what he was talking about.

[dappi]

35 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Huh! I've always thought it was because the two countries spend so much on welfare, handouts, that infrastructure sucked hind teat to these entitlements.

Despite the cost, layabouts need a new large screen telly every so often.

Your first sentence makes no sense at all.

The second sentence shows your disgusting alt. right wing pariah prejudice. 

[Alteredbhoy]

41 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Huh! I've always thought it was because the two countries spend so much on welfare, handouts, that infrastructure sucked hind teat to these entitlements.

Despite the cost, layabouts need a new large screen telly every so often.

Yes. And as always most of what you think is nonsense. The French and German welfare systems are much more generous than the UK's (and I would guess the US's too), but they are still able to better fund and manage infrastructure projects. 

[helen]

The Independent is claiming several sources saying Rishi will announce the scrapping of HS2 north of Birmingham but the completion of the southern end all the way to Euston.
Did I say something earlier about compromises not happening in London?

No, I jest. My sources tell me Rishi will announce that the whole thing has been a big conference windup and, in fact, HS2 will not only be completed to Manchester but then extended all the way north to the Kyle of Lochalsh.
Rishi will then be carried, shoulder high, from the hall, by cheering crowds leaving Liz and Suella to contemplate their own destruction.

Watch this space.