When pandemic calms, should HS2 be cancelled?

[219]

11 years on, the scope of the project will have evolved and will include the latest and greatest. Think how different a 2020 car is compared to a 2009 car. Inflation, escalation etc - you don't pay the same price today that you paid for a car 11 years ago.

Equally , my old LCD TV that cost £1500 a little over a decade ago , you could get something actually better for around £300 today - so some costs come down rather than go up .

 

[markjay]

True, and we sell and install these systems (a proper conference suite will cost well over £100k), but the issue is that at current face-to-face meetings are still seem as having certain qualities that no VC can replace.

The physical handshake, the full body language, the non-formal chat before and after... etc. As well as - sometimes - planned intimidation.

I am not suggesting that physical meetings will stay with us forever, but I think that the current generation of managers and executives will need to move-on before VC is seen as a proper replacement to physical meeting, with the latter becoming part of our history just like handwritten letters, typewriters, teleprinter, fax, CDs and VCRs. COVID-19 will certainly speed-up the process, but full implementation is still a few years away.

 

[Dryce]

Apart from the billions spent in associated works. I’m thinking of materials, labour, plant and everything else. As somebody here has previously stated, investment has already gone into parts of Birmingham so people are benefitting now.

Spending money for its own sake?

Not a good thing.

The cost of HS2 is huge. So the fundamental question is could it be spent better. It doesn't mater how allegedly wonderful HS2 if the money could be put to better use because then it represents a lost opportunity.

We've had two aircraft carriers - that apprently were to expensive to cancel. We've had the disastrous edinburgh trams which was manage by an organisation that .... you guessed it .... started to argue it was to expensive to cancel.

Now I'm hearing the same argument about HS2. So my brown stuff detector starts going off the scale at this point. If it's too expensive to cancel now then that only means one thing - the price will incrase further and it will arrtive late and under deliver. So I go back to that fundamental question - how could it be spent better.? HS2 isn't the only thing you can find to spend money on.

 

[markjay]

Equally , my old LCD TV that cost £1500 a little over a decade ago , you could get something actually better for around £300 today - so some costs come down rather than go up .

True, and mass production almost always reduces the cost per unit over time.

(Not sure that's applicable to HS2 though...?)

 

[markjay]

..The cost of HS2 is huge. So the fundamental question is could it be spent better....

True, but this moves the subject into the realm of politics. How best to spend public money? Each political party will have its own idea.

 

[219]

but the goods have to get to and from a rail depot and will take longer to arrive due to the delays in the extra handling, do any supermarket hubs etc have rail lines. no didnt think so

The docks , where much of the freight in containers arrives DO have rail links , so did many manufacturing plants ( and probably still could ) . All that is required are loading/unloading hubs , mostly near the destination ends , but also near some origin points , and they will be the same hubs ; one Artic can do lots of short runs to a hub with multiple containers in the time it takes to drive one container to the other end of the country .

 

[Dryce]

True, but this moves the subject into the realm of politics. How best to spend public money? Each political party will have its own idea.

These major projects seem to have their own protagonist groupings that lobby politicians.

So HS2 seems to exists as an independent life form within the olitical ecosystem and will adapt to whateve political flavour is in power.

The Conservatives found it quite difficult to cancel or change the carriers which were started under Labour. That project also became a life form of its own.

 

[Dryce]

The docks , where much of the freight in containers arrives DO have rail links , so did many manufacturing plants ( and probably still could ) . All that is required are loading/unloading hubs , mostly near the destination ends , but also near some origin points , and they will be the same hubs ; one Artic can do lots of short runs to a hub with multiple containers in the time it takes to drive one container to the other end of the country .

The problem is in between those railheads.

Freight is slower than passenger trains. We have a rail network that is dominated by high speed (yes seriously - don't laugh!) passenger services and finding timing paths in that traffic flow for freight services on main routes is difficult.

There's an argument in there to say that HS2 doesn't really solve that - and that what we need is Slow Freight 1 - SF1.

This is why I think HS2 is not the best way to spend money. Build a freight road network that takes road freight away from the motorways trunks now - and is intended to be run with automated HGVs in 10 to 20 years time. Road freight is successful in the UK - rail freight less so. So try a different path. Road freight trunks.

 

[Darrell]

Spending money for its own sake?

Not a good thing.

The cost of HS2 is huge. So the fundamental question is could it be spent better. It doesn't mater how allegedly wonderful HS2 if the money could be put to better use because then it represents a lost opportunity.

We've had two aircraft carriers - that apprently were to expensive to cancel. We've had the disastrous edinburgh trams which was manage by an organisation that .... you guessed it .... started to argue it was to expensive to cancel.

Now I'm hearing the same argument about HS2. So my brown stuff detector starts going off the scale at this point. If it's too expensive to cancel now then that only means one thing - the price will incrase further and it will arrtive late and under deliver. So I go back to that fundamental question - how could it be spent better.? HS2 isn't the only thing you can find to spend money on.

You can’t really compare 2 aircraft carriers and some trams in a pokey city to HS2 can you?

 

[flying haggis]

taking stuff on/off ships straight from/to trains will save further handling , and can allow 20 or 30 containers to be moved in one go , rather than needing a single driver to move each one . Having loading/unloading hubs near each large city would still allow road haulage to carry the first or final legs of longer journeys from their origins/to their destinations . This would free up valuable road space which is often congested with freight which does not need to be there .

but you cannot unload containers straight onto a train, the containers are basically randomly placed on the ship. each container needs taking off the ship moving to a storage area then loaded onto a vehicle/train. of the hundreds of containers that are unloaded at ,say, felixstowe everyone will be heading in a different direction. ok train loads can be made up going to different areas/hubs. it already happens. at lot of freight is not carried in containers from factory to user so would that have to go to the hub thereby increasing travel time or will it stay as now

 

[Darrell]

The problem is in between those railheads.

Freight is slower than passenger trains. We have a rail network that is dominated by high speed (yes seriously - don't laugh!) passenger services and finding timing paths in that traffic flow for freight services on main routes is difficult.

There's an argument in there to say that HS2 doesn't really solve that - and that what we need is Slow Freight 1 - SF1.

This is why I think HS2 is not the best way to spend money. Build a freight road network that takes roud freight away from the motorways now - and is intended to be run with automated HGVs in 10 to 20 years time. Road freight is successful in the UK - rail freight less so. So try a different path. Road freight trunks.

As I mentioned right at the start of this thread, if you think HS2 is just about trains then you’re very deluded.

 

[Dryce]

You can’t really compare 2 aircraft carriers and some trams in a pokey city to HS2 can you?

I just have. So .... yes apparently I can.

Because approach to spending large amounts of money on really big stuff is not dissimilar. The advocates drive the projects and play up the benefits and play dow the costs. Then the costs rise. They still play up the benefits. Then after several years of spending on consultants and some preparatory infrsatructure they allegedly become too expensive to cancel (!!!!). And then they consume even more money and take more time before they are complete.

 

[flying haggis]

You can’t really compare 2 aircraft carriers and some trams in a pokey city to HS2 can you?

by the time HS2 is finished I bet the cost would pay for the aircraft carriers and the trams. ok a few billions have been spent but scrap it now and use the remaining £200 billion on other more worthwhile projects. and yes I did mean £200 billion

 

[Darrell]

by the time HS2 is finished I bet the cost would pay for the aircraft carriers and the trams. ok a few billions have been spent but scrap it now and use the remaining £200 billion on other more worthwhile projects. and yes I did mean £200 billion

The carriers don’t generate money and I suppose the trams might.

An aircraft carrier isn’t really an investment is it and I know nothing about Edinburgh's trams. They sound like a bit of a folly to me though.

 

[Dryce]

As I mentioned right at the start of this thread, if you think HS2 is just about trains then you’re very deluded.

I don't think it's just about trains. And I recollect that I mentioned 'eceonomic benefit' pretty early on.

Furthermore I have suggested that non-HS2 alternatives are better opportunity for investment - both trains and road. And I've suggested frieght is important.

Whereas others are fixated on HS2 at any price. It can only apparently be HS2 ..... so who actually has the fixastion (deluded or otherwise) about trains?

 

[Dryce]

The carriers don’t generate money and I suppose the trams might.

An aircraft carrier isn’t really an investment is it and I know nothing about Edinburgh's trams. They sound like a bit of a folly to me though.

You're missing the point about what would be a better target for the expenditure.

The Trams in Edinburgh are actually quite interesting because Edinburgh traditionally has a very successful bus service with no real suburban rail. The Trams cost a huge amount in terms of oney and disruption -and arguably take money from the bus service. The tram line as built was shortened because cost was so high. And ironically the tram serves the airport but takes longer than the existing airport bus service.

So a good investment? No. Arguably a redundant disaster for which no heads have rolled.

So HS2 is a bit different in that it is more likely to technically successful - though the cost will be utterly outrageous by the time it is finished. It is alraedy been suggested it cannot be cancelled - even as the costs have alraedy gone up (which surely suggests the opposite - cancel now and be done with it).

I think investment in infrastructue is a good thing. I just think HS2 is a growing black hole that needs to be canned and the money spent elsewhere to greater benefit.

 

[del320]

Spending money for its own sake. We've had the disastrous edinburgh trams which was manage by an organisation that ... you guessed it ... started to argue it was to expensive to cancel.

I'm not in a position to offer knowledgeable comment on HS2, but Dryce's reference to the Edinburgh Tram scandal certainly highlights similarities.
Essentially a vanity project built on the premise of moving people efficiently and speedily between two points, the original proposal was for 11.5 miles costing £375m.

Allowing small-minded toon cooncilors to have influence over the tendering, defining and scrutinising of the contract was doomed from the outset.

The implications of what might be found excavating under the existing tarmac were never fully considered and failure to properly specify the methods of construction resulted in sub-standard sections being torn up and relaid. The blame game, contractual disputes and legal proceedings along with the inevitable political in-fighting eventually resulted in the good citizens of Edinburgh getting 8.7 miles costing £776m. Construction took six years - about the same as 1900 miles of Pacific Railroad!

The tram line duplicates the efficient Airport busses which take the same time - around 30 minutes.

Thankfully, HS2 is being overseen and prudently planned by Westminster so will undoubtedly exceed all expectations.

 

[T5R+]

Thankfully, HS2 is being overseen and prudently planned by Westminster so will undoubtedly exceed all expectations.

Superb.

 

[Darrell]

The amount of planning, detail, organisation combined with H&S is astonishing (and obviously expensive) and the enabling works that I was on were coming in ahead of schedule.

 

[Dryce]

The amount of planning, detail, organisation combined with H&S is astonishing (and obviously expensive) and the enabling works that I was on were coming in ahead of schedule.

A lot of money is being spent

And those involved with a future in the project have a huge incentive to progress it to ensure maximum momentum to keep it going through politics. Any delays now could be lethal to it.

But .... how much will it eventually cost? That's the huge problem. At over £50 billion it was huge - expectations are that could double. Where does that extra £50 billion end up ? Well a large chunk presumably with the businesses already involved or expecting to be involved - so yet more incentive to esnure progress to keep the whole thing alive. Pity that if they are so far ahead now that they can't progress it quicker and cheaper to its end.