HS2 goes ahead

[strang steel]

I thought the Serpell Report was worse than that, Micky.

My memory of it was that all Edinburgh traffic would be routed via Carstairs, and the ECML would be terminated at Newcastle.

Or maybe I just had a very bad dream.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[sandwhich]

Serpell was yet another idea put forward to cut the railway system, it was very soon dropped, probably not just because as said passenger numbers were increasing but the idea of closing lines in the South East, South West and the shires was politically unacceptable to say the least, it was thought that when privatisation came along the new lot could do what they wanted as regards line closures, politics also got in the way of that one.
I wonder what Serpell would have to said about HS2.

[Andy W]

I think Serpell may have actually approved. He liked big schemes and was in favour of the Channel Tunnel back in the early 1960's.

He was Marples right hand man at the ministry before and during Beeching. He was no fan of the concept of the social railway.

[kudu]

We seem to have two threads covering both HS2 and the GC alternative. Hope someone like Richard can sort this out. I've already said my piece on the other thread.

Kudu

[PinzaC55]

Here's something I am curious about; when HS2 was approved in early 2012 it was supposed to cost 34 billion and now it has risen to 42 billion. Apparently the trains will cost about another 7 billion, a figure which is conveniently not mentioned. So say they contained the cost slightly and it totalled 50 billion, if you divide that by 63 million it comes to £793 per head of population, since it is being funded by the taxpayer.If it will be profitable why isn't it being funded by private capital?
The new Hinkley nuclear power station is being funded by a French/Chinese consortium and I don't suppose they are doing out of their love of the British but rather to make a profit.
So why aren't they funding HS2?
If it isn't profitable why is the taxpayer funding it?

[Autocar Publicity]

I'd guess it all comes down to definitions and exclusion clauses.

The great con perpetrated on the British public in recent years by government (of both varieties) has been shifting capital obligations into income streams. Often called PFI, it's called (by most people) 'cooking the books' and if you or I tried it, we'd be risking a spell in prison.

One point I'd raise about Pinza's post (which I'd generally agree with) is it assumes all of the 63 million (or so) inhabitants of this overcrowded island pay tax, which they don't. So the true cost per head of population is even higher...

To state basic economic theory, the public sector exists to perform tasks which the private sector cannot, or would do inappropriately. Sometimes, decisions need to be taken which are made (at least in theory!) as to what's right, rather than profitable, popular or easy. If government does not have the moral courage to do this, then it is a victim of 'mob rule' and may as well not exist. A nation state's citizens need their government to plan ahead, exercise joined-up thinking and attempt to do 'the right thing' for their interests. I don't think I have not seen a government that has done this in my lifetime... Older members will doubtless remember other white elephants instigated by political theory and/or personal self-interest (including the Beeching Report) rather than a genuine attempt to improve our lives.

[Mickey]

Deleted

[Iron Duke]

So parliament has voted to allow expenditure on the initial stages of HS2.
Is there a break down of these votes showing the geographical location of individual seats (or homes) of each MP and how they voted?
Perhaps this particular vote should have been delayed, as it would be very interesting to see if any political party would be brave enough to put this project in an election campaign in the run up to 2015, something along the lines of the in or out of the EU saga.

I suppose in the early railway mania period similar "for & against" battles raged across the country.
This did as we now know result in duplication on some lines and ultimately led to closures during the 1960s.
So looking ahead twenty odd years, energy prices will have gone off the scale, how much will it cost to run the trains, how much will it cost to travel from London to Birmingham? What sort of person (business or pleasure) will be using these services and for what purpose?

Another thought came into my head From a standing start how long would it take to reach 200 mph, how long would it run at 200mph and at what distance from the stopping point would it need to put the brakes on??

This is all very confusing, I think I'm going for a nap

[PinzaC55]

Apparently about 350 million has already been spent on the initial planning of HS2. To put that in perspective it would reopen York- Market Weighton-Beverley with about 100 million left over for good stuff.

[cambois]

As far as I can see no-one has yet said how HS2 will be funded. If the Government were to take the Hinkley Point solution perhaps SNCF and a Chinese consortia would build HS2 with the track access charges agreed for 30 years at twice the going rate! The (foreign controlled) electricity supply industry is becoming a much bigger subsidy junkie than the rail industry - something that was not acceptable for the (UK controlled) mining industry!!

[1H was 2E]

I'd guess it all comes down to definitions and exclusion clauses.

The great con perpetrated on the British public in recent years by government (of both varieties) has been shifting capital obligations into income streams. Often called PFI, it's called (by most people) 'cooking the books' and if you or I tried it, we'd be risking a spell in prison.

And, commonly, the reverse. Passing through Paddington some years ago, the overall roof was being refurbished. A young man was giving out leaflets "Railtrack investing in Paddington". I asked him where the investment was taking place; he referred to the roof. I pointed out that this was repairs/renewals and should come out of revenue; investment is capital expenditure for new projects. He didn't understand because his job was just to hand out the leaflets. Directed me to his boss, who didn't understand either.
So many signs by Railtrack/NR boast of "investment" when they are clearly maintenance (often long overdue). But, hey, it's only words.

[PinzaC55]

As far as I can see no-one has yet said how HS2 will be funded. If the Government were to take the Hinkley Point solution perhaps SNCF and a Chinese consortia would build HS2 with the track access charges agreed for 30 years at twice the going rate! The (foreign controlled) electricity supply industry is becoming a much bigger subsidy junkie than the rail industry - something that was not acceptable for the (UK controlled) mining industry!!

It is to be funded by the taxpayer. When built it will be leased to a private operator or operators on a franchise basis and they will be expected to return a profit to the government.
In other words the government intends to use your money on a speculative business venture which will provide profit for a private company and for the government.
Great innit?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... 008503.pdf

Quote "fully publically funded"

[strang steel]

I re-read some of the 'Serpell report' earlier John (the bit thats on wiki-one page worth) and it mentions or implies about keeping the ECML from London to Edinburgh with the branch to Leeds (thats nice of them) as well as the WCML to Birmingham, Manchester & Glasgow but there was a number of other options so maybe it could have been even more drastic??.

I remember a fella at work (a signalman) going on about there would be NO RAILWAYS north of Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland if the report was followed through!.

You are probably right, Micky. There did seem to be a large number of alternative options in the Serpell Report, so maybe I remember one of the most extreme ones.

I seem to remember a map such as this appearing in Modern Railways - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ching2.svg

[PinzaC55]

I re-read some of the 'Serpell report' earlier John (the bit thats on wiki-one page worth) and it mentions or implies about keeping the ECML from London to Edinburgh with the branch to Leeds (thats nice of them) as well as the WCML to Birmingham, Manchester & Glasgow but there was a number of other options so maybe it could have been even more drastic??.

I remember a fella at work (a signalman) going on about there would be NO RAILWAYS north of Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland if the report was followed through!.

You are probably right, Micky. There did seem to be a large number of alternative options in the Serpell Report, so maybe I remember one of the most extreme ones.

I seem to remember a map such as this appearing in Modern Railways - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ching2.svg

The great thing about that map is that (assuming the lighter lines mean lines to be closed) they intended to close the Harrogate - Northallerton line which was already a footpath having been closed 17 years earlier