HS2 gets go-ahead

David Benton wrote:how does a carbon tax or any other tax enrich politicans ? Are they pocketing it ?

The US right wing so distrust their government, and I don't blame them, that they cynically assume wrong motives for everything proposed. But they need a better constitution than the 1789 lash-up they have.

They also don't believe there is a climate problem. 2011 showed an amazing amount of flooding and bad weather events, following 2010 with its droughts and fires, threatening famine from a shortage of wheat. I expect 2012 will be similar. Bad weather events are increasing. Whether the rightwingers in the US will ever notice what is happening is an interesting question. They seem to be having bad floods in the midwest more frequently than in the past. If that affects the grain harvest there will be famine in the places to which the surplus is being exported.

There is a legitimate investigation of whether electrically powered high speed rail actually reduces carbon emissions. I would prefer it if the British government negotiated an electric line from Iceland which can provide huge quantities of carbon free electricity. There is a draft plan for a European grid which would indeed connect Icelandic hydro and geothermal power to the grid. In that case rail would not emit carbon dioxide.

It used to be the case that Italian railways got their power from geothermal - another area with a large geothermal potential. Maybe that's something that New Zealand could do something about. An entirely electrified system there could run without importing any oil.

These huge problems of energy and climate cannot be tackled by the "private sector" using the 18th century arrangements they have in the US.

There is such huge demand for rail travel in Britain that I am sure this increased capacity will be used.

amtrakowitz wrote:I see you're repeating talking points rather than positing actual merits and demerits.

The "domestic flight" issue is a canard. Having the public sector compete against the private sector (or ironically, public sector compete against public) is a net waste in taxpayer money.

And nothing related to HS2 justifies the excessive expenditure (especially compared to other HSR projects) or demonstrates the need for such a project, especially since the average speed of the current trains on the traditional right of way already reaches the triple digits. The comparative cost of reopening the GCML for the same purpose, and achieving the kind of average speeds envisioned for HS2, would still be far lower and it's an insult to all people not to bring that matter into consideration versus desecrating the Chilterns for fifteen times the normal amount per unit length that one would spend on HSR.

Citing political party adherents is argumentum ad hominem. There are plenty of others in other political parties and of other political ideologies that oppose this project, both on cost concerns and environmental concerns.

Constructing a conventional 125mph railway would cost around 9% less than a 225mph line but attract 18% less passengers. This would be the cost of 'reopening' the Great Central Railway which in reality would be a completely new railway with a new alignment at Brackley where the extensive viaduct was pulled down in the late 1970s. The main expense would still involve the construction of tunnels into Central London as existing tracks at the London end would be inadequate.

The average speeds on the West Coast Main Line between certain towns do, as you say already achieve 3 figure averages; e.g. London - Stoke (circa 140 miles) at an average of 105mph (not bad when the maximum speed in 125 mph). However the main issue with the WCML is not speed but capacity - that's the main reason for building HS2 not speed.

The private sector will not build railways so if a state wishes to ensure there is a viable transport network in place when the oil runs short, then taxpayers money will have to be spent.

I think the whole "capacity" argument has been debunked already, and it ought not be raised again in this thread. Rail service is to be reduced on the traditional corridors with the opening of the overly-expensive HS2.

Looks like your estimates for reopening the GCML are arbitrary and guessed, as is your estimate for lower passenger numbers, never mind also guessing that a reopened GCML would necessarily be a 125-mph railway. Where do you presume that it would cost US$236 million per mile to rebuild the GCML? How was that derived? It can't be merely because of the viaduct.

There is no evidence that "the private sector will not build railways".

amtrakowitz wrote:I think the whole "capacity" argument has been debunked already, and it ought not be raised again in this thread. Rail service is to be reduced on the traditional corridors with the opening of the overly-expensive HS2.

Looks like your estimates for reopening the GCML are arbitrary and guessed, as is your estimate for lower passenger numbers, never mind also guessing that a reopened GCML would necessarily be a 125-mph railway. Where do you presume that it would cost US$236 million per mile to rebuild the GCML? How was that derived? It can't be merely because of the viaduct.

There is no evidence that "the private sector will not build railways".

All these matters are dealt with in very great detail in the report, which is covered in the current edition of the Fortnightly Rail magazine.

They costed, for example, building a connection in Birmingham to the Derby line (for temporary service to York). Mile by mile the various alternatives have been assessed.That includes the details of whether there should be tunnel or deep cuttings and slight variations to avoid certain historic buildings. I am inclined to trust the professionals on this, especially as they show their workings. As to this "private sector", that is an American obsession we don't have. There is a government owned company called (I think) High Speed Two which is in charge of designing and planning the route. The next stage will be to present a Hybrid Bill to Parliament, probably in 2013. That will cover planning details. The actual building will go to tender. Bechtel will no doubt be interested.

amtrakowitz wrote:I think the whole "capacity" argument has been debunked already, and it ought not be raised again in this thread. Rail service is to be reduced on the traditional corridors with the opening of the overly-expensive HS2.

Looks like your estimates for reopening the GCML are arbitrary and guessed, as is your estimate for lower passenger numbers, never mind also guessing that a reopened GCML would necessarily be a 125-mph railway. Where do you presume that it would cost US$236 million per mile to rebuild the GCML? How was that derived? It can't be merely because of the viaduct.

There is no evidence that "the private sector will not build railways".

Rubbish, the capacity issue has not been debunked. After HS2 there will be fewer express trains on the classic route and the ones remaining will make more stops at smaller towns. The released capacity will be taken by increased commuter trains into London and Birmingham and more freight trains. The old Great Central line heads towards to Nottingham not Birmingham, it also has been built on in most towns.

There is plenty of evidence that the private sector will not build new railways. After all where are all these new rail lines. There is nothing stopping them submitting an application to Parliament as a private bill.

It's the unpredictability of costs that deter private companies from taking a risk with building infrastructure. Train operating companies are happy to cream off an easy profit but when problems occur they walk away and leave the government/taxpayer to pick up the tab. Costs for HS2 have already exceeded original estimates and there are many ongoing compensation claim disputes along the route that threaten to drag on for years. As costs escalate, so will the calls from some to cancel HS2. It would have been better to build much needed modern rail links first in the North of England before starting on the current route, but in the UK the priority is invariably London and the Southeast.