HS2 and the Grand Union

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Pluto said:

Sorry, I should have written Felixstowe. All places south of Sheffield seem the same to me! One of the major problems with rail traffic to and from Felixstowe is the single track approach, which I believe restricts the number of trains which can serve the port daily. I was always impressed with the freight line from Rotterdam, as it was being constructed during the years when I was driving to Germany and Poland a few times each year. Returning to Europort, it was always interesting to see how the track had been fitted into the landscape through the 20 odd miles of the port. It does seem to have been the result of a clear integrated transport policy with wide public benefit, something the MfT seems to have failed to produce since it was formed as the MoT in 1919.

Yes the approach to Felixstowe itself is a constraint. And yes Dutch attitudes toward the built environment and its impact on society are on a different level to the UK.

Edited February 23 by Captain Pegg

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

But that would mean a direct connection for through traffic between HS2 and HS1, and of course there isn't one -- in fact the chances of HS2 even getting to Euston are looking slim, what's the private sector going to get in return in they invest billions in this?

 

On top of that, you can't put slower freight trains on the high-speed lines without killing the HS speeds and schedules.

 

If only we had a joined-up transport infrastructure policy, with a government that realised that investment in this pays off in the long term, and that providing basic services and building/maintaining national infrastructure is the job of government not the profit-driven private sector... 😞

 I vaguely remember HS2 originally being promoted along the lines of being able to step onto a train in Birmingham or Manchester and stepping off it in Paris.  Even if it gets to London, not linking with HS1 is just daft.  Stopping some way short of London will negate any time saving, but not to worry because apparently the main reason for HS2 is capacity.  If that's really true, why not raise all the rail bridges on the West Coast Mainline and give us double decker trains - hey presto:  capacity doubled.

 

Right now I'd just settle for having a rail system which provided me with any confidence that my train won't be cancelled for no apparent reason.  The last couple of years rail travel has become such a lottery than I'm considering abandoning it altogether in favour of the Megabus. 

[Tracy D'arth]

I would like a rail system staffed by responsible workers who didn't go out on strike whenever they felt that they could blackmail the  country into paying them even more money for less work.

[Markinaboat]

19 hours ago, matty40s said:

The white elephant continues its monstrous construction to save 2 minutes on a journey from stations not in the centre of either city at each end.

Here is the palaver in the Colne Valley over the last few days.

 

 

The pier is approx 50 metres from where my mooring was in the marina!

[IanD]

32 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

I would like a rail system staffed by responsible workers who didn't go out on strike whenever they felt that they could blackmail the  country into paying them even more money for less work.

Funny, that's not what the facts say...

 

https://www.timeout.com/uk/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-rail-strikes-092022

 

"RMT staff at the Overground are striking over a below-inflation pay rise. ASLEF workers on Northern and LNER are walking out over claims that the operators have persistently failed to comply with agreements concerning bullying and intimidation. 

Drivers at ASLEF have also been walking out after what it called a ‘risible’ pay offer of four percent a year for two years, as well as changes to working conditions."

 

 

[JungleJames]

56 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 I vaguely remember HS2 originally being promoted along the lines of being able to step onto a train in Birmingham or Manchester and stepping off it in Paris.  Even if it gets to London, not linking with HS1 is just daft.  Stopping some way short of London will negate any time saving, but not to worry because apparently the main reason for HS2 is capacity.  If that's really true, why not raise all the rail bridges on the West Coast Mainline and give us double decker trains - hey presto:  capacity doubled.

 

Right now I'd just settle for having a rail system which provided me with any confidence that my train won't be cancelled for no apparent reason.  The last couple of years rail travel has become such a lottery than I'm considering abandoning it altogether in favour of the Megabus. 

Not linking to HS1 seems daft yes. Not reaching Euston will be daft, and will negate time savings and some of the capacity gains. 

As for your plan of raising bridges etc. Oh if only the world was so simple.

1- that doesn't double the number of paths, and offers nothing but a few extra seats on the trains. It doesn't double the number of seats. 

 

2- Far from increasing speeds, it will slow them down. Dwell times are longer on double deck trains. 

 

3- The amount of disruption would be huge.

 

So, all you have managed is to spend loads of money, and cause lots of disruption for slower trains with a few extra seats, and no gains in paths. 

Sorry, you have completely missed the capacity point.

 

Megabus I won't argue with. Trains are awful and uncomfortable now. Megabus seems much more preferable. 

[Heartland]

There was another example of why a new line should be built last week went a section of embankment collapsed near Coventry on the Stephenson built line completed in 1838. With trains reaching a high speed here, a derailment could have cost lives, but those that oppose HS 2 usually quote the journey time without considering the wider factors such as a new line instead of one where there infrastructure can fail.

 

The taking away of the Northern link to Manchester might prevent any affects on canals the route crosses and now there is talk of electrifying the route to Holyhead instead.

 

[JungleJames]

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

I would like a rail system staffed by responsible workers who didn't go out on strike whenever they felt that they could blackmail the  country into paying them even more money for less work.

Codswallop.

It is caused by government who insist on scuppering agreements at the last second. 

Staff do not want to strike. They do not want to do less work. 

Instead the government is trying to introduce plans that are unworkable and make the railways less safe.

 

They also want to scrap long held perks that would mean basically no increase in remuneration.

 

Companies which the government cannot control are not involved. Does that tell you something?

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

but having a top speed of 100mph rather than 200mph means you need twice as many trains

No it doesn't. Trains don't spend all their time running at maximum speed, so halving the maximum speed from 200mph would double the journey time for those parts of the trip would run at 200mph, would less tha double those parts which would operate at between 100mph and 200mph and would have no effect on those parts of the journey which would operate at less than 100mph anyway. So the overall increase in journey time would be significantly less than double. And turnround times at the termini would not increase, so the overall train fleet requirement would increase by a lot less than a factor of 2.

Edited February 23 by David Mack

[JungleJames]

10 minutes ago, Heartland said:

There was another example of why a new line should be built last week went a section of embankment collapsed near Coventry on the Stephenson built line completed in 1838. With trains reaching a high speed here, a derailment could have cost lives, but those that oppose HS 2 usually quote the journey time without considering the wider factors such as a new line instead of one where there infrastructure can fail.

 

The taking away of the Northern link to Manchester might prevent any affects on canals the route crosses and now there is talk of electrifying the route to Holyhead instead.

 

Haha. Is Rishi claiming Holyhead now? His list of jobs he will do now he has scrapped Manchester. The list that lasts all of 5mins before being quietly forgotten about.

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I'd be interested to see what the plan for connecting from Old Oak Common to Euston involves (rather than all of the flannel about the new station). If it is an overland line, have they purchased all of the very expensive, London priced properties in between? If it is in a tunnel, the Crossrail link (Elizabeth Line) cost nearly £19 billion, so inflation is going to add a salty sum sum to that sort of figure. Perhaps they are hoping to use existing lines. I would imagine that it has been 'paused' because they realised just how much it is going to cost, although pausing it will simply add to the figure if it ever gets restarted (I suspect it wont).

The connecting link will be a tunnel broadly as planned for the cancelled scheme. The difference is the station at Euston, which will have fewer platforms as it no longer has to service anywhere near as many trains following the cancellation of the route north of Birmingham. The government also hopes that by taking the project from HS2 Ltd and giving it to the private sector a more commercial approach to both station construction and related development opportunities will reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

And one of the consequences of the smaller Euston station is that it will make it more difficult for any future government to try to make better use of the HS2 route to Birmingham by extending the system further north (whether by the recently abandoned scheme or any other route).

Edited February 23 by David Mack

[Tracy D'arth]

13 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

Codswallop.

It is caused by government who insist on scuppering agreements at the last second. 

Staff do not want to strike. They do not want to do less work. 

Instead the government is trying to introduce plans that are unworkable and make the railways less safe.

 

They also want to scrap long held perks that would mean basically no increase in remuneration.

 

Companies which the government cannot control are not involved. Does that tell you something?

Wow, touched a nerve there then!

 

I would like a job where I sat down all day and didn't have to turn the steering wheel  for £65K plus a year! And a rock solid pension, free travel, and uniform supplied.

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The connecting link will be a tunnel broadly as planned for the cancelled scheme. The difference is the station at Euston, which will have fewer platforms as it no longer has to service anywhere near as many trains following the cancellation of the route north of Birmingham. The government also hopes that by taking the project from HS2 Ltd and giving it to the private sector a more commercial approach to both station construction and related development opportunities will reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

And one of the consequences of the smaller Euston station is that it will make it more difficult for any future government to try to make better use of the HS2 route to Birmingham by extending the system further north (whether by the recently abandoned scheme or any other route).

 

Which means they'd have to rebuild/expand Euston, which would cause an absolute fortune -- far more than building it bigger from the beginning.

 

In other words they want to pay out less money today even though it'll probably cost more in the long run -- when it's likely to be Somebody Else's Problem, so they simply don't care.

 

Same justification as PFI, and large parts of privatisation -- make it look good/cheap now and sod the future... 😞

 

6 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Wow, touched a nerve there then!

 

I would like a job where I sat down all day and didn't have to turn the steering wheel  for £65K plus a year! And a rock solid pension, free travel, and uniform supplied.

 

If -- regardless of your job or pay -- "they" offered you an effective pay cut and/or poorer terms and conditions, would you therefore just meekly accept it?

Edited February 23 by IanD

[Captain Pegg]

59 minutes ago, David Mack said:

No it doesn't. Trains don't spend all their time running at maximum speed, so halving the maximum speed from 200mph would double the journey time for those parts of the trip would run at 200mph, would less tha double those parts which would operate at between 100mph and 200mph and would have no effect on those parts of the journey which would operate at less than 100mph anyway. So the overall increase in journey time would be significantly less than double. And turnround times at the termini would not increase, so the overall train fleet requirement would increase by a lot less than a factor of 2.

 

I was painting a picture to illustrate a point David, not writing the detailed business case,  

[JungleJames]

28 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Wow, touched a nerve there then!

 

I would like a job where I sat down all day and didn't have to turn the steering wheel  for £65K plus a year! And a rock solid pension, free travel, and uniform supplied.

Nope. No nerve. But facts are facts, and you were planting the blame in the wrong court.

 

Now you have changed your points. Are you on about strikes, or whether they get paid too much?

Anyway, as I've pointed out the innacuracies of your strike rant, I shall do the same for this latest one.

 

1- looks like you are picking up the highest pay. Please don't listen to the government. They are good at this. The average is less. Also, the skills are a lot lot lot more than you suggest. "Sit down and don't touch a steering wheel"? Honestly. You clearly have absolutely no idea, so you try and make it sound simple with stupid comments. I assume being a brain surgeon is simple as they don't need to touch a steering wheel either?

I certainly couldn't say for sure if I'd be able to succeed at driving trains. A lot to it.

2- pension isn't completely rock solid from what I can gather. It is still open to the government trying to play silly billies.

3- free travel isn't quite that simple. 

You have to have started before privatisation to get free travel everywhere, and to keep these benefits. Otherwise it is free travel with your company only, and you lose it when you leave. Oh, and those that started before privatisation did so when the money was dire. They joined for the pure love of it. So don't go on about money and keeping free travel benefits.

I know one who started a long time before privatisation. But then soon after privatisation he left the rail industry as the company in question was awful. Well, he lost all benefits. He eventually rejoined the industry elsewhere, but he was seen as a new joiner, so it was free travel with his company only, plus unlimited reduced rate travel.

Well, as time went on he got a bit fed up with the way the passenger side was going, so moved over to freight. Having been seen as a post privatisation joiner, he has lost all free and reduced rate travel. 

So, it really isn't as you'd like to make out.

As for uniform. Oh come on. Loads of places supply uniform. In fact, I'd guess most places do. You really are grasping at straws with that one. 

 

If you want to knock industries you know nothing about, I suggest you get some info from those that do before banging on. Just a suggestion.

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:

I would like a rail system staffed by responsible workers who didn't go out on strike whenever they felt that they could blackmail the  country into paying them even more money for less work.

If you want the people who are really screwing the system, take a look at the parasites that are the Rolling Stock Leasing Companies (ROSCO's), they are absolutely coining it for very little risk. The way it works is that they have wheedled themselves between the Train Operating Companies and the Train Manufacturers, so there is no real reason to have them at all, but we are where we are (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/18/profits-of-uks-private-train-leasing-firms-treble-in-a-year).

 

When the train staff see these parasites being gifted millions of pounds are you really surprised that, since they (the rail staff) are the one's actually doing the work, they'd like some of that particular pie as well. It's also very generous of us that the three principal ROSCO's (Evershot, Porterbrook and Angel Trains) are all foreign owned by by China, Luxembourg and Canada, shame we can't have some of those profits here in the UK don't you think? Like to train staff!

[JungleJames]

32 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

If you want the people who are really screwing the system, take a look at the parasites that are the Rolling Stock Leasing Companies (ROSCO's), they are absolutely coining it for very little risk. The way it works is that they have wheedled themselves between the Train Operating Companies and the Train Manufacturers, so there is no real reason to have them at all, but we are where we are (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/18/profits-of-uks-private-train-leasing-firms-treble-in-a-year).

 

When the train staff see these parasites being gifted millions of pounds are you really surprised that, since they (the rail staff) are the one's actually doing the work, they'd like some of that particular pie as well. It's also very generous of us that the three principal ROSCO's (Evershot, Porterbrook and Angel Trains) are all foreign owned by by China, Luxembourg and Canada, shame we can't have some of those profits here in the UK don't you think? Like to train staff!

Nope. 

Whilst it does seem like it on the face of it, and at one stage the government thought they could do a better job (odd, because it was the government that invented ROSCOs in the first place), the roll of the ROSCOs was investigated, and it was decided no they aren't the parasites you claim.

 

There is some risk involved (and on a few occasions they have been burnt), and they do provide engineering assistance. 

In fact, if you look at the newer and cheaper ROSCOs, you can see the difference. The newer ones see it purely as a money spinner. The original 3 actually provide assistance.

 

Look what happened when the government thought they could do better. We ended up with inferior rolling stock that costs a fortune.

 

So, considering the whole of Europe now has ROSCOs and the airline industry predominantly leases its  planes, what are your suggestions?

Remember, passenger operating companies can't afford to bu trains  outright, and the government doesn't want to.

In fact the government's plan to do away with ROSCOs was basically a complicated expensive ROSCO that left the rail industry pulling its hair out.

So, what do we do? 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

5 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

Nope. 

Whilst it does seem like it on the face of it, and at one stage the government thought they could do a better job (odd, because it was the government that invented ROSCOs in the first place), the roll of the ROSCOs was investigated, and it was decided no they aren't the parasites you claim.

 

There is some risk involved (and on a few occasions they have been burnt), and they do provide engineering assistance. 

In fact, if you look at the newer and cheaper ROSCOs, you can see the difference. The newer ones see it purely as a money spinner. The original 3 actually provide assistance.

 

Look what happened when the government thought they could do better. We ended up with inferior rolling stock that costs a fortune.

 

So, considering the whole of Europe now has ROSCOs and the airline industry predominantly leases its  planes, what are your suggestions?

Remember, passenger operating companies can't afford to bu trains  outright, and the government doesn't want to.

In fact the government's plan to do away with ROSCOs was basically a complicated expensive ROSCO that left the rail industry pulling its hair out.

So, what do we do? 

How about paying them slightly less so that we can pay those actually doing the work slightly more?

[matty40s]

6 hours ago, JungleJames said:

London Euston and Birmingham Curzon St. As good as centre to centre.

The mostly in tunnels bit has been caused by the likes of Matty40S complaining about how it looks. Which coincidentally adds to the cost, something these people then moan about. Forgetting they caused it in the first place. 

 

I probably won't travel on it, as I've no wish to travel under so many tunnels. 

But let's make sure we are fairly accurate in apportionment of blame.

My complaint is about the waste of money and destruction of natural England that this has caused especially now it is such a short sighted and limited project.

Buying up all land 500 m either side of the intended line and removing all vegetation across beautiful areas, many more instances of incorrect concrete construction sizes on top of the viaduct cockup.

Just the loss of the Bree Louise pub near Euston needed heads chopping off.

 

[JungleJames]

19 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

How about paying them slightly less so that we can pay those actually doing the work slightly more?

You do realise ROSCOs have important engineers doing work as well?

Plus they will always want their percentage profit. That is the way of the world. 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Just now, JungleJames said:

You do realise ROSCOs have important engineers doing work as well?

Plus they will always want their percentage profit. That is the way of the world. 

So do train drivers, that is also the way of the world, but when cutbacks have to be made it doesn't seem to be the ROSCO's that are made to pay. The criticisms and cutbacks are directed at those further down the food chain, I wonder why that is?

[JungleJames]

4 minutes ago, matty40s said:

My complaint is about the waste of money and destruction of natural England that this has caused especially now it is such a short sighted and limited project.

Buying up all land 500 m either side of the intended line and removing all vegetation across beautiful areas, many more instances of incorrect concrete construction sizes on top of the viaduct cockup.

Just the loss of the Bree Louise pub near Euston needed heads chopping off.

 

There will no doubt always be mistakes, and I have no idea about the ones you mention, so can't comment.

But come the end of it, everything will look like it belonged. 

Same was said for HS1, but all is now fine. Areas removed from nature have been returned, and the line looks like it always was.

Taking it extreme. Everything means removing things from nature. What about your house? My house? Everybodies house. Let's all make ourselves homeless.

All the infrastructure that allows you and I to discuss this. 

What makes your house ok, but HS2 wrong?

 

As for the now limited scope of HS2, now you have a point. BoJo and Rishi have screwed our country over without a care in the world. 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

9 minutes ago, matty40s said:

My complaint is about the waste of money and destruction of natural England that this has caused especially now it is such a short sighted and limited project.

Buying up all land 500 m either side of the intended line and removing all vegetation across beautiful areas, many more instances of incorrect concrete construction sizes on top of the viaduct cockup.

Just the loss of the Bree Louise pub near Euston needed heads chopping off.

 

That would also be one of my criticisms of it, they have destroyed ancient woodland on the 'promise' that it will be replaced with saplings that will probably die within 5 years anyway.

[JungleJames]

4 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So do train drivers, that is also the way of the world, but when cutbacks have to be made it doesn't seem to be the ROSCO's that are made to pay. The criticisms and cutbacks are directed at those further down the food chain, I wonder why that is?

I've never argued against the drivers.

Just pointing out your rant against ROSCOs is unfair.

 

[matty40s]

4 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

 

What makes your house ok, but HS2 wrong?

I dont have a house, my local infrastructure was created over 200 years ago to sit seamlessly with the countryside.

 

As for the now limited scope of HS2, now you have a point. BoJo and Rishi have screwed our country over without a care in the world. 

 

That was the main jist of the thread opener.