beleben

die belebende Bedenkung

Conclusions by Jim

with 4 comments

On 23 May 2015 the Independent reported that ‘the £50bn High Speed Two rail link will not be extended to Scotland, as the team behind the project has found there is “no business case” for the undertaking’.

And HS2 Ltd’s March 2016 ‘Broad options‘ report must make for very grim reading for the Scottish government.

Greengauge 21: Network Rail concluded that a new high speed line to Scotland would 'more than pay for itself'

But according to Jim Steer’s Greengauge 21

  • the value for money of Manchester — Scotland high speed rail is more than double that of Manchester — London high speed rail, and
  • Network Rail concluded that a new high speed line to Scotland would “more than pay for itself”.

Greengauge 21: the value for money of Manchester - Scotland high speed rail is more than double the value for money of Manchester - London high speed rail

However, Network Rail’s “investigation” of high speed rail was undertaken by Steer Davies Gleave, not Network Rail.

So Network Rail’s “conclusions” were, in essence, those of Steer Davies Gleave.

Another conclusion of the SDG report for Network Rail was that the case for a HS2 rail link between London, Birmingham and Manchester was “marginal“, but a ‘standalone’ scheme not requiring more than eight trains per hour might cost less, and so fare better in economic terms. (HS2 Ltd are planning to run 18 trains per hour.)

Network Rail's New Lines Programme - mostly the work of SDG

The cost-effective and affordable way to cater for demand between London, Birmingham, and Manchester would be to upgrade the existing asset base — freeing up billions of pounds for education, healthcare, and clean intracity transport.

Advertisements

Written by beleben

March 23, 2016 at 12:36 pm

Posted in HS2

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This isn’t surprising when you see that it is the eastern arm of Phase 2 which builds up the business case. Being able to relieve the MML and ECML as well as serving many more people makes HS2 worthwhile.

    CautiousObserver

    April 18, 2016 at 12:42 am

    • “This isn’t surprising when you see that it is the eastern arm of Phase 2 which builds up the business case. “

      In your opinion. There is actually no information for you or anyone else to “see” what the eastern arm brings to the ‘business’ case.

      beleben

      April 18, 2016 at 5:21 pm

      • High Speed Rail Eastern Network Partnership
        Technical Business Case Work on High Speed Rail
        Final Report

        http://www.syltp.org.uk/documents/final%20report%20enp.pdf

        “Delivering Better Value for Money

        We need to build the eastern route as soon as possible, in advance of, or at
        least at the same time as the western route.

        The economic benefits compared to the costs of the eastern route are significantly higher than the western route. In terms of benefits to rail users (conventional transport benefits), the Benefit to Cost Ratio of
        the eastern route of the high speed network north of the West Midlands is 5.6, compared with 2.6 of
        the western route. The productivity benefits of bringing businesses closer together of the eastern part of the network (£2.6bn) are around 20% higher than those for the western part (£2.1bn). The Eastern Network Partnership area includes major cities – including four of the eight Core Cities (Leeds, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield), as well as other major urban areas such as Bradford, Derby, Tees Valley and York. In contrast the western route of HS2 will serve only two Core Cities north of Birmingham, and no other major urban areas”

        There you go. Arup disagrees with you. Obviously this is all a con though, because Arup don’t know what they’re doing and simultaneously they’re part of the grands-projets-industrial-complex so they’ll always fiddle the figures to justify things.

        You know, it’s really not that surprising that the eastern arm has a higher BCR. Links between Birmingham and Manchester are already okay because they’re both on the mainline. It’s the links between the others which aren’t so good, as they don’t neatly find themselves on the same mainline to London. The links between Yorkshire and Birmingham are woeful and even electrification and IEP-ification of the CrossCountry network wouldn’t fix that.

        [Comment by Beleben:] According to HS2 Ltd, the eastern arm doesn’t have a benefit-cost ratio. Please stop posting nonsense.

        CautiousObserver

        April 19, 2016 at 3:21 pm

      • So on one side, we have Arup – the company which HS2 Ltd used to design most of the new line – saying that at the very least the business case for the eastern arm is not worse than the western arm. On the other side, you say that HS2 Ltd themselves say that there is no business case for the eastern arm on its own. The balance of the two statements is that it is no worse. Therefore, my original point still stands.

        [Comment by Beleben:] So on one side, we have Arup, the company which said the route of HS2 was deeply flawed, and which backed a completely different HS2 route via a “Heathrow Hub”, taking money from Eastern local authorities to produce a report saying that the eastern leg has a high benefit cost ratio. On the other side, we have HS2 Ltd, saying the eastern leg doesn’t have a benefit-cost ratio.
        For HS2 Scotland, we have Greengauge 21, taking money from northern local authorities, and saying Anglo-Scottish high speed rail would have a high benefit-cost ratio. On the other side, we have HS2 Ltd, producing the ‘Broad options’ report for Transport Scotland and the Department for Transport, saying that the costs would vastly exceed the benefits. Why don’t you check out the numbers in the ‘Broad options’ report?
        Why are you deleting my comments when you respond to them? Would it not be better to leave them up in full detail for you to criticise and take apart piece-by-piece? Unfortunately any other people reading your blog would not understand what points you are being so successful in criticising.

        CautiousObserver

        April 20, 2016 at 1:34 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: