Very good. I’m furious about this. It’s ridiculous that so many people still don’t get the actual point of it, they never made the case for it and explained it properly. It’s critics keep citing theoretical budget figures as if the money has already been spent, treasury brain mania means no one is ever thinking about the knock on beneficial economic effects and future growth. It’s a complete fuck you to Northern England and any Northerner who doesn’t see that is a mug. It should be running up to Manchester and Leeds, that should’ve been the start of connecting our cities. We don’t invest on ourselves so the UK is a broken rust bucket.
At the time it was approved I thought we could invest the same money better in other smaller schemes (rolling upgrades and electrification of the existing main lines, removing pinch points, reopening lines closed in the 60s/70s/80s, new light rail systems in regional cities, etc. And, more important, rolling out full fibre broadband and 4G/5G everywhere, even remote corners of country currently poorly served. I still think would be a good idea.
However, having started building the thing it makes very little sense leaving it as the truncated Old Oak Common to Birmingham route it looks like we'll get. It'll deliver little extra capacity, and without the carrot of a faster intercity service. It seems we truly have the worst of all worlds: a hugely expensive section of track that will never get the chance to deliver the benefits it should, and a much depleted transport investment budget to pay for it.
1) HS2 Birmingham / Manchester has been cancelled in name only. It had already been deferred, and there is little now to cancel except intentions, plans and limited spending over the next couple of years.
2) Politically, this act isn't about today either. It's about re-establishing the old Tory line about being fiscally responsible, etc, compared with Labour profligacy. And it allows the Tories plausibly (to some) to claim, when / if Labour throws money at dire Northern transport, that Labour has merely copied a Tory policy. This second purpose is identical to that of the Tories' supposed NHS Workforce Plan. The bogusness of both policies - late in a zombie government - suggests that the Tories have given up this war and are fighting the next.
3) George Osborne used the term 'vandalise'. True vandalism would have been either a) to scrap the whole thing - not done - or b) to scrap the Old Oak Common / Euston leg in addition to Bir / Man and poison the prospects of a revival by selling the land at Euston. In fact, OOC / Eus is to go ahead, preventing HS2 from becoming a little-used national humiliation that could be waved at the Tories indefinitely. A priceless byproduct, though, is that Labour can now re-think the rest of the scheme with almost zero money and time wasted.
4) I would wager £1000 at evens that the full HS2 network as planned until today will be completed before 2040.
5) All that said, HS2 so far has been a textbook example of various British diseases. Poor systems, poor national strategic planning, arbitrary and haphazard government, and poor decision-making. The biggest by far - at the heart of Brexit, economic stagnation and Shithole Britain - is low investment. Look at the record: investment as a % of GDP plummeted by 1/3 in 1989 and has remained at 16% or so ever since. Why*? This latest Sunak nonsense is of a piece with that.
* I would be interested to see what Ian has to say here. My theory is the replacement of post-war collectivism with Tory individualism, consumption being a largely individual phenomenon and investment a largely collective one.
For laughs, take a look at the document on the DFT website. £12 billion is promised for Liverpool-Manchester. An 'up to seven line' rapid transit system for Leeds costing £2.8 billion. Free balloon rides for over-65s with a Northern accent. An underground 400mph monorail connecting Blackburn and Bolton. OK, I made the last pair up ...
Should have been started in the north and then connected south. Not only because the north's needs is more urgent, but because until the North has its own economies of scale developed via good transport, it will get done over by the South because that's where the economies of scale already are. This is well researched fact. Connecting economically unequal regions results in higher growth in the bigger economy and not the other way round.
As I understand it, the biggest bottleneck on the whole route was the bit outside Euston. So starting from the North wouldn't have made any difference, the trains would still sit outside Watford waiting for a platform.
Agree with nearly everything else Ian has said - particularly around the ridiculous concentration on speed rather than capacity in the PR, but to my mind the other reason wasn't to expand business out to the hinterlands of Brum and the North, but to add a huge new population who could feasibly commute to That London from Manchester every day.....
There's no money to reallocate. The money is earmarked as future borrowing. Every chance they revive it - the Birmingham - Crewe bit already has Royal Assent
It's likely. One. Labour sees the need for a substantial increase in national investment, particularly in North / Midlands infrastructure. Two. With HS2 London / Birmingham in place and its capacity largely unused, the Benefit Cost Ratio for additions will be large.
thanks both. Jonn Elledge is making the point that they've also announced today that they'll be selling back the land previously bought up for the proposed tracks, which seems like it'd make it much harder for Labour to re-establish the project. kinda like salting the earth.
really hope something can be done. honestly seems inevitable we'll have to commit to something like HS2 at some point, as it'd be such such an essential component to the future growth of the UK economy
Birmingham / Crewe is authorised by Parliament. Is anybody going to buy land on that route? Seems unlikely. Crewe / Manchester is not authorised. The route can be changed at low / no cost. And, they've got limited time to flog land before the UK gains a government.
It would. But there's policy wank, as practiced and enunciated by Sunak, and there's reality. Scuppering requires 1) designs to be created, costed and approved and either 2a) contracts let and hard-to-reverse work started or 2b) redundant land sold off, all before Labour can get in and review the whole thing. Fat chance of 1 by itself by the next General Election. 1 and 2b is more doable than 1 and 2a, but would require the dedicated attention of senior Tories determined to spike future options. Then there's HS2 management and the entire architectural / construction engineering / construction establishment. To say nothing of civil servants with 1.99 eyes on Labour. All either group has to do is 1) stall and / or b) produce designs that are forward-compatible with common sense. The last-ditch would be, er, Minister, we need all the currently-owned land for the build of this wonderful, brilliant six-platform station, lots of heavy equipment to build this masterpiece that we need to put somewhere. That conversation alone, were it necessary, could take six months.
Chances of scuppering by next GE are 1%. The whole thing is pure, unadulterated policy wank. If in doubt, see the DFT Northern promises doc. Never in the history of bullshit was so much crap spouted at so many by so few.
The question that nobody seems to be answering is who wrote this "transport strategy"? It seems unlikely that Rish! Sunak and Mark Harper (until very recently a Japanese Bullet Train enthusiast) wrote it themselves! Which think tank produced it and on behalf of which client(s)? It seems an extreme measure to guarantee a market for diesel fuel on Britain's rail network!
Just a little side note - while trains in France are so much better to travel on their ticketing system can be even more bizaarely complicated than ours!
Try going on the SNCF webiste to book a train from Paris to Lyon on say the 12th December. Do you pick a TER, a Grand Vitesse, an INOUI, all at wildly different prices? Do you have the faintest idea of why these services are different and in what ways? Do you understand why the 7pm train costs E104 while the identical trains around it, at 18:40 and 19:20 are only E45? No, me neither.
Very good. I’m furious about this. It’s ridiculous that so many people still don’t get the actual point of it, they never made the case for it and explained it properly. It’s critics keep citing theoretical budget figures as if the money has already been spent, treasury brain mania means no one is ever thinking about the knock on beneficial economic effects and future growth. It’s a complete fuck you to Northern England and any Northerner who doesn’t see that is a mug. It should be running up to Manchester and Leeds, that should’ve been the start of connecting our cities. We don’t invest on ourselves so the UK is a broken rust bucket.
Yup. Investment is the big story. Low investment leads to low productivity, low wages, low everything. Slowly destroys a nation, in fact.
At the time it was approved I thought we could invest the same money better in other smaller schemes (rolling upgrades and electrification of the existing main lines, removing pinch points, reopening lines closed in the 60s/70s/80s, new light rail systems in regional cities, etc. And, more important, rolling out full fibre broadband and 4G/5G everywhere, even remote corners of country currently poorly served. I still think would be a good idea.
However, having started building the thing it makes very little sense leaving it as the truncated Old Oak Common to Birmingham route it looks like we'll get. It'll deliver little extra capacity, and without the carrot of a faster intercity service. It seems we truly have the worst of all worlds: a hugely expensive section of track that will never get the chance to deliver the benefits it should, and a much depleted transport investment budget to pay for it.
Or do that all as well
Why not indeed
Some points to add to Ian's fine take-down:
1) HS2 Birmingham / Manchester has been cancelled in name only. It had already been deferred, and there is little now to cancel except intentions, plans and limited spending over the next couple of years.
2) Politically, this act isn't about today either. It's about re-establishing the old Tory line about being fiscally responsible, etc, compared with Labour profligacy. And it allows the Tories plausibly (to some) to claim, when / if Labour throws money at dire Northern transport, that Labour has merely copied a Tory policy. This second purpose is identical to that of the Tories' supposed NHS Workforce Plan. The bogusness of both policies - late in a zombie government - suggests that the Tories have given up this war and are fighting the next.
3) George Osborne used the term 'vandalise'. True vandalism would have been either a) to scrap the whole thing - not done - or b) to scrap the Old Oak Common / Euston leg in addition to Bir / Man and poison the prospects of a revival by selling the land at Euston. In fact, OOC / Eus is to go ahead, preventing HS2 from becoming a little-used national humiliation that could be waved at the Tories indefinitely. A priceless byproduct, though, is that Labour can now re-think the rest of the scheme with almost zero money and time wasted.
4) I would wager £1000 at evens that the full HS2 network as planned until today will be completed before 2040.
5) All that said, HS2 so far has been a textbook example of various British diseases. Poor systems, poor national strategic planning, arbitrary and haphazard government, and poor decision-making. The biggest by far - at the heart of Brexit, economic stagnation and Shithole Britain - is low investment. Look at the record: investment as a % of GDP plummeted by 1/3 in 1989 and has remained at 16% or so ever since. Why*? This latest Sunak nonsense is of a piece with that.
* I would be interested to see what Ian has to say here. My theory is the replacement of post-war collectivism with Tory individualism, consumption being a largely individual phenomenon and investment a largely collective one.
Additional comment:
For laughs, take a look at the document on the DFT website. £12 billion is promised for Liverpool-Manchester. An 'up to seven line' rapid transit system for Leeds costing £2.8 billion. Free balloon rides for over-65s with a Northern accent. An underground 400mph monorail connecting Blackburn and Bolton. OK, I made the last pair up ...
Should have been started in the north and then connected south. Not only because the north's needs is more urgent, but because until the North has its own economies of scale developed via good transport, it will get done over by the South because that's where the economies of scale already are. This is well researched fact. Connecting economically unequal regions results in higher growth in the bigger economy and not the other way round.
As I understand it, the biggest bottleneck on the whole route was the bit outside Euston. So starting from the North wouldn't have made any difference, the trains would still sit outside Watford waiting for a platform.
Agree with nearly everything else Ian has said - particularly around the ridiculous concentration on speed rather than capacity in the PR, but to my mind the other reason wasn't to expand business out to the hinterlands of Brum and the North, but to add a huge new population who could feasibly commute to That London from Manchester every day.....
Could have done Man-Bir and Nottingham-Derby-Bir to start with. BCR terrible, but good look politically. Then strap on Bir-Lon at the end.
Have to have Lon. BCR without it was and is well below threshold.
Big mistake in original HS2 plan was not including Man-Leeds. Big mistake.
any chance Labour might pick it up, or will they hobbled by the commitments the government will make in reallocating the money? cheers
There's no money to reallocate. The money is earmarked as future borrowing. Every chance they revive it - the Birmingham - Crewe bit already has Royal Assent
It's likely. One. Labour sees the need for a substantial increase in national investment, particularly in North / Midlands infrastructure. Two. With HS2 London / Birmingham in place and its capacity largely unused, the Benefit Cost Ratio for additions will be large.
thanks both. Jonn Elledge is making the point that they've also announced today that they'll be selling back the land previously bought up for the proposed tracks, which seems like it'd make it much harder for Labour to re-establish the project. kinda like salting the earth.
really hope something can be done. honestly seems inevitable we'll have to commit to something like HS2 at some point, as it'd be such such an essential component to the future growth of the UK economy
Birmingham / Crewe is authorised by Parliament. Is anybody going to buy land on that route? Seems unlikely. Crewe / Manchester is not authorised. The route can be changed at low / no cost. And, they've got limited time to flog land before the UK gains a government.
What about the stated desire to limit Euston to six platforms? That surely does scupper it.
It would. But there's policy wank, as practiced and enunciated by Sunak, and there's reality. Scuppering requires 1) designs to be created, costed and approved and either 2a) contracts let and hard-to-reverse work started or 2b) redundant land sold off, all before Labour can get in and review the whole thing. Fat chance of 1 by itself by the next General Election. 1 and 2b is more doable than 1 and 2a, but would require the dedicated attention of senior Tories determined to spike future options. Then there's HS2 management and the entire architectural / construction engineering / construction establishment. To say nothing of civil servants with 1.99 eyes on Labour. All either group has to do is 1) stall and / or b) produce designs that are forward-compatible with common sense. The last-ditch would be, er, Minister, we need all the currently-owned land for the build of this wonderful, brilliant six-platform station, lots of heavy equipment to build this masterpiece that we need to put somewhere. That conversation alone, were it necessary, could take six months.
Chances of scuppering by next GE are 1%. The whole thing is pure, unadulterated policy wank. If in doubt, see the DFT Northern promises doc. Never in the history of bullshit was so much crap spouted at so many by so few.
The 'banter heuristic' is London YIMBYs slowing down Euston with planning objections until Labour gets in!
Sunak won’t be bothered. He’ll be living in California before too long.
I can't wait.
The question that nobody seems to be answering is who wrote this "transport strategy"? It seems unlikely that Rish! Sunak and Mark Harper (until very recently a Japanese Bullet Train enthusiast) wrote it themselves! Which think tank produced it and on behalf of which client(s)? It seems an extreme measure to guarantee a market for diesel fuel on Britain's rail network!
A great piece.
Just a little side note - while trains in France are so much better to travel on their ticketing system can be even more bizaarely complicated than ours!
Try going on the SNCF webiste to book a train from Paris to Lyon on say the 12th December. Do you pick a TER, a Grand Vitesse, an INOUI, all at wildly different prices? Do you have the faintest idea of why these services are different and in what ways? Do you understand why the 7pm train costs E104 while the identical trains around it, at 18:40 and 19:20 are only E45? No, me neither.