General Chat

So, all in all, HS2 needs better brains than those in use at the moment. Will there ever be any evidence of joined-up thinking?

How can anyone can pass something without taking everything into account (eg rehousing and compensation, travel to and from Aston and to and from Old Oak Common etc)? The figures seem to have been manipulated on the generous side.

Something afoot somewhere, methinks. Some journo needs to dig deeper ..... that'll bring out the gagging brigade no doubt.

As for BoJo's desire - I am not at all sure that it will get the go-ahead any time soon and certainly not in my lifetime or BoJo's, I suspect.

It's a funny old world we live in, isn't it! The vote goes for Brexit then up pops someone with an idea of introducing a new tie to Europe.

Agree on all points re HS2.

Personally I don't think the French have ever done anything bad enough to warrant having to be joined to the UK and as for increasing levels of freight requiring a bridge, that presupposes a continuation of 'business as usual' 20 odd years in the future.... I wouldn't bank on it .

The future revenue revenue and value-of -saved time streams are calculated using fairly complex math models over 10/20/30 years and then converted back to NPV (net present value ). That has been standard practice with major transport projects for many years. Personally I think the methodology sucks.

The methodology depends a lot on the base assumptions. There are some huge black holes for HS2.

1. For the first stage the HS2 will actually run from London Old Oak Common to Birmingham (Aston) NOT Euston-New Street. Aston is a "development zone" i.e. slum with nothing much as yet on the radar. The time lost getting from Aston to New Street and OOC to central London is at least 15 min each end negating the overall 30 min saving on the current service!

2. Many of the users of the existing lines will have a degraded service. This has not been taken into account.

3. The rehousing and opportunity costs other than (lowish) compensation for homes and businesses have been ignored. The "benefits" from the Olympics have not come even close to the devastation caused to the east London economy.

4. The extensive tunneling costs are wildly unrealistic.

5. Ancient woodland and countryside valued at zero ( even though preserving some of it (cos of Tory MPs) is the reason for the tunneling

6. The cost benefit model is heavily reliant on the concept of business people travelling from London to Brum working on the train. There is scant evidence that much useful time will accrue working on the train. Moreover businesses are shifting to virtual meetings with large 4K defnition screens and improved sound quality. This development may in the end kill the whole HS2 project other than stage 1.

7. HS2 cannot be interworked with Eurostar or even the rest of railtrack due to gauge issues..

8. HS2 link to LHR probably won't happen.

Nothing like as big a white elephant as Hinckley Point though.

OTOH the only option to meet future demand for shifting freight across the Dover Straits is a bridge. The question is not if but when.

Something else springs to mind that some of you (Rollo especially) may have already checked out. I certainly haven't done so.

Taking building and continuing maintenance into account for both bridge and HS2, has anyone yet calculated how long it will take for these projects to make enough of a profit for the taxpayer to notice any benefit from either of them and both of them?

Or will they always remain vanity projects?

Don't forget this one

https://goo.gl/4rA52o

I was one of the (many) construction engineers.
The bridge was damaged during the Iraq invasion.

Before this Government even consider any new, costly projects, surely they should complete the one's they've started.
Apart from the Garden Bridge costing us £37 million for nothing, HS2 which will cut journey times between London and Birmingham by 20 minutes, (whoopee!) has, so far, cost the Taxpayer £1billion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes from Government sources/those in the know:

The HS2’s first phase between London and Birmingham will cost almost £48bn, according to expert analysis commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT).

Costs per mile to build it are expected to reach £403m, according to Government calculations.

The scheme could cost up to £104bn in total, including extensions to Manchester and Leeds. The first 6.6 miles from Euston to Old Oak Common would cost £8.25bn, or £1.25bn a mile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Channel Tunnel struggles to make a profit, and receives state subsidies.

There are several bridges longer than that. The Chinese are particularly good at constructing them. One rail bridge is over 100 miles long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_bridges

At around 22 miles long...no way. Are there any bridges in the world this big?

I like the gap between us and France. If its bulit the illegals will still try and get on the bridge and walk to Britain.

How would tall ships get through the channel then?

Florence
in the hebrides :-|

All of these objections were made against "the Bridge" which crosses the Oresund linking Copenhagen in Denmark with Malmo in Sweden. The Bridge got built anyway and has been v successful with v little down time due to inclement weather, far worse than anything nr Dover. It even starred in a TV crime series.

Shipping from yachts to super tankers in the Dover Straits is already tightly controlled as the navigable water for large vessels is limited. The Straits are territorial waters of Britain and France not international.

If the last 50 years are anything to go by EU/UK trade will at least double over the next 30 years. Anybody who knows the channel ports will be well aware that they are already operating close to max capacity and the scope for expansion is very limited.

Much the same applies to air travel.

Given that the technology to build such a bridge now exists and has been proven then a bridge linking Dover and Calais will be built. My guess is within 20 years. Thatcher was very much against the Chunnel and denied it any UK govt funding. It still got built.

btw by 2040 UK Gov expects most HGV long distance trucking to be run as road trains with several trucks under the control of the lead. At some point the lead driver will be replaced with a robot. There would not be a lot of opportunity for illegals. brexit or not the UK esp the TRRL (transport and road research lab) are working closely with our EU neighbours and truck makers on this project.

Local roads and motorways here would be even more chaotic if weather, French strikes or whatever caused delays.

............but then the extra volume of traffic would 'justify' the powers-that- be who want to build a huge lorry park in countryside near the Channel Tunnel.

No thanks !

Pros and cons?

Pro:

1. Connection to Europe.

Cons:

1. High winds will definitely close the bridge (as Sylvia writes). The Forth Bridge, the Humber Crossing, the Severn and even the Tyne Bridge have often been closed to high-sided vehicles.

2. The cost to the taxpayer - far too much for the benefits it would bring.

3. The cost to rail company (will result in objections from companies).

4. The cost to shipping (again, will result in objections).

how much too to do border security

The French already wants us to pay more now

My grandson is a lorry driver and is often on the continent He still has to run the gauntlet of illegals trying to get into his lorry. If they do succeed and are caught he stands to be fined too as well as his company

he is fed up with it TBH

Good idea Maggie!

I cant see the point of a bridge - the Channel Tunnel isn't running at full capacity as it is.
The 'Garden Bridge' - a useless piece of self aggrandisement by Johnson, cost the public £37 million just to try to get it off the ground.
To actually build it would have cost another £200 million.
How many millions/billions would a bridge to France cost - when you consider it would have to enable some darned big ships through on a regular basis!

Perhaps, if Johnson is determined, they should try building a bridge to the Isle of Wight first. Shorter distance, and, like a bridge to France, it would have to be able to regularly allow huge ships along the channel.

It’s bad enough when when the weather causes the QE2 Bridge to be closed, ditto the Channel Tunnel or Ports. There’s nowhere for the stranded vehicles to park up & causes chaos for everyone else.
Our government, regardless of colour, doesn’t do joined up thinking.

Wonder what they would put on the ends to sort the driving on opposite sides of the road problem? A sort of Spaghetti junction???

I love France, so bring it on! :-D

No Way.

When the chunnel was built a bridge was not technically feasible. Now it is. It would be much cheaper than a second tunnel. Designs are compatible with shipping. The main obstacles are cost and politics. I think such a bridge will be built within 20 years but no time soon.

There is a limit to the capacity of the chunnel and short sea crossings. Eventually that will force the issue.

A bridge would be of suspension design. Any kind of causeway / "filling in the channel" is impossible.

Also the closure of a major shipping route