wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there
seems
to be very much a "**** you little people" attitude emanating from them.
Only
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.

The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more

I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.



Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.

GH

In message , at 11:19:46 on Mon, 8 Feb
2021, Marland remarked:
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there
seems
to be very much a "**** you little people" attitude emanating from them.
Only
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.

The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the
damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more

I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.

Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.

The Great Central Victoria Station in Nottingham (1900-1967) is a
classic example of that.

Gaining more irony every time people suggest reopening its Beeching
closure much-subsequently-built-upon route as an alternative to HS2.
--
Roland Perry

On 8 Feb 2021 11:19:46 GMT
Marland wrote:
wrote:
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.



Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.

There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open, plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.

wrote:
On 8 Feb 2021 11:19:46 GMT
Marland wrote:
wrote:
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.



Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.

There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,

By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.

plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.

No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,

By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.

Sure, if they get removed. I doubt they will. Do you think the service on
the Central line will be cut back once crossrail opens?

plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to

the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.

No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.

********. Most of the WCML is in countryside, it would have been easy to
build some extra trackwork in those areas. Thats why I said "where possible".

On 08/02/2021 17:27, wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,

By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.

Sure, if they get removed. I doubt they will. Do you think the service on
the Central line will be cut back once crossrail opens?

plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to

the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.

No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.

********. Most of the WCML is in countryside, it would have been easy to
build some extra trackwork in those areas. Thats why I said "where possible".


And what do you do where it isn't possible?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 8 Feb 2021 11:19:46 GMT
Marland wrote:
wrote:
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.



Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.

There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,

By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.

plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.

No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.


Genuine question: is there hard evidence for the oft quoted “the WCML is
full� or is this based on extrapolating previous growth with an optimistic
ever upwards line of the graph?

Such predictions, in whatever industry, often fail to come to pass.

On 08/02/2021 17:51, Tweed wrote:
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 8 Feb 2021 11:19:46 GMT
Marland wrote:
wrote:
I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.



Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.
The early London tubes never really made much money but we benefit from the
losses of those who paid for them now. Brunels steam ship ventures ruined
many but 150 years later he is feted as a hero
and the misery forgotten as are the people cleared away to build the large
projects of the Victorian and Edwardian periods which we now we often
admire on various TV programmes.

There are parallels, but I think the difference between HS2 and the examples
you gave is that for most of the latter the benefit to society as a whole
were fairly obvious even if investors lost their shirt. The benefits of HS2
and equivocal at best thought to be frank its hard to point to any that are
realistic. Even the freeing up paths for freight on the WCML won't happen
if pax services on the WCML remain the same after HS2 is open,

By removing the fast, non-stop services from the fast lines, they free up
capacity for more passenger trains on the fast lines, freeing up space for
more freights on the slow lines.

plus it would
have been simpler and cheaper to just add extra running lines for freight to
the WCML where possible or even build shoert diversion routes.

No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.


Genuine question: is there hard evidence for the oft quoted “the WCML is
full� or is this based on extrapolating previous growth with an optimistic
ever upwards line of the graph?

Such predictions, in whatever industry, often fail to come to pass.


See PUG 2

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Marland wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there
seems
to be very much a "**** you little people" attitude emanating from them.
Only
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.

The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more

I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.



Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.

You might be right about minor- and branch-lines, but the major main lines
must have made a lot of money.

Thinking about their predecessors, the canals, at one point in the 19th
century, the annual dividend on a £100 Birmingham Canal share was £200. If
you were lucky enough to have invested early in the BCN then you were quids
in.
--
Jeremy Double

Jeremy Double wrote:
Marland wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I suppose their argument would be that their effect is temporary whereas
after HS2 there'll be no nature reserve at all. Regardless of the dubious
actions of the protestors, from what I've seen and read about HS2 there
seems
to be very much a "**** you little people" attitude emanating from them.
Only
a few weeks ago they bulldozed some new wood that had been planted by some
school kids a few years back for an eco project somewhere in Bucks IIRC.

The annoying thing is when the construction access roads cause the damage —
why don't they re-route them if needed? That seems to be the case more

I can only guess cost. Still, once/if HS2 is complete it'll provide a first
class example of the sunken cost fallacy for business students for decades
to come.



Isn’t that how a lot our infrastructure also got built in the first place?
Many railways were never profitable enough to justify the upheaval they
caused or the financial ruin
both to investors who lost their money or people displaced from businesses
and homes with little or no compensation.

You might be right about minor- and branch-lines, but the major main lines
must have made a lot of money.

Thinking about their predecessors, the canals, at one point in the 19th
century, the annual dividend on a £100 Birmingham Canal share was £200. If
you were lucky enough to have invested early in the BCN then you were quids
in.

Similarly the original main lines serving the obvious major traffic flows
were very profitable, which led to railway mania, which caused many
marginal or basket case lines to be built. Essentially, main lines built by
about 1860 were very profitable, but most later ones weren't, or not for
long. The GCR was notoriously unprofitable from the beginning, as it was an
expensive way of duplicating the Midland Railway.