Some Greens are worried about how HS2's drilling and tunnelling into the chalk below its route might affect drinking water and chalk streams such as the River Misbourne. It's a challenge, but they needn't be too alarmed. A thread on piles and tunnels ... /1
We'll start with a disclaimer - we're not water or geology experts, so we're open to correction if anything we say here turns out to be wrong. /2
First up - piling in the Colne Valley. To hold up the viaduct where the railway crosses the valley, HS2 has to drive piles through the upper soils down into the chalk which lies below. (This is what the viaduct will look like when it's done). /3
The chalk is porous rock and is an aquifer from which quite a lot of London's drinking water is drawn. The Colne Valley, for all that it looks tranquil enough now, has a busy industrial past behind it. Along the way a lot of unpleasant muck got dumped... /4
.. particularly at Newyears Green, a waste facility. Here it is. (thanks @diamondgeezer for the pic). It's contaminated land (archive.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/8677/C…). There's a rather murky stream, the Newyears Green Bourne, which runs by here and down into the River Colne. /5
The worry is that contaminated water or topsoil could go down a piling hole, end up in the aquifer and leach into the drinking water. It's a legitimate concern and one that needs to be taken seriously. That said, dealing with it is nothing special. /6
Any building or viaduct ever built on a brownfield site in or around London has had the same issue. Engineers sink piles through the soil and into the chalk all the time. There are rules: here's the Environment Agency note: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140329082414… /7
We're talking about "Pollution Scenario 1" from that document here. To stop water getting in to the pile holes they drive in a metal casing then fill the hole up with bentonite clay slurry to keep it under pressure. /8
Then, once the concrete of the pile has set, no water can get down. So standard stuff, but of course they need to be skilled and do the job properly. We should make sure they do. (Here's how it works: ) /9
Next - tunnelling through the chalk - which HS2 have to do under the Chilterns. Here, the concern is that the River Misbourne, that the tunnel passes quite close beneath, will be disturbed. The chalk there has a lot of fissures in it so the water could leak away. /10
The first thing to point out is that tunnelling through chalk is commonplace: the Channel Tunnel is all in chalk. The Jubilee Line extension, Crossrail, Thames Tideway and DLR all go through chalk. The techniques for doing it are well known. /11
Tunnellers always have to deal with water and cracked rock and other geological challenges while working. They understand how to do it. HS2's problem is how to make sure water doesn't leak into the tunnel through fissures in the chalk. /12
They do it by pressurising the ground as the tunnel is being dug, using a Mix Shield Tunnel Boring Machine. The pressure inside the TBM balances the water pressure in the ground. (Here's a little video showing how it works: ). /13
So there's a concern, and HS2 are right to be watched carefully and put on the spot. And all the right safeguards and risk assessments need to be done. But there's no cause for alarm and no excuse for alarmism. /14
We think @HS2ltd should be open and up-front about all the engineering they're doing on the tunnel and how much they understand about the problems they have to deal with. We don't think these challenges are a reason for Greens to oppose the whole scheme. /15
Oh - a postscript. Much has been made by some high-profile objectors of the amount of water that the tunnelling process will need - up to 10 MEEELION LITRES a day! That sounds like an awful lot - but wait! That's 10000 cubic metres a day .. /16
Or just under 7 cubic metres a minute. The River Colne discharges about 4 cu m per second (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Col…) - so HS2 will be taking less than 1/30 of the river's flow - and that's after all the drinking water has been extracted. /17
And by way of context, Affinity Water loses over 20% of the water in its pipes: that's 189 MEEELION LITRES a day - nearly 20 times what HS2 needs. affinitywater.co.uk/docs/Affinity_…, page 7). So yes, HS2 tunnelling uses a fair bit, but it's not a ridiculous amount. /end
And another postscript - in an unexpected turn of events, we've managed to INSPIRE @markhipwell1990 to do this gorgeous watercolour of how piling works! Thanks!
We've seen a lot of evidence over conference week and today that @TheGreenParty is still some way from being able to discuss #HS2 constructively, based on a good understanding of what it offers as well as what it costs. The party's policy on high speed rail remains confused. /1
We say again: we are Party members who support #HS2 because it furthers the Green agenda rather than hinders it. We are happy to explain this case to any other member, including senior party figures, if asked. We aren't shills, trolls, astroturfers or trainspotters. /2
HS2 is being built. We aren't going to stop it. But we can campaign along the way: for HS2 Ltd to behave respectfully to the habitat and communities they disturb, for freed capacity to be used for local benefit, for transport policies to be put in place for road pricing, ../3
We know many very committed Greens are involved in these protests against #HS2, concerned about the loss of habitat and woodland - we respect their dedication. But they’re protesting about the wrong thing - the real enemy is the #RIS2 roads programme. /1
Unlike #RIS2, #HS2 is an investment in a low-CO2 future. It may not look like it now during construction, but the tree loss and upheaval we see is going to be paid back over decades because of how it helps the shift from high-CO2 cars and planes to low-CO2 travel. /2
. The chart summarises: over 60 years HS2 with no policy assistance will be neutral or better; over 120 years a huge win; with Green policies behind it, a major sustainability win. Note the numbers: worst case 1.2m tonnes CO2.) /3
We often hear from Greens, including very senior ones, that #HS2 is a climate disaster because it won’t be CO2-neutral for a long time. “120 years!” is quoted, “HS2’s own figures!”. One big problem with this: it isn’t true. Let’s take a look at HS2 and CO2... /1
HS2’s official position is that after 60 years #HS2 will either be slightly CO2-negative (if construction doesn’t improve its CO2 efficiency) or slightly CO2-positive (if it does). (The Oakervee review covers this: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… - sections 5.30 to 5.37) /2
The modelling is covered in more detail in this document: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…. We’ve extracted the numbers below from that. They consider 2 future scenarios - Scenario A in which electric cars and grid decarbonisation happen slowly, and a more optimistic B. /3
There has been a call to cancel #HS2 and use the money on more immediate needs like properly funding the NHS or buying everyone a bike. We all want the NHS to be funded - but it doesn't work that way: in fact we'd be worse off. A thread to explain why... /1
We Greens believe in borrowing to invest. Our 2019 manifesto proposed £94bn, to be invested in the national grid, energy storage, renewable electricity, home insulation, R&D, railways, cycle paths, electric vehicle infrastructure and so on (greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/E… p85) /2.
The point about investing is that you invest *in* something - an asset which has value and generates a return (in accountant-speak, "CAPEX"). /3
One of the criticisms of #HS2 is that because it's so fast, it uses up much more energy than normal trains - so Greens should push for lower speed railways. There is just enough truth in this to make it plausible, but it's not the whole story. A thread to explain why... /1
For sure, if you run a train twice as fast, it needs nearly four times as much energy to maintain speed. (check out Davis Equation if you want to know more. Aerodynamic resistance, that dominates at high speeds, goes up by the square of the speed). However .... /2
... other things to consider. Firstly, a better measure when comparing is how much energy is used to move *each passenger*; and if our interest is really CO2, it's how much greenhouse gas is generated to do that. /3
We keep coming across some misunderstandings from Greens about what #HS2 is, where it goes , what it's for and how much it costs. So here's a thread dealing with a few. /1
Let's start with where it goes. "Just 20 minutes quicker to Birmingham", people say. Nope: on the day that #HS2 starts, in 2029, its trains will also serve Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. Here's the service pattern for day 1. Each line = one train per hour both ways: /2
The trains run on the new railway between London and Birmingham, then continue their journeys on the existing railway - which will be being upgraded in the meantime to smooth things out. This is just like French TGVs do. /3