HS2, whats the current status ?

[Rick101]

JB! said:

Not on the WCML it isn't, it cant reach Enhanced Permissible Speeds, I know, I used to work on it

Albert P?

[ralphrj]

steveT350C said:

HS2 is a monumental EU driven train crash of a project.

Of course it is, that's why UKIP included it in their manifesto in 2010 - they are well known EU brown nosers.

UKIP Manifesto of 5 planned long-term programmes said:

4. A transport investment programme centred on high-speed rail lines...

UKIP Manifesto said:

UKIP will invest in three new 200 mph plus high-speed rail lines including a new line between London and Newcastle with a spur to Manchester, a London-Bristol-Exeter line and a linking route to Birmingham.

[steveT350C]

steveT350C said:

ralphrj said:

steveT350C said:

HS2 is a monumental EU driven train crash of a project.

Of course it is, that's why UKIP included it in their manifesto in 2010 - they are well known EU brown nosers.

UKIP Manifesto of 5 planned long-term programmes said:

4. A transport investment programme centred on high-speed rail lines...

UKIP Manifesto said:

UKIP will invest in three new 200 mph plus high-speed rail lines including a new line between London and Newcastle with a spur to Manchester, a London-Bristol-Exeter line and a linking route to Birmingham.

Pointless post. Farage binned 2010 manifesto saying it was rubbish.

You are in the past.

[ralphrj]

steveT350C said:

Farage binned 2010 manifesto saying it was rubbish.

Farage still put his name to it.

Don't worry about it though. Most of us understand that everything Nigel says is rubbish.

[steveT350C]

ralphrj said:

steveT350C said:

Farage binned 2010 manifesto saying it was rubbish.

Farage still put his name to it.

Don't worry about it though. Most of us understand that everything Nigel says is rubbish.

I am not worried about you referring to things that are well over 5 years out of date.

[Vaud]

BGARK said:

How many people north of the M25 will use the HS2 train for service related jobs?

I disagree about VR by the way, I really don't think most people have a clue about what's just around the corner, least likely the people who make decisions about this type of project. The difference is going to be like going from Radio, to TV then to VR but tenfold. I know because I am nerd and follow this tech in detail.

I actually agree it will change things long term. I am also a nerd and the technology is one thing, adoption, infrastructure and more importantly, cultural change even longer.

I remember seeing an early VR demo in 1989 and being told it was going to change everything. I remain optimistic.

But face to face nuances and side meetings will be always needed and if it saves me having to commute to San Francisco for a 6hr meeting then trust me, I'm a big fan, but it will take a generation to change outside of a few niche industries that are natural adopters.

[MarshPhantom]

steveT350C said:

ralphrj said:

steveT350C said:

Farage binned 2010 manifesto saying it was rubbish.

Farage still put his name to it.

Don't worry about it though. Most of us understand that everything Nigel says is rubbish.

I am not worried about you referring to things that are well over 5 years out of date.

HS2 must be doomed - the Greens were on R4 this morning saying they wouldn't oppose it's cancellation if they were in a coalition with Labour.

[Vaud]

s2art said:

The Lords select committee didnt think much of the business case.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...

I made no comment on the contents, I just pointed out that it was freely available.

[s2art]

Vaud said:

BGARK said:

How many people north of the M25 will use the HS2 train for service related jobs?

I disagree about VR by the way, I really don't think most people have a clue about what's just around the corner, least likely the people who make decisions about this type of project. The difference is going to be like going from Radio, to TV then to VR but tenfold. I know because I am nerd and follow this tech in detail.

I actually agree it will change things long term. I am also a nerd and the technology is one thing, adoption, infrastructure and more importantly, cultural change even longer.

I remember seeing an early VR demo in 1989 and being told it was going to change everything. I remain optimistic.

But face to face nuances and side meetings will be always needed and if it saves me having to commute to San Francisco for a 6hr meeting then trust me, I'm a big fan, but it will take a generation to change outside of a few niche industries that are natural adopters.

On top of those technologies there is a huge game-changer hurtling towards us; autonomous vehicles. They will be available possibly in 10 years (unlikely) but almost certainly in 20. Approx the timescales of HS2. HS2 could become the biggest white elephant in history. The money should be going to improve the road network.

[George111]

Vaud said:

s2art said:

The Lords select committee didnt think much of the business case.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...

I made no comment on the contents, I just pointed out that it was freely available.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/economic-affairs-committee/news/eac-hs2-press-release/

I had a look at the business case- if I had created such a one sided, obscure document for my business when I was asking them to invest in a particular project, they would think I was wasting their time, at best !

[MarshPhantom]

Stedman said:

Rick101 said:

Th issue is network capacity. The high speed part is jut trying to catch up with other countries that have had it for 40 years.

This.

The high speed bit is part of the problem. It will cost more to build, more to run, require more maintenance and also be a hell of a lot noisier than the non high speed lines.

I used to live a couple of miles from the WCML and that could be quite loud.

[BGARK]

s2art said:

On top of those technologies there is a huge game-changer hurtling towards us; autonomous vehicles. They will be available possibly in 10 years (unlikely) but almost certainly in 20. Approx the timescales of HS2. HS2 could become the biggest white elephant in history. The money should be going to improve the road network.

I agree with this.

[BGARK]

Vaud said:

I actually agree it will change things long term. I am also a nerd and the technology is one thing, adoption, infrastructure and more importantly, cultural change even longer.

I remember seeing an early VR demo in 1989 and being told it was going to change everything. I remain optimistic.

But face to face nuances and side meetings will be always needed and if it saves me having to commute to San Francisco for a 6hr meeting then trust me, I'm a big fan, but it will take a generation to change outside of a few niche industries that are natural adopters.

I agree with this somewhat because of my own age but I have two teenagers who would adapt to this VR tech in minutes. Are we looking forwards as a country or backwards? And people take the mick out of me for agreeing with UKIP, ha you old farts!

[steveT350C]

BGARK said:

s2art said:

On top of those technologies there is a huge game-changer hurtling towards us; autonomous vehicles. They will be available possibly in 10 years (unlikely) but almost certainly in 20. Approx the timescales of HS2. HS2 could become the biggest white elephant in history. The money should be going to improve the road network.

I agree with this.

Indeed!

Imagine freight lorries on the motorways all doing 50 mph in tandem in the slow lane and not taking 2 miles to try and overtake each other.

[BGARK]

tangerine_sedge said:

I hardly think that sticking on a pair of stupid goggles is going to change what all the other technologies failed to do.

Hahahahahaaa... this is really one of the dumbest comments I have read recently, and you of all people constantly take the pi55 out of UKIP supporters for being backwards, you really do live on a different planet!

[Vaud]

BGARK said:

I agree with this somewhat because of my own age but I have two teenagers who would adapt to this VR tech in minutes. Are we looking forwards as a country or backwards? And people take the mick out of me for agreeing with UKIP, ha you old farts!

As I said, augment, not replace.

Much of business is based on relationships; however good VR is, physics test in the way - for both latency and subtle cues. Plus you can't have a beer/wine with your customer after work via VR.

I'm no old fart, I use every tech going to help my business life, but nothing beats a face to face meeting to thrash out issues and get to agreement.

[BGARK]

Vaud said:

Much of business is based on relationships

Its diminishing rapidly as its usually time-wasting trying to get to the point, do you perhaps use Amazon, buy on-line or feel the need to go for a chat in a local shop?

I am developing some VR software with a small team right now that will allow people to buy unusual products online that currently require human interaction, stage 1 through flat screen, stage 2 via headset. We are doing this solely because face to face comms is costly (transport) and time-wasting (useless sales staff), going straight from manufacturer to consumer automating the entire middle bit.

I am not saying everyone is doing this or wants to change but care to bet which direction it will end up, not on a billion pound train that's for sure!

[rs1952]

steveT350C said:

HS2 is a monumental EU driven train crash of a project.

Steve - blame the EU for what it is responsible for (if you must...) but you can't hang this one on Brussels

But in a way this does epitomise the problem with talking about HS2 on here. There are so many people with simplistic ideas and opinions that do not withstand close scrutiny when the practicalities are taken into account. I have a saying "if the answer is so simple that an idiot could think of it then an idiot has just thought of it" It works in the majority of situations. So far we have had all the usual ones:

"Why don't they just run longer trains?" Because then you'd need longer platforms and you'd need to remodel many junctions at platform ends. And that starts to get very expensive when there are other infrastructure works involved as well, such as bridge embankment or cutting widening.

"Why don't they run double deck trains?" Because they wouldn't fit under the bridges or in the tunnels without further expensive works, that's why . And on top of that, there were two prototype double-decked trains developed in the UK in the 1940s by the Southern Railway. There are very good reasons why those prototypes did not result in widespread adoption of double deck trains, and most of the reasons were they didn't live up to expectations.

"Why can't we just upgrade the existing railways instead?" We are upgrading the existing railways - as well as building HS2. Read the papers, do a Google search - there are various ways of finding out

"People won't need to travel in the future because of new technology." I wonder if anybody thought that would happen when they invented the telephone, or even the postal service a couple of hundred years earlier?


We have had a new one today, however, or new to me at least. We read that the ABD has calculated that if the money to be spent on HS2 was used to reduce fuel taxation we'd all be buying the stuff at 70 pence a litre. Well that's a win-win situation if ever I saw one - its so simple an idiot could have thought of it.

But of course, if fuel was 70 pence a litre it would lead to much greater car use, a huge transfer of freight traffic from rail to road, and nationwide congestion that would make current Friday afternoon traffic levels on the M25 look like a meander down an empty country lane. I doubt that that is what the ABD had in mind when they came up with that one.

Unintended consequences are a bugger, aren't they

[BGARK]

rs1952 said:

"Why don't they just run longer trains?" Because then you'd need longer platforms and you'd need to remodel many junctions at platform ends. And that starts to get very expensive when there are other infrastructure works involved as well, such as bridge embankment or cutting widening.

They have done this already in lots of places over many years, for example between Bedford-London to allow for longer train lengths all platforms have been extended. Must have cost a fortune but they haven't upgraded the trains yet, not sure why?

[MarshPhantom]

rs1952 said:

Steve - blame the EU for what it is responsible for (if you must...) but you can't hang this one on Brussels

But in a way this does epitomise the problem with talking about HS2 on here. There are so many people with simplistic ideas and opinions that do not withstand close scrutiny when the practicalities are taken into account. I have a saying "if the answer is so simple that an idiot could think of it then an idiot has just thought of it" It works in the majority of situations. So far we have had all the usual ones:

"Why don't they just run longer trains?" Because then you'd need longer platforms and you'd need to remodel many junctions at platform ends. And that starts to get very expensive when there are other infrastructure works involved as well, such as bridge embankment or cutting widening.

"Why don't they run double deck trains?" Because they wouldn't fit under the bridges or in the tunnels without further expensive works, that's why . And on top of that, there were two prototype double-decked trains developed in the UK in the 1940s by the Southern Railway. There are very good reasons why those prototypes did not result in widespread adoption of double deck trains, and most of the reasons were they didn't live up to expectations.

"Why can't we just upgrade the existing railways instead?" We are upgrading the existing railways - as well as building HS2. Read the papers, do a Google search - there are various ways of finding out

"People won't need to travel in the future because of new technology." I wonder if anybody thought that would happen when they invented the telephone, or even the postal service a couple of hundred years earlier?


We have had a new one today, however, or new to me at least. We read that the ABD has calculated that if the money to be spent on HS2 was used to reduce fuel taxation we'd all be buying the stuff at 70 pence a litre. Well that's a win-win situation if ever I saw one - its so simple an idiot could have thought of it.

But of course, if fuel was 70 pence a litre it would lead to much greater car use, a huge transfer of freight traffic from rail to road, and nationwide congestion that would make current Friday afternoon traffic levels on the M25 look like a meander down an empty country lane. I doubt that that is what the ABD had in mind when they came up with that one.

Unintended consequences are a bugger, aren't they

People say train use is increasing, not as rapidly as short haul flights, London to Manchester in 55mins. Anyone who thinks they can predict the future is usually wrong.