HS2, whats the current status ?
Discussion
The Moose said:
What? And practically guarantee some serious deflation?!
No guarantees.Cheaper prices are a good thing. Helping almost everyone in the UK
is better than helping a few.
Some deflation no bad thing either, according to the Bank of England, who *presumably* have a pretty accurate idea about it.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/12/uk...
Swervin_Mervin said:
Perhaps it would be easier for the rest of us if you explained why you think people might not need to get to, or from, London for work-related business? Or anywhere, for that matter.
I did not say people didn't need to travel, I asked to see the maths that could justify spending billions of pounds without consulting anyone.Or is this just another government willy waving exercise.
Spending such levels of money should have a justifiable ROI, who has done the calculations and where are they?
BGARK said:
Swervin_Mervin said:
Perhaps it would be easier for the rest of us if you explained why you think people might not need to get to, or from, London for work-related business? Or anywhere, for that matter.
I did not say people didn't need to travel, I asked to see the maths that could justify spending billions of pounds without consulting anyone.Or is this just another government willy waving exercise.
Spending such levels of money should have a justifiable ROI, who has done the calculations and where are they?
BGARK said:
You responded to my post about London but haven't actually answered anything, hence my comment. Please go back if you are not clear what I mean.
"Peoples reasons for travel are irrelevant"
So on that basis we should spend tax payers money on a train, good argument, yay lets do it!
Have to agree with this. The reasons for travel of hugely relevant; If you don't know why people are travelling you can't investigate alternatives that remove the need for travel. I have to go to see clients in London every now and then, and frankly if there was a viable alternative spending hours on a train and packed like a sardine on the tube I'd happily consider it."Peoples reasons for travel are irrelevant"
So on that basis we should spend tax payers money on a train, good argument, yay lets do it!
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.
I don't get it either.They should be looking at putting on more trains, more frequently and increasing capacity on the trains we do have (e.g. using double decker).
It's no good shaving 15 minutes off the journey time if the trains only run every 2 hours and are not reliable. You invariably waste more time standing in the station than you save by the 'high speed'.
They should be looking at implementing more rail lines that run east to west - rather than even more running north to south.
Moonhawk said:
I don't get it either.
They should be looking at putting on more trains, more frequently and increasing capacity on the trains we do have (e.g. using double decker).
It's no good shaving 15 minutes off the journey time if the trains only run every 2 hours and are not reliable. You invariably waste more time standing in the station than you save by the 'high speed'.
They should be looking at implementing more rail lines that run east to west - rather than even more running north to south.
They can't most of the network is at capacity for those brief moments when max capacity is required, there is a finite number of trains you can run to be within safety limits. Double Deckers are ok if you have the overhead clearance to use them, we still have tunnels built in the Victorain era. High speed does make sense because it allows trains to clear a part of track quicker which allows another one on sooner, think of it like a kids roundabout with people jumping on and off at different times/placesThey should be looking at putting on more trains, more frequently and increasing capacity on the trains we do have (e.g. using double decker).
It's no good shaving 15 minutes off the journey time if the trains only run every 2 hours and are not reliable. You invariably waste more time standing in the station than you save by the 'high speed'.
They should be looking at implementing more rail lines that run east to west - rather than even more running north to south.
Moonhawk 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.
I don't get it either.They should be looking at putting on more trains, more frequently and increasing capacity on the trains we do have (e.g. using double decker).
It's no good shaving 15 minutes off the journey time if the trains only run every 2 hours and are not reliable. You invariably waste more time standing in the station than you save by the 'high speed'.
They should be looking at implementing more rail lines that run east to west - rather than even more running north to south.
Double decker trains - rolling stock is down to the train operating company, but the vehicles have to fit in gauge IE under bridges, through tunnels etc, and having seen the dutch double deckers, they wont fit the UK gauges, even with us doing big jobs to get more container freight through the network, these things are bigger still.
East-West is currently being worked on with Manc-Leeds improvements and Oxford-MK-? link.
JB! said:
East-West is currently being worked on with Manc-Leeds improvements and Oxford-MK-? link.
From MK it continues to Bedford, that's where the real problem starts, the "varsity line" from Bedford to Oxford was destroyed in the axe and theres no real East-West Midlands link until this is completed.This is the issue with railway investment, while road networks where prioritised over railways in the 50s-00s many lines were shut leaving us with the current situation where lines are overcrowded and not "complete". We probably wouldn't of needed HS2 if lines such as the great central weren't shut.
We now need to invest in projects such as HS2 to get our railways back up to scratch, even Spain has a better high speed rail network than us.
l354uge said:
JB! said:
East-West is currently being worked on with Manc-Leeds improvements and Oxford-MK-? link.
From MK it continues to Bedford, that's where the real problem starts, the "varsity line" from Bedford to Oxford was destroyed in the axe and theres no real East-West Midlands link until this is completed.This is the issue with railway investment, while road networks where prioritised over railways in the 50s-00s many lines were shut leaving us with the current situation where lines are overcrowded and not "complete". We probably wouldn't of needed HS2 if lines such as the great central weren't shut.
We now need to invest in projects such as HS2 to get our railways back up to scratch, even Spain has a better high speed rail network than us.
Vaud said:
BGARK said:
Spending such levels of money should have a justifiable ROI, who has done the calculations and where are they?
Google "hs2 business case" - there are many publicly available documents.judas said:
Have to agree with this. The reasons for travel of hugely relevant; If you don't know why people are travelling you can't investigate alternatives that remove the need for travel. I have to go to see clients in London every now and then, and frankly if there was a viable alternative spending hours on a train and packed like a sardine on the tube I'd happily consider it.
Within the 10+ years this train project would take to build, the process of human communication will change massively. VR will stop most of the need for even face to face meetings. Even now if you do a job sitting down or looking at a PC, why do you need to travel anywhere?If the country spent the same amount of money on broadband, comms and other future technogy, even such as driverless vehicles we would be state of the art GLOBALLY, this is what we need in the future!
BGARK said:
Within the 10+ years this train project would take to build, the process of human communication will change massively. VR will stop most of the need for even face to face meetings. Even now if you do a job sitting down or looking at a PC, why do you need to travel anywhere?
If the country spent the same amount of money on broadband, comms and other future technogy, even such as driverless vehicles we would be state of the art GLOBALLY, this is what we need in the future!
The reality is we need both. VR will augment comms, not replace, in the same way that IM, VC and other channels have increased options for meetings. More people will work from home in some service jobs, but only a finite % can be replaced with comms alternatives. If the country spent the same amount of money on broadband, comms and other future technogy, even such as driverless vehicles we would be state of the art GLOBALLY, this is what we need in the future!
BGARK said:
judas said:
Have to agree with this. The reasons for travel of hugely relevant; If you don't know why people are travelling you can't investigate alternatives that remove the need for travel. I have to go to see clients in London every now and then, and frankly if there was a viable alternative spending hours on a train and packed like a sardine on the tube I'd happily consider it.
Within the 10+ years this train project would take to build, the process of human communication will change massively. VR will stop most of the need for even face to face meetings. Even now if you do a job sitting down or looking at a PC, why do you need to travel anywhere?If the country spent the same amount of money on broadband, comms and other future technogy, even such as driverless vehicles we would be state of the art GLOBALLY, this is what we need in the future!
The simple fact is that people like to meet other people. This has always been the case, and always will be. Technology will never replace meeting people, therefore people need to easily travel.
HS2 is not just about getting to London quicker or adding more capacity, but is about linking the North and South together to help companies locate away from the SE without feeling disconnected from London.
HS2 is a hot potato because of (i) NIMBYS and (ii) politicians trying to garner the vote of those NIMBYS. Of course if previous governments had been spending properly on infrastructure in the first place, then the costs would have been significantly lower.
Vaud said:
BGARK said:
Spending such levels of money should have a justifiable ROI, who has done the calculations and where are they?
Google "hs2 business case" - there are many publicly available documents.http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/commi...
Vaud said:
More people will work from home in some service jobs, but only a finite % can be replaced with comms alternatives.
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.
BGARK said:
Vaud said:
More people will work from home in some service jobs, but only a finite % can be replaced with comms alternatives.
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 think the freight issue could be helped by offering hauliers the incentive of driving at night.
HS2 is a monumental EU driven train crash of a project.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff