HS2, whats the current status ?

[George111]

Talksteer said:

What do the rail fans think of this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advic...

Alternative route for HS2 avoiding drilling through the Chilterns.

If we have to expand rail then this does look a more useful solution. It's likely more people would use/benefit from it.

[mcdjl]

Talksteer said:

What do the rail fans think of this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advic...

Alternative route for HS2 avoiding drilling through the Chilterns.

The original idea of this was to re-use much of the old Great Central Railway, which might have saved money until you got to any of the cities on the old line. Without seeing the numbers or caring i'm going to suspect that much of the savings is based on just doing it (and saving by not spending years thinking about it), and not paying endless contractors to investigate newts, noise and other things that would end up being included.

[robinessex]

Lets spend the £50billion on getting driverless cars on the road, and we won't need the bloody thing. And the cars can go ANYWHERE in the uk!!!

[Fittster]

robinessex said:

Lets spend the £50billion on getting driverless cars on the road, and we won't need the bloody thing. And the cars can go ANYWHERE in the uk!!!

Can these driverless cars in park in central London?

[Esseesse]

mcdjl said:

Talksteer said:

What do the rail fans think of this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advic...

Alternative route for HS2 avoiding drilling through the Chilterns.

The original idea of this was to re-use much of the old Great Central Railway, which might have saved money until you got to any of the cities on the old line. Without seeing the numbers or caring i'm going to suspect that much of the savings is based on just doing it (and saving by not spending years thinking about it), and not paying endless contractors to investigate newts, noise and other things that would end up being included.

This runs beside the M1. I've always thought that any significant new line should run alongside a motorway. Why trash more countryside?

[Esseesse]

robinessex said:

But the Government is pressing ahead – announcing last week that its line will be built as far as Crewe by 2027. The Department for Transport said: “The case for HS2 is crystal clear. It is crucial we press ahead on time and budget, and we remain on track to start construction in 2017.”

So it's a done deal then? As for 'crystal clear', this is government speak for 'we're not prepaired to listen to any opposition'

There is significant evidence that HS2 is driven from Brussels, so the government isn't in a position to listen to opposition anyway as they're not the ones in charge.

[Vocal Minority]

Esseesse said:

There is significant evidence that HS2 is driven from Brussels, so the government isn't in a position to listen to opposition anyway as they're not the ones in charge.

Could you expand on that? I work pretty extensively around the scheme (not employed or contracted to HS2 - entirely on the other side) and this is the first I have heard of it.

Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 18th March 11:49

[mcdjl]

Esseesse said:

This runs beside the M1. I've always thought that any significant new line should run alongside a motorway. Why trash more countryside?

Maybe so, however how that makes it save money is beyond me. Besides the train line will be a fixed width and probably end up a fields width away regardless so you might just end up waste land between the two effectively wasting more land. Also to get any closer to any of the cities the HS2 does you're still going to have to go away from the M1 as well.

[Sheepshanks]

Captainawesome said:

I love not too far from where hs2 is going. Just found out that they will be putting up 2400 trucks a day for 2.5 years up my local a road. This should make getting into town interesting.

A colleague lives near the route (phase1) too and he's talking about local construction disturbance lasting 7 years.

[anonymous-user]

Esseesse said:

This runs beside the M1. I've always thought that any significant new line should run alongside a motorway. Why trash more countryside?

Good job they didn't hold those views when they first built the railways eh ?

[FourWheelDrift]

speedyguy said:

Esseesse said:

This runs beside the M1. I've always thought that any significant new line should run alongside a motorway. Why trash more countryside?

Good job they didn't hold those views when they first built the railways eh ?

Yeah, they completely ignored the motorways when they first built railway lines. Damn Victorian anti-car brigade.

[BlackLabel]

Vocal Minority said:

Esseesse said:

There is significant evidence that HS2 is driven from Brussels, so the government isn't in a position to listen to opposition anyway as they're not the ones in charge.

Could you expand on that? I work pretty extensively around the scheme (not employed or contracted to HS2 - entirely on the other side) and this is the first I have heard of it.

Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 18th March 11:49

I'd not heard of that theory either but a quick google brings up this. So sure there was an EU Council Directive 20 years ago which mentions A Trans-European Railway but this isn't evidence that the project is being driven from Brussels or that we are not the ones actually in charge.

http://www.lichfieldmercury.co.uk/Sparks-fly-EU-po...

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2015-088-hs2-controlle...

[steveatesh]

BlackLabel said:

Vocal Minority said:

Esseesse said:

There is significant evidence that HS2 is driven from Brussels, so the government isn't in a position to listen to opposition anyway as they're not the ones in charge.

Could you expand on that? I work pretty extensively around the scheme (not employed or contracted to HS2 - entirely on the other side) and this is the first I have heard of it.

Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 18th March 11:49

I'd not heard of that theory either but a quick google brings up this. So sure there was an EU Council Directive 20 years ago which mentions A Trans-European Railway but this isn't evidence that the project is being driven from Brussels or that we are not the ones actually in charge.

http://www.lichfieldmercury.co.uk/Sparks-fly-EU-po...

http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2015-088-hs2-controlle...

This would not surprise me, apparently our Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers are meant for the European Rapid Reaction Force as part of our contribution. Not once have I heard any news item about them mention that intent.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etude...

Source EU referendum Richard North http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...

[Vocal Minority]

It's interesting reading, but being cynical one of those is a local paper with UKIP stirring because it wins votes in an affected area, and what appears to be an anti EU website.

I have looked at the TEN-T website projects for the UK and can't find mention of it

[rs1952]

Vocal Minority said:

It's interesting reading, but being cynical one of those is a local paper with UKIP stirring because it wins votes in an affected area, and what appears to be an anti EU website.

I have looked at the TEN-T website projects for the UK and can't find mention of it

You won't find anything about it because its not true. The EU has no power to tell the UK to build a road, a railway or even a canal (an approximate quote from that well-known Brexit-supporting MP for Lichfield Michael Fabricant in the Lichfield Mercury (link above), and approximate because we ain't supposed to copy and paste from news sites).

But of course as you can't prove a negative, that won't stop those that want to believe that it is all a malicious EU plot continuing to believe it.

[steveatesh]

rs1952 said:

You won't find anything about it because its not true. The EU has no power to tell the UK to build a road, a railway or even a canal (an approximate quote from that well-known Brexit-supporting MP for Lichfield Michael Fabricant in the Lichfield Mercury (link above), and approximate because we ain't supposed to copy and paste from news sites).

But of course as you can't prove a negative, that won't stop those that want to believe that it is all a malicious EU plot continuing to believe it.

I agree the EU can not TELL the UK to build these things but they can be built as part of an agreed commitment made by the UK to further EU ideals, but that part kept quiet from the population as a whole.

Just because they are on an anti-EU blog does not mean they are not true. This link has a series of links contained which are worth an explore. At the end of the day whether you believe the link to the EU or not depends very much on whether you support the UK being part of it or not.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...

It is rare for the fingerprints of the EU to be openly confirmed or connected to a policy or legislation by any government, it was always meant to be kept quiet from us all.

[s3fella]

Cant see it ever happening

[rs1952]

steveatesh said:

I agree the EU can not TELL the UK to build these things but they can be built as part of an agreed commitment made by the UK to further EU ideals, but that part kept quiet from the population as a whole.

We are of course talking about HS2, so let's deal with the practicalities.

Why would the EU want the UK to build HS2?

The short haul air travel market has blown up out of all proportion in recent years. Anyone who wants to go in a hurry from mainland Europe (or indeed the south of England) to the north of England or Scotland would be catered for by that. Indeed, I did a day business trip from Bristol to Glasgow and back only on Thursday last week.

We are an island surrounded by ports. Freight can get to any part of the UK using that medium, or come through the Channel Tunnel.

The only main beneficiaries of HS2 will be the indigenous population, either through slightly shorter journey times or, more importantly, a freeing up of capacity on other north to south routes.

The Irish Republic are generally more pro-EU than the UK, but there are no high speed rail routes over there.

I'm struggling to find any reasonable explanation for why the EU could give a toss whether we have a high speed line or not. Perhaps somebody else can think of some? No more conspiracy theories please - let's try to find some facts.

[hidetheelephants]

The only thing I can think of is the rolling stock might be being built in the EU, so moderately pork-barrelworthy, but that's a bit of a stretch. The same reasoning could be attached to any alternate to HS2 as they would also need shiny rolling stock.

[rs1952]

hidetheelephants said:

The only thing I can think of is the rolling stock might be being built in the EU, so moderately pork-barrelworthy, but that's a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure (or more accurately I doubt) that anyone has got as far as drawing up a tender for HS2 rolling stock, but the new trains for the GWR electrification are coming from Hitachi in Japan.