HS2, whats the current status ?

[alock]

oyster said:

There aren't many people who do business without face to face contact.

And what about leisure trips or family trips? Do you visit friends/relatives by Skype only? Weird.

HS2 is targeting such a small percentage of people though. If anyone suggested building a several hundred mile motorway which you could only get on and off at either end I would be equally critical.

I don't know of anyone who could even contemplate using HS2 in any part of their life.

[onyx39]

alock said:

oyster said:

There aren't many people who do business without face to face contact.

And what about leisure trips or family trips? Do you visit friends/relatives by Skype only? Weird.

HS2 is targeting such a small percentage of people though. If anyone suggested building a several hundred mile motorway which you could only get on and off at either end I would be equally critical.

I don't know of anyone who could even contemplate using HS2 in any part of their life.

I get that, but are they not selling it on the basis of it making places commutable that would not be otherwise, so people would move to other areas and use it accordingly?

[theboss]

alock said:

oyster said:

There aren't many people who do business without face to face contact.

And what about leisure trips or family trips? Do you visit friends/relatives by Skype only? Weird.

HS2 is targeting such a small percentage of people though. If anyone suggested building a several hundred mile motorway which you could only get on and off at either end I would be equally critical.

I don't know of anyone who could even contemplate using HS2 in any part of their life.

Your circle of associates doesn't really extend that far though does it. Go and stand outside Euston from 8am and make friends with 100,000 people who pass through there every day. Most would stand to benefit directly or indirectly from HS2.

[alock]

theboss said:

Your circle of associates doesn't really extend that far though does it. Go and stand outside Euston from 8am and make friends with 100,000 people who pass through there every day. Most would stand to benefit directly or indirectly from HS2.

So we're spending £50b to help 100,000 commuters who pass through Euston every day? That's £½m per commuter.

My original point still stands. It's a vast amount of money to help a very small number of people.

[Swervin_Mervin]

alock said:

theboss said:

Your circle of associates doesn't really extend that far though does it. Go and stand outside Euston from 8am and make friends with 100,000 people who pass through there every day. Most would stand to benefit directly or indirectly from HS2.

So we're spending £50b to help 100,000 commuters who pass through Euston every day? That's £½m per commuter.

My original point still stands. It's a vast amount of money to help a very small number of people.

Add in the commuters up and down the WCML that will benefit from increased capacity. And then there's the benefit to industry of the increased freight capacity, and (possibly) the benefit to the highway network from reduced haulage.

No one bats an eyelid at the expenditure on Crossrail, which amounts to the same per annum afaik.

[MysteryLemon]

Swervin_Mervin said:

Add in the commuters up and down the WCML that will benefit from increased capacity. And then there's the benefit to industry of the increased freight capacity, and (possibly) the benefit to the highway network from reduced haulage.

No one bats an eyelid at the expenditure on Crossrail, which amounts to the same per annum afaik.

Yeah but that's London and the South East so, you know, it's ok. How dare the Government even consider investing money in the rest of the country. What are they thinking!?

[Nom de ploom]

i think its a white elephant and will never pay for itself.

it will inevitably run over budget and adversely impact on a lot of people's lives.

it will benefit some - those for whom travelling 200 miles 20 minutes quicker than you can do so now on a train for example.

in a country our size, why do we need to get anywhere 10 or even 20% quicker?

i'm 100% opposed.

[Wills2]

I'm not anti HS2 or cross rail (I think that's an amazing achievement and needed for London) but I would prefer the HS2 money to be spent on developing the economy in the north (self serving interest)

Connecting the major northern cities up, providing capital investment in roads/rail/airports etc. So we can balance the economy as much as possible.

I feel that HS2 as it stands will just suck more people to London.

[theboss]

alock said:

theboss said:

Your circle of associates doesn't really extend that far though does it. Go and stand outside Euston from 8am and make friends with 100,000 people who pass through there every day. Most would stand to benefit directly or indirectly from HS2.

So we're spending £50b to help 100,000 commuters who pass through Euston every day? That's £½m per commuter.

My original point still stands. It's a vast amount of money to help a very small number of people.

40 million journeys a year through Euston alone - a figure which will only continue to rise if capacity allows. You can add a significant number of Glasgow/Leeds/Manchester/Newcastle to London air passengers which HS2 will take. You can then extrapolate the costs per passenger over a century or more because major infrastructure projects like this will serve a purpose for many decades not just years.

Its rather simplistic to say that because you don't know anyone who stands to benefit, its of no greater good to the country. I don't personally know anyone who uses Manchester airport, but I wouldn't deny that it serves a useful purpose.

[theboss]

Wills2 said:

I'm not anti HS2 or cross rail (I think that's an amazing achievement and needed for London) but I would prefer the HS2 money to be spent on developing the economy in the north (self serving interest)

Connecting the major northern cities up, providing capital investment in roads/rail/airports etc. So we can balance the economy as much as possible.

I feel that HS2 as it stands will just suck more people to London.

I don't understand your point - HS2 will exist almost exclusively to benefit the people of the Midlands and the North. You think the trains will be full of Londoners leaving London?

As I understand it the 'HS3' proposal (which should be slightly more groundbreaking IMHO) will serve as a fast East-West link across the Northern cities.

[Wills2]

theboss said:

I don't understand your point - HS2 will exist almost exclusively to benefit the people of the Midlands and the North. You think the trains will be full of Londoners leaving London?

As I understand it the 'HS3' proposal (which should be slightly more groundbreaking IMHO) will serve as a fast East-West link across the Northern cities.

That's exactly my point we don't need the powers of the black hole that is London increasing.

HS3 is far too far off, we need a plan for the north over the next 10-15 years IMHO.

[Sheepshanks]

Nom de ploom said:

it will inevitably run over budget and adversely impact on a lot of people's lives.

Mate of mine has bought a massive house at a considerably reduced price as it's likely to be affected by the construction activity, and possibly by noise from the line once it's up and running - although he's optimistic on that point.

He's following HS2 closely and is convinced it'll go ahead, but will be pretty happy if it doesn't!

[Swervin_Mervin]

Wills2 said:

theboss said:

I don't understand your point - HS2 will exist almost exclusively to benefit the people of the Midlands and the North. You think the trains will be full of Londoners leaving London?

As I understand it the 'HS3' proposal (which should be slightly more groundbreaking IMHO) will serve as a fast East-West link across the Northern cities.

That's exactly my point we don't need the powers of the black hole that is London increasing.

HS3 is far too far off, we need a plan for the north over the next 10-15 years IMHO.

There's quite a lot in the pipeline, including electrification, Ordsall Chord etc. Quite a reasonable list of schemes.

Add to that, we've finally got the M6-M56 link being built, the SEMMS scheme being built, the pinchpoint programme.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Nom de ploom said:

i think its a white elephant and will never pay for itself.

it will inevitably run over budget and adversely impact on a lot of people's lives.

it will benefit some - those for whom travelling 200 miles 20 minutes quicker than you can do so now on a train for example.

in a country our size, why do we need to get anywhere 10 or even 20% quicker?

i'm 100% opposed.

Why will it run over-budget? There are a few examples of major infrastructure schemes reecntly being completed on-time and on-budget. Metrolink's most recent phase was even open a year earlier than planned!

And it would be a bit more than 20% quicker. Current best from Manc to London is 1h58 I think. That would drop to 1h.

[theboss]

Wills2 said:

theboss said:

I don't understand your point - HS2 will exist almost exclusively to benefit the people of the Midlands and the North. You think the trains will be full of Londoners leaving London?

As I understand it the 'HS3' proposal (which should be slightly more groundbreaking IMHO) will serve as a fast East-West link across the Northern cities.

That's exactly my point we don't need the powers of the black hole that is London increasing.

HS3 is far too far off, we need a plan for the north over the next 10-15 years IMHO.

I'm definitely keen to see the Northern cities develop but the notion that London is some sort of black hole is misguided. London is the inverse in my mind - it sucks up wealth from all over the globe and showers it across the rest of the country. We're all fked if we don't strive to maintain its international prominence.

Disclaimer - I'm not from London or the SE.

[Talksteer]

I actually have friend in transport modelling who quit the whole field over HS2 because they were essentially creating dodgy models to support a decision already made.

Issues with HS2:

As stated before it is very expensive (the overruns have essentially been baked in anyway) and barely makes sense even on business cases that are essentially "made up". There are any number of infrastructure investments which aren't being funded which have no brainer business cases compared to HS2 e.g. virtually any road project.

For the price you could build enough nuclear plants to supply most of the UK's electricity and then give the power away for virtually nothing!

The HS2 plan is also not particularly logical as it was designed as politically doable first step followed by a second very expensive extension. These guys have reasonably effectively pulled the HS2 plans apart.

http://www.highspeeduk.co.uk/home.html

In short due to an unnecessarily fast design speed the route to BIrmingham has had to go through difficult countryside resulting in 1/3 of the line being in a deep cut or tunnel. If they had set the design speed at 300kmph they could have run a central spine up the M1 corridor with branches off to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Liverpool etc etc.

Final big issue is that by the time it is actually built electric self driven cars are going to be making a total mockery of it. The basic calculations would indicate that 150mph for 200 miles is totally feasible in a low drag electric vehicle. For a fraction of the outlay we could create the stimulus for the UK to be world leaders in autonomous vehicles.

[powerstroke]

Sheepshanks said:

MysteryLemon said:

In the long run this will hopefully mean less lorries on our overcrowded motorway network too.

If only we could believe that was true. Or even a remote possibility.

No never !!rail is good at moving large numbers of people between and into citys or large amounts of raw materials /fuel to a small number of large industrial users not for the modern goods and service society ..

[Rick101]

Lots of BS spouted on here.

On the whole, railway projects are completed on time and on budget.
The benefits are widespread, it does not just benefit passengers on the HS train.
We marvel at the railway systems in other countries yet are unwilling to build the same.
High speed trains are decades old now, we are very behind the times. We need to Invest in transport instead of whinging about it.
HS2 is one project. It does not reduce the massive amount of work going on elsewhere. I imagine many would balk at the cost of many engineering projects but the fact is transport is important. Currently 4.5 million passengers a DAY on the railways constantly growing at a massive rate.
Transport is put of our economy. Yes it's expensive but it's something we need. We all pay for it one way or another so instead of moaning, better to just get on and get the job done.

[Chrisgr31]

alock said:

I don't know of anyone who could even contemplate using HS2 in any part of their life.

I will!

When travelling around the country for work I rarely drive these days. I go by train and if I need a car at my destination I hire one, its far less stressful, more reliable and I can work on route (if I want to!).

Problem with something like HS2 is that we will not know how successful it is going to be until its built. It just is not the sort of thing that can be predicted.

[Rick101]

HS1 may give some indication.