HS2, whats the current status ?

[MarshPhantom]

Vaud said:

Sir Humphrey said:

Hopefully by that time someone in government will realise that wasting all these resources on things people don't really want is destroying the economy.

I want a high speed rail connection from Manchester and Leeds to Heathrow and then to London. Sub 2 hrs.HTH.

Why? You're certainly in the minority. Britain is so small we don't need high speed rail.

[andy-xr]

It just seems to me it's about the Gov giving some companies some money so they can keep people in jobs for a few years rather than give the money to the economy or directly. I guess if/when it's built they'll then try and figure out what to do with it after that, it's probably got some use to get stuff around the country at some point.

I'd rather they spent that money doing something with the M6 between the M56 and Birmingham personally but I guess as long as cars are evil pollutants and every MP takes the train to Westminster there'll be no real investment in roads that add more pollutant. The funny thing is that cars would be lesss polluting if they were able to run more efficiently at speed rather than in congestion but I cant see any Government promoting people get in their cars more

[MarshPhantom]

Why not spend the money elsewhere if they have it? We really need a new Thames crossing in East London for example.

[Vaud]

MarshPhantom said:

Why? You're certainly in the minority. Britain is so small we don't need high speed rail.

They said that about Intercity. Or would you scrap that and revert to 70mph trains?

It would be an enabler to balancing the economy north/south.

[JB!]

Build it, insist that all employees are UK taxpayers for their time on the project, insist that all components are uk built...

Should create a few jobs and get some of the investment back in taxes?

We ALREADY have alot of UK based rail industry, and are delivery big rail projects well, might as well continue with CR2 and HS2.

[MarshPhantom]

Vaud said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why? You're certainly in the minority. Britain is so small we don't need high speed rail.

They said that about Intercity. Or would you scrap that and revert to 70mph trains?

It would be an enabler to balancing the economy north/south.

Trains are too expensive for most people already, how many will choose to use the (no doubt far more expensive, slightly faster) HS2?

Not everyone will be able to claim it back on expenses.


Intercity was a replacement for existing trains, not an entirely new railway system.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 10th April 12:23

[Swervin_Mervin]

MarshPhantom said:

Vaud said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why? You're certainly in the minority. Britain is so small we don't need high speed rail.

They said that about Intercity. Or would you scrap that and revert to 70mph trains?

It would be an enabler to balancing the economy north/south.

Trains are too expensive for most people already,

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 10th April 12:23

So much so that rail passenger numbers are at record levels - up 62% between 97/98 and 10/11?

[MarshPhantom]

Swervin_Mervin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Vaud said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why? You're certainly in the minority. Britain is so small we don't need high speed rail.

They said that about Intercity. Or would you scrap that and revert to 70mph trains?

It would be an enabler to balancing the economy north/south.

Trains are too expensive for most people already,

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 10th April 12:23

So much so that rail passenger numbers are at record levels - up 62% between 97/98 and 10/11?

Yet a quick google suggest only 5% of people commute by train.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis...

[Swervin_Mervin]

MarshPhantom said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Vaud said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why? You're certainly in the minority. Britain is so small we don't need high speed rail.

They said that about Intercity. Or would you scrap that and revert to 70mph trains?

It would be an enabler to balancing the economy north/south.

Trains are too expensive for most people already,

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 10th April 12:23

So much so that rail passenger numbers are at record levels - up 62% between 97/98 and 10/11?

Yet a quick google suggest only 5% of people commute by train.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis...

And that's obviously because it's too expensive for most to travel by train right?

[Sir Humphrey]

Vaud said:

I want a high speed rail connection from Manchester and Leeds to Heathrow and then to London. Sub 2 hrs.HTH.

Put your money where your mouth is then, don't put my money where your mouth is.

[anonymous-user]

Sir Humphrey said:

Put your money where your mouth is then, don't put my money where your mouth is.

Isn't he just pointing out that some people actually want a high speed rail system. In reply to you saying "people don't really want one".

[Sir Humphrey]

el stovey said:

Isn't he just pointing out that some people actually want a high speed rail system. In reply to you saying "people don't really want one".

Some people do want it yes, just not enough to pay for it themselves. So in other words, no, not really.

[MarshPhantom]

Swervin_Mervin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Vaud said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why? You're certainly in the minority. Britain is so small we don't need high speed rail.

They said that about Intercity. Or would you scrap that and revert to 70mph trains?

It would be an enabler to balancing the economy north/south.

Trains are too expensive for most people already,

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 10th April 12:23

So much so that rail passenger numbers are at record levels - up 62% between 97/98 and 10/11?

Yet a quick google suggest only 5% of people commute by train.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis...

And that's obviously because it's too expensive for most to travel by train right?

No need for the rolleyes.

You suggested train travel is increasing, do you think that is because it is such a bargain to travel by train?

[Vaud]

Sir Humphrey said:

Vaud said:

I want a high speed rail connection from Manchester and Leeds to Heathrow and then to London. Sub 2 hrs.HTH.

Put your money where your mouth is then, don't put my money where your mouth is.

I was just expressing an opinion. There is clearly a demand for high speed rail, given by the rise in intercity usage. Sure, some people don't commute on a daily basis, but they do use it for 1/2 day business trips to London+.

Our travel patterns are evolving.

To use your point, I don't need a station in Bath so the residents there should pay for it. I don't use the local secondary school, so the pupils parents should pay for it.

Some infrastructure needs to be invested on based on wider benefits and predictions, and not paid for by individuals

[rs1952]

Sir Humphrey said:

el stovey said:

Isn't he just pointing out that some people actually want a high speed rail system. In reply to you saying "people don't really want one".

Some people do want it yes, just not enough to pay for it themselves. So in other words, no, not really.

Now apply that line of thought to the road network.

If major infrastructure projects relied on people being prepared to pay for them directly, the only major routes to Scotland would still be along the A6 and A1; the Severn Bridges would never have been built and getting through Gloucester to get to South Wales would be, shall we say, an interesting experience.

I've witnessed many ludicrous argument being put forward on PH since I first posted in 2002 but this has got to be one of the most ludicrous I have ever seen written here.

[l354uge]

I'd like the M5 extended to Plymouth and sections of the Coventry ring road rebuilt.
Where do I send the cheque?

[robinessex]

Nationalise the railways and buses, and then we can integrate them together with the roads to produce an efficient system. I will now duck to avoid the flack !!!!

[Otispunkmeyer]

Swervin_Mervin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Vaud said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why? You're certainly in the minority. Britain is so small we don't need high speed rail.

They said that about Intercity. Or would you scrap that and revert to 70mph trains?

It would be an enabler to balancing the economy north/south.

Trains are too expensive for most people already,

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 10th April 12:23

So much so that rail passenger numbers are at record levels - up 62% between 97/98 and 10/11?

Yet a quick google suggest only 5% of people commute by train.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis...

And that's obviously because it's too expensive for most to travel by train right?

Probably more to do with trains only going to places 5% of people need to go. Everyone else has to go by some other means. For instance, when I worked in Rugby, I think to get there (translation right next to work) I needed 3 trains, it would take hours and cost more than even a mildly efficient car. So absolutely a no brainer to go for the car. Most people are probably in this boat.

Nothing to do with the trains being to expensive (well not solely) but, theres only so much track and it only goes to so many places. Thats just how the network is.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

MarshPhantom said:

Vaud said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why? You're certainly in the minority. Britain is so small we don't need high speed rail.

They said that about Intercity. Or would you scrap that and revert to 70mph trains?

It would be an enabler to balancing the economy north/south.

Trains are too expensive for most people already,

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 10th April 12:23

So much so that rail passenger numbers are at record levels - up 62% between 97/98 and 10/11?

Yet a quick google suggest only 5% of people commute by train.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis...

And that's obviously because it's too expensive for most to travel by train right?

Probably more to do with trains only going to places 5% of people need to go. Everyone else has to go by some other means. For instance, when I worked in Rugby, I think to get there (translation right next to work) I needed 3 trains, it would take hours and cost more than even a mildly efficient car. So absolutely a no brainer to go for the car. Most people are probably in this boat.

Nothing to do with the trains being to expensive (well not solely) but, theres only so much track and it only goes to so many places. Thats just how the network is.

That seemed fairly obvious to me as well. Not sure what the point is about expense.

[JensenA]

So currently, someone who works in. London and arranges a meeting with someone in Manchester, will, after HS2 , be able to ring up and say "I can meet yiu at 20 to 3 now". Whoopee do. What a waste of money. Money that could be spent on more carriages, more trains, better stations, more flexibility, more connections, resulting in a far better national rail service, that's what this country needs, not a couple of High speed ttrains that will allow the Business user to arrive 20 minutes earlier. The economy would benefit just as much from the investment, and everyone would have a better train service.
The only argument for HS2, is that some people will save 20 minutes on a journey.