Suppose HS2 was cancelled

[andy97]

Dingu said:

pablo said:

I’m guessing you don’t own any business properties currently sat at low occupancy and not returning on your investment….

They’ll have to change the use then.

The country is short of housing……

[andy97]

bigpriest said:

It's usually around 2½ hours but to enble that to happen you have to keep the suburban commuter trains off the same route. HS2, in theory, frees up some capacity to have improved stopping and freight services. The media are fixated on HS2 being some attempt at a speed record between major cities.

I do absolutely get the increase capacity argument, but I do wonder what the cost of the line would be if it was “just” a normal speed ballast track rail line, rather than a high speed slab track line? Might also then be able to have more intermediate stations in it so that more people along the route could benefit.

[bigpriest]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

droopsnoot said:

bigpriest said:

The media are fixated on HS2 being some attempt at a speed record between major cities.

Indeed, I don't know where the issue has come from - whether it's just the media or whether the marketing emphasised it too much - but everyone seems fixated on the chance of saving 15 minutes off a journey from Birmingham to London when that's just a side-effect of having a new purpose-built line.

I suspect it was the name.

Maybe I'm giving the media too much credit in assuming they read past "HS" in the proposal

[Chrisgr31]

NorthDave said:

I don't get the fascination with everyone being in the office and the commuting just creates pollution and clogs the country up.

If people are using electrified rail the pollution is much reduced and they aren’t clogging up the country.

Of course whether one needs to be in the office or not is very dependent on your job. In mine it’s handy being amongst colleagues to have an idea what deals they are. It’s almost essential for graduates and apprentices to be in earshot of qualified staff.

[rover 623gsi]

andy97 said:

bigpriest said:

It's usually around 2½ hours but to enble that to happen you have to keep the suburban commuter trains off the same route. HS2, in theory, frees up some capacity to have improved stopping and freight services. The media are fixated on HS2 being some attempt at a speed record between major cities.

I do absolutely get the increase capacity argument, but I do wonder what the cost of the line would be if it was “just” a normal speed ballast track rail line, rather than a high speed slab track line? Might also then be able to have more intermediate stations in it so that more people along the route could benefit.

if you are going to build a once-in-150 years railway line you may as well make it as fast as possible. And the point is to not have intermediate stations - the fast, long distance trains go on the new line, freeing up space for stopping trains on the other lines.

[andy97]

rover 623gsi said:

andy97 said:

bigpriest said:

It's usually around 2½ hours but to enble that to happen you have to keep the suburban commuter trains off the same route. HS2, in theory, frees up some capacity to have improved stopping and freight services. The media are fixated on HS2 being some attempt at a speed record between major cities.

I do absolutely get the increase capacity argument, but I do wonder what the cost of the line would be if it was “just” a normal speed ballast track rail line, rather than a high speed slab track line? Might also then be able to have more intermediate stations in it so that more people along the route could benefit.

if you are going to build a once-in-150 years railway line you may as well make it as fast as possible. And the point is to not have intermediate stations - the fast, long distance trains go on the new line, freeing up space for stopping trains on the other lines.

Oh I absolutely get that, but in a line between London and Birmingham or even Manchester I don’t think the length of line justifies it.
Increase capacity? Absolutely. Decrease journey time, not really worth it.

[hidetheelephants]

bigpriest said:

Bonefish Blues said:

pablo said:

NorthDave said:

I live in Manchester and work a lot in London - I wish they would scrap it.
The West coast main line isn't even run properly so what hope has this of making a difference?
In my view they should give tax breaks to spread companies round the country a bit more and push fast internet everywhere so people can work from home. I don't get the fascination with everyone being in the office and the commuting just creates pollution and clogs the country up.

I’m guessing you don’t own any business properties currently sat at low occupancy and not returning on your investment….

A couple of comments:

A colleague told me last week that her Mcr - London train takes only 2hr 5mins - I thought it was way longer than that. Made me wonder about the fundamental business case.

Workers are certainly returning to the office in big numbers Tues-Thurs. Seems like the 3-day office week is becoming the new norm.

It's usually around 2½ hours but to enble that to happen you have to keep the suburban commuter trains off the same route. HS2, in theory, frees up some capacity to have improved stopping and freight services. The media are fixated on HS2 being some attempt at a speed record between major cities.

Because it's a st name; whichever bozo the wonderclown who named it High Speed 2 should be fired into the sun. High Capacity Rail encapsulates what the project does without creating tabloid bullst and ridiculous expectations.

[Waitforme]

I hadn’t realised it was a capacity thing.
I thought the billions were being spent to shave a few minutes from the journey time.

[48k]

hidetheelephants said:

Because it's a st name; whichever bozo the wonderclown who named it High Speed 2 should be fired into the sun. High Capacity Rail encapsulates what the project does without creating tabloid bullst and ridiculous expectations.

It's not intentionally a st name, all that has happened is that the project mnemonic for high-speed rail lines has come in to the public vernacular. There wasn't a think-tank of wonderclowns who sat down and consciously came up with a marketing name for the new line.
HS1 is called the Channel Tunnel rail link.
I'm sure in time HS2 will get a "marketing" name or will morph in to the West Coast Main Line.

Waitforme said:

I hadn’t realised it was a capacity thing.
I thought the billions were being spent to shave a few minutes from the journey time.

You're not alone, and this is the image problem the line has. The majority of the aghast people are saying "why are we paying £billions to get between London and Birmingham a few minutes quicker" and missing the point.

[Andeh1]

My hesitancy over HS2 gets countered by the fact broadly speaking both Labour and Torys support it, and it hasn't been turned into a political poking stick over 'rich bankers faster to holiday homes up north'.... Which means there must be good value in building it!!

[OutInTheShed]

hidetheelephants said:

Because it's a st name; whichever bozo the wonderclown who named it High Speed 2 should be fired into the sun. High Capacity Rail encapsulates what the project does without creating tabloid bullst and ridiculous expectations.

High Spend 2.....

[droopsnoot]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

I suspect it was the name.

Oh, well, maybe, I s'spose.

[Bonefish Blues]

Waitforme said:

I hadn’t realised it was a capacity thing.
I thought the billions were being spent to shave a few minutes from the journey time.

I had, previously, then forgot about that aspect completely, as seen in my earlier post.

Big PR fail, I think.

Edited by Bonefish Blues on Tuesday 1st November 19:22

[rover 623gsi]

i agree that the name is rubbish but I think most people don't realise just how much has already been done. Stopping it now would cost loads of money and take lots of time - you can't just pack up and leave 300 construction sites abandoned.

there's several good videos on youtube showing the work that works going on. this is a quite good, fairly brief snapshot (albeit produced by HS2 so obviously focussing on the positives)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeOnsS1aVQQ

[Alias218]

IMO HS2 is a good thing. Once you move past the vanity project element of it and, yes, the eye watering cost, this rail link will be in use for decades. Goodness knows we need some more modern rail infrastructure in this country, and more capacity, not to mention enabling the freeing up of older lines for freight which in turn removes lorries from the roads releasing some capacity there too.

The net benefit of HS2 and subsequent spurs goes beyond just shaving 10 mins from your Manchester to London run. I'd like to see investment in older lines too, though.

[Evanivitch]

Can we just get on with HS2 please so that the rest of us can possibly seen HS3-10 sometime this century?

HS5 will be London to Swansea via a new Severn tunnel linking Bristol with Cardiff, tunnel under Vale of Glamorgan and tunnel under Swansea bay. Yes, tunnels for everyone!

[the tribester]

Slackline said:

Staying on budget with a £5.5bn contingency shouldn't be that hard, although I think they have used something like 25% of that already though.

You would have to assume that the goal is to use 99.9% of the contingency. That way everyone is happy - Government get to claim 'under budget' and everyone else has a nice Christmas.

It'll be good to see a Government project come in on budget. Any bookies taking bets?

[Previous]

Evanivitch said:

Can we just get on with HS2 please so that the rest of us can possibly seen HS3-10 sometime this century?

HS5 will be London to Swansea via a new Severn tunnel linking Bristol with Cardiff, tunnel under Vale of Glamorgan and tunnel under Swansea bay. Yes, tunnels for everyone!

Due to compete in 3022

[EliseNick]

Yeah it's a really bad name, but investment (both public and private) in infrastructure etc to improve productivity is utterly vital and long overdue, otherwise we're destined for a slow and tortuous slide into mediocrity. A few specific points, some of which I think have been mentioned already:

NorthDave said:

[snip]
The West coast main line isn't even run properly so what hope has this of making a difference?
[snip]

The WCML runs badly because a) it is at 100% of capacity and b) it is a mixed traffic line. Getting the fast passenger services on to HS2 will solve both these problems.

andy97 said:

I do absolutely get the increase capacity argument, but I do wonder what the cost of the line would be if it was “just” a normal speed ballast track rail line, rather than a high speed slab track line? Might also then be able to have more intermediate stations in it so that more people along the route could benefit.

Slab track is more expensive to install, but cheaper to maintain. I don't know how long it takes to break even.

Stations are really expensive, so more stations would increase the cost...

I'd love to see more investment in other bits of the railway system, but it's not really an either/or situation. This video explains it all far better than I can: https://youtu.be/Nf5avCUNP0M

[Evanivitch]

Previous said:

Evanivitch said:

Can we just get on with HS2 please so that the rest of us can possibly seen HS3-10 sometime this century?

HS5 will be London to Swansea via a new Severn tunnel linking Bristol with Cardiff, tunnel under Vale of Glamorgan and tunnel under Swansea bay. Yes, tunnels for everyone!

Due to compete in 3022

I love your optimism!