HS2, whats the current status ?

[spaximus]

What I find really irritating is the way this has been handled from start to finish. Ineptitude has ruled.

The second Severn crossing was built on time and on budget as it was built by a private consortium.

HS2 has companies tender who now say they cannot deliver to the budget set. Now if the spec has changed then one could accept that but from what I see this is not the case. It appears they all stuck a finger in the air to get it started and have just kept on piling on the cost estimates. Even now no one can say it will cost X, why not.

I have never been a fan of it but we need investment in transport. We need to make it easy and cost effective for people to set up business in the North, Wales and South West and get goods to ports so getting extra capacity is a good thing but between London and Birmingham does not seem to be anywhere near capacity.

You cannot blame people who live in a lovely place not wanting a train running through their gardens but that is the price some have to pay, sad as that may be.

If it is not to be scrapped we need a firm fixed cost that any over runs the construction companies take the hit not the tax payer.

[RacerMike]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

We simply don’t have the space down south...it literally is in people’s back yards or very close.

I live in Leamington. The proposed route goes pretty close to here and through a few areas nearby. However......we need the infrastructure. Anything new will be disruptive.

[gregs656]

RacerMike said:

Yeah, I’ve lived in Sweden and Canada, and have spent extended periods of time in the US (arguably no better than the Uk) and Spain and Germany.

I don’t disagree that there’s resistance, but on the whole, it seems to get done. As clearly demonstrated by the fact we all still struggle along with a rail network that largely hasn’t changed since the 1800s.

I'm in Canada at the moment and I am not sure it is any different here, it may even be worse.

In Toronto at the moment the subway expansion is on hold again as the plans are reviewed and control of the project potentially is moving to the province.

It's a mess and has been a mess for as long as anyone can remember. No different to, for example, the A27 by passes that have been talked about for as long as anyone can remember in Sussex.

[spaximus]

RacerMike said:

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

We simply don’t have the space down south...it literally is in people’s back yards or very close.

I live in Leamington. The proposed route goes pretty close to here and through a few areas nearby. However......we need the infrastructure. Anything new will be disruptive.

My Daughter lives in Leamington, there are 42 trains per day to London from there each day under two hours and trains to London from Birmingham every 20 minutes. So is there a need for this type of additional infrastructure or does it need to be elsewhere where there would be tangible benifits?

[Watchman]

If HS2 had allowed someone to DRIVE onto a train in Manchester (or Glasgow) and get off at a number of locations on the way to (and including) Paris, then we would be getting somewhere but the scope was weak to start with. For passengers-only, we should just improve the current network.

Better spend the money on roads. We're missing tons of motorways in Wales and the East. Improve the road network and encourage people to move out of the SE... Redistribute the people and all the infrastructure will work better.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Lentilist said:

The cynic in me says it's going to be binned because it goes through too many marginal Conservative seats during a time of political uncertainty and Boris is afraid of the election impact of the Chilterns being churned up for years to come. The less cynical side of me has previously considered it a useful project, but is hesitantly edging towards the camp that says spending the same level of money on things like local tram networks, light rail, metro systems, railfreight hubs, sensible road improvements and suchlike may well be a better idea. The political volatility caused by Brexit isn't likely to go away any time soon, and I suspect many will think that a series of moderately large regional (esp. northern) projects that can show tangible benefits over 5-10 years might be a safer bet than putting all the infrastructure eggs in a single HS2 basket? Given the ongoing issues with Crossrail, I'm not sure the appetite for massive projects is still there? Given the various Brexit outcomes, I also wonder whether improving port facilities and access may well rise up the agenda? Difficult to justify tens of billions on HS2 when/if Kent is turning into a gigantic lorry park.

Review due by year end whilst GE widely tipped as well before then. The cynic Would suggest it's more likely electioneering to win round those seats as you say. But if you then get back on a stronger mandate then the reviee may magically conclude we should press ahead...

[surveyor]

Robertj21a said:

I would have thought that there was plenty of opportunity to improve the rail network in the north (that bit of the UK some miles north of the M25).

HS2 was not about improving the rail network, it was about delivering extra capacity. The existing networks are either at or heading to capacity. There are only so many longer trains they can put on and given that trains need to run on the network only so many upgrades that they can do.

The east west HS3 is even more needed. I can get from Doncaster to Kings Cross in about 1h 40m. The train to Manchester - about 60 miles takes nearly 1hr 30m.

[alfaman]

surveyor said:

HS2 was not about improving the rail network, it was about delivering extra capacity. The existing networks are either at or heading to capacity. There are only so many longer trains they can put on and given that trains need to run on the network only so many upgrades that they can do.

The east west HS3 is even more needed. I can get from Doncaster to Kings Cross in about 1h 40m. The train to Manchester - about 60 miles takes nearly 1hr 30m.

Surely the issue is that HS2 is massively expensive extra capacity where it is not really needed.

There are other bottlenecks or slow rail lines elsewhere in the UK.

[Robertj21a]

surveyor said:

Robertj21a said:

I would have thought that there was plenty of opportunity to improve the rail network in the north (that bit of the UK some miles north of the M25).

HS2 was not about improving the rail network, it was about delivering extra capacity. The existing networks are either at or heading to capacity. There are only so many longer trains they can put on and given that trains need to run on the network only so many upgrades that they can do.

The east west HS3 is even more needed. I can get from Doncaster to Kings Cross in about 1h 40m. The train to Manchester - about 60 miles takes nearly 1hr 30m.

I'm afraid that you've taken that out of context. My response was to the comment that '........there isn't another proposal that improved the network'. Using any newly available funds could certainly improve the network, it's just that it would be in the north..........

[stuckmojo]

alfaman said:

Surely the issue is that HS2 is massively expensive extra capacity where it is not really needed.

There are other bottlenecks or slow rail lines elsewhere in the UK.

my take on it too. NCL London in less than 3 hours door to door is acceptable
Liverpool Euston in 2 hours is quite good.

Now try Liverpool York. Mental. Or try to get to Ipswich or to any of the big ports which could do with proper rail links for intermodal transport. Crickets.

I would not moan about spending on these. even the full 100 billion.

[Murph7355]

stuckmojo said:

my take on it too. NCL London in less than 3 hours door to door is acceptable
Liverpool Euston in 2 hours is quite good.

Now try Liverpool York. Mental. Or try to get to Ipswich or to any of the big ports which could do with proper rail links for intermodal transport. Crickets.

I would not moan about spending on these. even the full 100 billion.

Ditto.

I would also say that improving metropolitan networks (and not just rail - need to be thinking more broadly) elsewhere would be massively beneficial. London and much of the South East are quite well served. Try and get similar provision in other areas, and then start improving connections between them would seem like a better strategy to me.

[powerstroke]

This white elephant is the bd love child of that wkpuffin Adonis the sooner it is canned the better !!

[Not-The-Messiah]

surveyor said:

Robertj21a said:

I would have thought that there was plenty of opportunity to improve the rail network in the north (that bit of the UK some miles north of the M25).

HS2 was not about improving the rail network, it was about delivering extra capacity. The existing networks are either at or heading to capacity. There are only so many longer trains they can put on and given that trains need to run on the network only so many upgrades that they can do.

The east west HS3 is even more needed. I can get from Doncaster to Kings Cross in about 1h 40m. The train to Manchester - about 60 miles takes nearly 1hr 30m.

Was watching the news yesterday talking to a MP in Manchester he made the same point. The interviewer pointed out that if we don't need it to be high speed it would cost massively less. It would make it no faster than it is now to travel but would add the extra capacity. If you don't need to smash straight through a village to keep it high-speed it's going to be cheeper.

You could see the hamster in the MPs head trying to come up with a answer for it.

[Vaud]

Watchman said:

If HS2 had allowed someone to DRIVE onto a train in Manchester (or Glasgow) and get off at a number of locations on the way to (and including) Paris, then we would be getting somewhere but the scope was weak to start with. For passengers-only, we should just improve the current network.

Better spend the money on roads. We're missing tons of motorways in Wales and the East. Improve the road network and encourage people to move out of the SE... Redistribute the people and all the infrastructure will work better.

It would take almost no cars off the roads.
Most people are visiting the city (or connecting) - so don't need their car.
Even then - even if I wanted to go say Leeds-Paris and then drive, the cost would be horrendous as cars take up so much space (you need passenger carriages and space for cars?)... and then one of the last places I want to be driving is in central Paris

Agree on some extra roads. East Anglia is starved of any fast connections.

[RacerMike]

spaximus said:

RacerMike said:

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

We simply don’t have the space down south...it literally is in people’s back yards or very close.

I live in Leamington. The proposed route goes pretty close to here and through a few areas nearby. However......we need the infrastructure. Anything new will be disruptive.

My Daughter lives in Leamington, there are 42 trains per day to London from there each day under two hours and trains to London from Birmingham every 20 minutes. So is there a need for this type of additional infrastructure or does it need to be elsewhere where there would be tangible benifits?

Not really much benefit for Leamington no (the nearest HS2 station would be Birmingham international) although I suspect that reduced footfall on the ‘local’ services to London would help to an extent. HS2 is more about the improvement of service between London, Birmingham and Manchester though

[Digga]

valiant said:

pavarotti1980 said:

Were Carillion involved?

Part of a consortium with Costain and Balfour Beatty among others for a £6.6bn tranche I believe.

Separate multi million pound contracts for stations, etc also awarded.

Can’t believe they’ll just shrug their shoulders and move into the next project - they’ll want to be paid and as a certain Chris Grayling awarded the contracts you can bet your bottom dollar that there are very onerous clauses should HMG cancel.

FYI, Carillion is no more.

One firm I know that was in line for HS2 work was also in line for Carillion motorway work. Now gone. Yes they gambled, but I don;t think either government or public are aware of quite how impossibly difficult it is for contractors to gear-up machinery for these sort of projects, availabilities and lead times are nothing like for commercial vehicles for example.

gregs656 said:

Have you lived anywhere else? I don't think it is uncommon in democracies with relatively short term parliaments, short term governance generally, and high land values for people to be against infrastructure change, particularly if it impacts existing infrastructure which it almost always does in cities and high density areas.

All the major EU democracies have built more miles of motorway then the UK for decades.

HTH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_motorwa...

[Blue62]

RacerMike said:

Not really much benefit for Leamington no (the nearest HS2 station would be Birmingham international) although I suspect that reduced footfall on the ‘local’ services to London would help to an extent. HS2 is more about the improvement of service between London, Birmingham and Manchester though

I'm not sure that's the case, the original idea was to increase capacity, putting more freight onto the East Coast Mainline, it was sold to us on the basis you could get to Manchester in the blink of an eye, but that was just politics and PR. I also understand that it had to be able to achieve 250mph in order to qualify for EU subsidy, which is why it has become so costly, travelling at that speed requires a long straight track so you end up ploughing through homes and businesses.

I'm quoting approximate figures here, but I know the original estimate was @£36bn, it has since climbed to @£55bn and if my mates in the business are to be believed the eventual figure will be north of £100bn. The reason Boris is against it (and hence the fresh enquiry) is because he knows the business case was marginal at the original estimate, so now there is no chance of any sort of ROI and he would rather spend the money elsewhere. I have to say that whatever your politics (and I'm no Boris fan), this is the right thing to do, throwing good money after bad is not the way to run a country.

[RacerMike]

Blue62 said:

RacerMike said:

Not really much benefit for Leamington no (the nearest HS2 station would be Birmingham international) although I suspect that reduced footfall on the ‘local’ services to London would help to an extent. HS2 is more about the improvement of service between London, Birmingham and Manchester though

I'm not sure that's the case, the original idea was to increase capacity, putting more freight onto the East Coast Mainline, it was sold to us on the basis you could get to Manchester in the blink of an eye, but that was just politics and PR. I also understand that it had to be able to achieve 250mph in order to qualify for EU subsidy, which is why it has become so costly, travelling at that speed requires a long straight track so you end up ploughing through homes and businesses.

I'm quoting approximate figures here, but I know the original estimate was @£36bn, it has since climbed to @£55bn and if my mates in the business are to be believed the eventual figure will be north of £100bn. The reason Boris is against it (and hence the fresh enquiry) is because he knows the business case was marginal at the original estimate, so now there is no chance of any sort of ROI and he would rather spend the money elsewhere. I have to say that whatever your politics (and I'm no Boris fan), this is the right thing to do, throwing good money after bad is not the way to run a country.

Is that not really short sighted though? Sure, you can spend that money elsewhere in the short and medium term, but longer term, would the cost to the economy not actually be much greater due to a lack of high speed links?

And the elephant in the room is of course the discussion about the environment. I know a good number on here are full blown 'climate change is a conspiracy' believers, but ignoring that for a moment, if the report today regarding more people needing to give up their cars to achieve the emissions targets is to be believed, how are we going to do that without significant investment in public transport.

Put it this way....if we had better public transport links that enabled me to travel to and from most locations in the country in a broadly similar amount of time to driving (say within 150%) and it was the same or cheaper to do so, I would have no need for a daily. I'd be quite happy to give up my Fiesta for a train if I could....

[Digga]

Blue62 said:

I have to say that whatever your politics (and I'm no Boris fan), this is the right thing to do, throwing good money after bad is not the way to run a country.

Would you not wish to see that sum invested in the road network instead though?

[Lily the Pink]

RacerMike said:

...
if the report today regarding more people needing to give up their cars to achieve the emissions targets is to be believed, how are we going to do that without significant investment in public transport.

....

Part of the answer would be to reduce demand for travel, particularly within and into the crowded southeast where many commuters spend an hour and a half (or more) travelling each way to and from work. Government departments should have specific targets as to how many of their staff and offices should be outside London.