HS2, whats the current status ?

[rigga]

£10b saving on a plan that's forecast to cost in excess of £100b, and then cut the part of the line that was meant to bring the North investment ....... yea that makes sense.

[popeyewhite]

Sheepshanks said:

popeyewhite said:

So a teacher in, say, Warrington, will benefit economically by fuller classes?

Not 'fuller classes', but classes. The North will gradually fade away.

Of course it won't.The North will be absolutely fine without the UK spending £billions on this folly.

[popeyewhite]

aeropilot said:

popeyewhite said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

If only people got so het up about the hundreds of other ways Gov't coffers are burned, in far bigger numbers, with nothing to show for it.

They do. Heathrow.

Huh...?

Heathrow? Controversial airport expansion near London IIRC.

[Digga]

rigga said:

£10b saving on a plan that's forecast to cost in excess of £100b, and then cut the part of the line that was meant to bring the North investment ....... yea that makes sense.

Agreed, an utterly stupid idea.

The potential of the whole economy is increased by better connectedness. Transport infrastructure is the most fundamental means for a government to bolster economic growth. Or, took look at the flip side, optimal growth is impossible without it.

[robinessex]

Digga said:

rigga said:

£10b saving on a plan that's forecast to cost in excess of £100b, and then cut the part of the line that was meant to bring the North investment ....... yea that makes sense.

Agreed, an utterly stupid idea.

The potential of the whole economy is increased by better connectedness. Transport infrastructure is the most fundamental means for a government to bolster economic growth. Or, took look at the flip side, optimal growth is impossible without it.

Quite agree. But is it correct that the faster the trains travel, the passenger density increases? I've seen calculations that say no.

[powerstroke]

Digga said:

rigga said:

£10b saving on a plan that's forecast to cost in excess of £100b, and then cut the part of the line that was meant to bring the North investment ....... yea that makes sense.

Agreed, an utterly stupid idea.

The potential of the whole economy is increased by better connectedness. Transport infrastructure is the most fundamental means for a government to bolster economic growth. Or, took look at the flip side, optimal growth is impossible without it.

Think it means goods and services not a load of city folk commuting even further and pricing locals out of housing ... which is all at best HS2 is going to achieve , the crock of white elephant st ...

[borcy]

Not surprised in the slightest. Governments have always targeted spending in and around London. Only way to ensure the HS2 in and out of London would be built was build HS3 first.

[Short Grain]

Digga said:

popeyewhite said:

Digga said:

As has been said repeatedly, the benefit of the system has been greatly miss-sold. The real issue for the future is capacity (and also redundancy in case of technical problems or even just routine maintenance) which HS2 does clearly deliver. .

To whom? How exactly will a schoolteacher in rural Cheshire benefit? I'd suggest that the average person north of London won't experience any benefit at all.

Talk to people who commute by rail on the West Coast main line. There are people using it every day, the length of it, and experiencing shortages and delays.

I'm sure these could be sorted without Taxpayers being fleeced to the tune of £88 Billion or even more!

Cut Out shareholder dividends if the service isn't running efficiently.

Government contracts always go over budget by millions and we've got so used to it we don't really complain. Now their pushing it further!!

The cynic in me sees the Directors of HS2 sitting around a table after Dinner at an exclusive Gentlemans Club in that there London, enjoying the Port and Brandy and discussing how much more they can push for!!!

"We've always fleeced a few more million out of MoP, Let's really push it this time! Let's go for Billions more. I know, Let's have make it really interesting, lets run a book on it.We all pick a number out of a (Top) hat, say £30 up to £100 Billion over, and the one who's nearest to what we can actually con out of MoP, wins a case of Port!!" (AIMHO of course )

All said in Rich, Plummy Accents, amid clouds of Cigar Smoke and the quiet appreciation of Vintage Port!!

Disclaimer; Any similarity to actual Persons or Events is purely coincidental, and not to be mistaken for fact!! This is all the figment of the authors Dark and Cynical Imagination!!

Surely the whole rail network could be updated and made more efficient given the money they've spent so far, but nobody needed to get to get from London to Leeds 30 minutes fking quicker, at the cost of Hundreds of Billions!! Cos that's what it will be if it isn't scrapped or changed in some more acheivable way!

Edited by Short Grain on Saturday 5th October 23:03

[dav123a]

Short Grain said:

Surely the whole rail network could be updated and made more efficient given the money they've spent so far, but nobody needed to get to get from London to Leeds 30 minutes fking quicker, at the cost of Hundreds of Billions!! Cos that's what it will be if it isn't scrapped or changed in some more acheivable way!

Edited by Short Grain on Saturday 5th October 23:03

It has been said once or possibly twice on this thread the upgrade of the existing main lines would be more expensive and more disruption. And again it's not about speed that's a by product , but it's about capacity.

[popeyewhite]

dav123a said:

It has been said once or possibly twice on this thread the upgrade of the existing main lines would be more expensive and more disruption. And again it's not about speed that's a by product , but it's about capacity.

Capacity of what? Shifting more commuters (not worth the money) or shifting more goods (where's the demand?).

[P5BNij]

popeyewhite said:

dav123a said:

It has been said once or possibly twice on this thread the upgrade of the existing main lines would be more expensive and more disruption. And again it's not about speed that's a by product , but it's about capacity.

Capacity of what? Shifting more commuters (not worth the money) or shifting more goods (where's the demand?).

Capacity of the line, ie: the number of trains per hour whether passenger or freight. The customers of the freight company I drive for are constantly asking for longer heavier trains (aggregates, steel, infrastructure materials, container traffic etc) but there are only so many paths per hour available at present on the WCML. Once HS2 is up and running it will release more paths for stopping passenger and freight trains, the entire timetable for the route can be recast allowing much more flexibility with the speed differentials of existing and new traffic than there is at the moment. I also drive on the Midland Mainline and Great Western route from London to Birmingham, both of which have serious capacity issues at present.

[popeyewhite]

P5BNij said:

Capacity of the line, ie: the number of trains per hour whether passenger or freight. The customers of the freight company I drive for are constantly asking for longer heavier trains (aggregates, steel, infrastructure materials, container traffic etc) but there are only so many paths per hour available at present on the WCML.

Is this because of a real and urgent demand, or because the customers of the freight company you drive for want to make more money?

P5BNij said:

Once HS2 is up and running it will release more paths for stopping passenger and freight trains,

I'm talking specifically of the HS2 link up to Manchester here, where will commuters from Manchester wish to stop that they can't already do so? It looks like any new train will go to Crewe and miss several stops.

P5BNij said:

the entire timetable for the route can be recast allowing much more flexibility with the speed differentials of existing and new traffic than there is at the moment. I also drive on the Midland Mainline and Great Western route from London to Birmingham, both of which have serious capacity issues at present.

I believe your reply is in earnest but do you really think freeing up some capacity and adding stops is worth £100,000,000,000 ? It's an awful lot of money.

[14]

popeyewhite said:

I believe your reply is in earnest but do you really think freeing up some capacity and adding stops is worth £100,000,000,000 ? It's an awful lot of money.

I’m sure people thought the railway was expensive and not needed when trains were first introduced. Also people thought motorways were expensive and completely unnecessary when they were introduced. Where would we be without them now? People are very short sighted imo, as HS2 will still be here in 150 years time.

[P5BNij]

Unable to multi quote, sorry...

In answer to your first point it's a case of both demand and making money, nothing wrong with that, it's all part of the wider economy. People buy stuff / build stuff / need stuff moving - we move it.

Is it worth the money...? Yes I believe so, if we don't spend it now we'll still need to do it at some point in the future, the current infrastructure can only be physically upgraded / expanded so far. It's easier and less costly in the long run to build a new railway elsewhere than it is to widen the existing mainlines where they run through the centre of towns and cities. If I didn't drive trains for a living I would still think this way. When the WCML was first opened in the 1800s it was two tracks all the way from London to Brum, within just a few years two extra lines needed laying to resolve the capacity issue, we're in the same boat again now almost two centuries later, but the towns and cities have grown along and around the railway so we need to build additional capacity elsewhere, hence HS2. It really should have been 'sold' on the capacity issue right from the start but well.... politics and all that.

I do understand the negatives around the project but I feel very strongly that it is needed. How it actually pans out is almost another matter, but then that's how the railway system we have now grew, bit by bit, company by company, route by route. Hope that makes sense!

ETA : I dearly wish I could take you for a cab ride on the WCML but the rules won't allow it, you'd see for yourself how crammed the route is for most of the day, and just how much freight is moved overnight. Last week I worked a 2,000ton 60mph freight from Wembley to Crewe and there were very short gaps between virtually all of the other trains I passed en route. We need more capacity, it's as simple as that really.

Edited by P5BNij on Sunday 6th October 18:30

Edited by P5BNij on Sunday 6th October 18:31

[Digga]

14 said:

popeyewhite said:

I believe your reply is in earnest but do you really think freeing up some capacity and adding stops is worth £100,000,000,000 ? It's an awful lot of money.

I’m sure people thought the railway was expensive and not needed when trains were first introduced. Also people thought motorways were expensive and completely unnecessary when they were introduced. Where would we be without them now? People are very short sighted imo, as HS2 will still be here in 150 years time.

People seem to be blissfully ignorant of whatnot costs to build any major civil infrastructure project. Any know how much it costs per mile of motorway I wonder?

Then people seem to fail to understand that a very significant part of the service industry involves the people providing the service to actually be on the client,s site.

[popeyewhite]

P5BNij said:

Hope that makes sense!

Absolutely, and thanks for going to the trouble of providing an answer. I am afraid however you and I don't share the same opinion of whether the money is worth it. Personally I'd put the whole project on a backburner until another more economically viable solution becomes available. Or not.

[popeyewhite]

14 said:

I’m sure people thought the railway was expensive and not needed when trains were first introduced. Also people thought motorways were expensive and completely unnecessary when they were introduced. Where would we be without them now?

We had no trains, and we had no motorways before they were first introduced! Can you spot the diference with the HS2 plan?

[14]

popeyewhite said:

14 said:

I’m sure people thought the railway was expensive and not needed when trains were first introduced. Also people thought motorways were expensive and completely unnecessary when they were introduced. Where would we be without them now?

We had no trains, and we had no motorways before they were first introduced! Can you spot the diference with the HS2 plan?

Yes we have trains and motorways now, but the motorways have expanded since they were first introduced and they are still expanding now. Surely that means they’re being used by more vehicles than say 20 years ago? And yet the railways haven’t expanded for decades yet more people are using trains than 10 years ago. Where are you going to put the extra trains needed? The railways don’t have the space for extra trains, and you can’t expand them easily or cheaply as towns have been built around them. The only answer is to build a new rail line and if you need to build a new rail line why not make it a high speed one. Since there isn’t another way of transporting people and goods without spending more than £100 billion on the road network, a new rail line is the only answer.

[popeyewhite]

14 said:

Since there isn’t another way of transporting people and goods without spending more than £100 billion on the road network, a new rail line is the only answer.

I don't believe there is a need for a new rail network.There is more to life than commerce and the relentless pursuit of more money just for the sake of ...what? It's a gigantic folly and needs binning.

[mcdjl]

popeyewhite said:

I don't believe there is a need for a new rail network.There is more to life than commerce and the relentless pursuit of more money just for the sake of ...what? It's a gigantic folly and needs binning.

I trust you think the same about roads and airports and don't wish to go any where? Happy staying in your village and never leaving? Otherwise as the population grows we'll have to build new ways of moving everyone who wants to go see the world.