HS2, whats the current status ?

[popeyewhite]

valiant said:

Would you be so worried about bunnies and whatnot if they were spending money on new motorways?

I'm not worried any more about bunnies than I am about people like you stereotyping me. I just don't believe the project is worth the damage and monetary cost. Do you have any idea how much infrastructure improvement could be achieved with 108 billion?

valiant said:

Read countless threads on here about demanding new road building and how congested everything is and we moan when some crusties demonstrate and try and block it.

Yes, this is a car forum Do you mean the minority of people who use those roads at rush hour moan? I use roads during rush hour and it's bad, but not terrible.

valiant said:

It’s the same with the railways. We are at capacity today and rail traffic is growing. Both the WCML and ECML (which take the bulk of north/south traffic) are full. What do you propose to do instead that’ll alleviate the problems we face today that can also solve tomorrow’s problems?

Widen existing motorways. Dedicated truck lanes: in effect move rail goods onto the road network. If this stifles economic growth in some way then so what?

[borcy]

Is it because it costs ~£100bn that you're against it or because it's been spent on trains?

[rover 623gsi]

popeyewhite said:

valiant said:

Would you be so worried about bunnies and whatnot if they were spending money on new motorways?

I'm not worried any more about bunnies than I am about people like you stereotyping me. I just don't believe the project is worth the damage and monetary cost. Do you have any idea how much infrastructure improvement could be achieved with 108 billion?

valiant said:

Read countless threads on here about demanding new road building and how congested everything is and we moan when some crusties demonstrate and try and block it.

Yes, this is a car forum Do you mean the minority of people who use those roads at rush hour moan? I use roads during rush hour and it's bad, but not terrible.

valiant said:

It’s the same with the railways. We are at capacity today and rail traffic is growing. Both the WCML and ECML (which take the bulk of north/south traffic) are full. What do you propose to do instead that’ll alleviate the problems we face today that can also solve tomorrow’s problems?

Widen existing motorways. Dedicated truck lanes: in effect move rail goods onto the road network. If this stifles economic growth in some way then so what?

I’m amazed that anyone thinks moving more freight from rail to road is a god idea

And btw the width of HS2 is virtually that same as a standard motorway. It really isn’t taking up an awful lot of space.

And £100bn doesn’t but that much infrastructure when it’s spread over 30 years as is the case with HS2

[Killer2005]

popeyewhite said:

valiant said:

It’s the same with the railways. We are at capacity today and rail traffic is growing. Both the WCML and ECML (which take the bulk of north/south traffic) are full. What do you propose to do instead that’ll alleviate the problems we face today that can also solve tomorrow’s problems?

Widen existing motorways. Dedicated truck lanes: in effect move rail goods onto the road network. If this stifles economic growth in some way then so what?

But to quote yourself

popeyewhite said:

I'm no green planet activist but the relentless pursuit of money and 'building the economy' has, at some stage, to be matched with an understanding that there's other important things in life - like having some countryside left, not destryoing ancient forests, not destroying wildlife habitats of countless animals, leaving some unpolluted areas for our children

Widening the motorways will only do the same as well as clogging up the already over populated roads.

[Tryke3]

Might as well spend another 50 billion and run a new motorway parallel to the train track, preferably toll motorway with 100mph speed limit

[valiant]

What also is not being said is that if they don’t spend the £100bn on HS2, it doesn’t suddenly mean that there’s £100bn going begging to be spent on other transport infrastructure projects. Bar a few token projects, it won’t be spent improving the woeful state of the rail in the North, it won’t be spent instead on new motorways, it will simply disappear into the government ether.

[abzmike]

valiant said:

What also is not being said is that if they don’t spend the £100bn on HS2, it doesn’t suddenly mean that there’s £100bn going begging to be spent on other transport infrastructure projects. Bar a few token projects, it won’t be spent improving the woeful state of the rail in the North, it won’t be spent instead on new motorways, it will simply disappear into the government ether.

Or a sensible government (who have been madly shaking that money tree) could easily say - 'Listen, this HS2 thing has got out of control, wasn't specified or budgeted properly so it isn't sustainable. However, we think rail is a good idea, and demand is there for expanded capacity, so we are going to take the original budget and use that for more sensible, pragmatic, value adding projects around the country, with the focus on areas currently experiencing real challenges., such as the North, and east-west lines'.

There, that wasn't so hard.

[Digga]

Tryke3 said:

Might as well spend another 50 billion and run a new motorway parallel to the train track, preferably toll motorway with 100mph speed limit

Is the right answer.

[valiant]

abzmike said:

valiant said:

What also is not being said is that if they don’t spend the £100bn on HS2, it doesn’t suddenly mean that there’s £100bn going begging to be spent on other transport infrastructure projects. Bar a few token projects, it won’t be spent improving the woeful state of the rail in the North, it won’t be spent instead on new motorways, it will simply disappear into the government ether.

Or a sensible government (who have been madly shaking that money tree) could easily say - 'Listen, this HS2 thing has got out of control, wasn't specified or budgeted properly so it isn't sustainable. However, we think rail is a good idea, and demand is there for expanded capacity, so we are going to take the original budget and use that for more sensible, pragmatic, value adding projects around the country, with the focus on areas currently experiencing real challenges., such as the North, and east-west lines'.

There, that wasn't so hard.

And does little to answer the problems of increasing capacity on the already maxed out WCML and ECML. You’d be spending millions, if not billions, tinkering with a few signals here, the odd junction there and a few years down the line you’d be trying to solve the very same problems.

The old saying ‘Buy cheap, buy twice’ would be quite apt.

[popeyewhite]

Killer2005 said:

Widening the motorways will only do the same as well as clogging up the already over populated roads.

Think you'll find land beside m'ways is already defiled. How do you reason that by creating more roads the roads will become more clogged?

[popeyewhite]

valiant said:

And does little to answer the problems of increasing capacity on the already maxed out WCML and ECML. You’d be spending millions, if not billions, tinkering with a few signals here, the odd junction there and a few years down the line you’d be trying to solve the very same problems.

The old saying ‘Buy cheap, buy twice’ would be quite apt.

Have a word. What we gain by increasing capacity is not in proportion to what we will lose. For ever. Just to get some goods on a train. The economy won't collapse without HS2. Something truly North/South, like a decent trans-Pennine link, would be a cheaper start.

[abzmike]

valiant said:

And does little to answer the problems of increasing capacity on the already maxed out WCML and ECML. You’d be spending millions, if not billions, tinkering with a few signals here, the odd junction there and a few years down the line you’d be trying to solve the very same problems.

The old saying ‘Buy cheap, buy twice’ would be quite apt.

I'm not saying tinkering. it needs billions, but spending needs to be commensurate with the benefit.

[Peter911]

Tryke3 said:

Might as well spend another 50 billion and run a new motorway parallel to the train track, preferably toll motorway with 100mph speed limit

Obvious.
And a massive data connection, massive power grid connection and massive water pipe too. (Might need to be earthed)

[Tuna]

I'm surprised the Telsa fanatics haven't started to demand it's replaced with a Hyperloop. It's the future!!

[valiant]

abzmike said:

valiant said:

And does little to answer the problems of increasing capacity on the already maxed out WCML and ECML. You’d be spending millions, if not billions, tinkering with a few signals here, the odd junction there and a few years down the line you’d be trying to solve the very same problems.

The old saying ‘Buy cheap, buy twice’ would be quite apt.

I'm not saying tinkering. it needs billions, but spending needs to be commensurate with the benefit.

I’m not even going to try and justify that it’s cheap, it’s not. It’s mega expensive (and I do have my reservations over the cost - I feel a lot unrealism from the DfT and cost padding from contractors) but this piece of new infrastructure will be with us for what? 50, 100 years? Probably more? And for that you get one new high speed line PLUS massively increased capacity on existing ECML and WCML as you’ll be ripping out the fast, non-stopping services and putting them on HS2.

Fast, non-stopping services kill capacity. To make them non-stop they need to have space around them to run which means the track in front has to be clear of slower trains. To maximise capacity you need lots of stopping services with a similar stopping pattern travelling at similar speeds like a metro service. With HS2 we have the potential for this and effectively future proof the North/South rail network for a couple of generations.

For the price of one line you can argue you get three (if you squint a bit ). We’ll be reaping the benefits of HS2 for decades to come, long after its paid for.

[popeyewhite]

valiant said:

We’ll be reaping the benefits of HS2 for decades to come, long after its paid for.

I couldn't disagree more. Firstly - if it goes ahead - it won't be finished until most here are long gone; and secondly the people who will most reap the benefits are those that will make money out of it. A tiny percent of the population. No one is going to be thinking "Oooh look 110 billion spent and I'm in London 10 minutes quicker, what a bargain."

[valiant]

popeyewhite said:

valiant said:

We’ll be reaping the benefits of HS2 for decades to come, long after its paid for.

I couldn't disagree more. Firstly - if it goes ahead - it won't be finished until most here are long gone; and secondly the people who will most reap the benefits are those that will make money out of it. A tiny percent of the population. No one is going to be thinking "Oooh look 110 billion spent and I'm in London 10 minutes quicker, what a bargain."

<sigh> It’s not about reduced journey times but increasing capacity and future proofing our network. Reduced journey time is a side benefit and it should never have been sold as such.

[eldar]

sunbeam alpine said:

Just spotted the thread and popped in to ask a question (apologies if it' already been covered!) - but is there really a market for HS2?

Rail travel in the UK is ruinously expensive compared with a lot of European countries.

My niece, visiting from the US, needed to get up to Edinburgh on Monday. Cheapest train ticket was £124, whilst a flight from Heathrow was £49 - and much quicker. Why would anyone take the train?

Interesting just who much rail travel is subsidised. The £124 fare is subsidised by the taxpayer at 6.4p per Km, so around £40.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/r...

[Humble Pi]

valiant said:

<sigh> It’s not about reduced journey times but increasing capacity and future proofing our network. Reduced journey time is a side benefit and it should never have been sold as such.

Sick of explaining exactly the same to my naysayer work colleagues.

[popeyewhite]

valiant said:

<sigh> It’s not about reduced journey times but increasing capacity and future proofing our network. Reduced journey time is a side benefit and it should never have been sold as such.

Don't you <sigh> at me you rail company stooge. Go and patronise someone else. There's more to life than continuously grasping for money and economic happiness. I couldn't give a monley's about "future proofing our network", for businesses/businessmen. The phrase itself is lunacy - by the time the thing's finished HS2 will be outdated.