HS2, whats the current status ?

Author
Discussion

Vaud

30,223 posts

91 months

Thursday 12th March 2015
quotequote all
Yazar said:
Why do you want to travel to SFO 3 times a day wink

Manchester is far easier to expand than Heathrow- nearby areas such as Wythenshawe is a dump and could easily be flattened laugh
Just the choice smile

Flatten Manchester as a whole and all of Lancs as far as I am concerned.

rs1952

5,081 posts

195 months

Thursday 12th March 2015
quotequote all
Yazar said:
I think for a lot of people, it comes more down to the UK not having a limitless pot of (creditors) money to (borrow) out of, and therefore priorities. If HS2 is top of your list then fair enough, but if it isn't for other people then accept it, not label it is nimbyism smile
The trouble is, it is nimbyism plain and simple. And it is not a new phenomenon either - when the railways were first being proposed in the 1820s and 1830s there was fierce opposition to almost all of them along the routes. In some cases this led to these "new-fangled dirty, smelly, noisy contraptions" being sited some way away from the communities they purported to serve, and this was the reason why the railways lost so much traffic from the 1920s onwards as road competition became more effective.

A couple of snippets - the Great Western Railway were at first prevented from building a station at Slough because Eton College didn't want one built there. A politician in the 1840s (can't remember his name and CBA to look it up because it isn't that important)wanted al;l the railways nationalised so that they could be ripped up and the routes used for stage coaches.

If we had listened to the nimbys then the M25 would never have been built because it was being described by those who had a vested interest as being a horrifically expensive white elephant that nobody wanted. The M3 extension past Winchester and the A30 DC from Honiton to Exeter would never have been built if Swampy and his merry band had been given their way

cwis

805 posts

115 months

Thursday 12th March 2015
quotequote all
You can't call all objections nimbyism and discount them just like that.

Personally I don't care where it's built or indeed whether it's built.

I just want an independent cost/benefit analysis. If it will profit the country, fine, build it. If not, don't.

Looking at the biased reports and analysis (biased in both directions depending on which one you pick up) so far it's marginal at best whether building it would be a benefit (apart to the owners of construction companies and the like and any politicians who might be board members or shareholders).

With working from home, teleconferencing etc etc growing this project could be 50 years too late to do any good and end up as a massive white elephant.

If so, don't build it and spend the money on something that would benefit the wider public.

I'm not denying that there is a degree of nimbyism however. But calling all objections to anything that is like calling any objections to immigration racist - it's just a rather lazy tool designed to close down the discussion.


rs1952 said:
The trouble is, it is nimbyism plain and simple. And it is not a new phenomenon either - when the railways were first being proposed in the 1820s and 1830s there was fierce opposition to almost all of them along the routes. In some cases this led to these "new-fangled dirty, smelly, noisy contraptions" being sited some way away from the communities they purported to serve, and this was the reason why the railways lost so much traffic from the 1920s onwards as road competition became more effective.

A couple of snippets - the Great Western Railway were at first prevented from building a station at Slough because Eton College didn't want one built there. A politician in the 1840s (can't remember his name and CBA to look it up because it isn't that important)wanted al;l the railways nationalised so that they could be ripped up and the routes used for stage coaches.

If we had listened to the nimbys then the M25 would never have been built because it was being described by those who had a vested interest as being a horrifically expensive white elephant that nobody wanted. The M3 extension past Winchester and the A30 DC from Honiton to Exeter would never have been built if Swampy and his merry band had been given their way

Yazar

1,476 posts

56 months

Thursday 12th March 2015
quotequote all
rs1952 said:
Yazar said:
I think for a lot of people, it comes more down to the UK not having a limitless pot of (creditors) money to (borrow) out of, and therefore priorities. If HS2 is top of your list then fair enough, but if it isn't for other people then accept it, not label it is nimbyism smile
The trouble is, it is nimbyism plain and simple...
You are supposed to read what someone writes and then reply to it. Not just repeat your viewpoint again.

I don't live in an HS2 area, neither up North where I would like this cash to be spent...

Ross1988

1,234 posts

119 months

Thursday 12th March 2015
quotequote all
rs1952 said:
They dug rather a lot of big holes in the ground to get HS1 from Ebbsfleet to St Pancras

They are currently digging a big long hole to get Crossrail from Paddington to the east end.

What's so different about Manchester? Will it fall down if somebody tunnels under it?
The geotechnics of Manchester will be vastly different to that of Manchester.

There is only a finite number of TBM's in the world, and even fewer the size that Manchester will require.

Even the ones that are available can't just be dropped into the ground and get them to horse on. Different ground conditions will mean different cutting heads, ground water conditions may mean a pressurized TBM is needed.

There are also only a finite number of teams/lead miners/TBM drivers in the world. It is very much not something you can pick up over night. The logistics involved are amazing. Even sinking the initial shaft is no mean feat.

Laws will have to be passed to facilitate construction. Crossrail had a law passed that allows the government to purchase land above a stuck TBM if neccessary so they can dig down and remove it. My project isnt so lucky, we have to follow roads so if we do get a TBM stuck we can only dig up roads.

Similar will have to be passes for any Manchester Rail tunnels




Advertisement

speedyguy

3,835 posts

139 months

Thursday 12th March 2015
quotequote all
Yazar said:
Why do you want to travel to SFO 3 times a day wink

Manchester is far easier to expand than Heathrow- nearby areas such as Wythenshawe is a dump and could easily be flattened laugh
They took the easy option and went West all over those green fields smile

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/cont...

darren f

683 posts

149 months

Thursday 19th March 2015
quotequote all
It's happening....

Construction Enquirer Website said:
Bid race starts for £900m HS2 enabling works- The contract race has started for £900m of enabling works on the HS2 high-speed rail scheme. The work has been packaged-up into three regions covering the North, Central and South areas of HS2 Phase 1.Each work package is worth £300m and will last four years with the option of a two-year extension. An OJEU notice for the scheme listed the work available as: Project Management, Construction Management and Design Management activities, design support to the enabling works activities, site clearance, ground remediation; demolition of buildings and other structures, construction of site compounds, logistics areas and batching plants, new Highway construction, footpath and bridleway construction, security fencing, structural reinforcement, bridge strengthening, environmental surveys, archaeological investigations, exhumations, instrumentation and monitoring, ‘Watercourse’ activities, purchasing long lead material items, providing a storage facility for materials and plant, specialist security services.
Or if it doesn't eventually happen, a st load of money is being spent for nothing....

robinessex

6,528 posts

117 months

Wednesday 25th March 2015
quotequote all
The government has no convincing case for spending £50bn building the HS2 rail link between London and the North, a report by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee says.

That's been bloody obvious since the day it was announced. If, as the government sometimes let slip out, they want to increase passenger density, just make the existing trains 50% longer, and double deck them. 300% passenger increase per train. And it was recently worked out, that for maximum passenger density, the optimum speed is 40mph! Opps.

speedyguy

3,835 posts

139 months

Wednesday 25th March 2015
quotequote all
robinessex said:
double deck them
Do you think they would fit under all the present bridges, even double deck bus drivers cannot manage that seemingly simple act smile or will replacing every rail bridge in the country be very cheap and cause little/no disruption?

robinessex

6,528 posts

117 months

Wednesday 8th April 2015
quotequote all
speedyguy said:
robinessex said:
double deck them
Do you think they would fit under all the present bridges, even double deck bus drivers cannot manage that seemingly simple act smile or will replacing every rail bridge in the country be very cheap and cause little/no disruption?
Cheaper than HS2, that's for sure

Sheepshanks

15,768 posts

55 months

Wednesday 8th April 2015
quotequote all
robinessex said:
speedyguy said:
robinessex said:
double deck them
Do you think they would fit under all the present bridges, even double deck bus drivers cannot manage that seemingly simple act smile or will replacing every rail bridge in the country be very cheap and cause little/no disruption?
Cheaper than HS2, that's for sure
They could just lower the track a little.

Vaud

30,223 posts

91 months

Wednesday 8th April 2015
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
They could just lower the track a little.
In may areas you would hit a water table issue.

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

57 months

Wednesday 8th April 2015
quotequote all
Yazar said:
Why do you want to travel to SFO 3 times a day wink

Manchester is far easier to expand than Heathrow- nearby areas such as Wythenshawe is a dump and could easily be flattened laugh
Or Manston Airport as per UKIP policy.

Must be a good choice. Aircraft would use less fuel getting to Europe.
Indeed to fly to Bruges the plane would not so much take off as hop,

powerstroke

7,648 posts

96 months

Thursday 9th April 2015
quotequote all
I'm against HS2 because goods and services need to move people don't these days..

MysteryLemon

4,951 posts

127 months

Thursday 9th April 2015
quotequote all
The whole point is that if HS2 is built, the WCML will be freed up for more freight services which can travel slower and not hold up the current high speed passenger services. In the long run this will hopefully mean less lorries on our overcrowded motorway network too.

We currently have the West Coast Main Line which carries high speed passenger, slower passenger and freight services. Juggle all of that on one mainline and there are delays and hold ups. Stick in another high speed line for passengers only and things will drastically improve. Slower passenger trains stopping at every station (london midland for example) can still use the WCML along with freight where as the high speed (Pendolino equivelant) services can move to the new line and only stop at the major stations with no delay due to slow moving traffic and travel at the speeds the trains were intended to run at.

Edited by MysteryLemon on Thursday 9th April 09:23

Swervin_Mervin

2,561 posts

174 months

Thursday 9th April 2015
quotequote all
MysteryLemon said:
The whole point is that if HS2 is built, the WCML will be freed up for more freight services which can travel slower and not hold up the current high speed passenger services. In the long run this will hopefully mean less lorries on our overcrowded motorway network too.

We currently have the West Coast Main Line which carries high speed passenger, slower passenger and freight services. Juggle all of that on one mainline and there are delays and hold ups. Stick in another high speed line for passengers only and things will drastically improve. Slower passenger trains stopping at every station (london midland for example) can still use the WCML along with freight where as the high speed (Pendolino equivelant) services can move to the new line and only stop at the major stations with no delay due to slow moving traffic and travel at the speeds the trains were intended to run at.

Edited by MysteryLemon on Thursday 9th April 09:23
Don't let logic and facts get in the way of a good moan about Gov't spending.

Sheepshanks

15,768 posts

55 months

Thursday 9th April 2015
quotequote all
MysteryLemon said:
In the long run this will hopefully mean less lorries on our overcrowded motorway network too.
If only we could believe that was true. Or even a remote possibility.

maffski

1,695 posts

95 months

Thursday 9th April 2015
quotequote all
Yazar said:
Vaud said:
Yazar said:
So you want to spend 2 hours to get to heathrow, then approx another hour getting on the plane... laugh

The North would better be served by spending the HS2 money on Hull-Liverpool train & road improvements, would grow the demand for a true northern rival to Heathrow airport, with Manchester airport being a candidate.
Nope. It will never offer the connections I need (in my lifetime). 3 flights a day to SFO? Nope. Don't get me wrong - I'd like there to be some...
Why do you want to travel to SFO 3 times a day wink

Manchester is far easier to expand than Heathrow- nearby areas such as Wythenshawe is a dump and could easily be flattened laugh
You'd be able to get from Manchester or Leeds to Heathrow even faster if they'd just hurry up and build an airport at each end.

theboss

4,021 posts

155 months

Thursday 9th April 2015
quotequote all
powerstroke said:
I'm against HS2 because goods and services need to move people don't these days..
Yes, nobody needs to go anywhere these days, rail passenger numbers and car use are both in heavy decline. Right?

oyster

8,658 posts

184 months

Thursday 9th April 2015
quotequote all
powerstroke said:
I'm against HS2 because goods and services need to move people don't these days..
There aren't many people who do business without face to face contact.

And what about leisure trips or family trips? Do you visit friends/relatives by Skype only? Weird.