HS2, whats the current status ?

[V8 Fettler]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

APT could achieve sub 4hrs for the same journey 35 years ago

[Digga]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Digga snr always maintains there could be greater traffic density and better utilisation of the space dedicated if we paved/tarmacced the railways and ran Aussie style landtrain type trucks and busses on them. Would take less maintenance too and would be easier to re-route when there were any lane closure type works. He maintains that Brunel would find it hilarious we were still using trains.

[Talksteer]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The main issue is turning radius a design speed of 400km/h means that the turn radius goes out by nearly 80% compared to 300km/h.

These guys have been making that case for about 10 years, I don't think that they've been listened to just the case that the original rules for the project set for political purposes have finally butted up against reality.

http://www.highspeeduk.co.uk/

Does anyone have a view of HSUK, on the face of it their proposal does appear better than HS2.

[BlackLabel]

“Figures exclusively seen by LBC show the cost for acquiring land and property for phase one of HS2 could be almost FIVE TIMES higher than originally expected.

Forecasts based upon a freedom of information request suggest that the total cost of acquisitions could now cost approximately £5 billion.

In 2012, HS2 Limited estimated that land and property acquisitions would cost just £1.1bn. By 2015, the National Audit Office said that figure had spiralled to £3.3bn. LBC understands this figure could now reach £4.96bn”

https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/hs2/hs2-costs-spi...

[Digga]

BlackLabel said:

“Figures exclusively seen by LBC show the cost for acquiring land and property for phase one of HS2 could be almost FIVE TIMES higher than originally expected.

Forecasts based upon a freedom of information request suggest that the total cost of acquisitions could now cost approximately £5 billion.

In 2012, HS2 Limited estimated that land and property acquisitions would cost just £1.1bn. By 2015, the National Audit Office said that figure had spiralled to £3.3bn. LBC understands this figure could now reach £4.96bn”

https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/hs2/hs2-costs-spi...

Stamp duty sucks.

[powerstroke]

Just wonder why ??? millions of people will still be traveling to sit at a desk in 20 years time
perhaps the internet ,tablets and being online will go out of fashion ......

[Earthdweller]

It’s a white elephant vanity project .. nothing more

[powerstroke]

Earthdweller said:

It’s a white elephant vanity project .. nothing more

Yup .. would after the next election be too late to scrap it ?? would Labour under Corbyn scrap it ,
it was a new Labour project Adonis who came up with it ,

[Vaud]

powerstroke said:

Yup .. would after the next election be too late to scrap it ?? would Labour under Corbyn scrap it ,
it was a new Labour project Adonis who came up with it ,

I doubt it. It fits the kind of large scale infrastructure project that fits the labour model. Higher paid (and high skilled) unionised jobs for Northern(ish) cities with reasonable project duration funded by large debts.

If anything they would combine it with nationalisation and expand it while also being able to mandate that the new stock was built in Britain and powered by British coal. (ok, I'm joking on the last bit)

[mcdjl]

Vaud said:

I doubt it. It fits the kind of large scale infrastructure project that fits the labour model. Higher paid (and high skilled) unionised jobs for Northern(ish) cities with reasonable project duration funded by large debts.

If anything they would combine it with nationalisation and expand it while also being able to mandate that the new stock was built in Britain and powered by British coal. (ok, I'm joking on the last bit)

They've started building it in places. theres a lot of sunk cost which isn't coming back. Ok theres the thing of not throwing good money after bad, but calling it a white elephant still misses the point of the increased rail capacity, rather than the marginal increase in speed.

[Fittster]

powerstroke said:

Earthdweller said:

It’s a white elephant vanity project .. nothing more

Yup .. would after the next election be too late to scrap it ?? would Labour under Corbyn scrap it ,
it was a new Labour project Adonis who came up with it ,

Is crossrail also a vanity project?

[Fittster]

Vaud said:

I doubt it. It fits the kind of large scale infrastructure project that fits the labour model. Higher paid (and high skilled) unionised jobs for Northern(ish) cities with reasonable project duration funded by large debts.

So infrastructure projects with skilled jobs in the S/E are good, but those in the midlands or north aren't?

[Vaud]

Fittster said:

So infrastructure projects with skilled jobs in the S/E are good, but those in the midlands or north aren't?

I will try to clarify.

All are good.

My point is that it is the kind of project that I think Labour, far from stopping, would double down on the project to drive further job creation in the Midlands and North.

Edited by Vaud on Friday 8th February 10:39

[dxg]

Digga said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Digga snr always maintains there could be greater traffic density and better utilisation of the space dedicated if we paved/tarmacced the railways and ran Aussie style landtrain type trucks and busses on them. Would take less maintenance too and would be easier to re-route when there were any lane closure type works. He maintains that Brunel would find it hilarious we were still using trains.

I've heard concerns from people *very* close to this project that the geotechnics people are genuinely concerned about the embankments settling with material moving linearly along them, carried by the amount of energy in the vibrations from the trains. Similar to beaches moving down a coastline due to the waves...

[Fittster]

Vaud said:

Fittster said:

So infrastructure projects with skilled jobs in the S/E are good, but those in the midlands or north aren't?

I will try to clarify.

All are good.

My point is that it is the kind of project that I think Labour, far from stopping, would double down on drive further job creation in the Midlands and North.

Isn't infrastructure spending a good thing to revive areas of the country with poor growth / productivity? Better to spend money on infrastructure, that may turn out to be a white elephant than either ignoring poor regions or simply throwing benefits at the population.

[Vaud]

Fittster said:

Isn't infrastructure spending a good thing to revive areas of the country with poor growth / productivity? Better to spend money on infrastructure, that may turn out to be a white elephant than either ignoring poor regions or simply throwing benefits at the population.

I'm struggling to see where I'm disagreeing with you. I am pro-HS2. I support the current plan, I was responding to what I thought Labour might do with the project.

[Digga]

Fittster said:

Vaud said:

Fittster said:

So infrastructure projects with skilled jobs in the S/E are good, but those in the midlands or north aren't?

I will try to clarify.

All are good.

My point is that it is the kind of project that I think Labour, far from stopping, would double down on drive further job creation in the Midlands and North.

Isn't infrastructure spending a good thing to revive areas of the country with poor growth / productivity? Better to spend money on infrastructure, that may turn out to be a white elephant than either ignoring poor regions or simply throwing benefits at the population.

Totally. Since more than 50% of freight and an even larger proportion of passenger journeys are, and still will be, by road, the government also desperately needs to build more roads, not just piecemeal patch-ups a.k.a. 'smart' motorways. This is vital to get the regions performing better, but also to improve overall productivity through reduced journey times.

[Vaud]

Digga said:

Totally. Since more than 50% of freight and an even larger proportion of passenger journeys are, and still will be, by road, the government also desperately needs to build more roads, not just piecemeal patch-ups a.k.a. 'smart' motorways. This is vital to get the regions performing better, but also to improve overall productivity through reduced journey times.

Actually building some decent roads in Norfolk and Dorset would be good... need to spread out the population a bit.

[Digga]

Vaud said:

Digga said:

Totally. Since more than 50% of freight and an even larger proportion of passenger journeys are, and still will be, by road, the government also desperately needs to build more roads, not just piecemeal patch-ups a.k.a. 'smart' motorways. This is vital to get the regions performing better, but also to improve overall productivity through reduced journey times.

Actually building some decent roads in Norfolk and Dorset would be good... need to spread out the population a bit.

Excellent point and, whilst we're at it, why is there still no proper motorway all the way up the East coast to Edinburgh?

It's one of the few things government can do that truly serves all aspects of the population, business and private. Who doesn't want to make journey's shorter? 15 mins of an hour journey is great, 5 mins off a 25 min journey, by proportion (and frequency of use too perhaps) is an even bigger win. No one would not benefit.

Build the infrastructure and then, as far as possible, stay out of the way. I'd vote for that party.

[steveT350C]

'HS2 predicted noise levels would breach new World Health Organisation limits'...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/23/hs...