HS2 - good thing or bad thing?

secretsam

Now, I live in Bucks and many of the routes I ride will be ruined by HS2 in the coming years - a desecration that I didn't want and won't use.

But I'm biased - can anyone put the case for the defence of HS2? I've got images of white elephants in my head...

il_principe

A good thing. Our rail network is an embarrassment compared to France, Germany etc. Anything that will get more people of the road has to be a good thing IMHO. People in Kent moaned about HS1 but it's been a huge success.

jds_1981

Will it make that much difference? Nominally reducing journey time from ~1h30 to ~45 mins (with presumably significantly more expensive tickets?)

rjsterry

As someone was saying this morning, it's time to stop trying to eak out a few more years from a 150year old rail network and start putting some new stuff in. In France, they actually had municipalities campaigning to get the route of the TGV lines diverted closer to their town.

As for the cost, railways aren't for transporting people first and foremost. If they can balance the books too then great. It's not as though roads do without enormous government spending.

notsoblue

I think its broadly a good thing. But the main issue making train travel awful in this country compared to others is the cost. Superfast trains are great, but if an off-peak walk on ticket to Manchester costs going on for £100 (Which is likely as slower intercity trains are currently £74) then its not a huge benefit imo.

alfablue

Not much point in campaigning to get it close to your town when there are no stops between London and Birmingham!

Shaving a few minutes off a very expensive rail journey will benefit just a few, no real impact for the environment (maybe a few aircraft journeys). For a real impact the money should be invested in commuter services.

rick_chasey

I'm ambivalent.

On the one hand tend to feel il principe's sentiment.

On the other - they'd be better sorting out the existing mess. Then again, the £32bn is over a loong time, and it's not any extra funding to the department for transport. It's more they've decided that's what they're going to spend their money on.

If you don't need to go from the Midlands to London or the other way, the £32bn doesn't really feel like it's well spent. How many here would use it?

I heard the CBA for London to Birmingham was revised down to £1.40 return yesterday, which, on the front of the FT, someone who should know said "department for transport wouldn't normally get up for a return like that".

When I hear the trials and tribulations of the guys in my office who seem to crawl through fire to get to work every day because of the poor trains, (though I often wish they didn't...) I wonder whether the train system is too f*cked to be sorted without upsetting everyone.

rick_chasey

What would be great is to be able to get around the country using public transport during the weekend without feeling abused.

CiB

A good thing. My commute takes me past a myriad signs demanding NO HS2, all of them on disused lines that will be put to good use. Bring it on.

If the same arguments had won the day 200 years ago we'd be in a sorry state as a nation, or 50 years ago when motorways started to be built. What were once barren concrete strips running through rural England soon grow to become tree lined grassy oases providing home & shelter for wildlife.

FoldingJoe

Apparently it is only likely to reduce motorway traffic by 1%.

As RC mentioned, what do everyone on other parts of the network get when all of the budget for the next 15-20 years is being spunked on this one project.

Try and come up with a plan to improve the whole network, or as much as they can.

spen666

FoldingJoe wrote:

Apparently it is only likely to reduce motorway traffic by 1%.

As RC mentioned, what do everyone on other parts of the network get when all of the budget for the next 15-20 years is being spunked on this one project.

Try and come up with a plan to improve the whole network, or as much as they can.

Which is what they have done- rome wasn't built in a day and you need to start somewhere.

we'd all love HS journeys to London, but the lines need constructing etc. and you have to start somewhere

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

FoldingJoe wrote:

Apparently it is only likely to reduce motorway traffic by 1%.

As RC mentioned, what do everyone on other parts of the network get when all of the budget for the next 15-20 years is being spunked on this one project.

Try and come up with a plan to improve the whole network, or as much as they can.

Which is what they have done- rome wasn't built in a day and you need to start somewhere.

we'd all love HS journeys to London, but the lines need constructing etc. and you have to start somewhere

The people who did the CBA aren't totally clueless though....

FoldingJoe

spen666 wrote:

FoldingJoe wrote:

Apparently it is only likely to reduce motorway traffic by 1%.

As RC mentioned, what do everyone on other parts of the network get when all of the budget for the next 15-20 years is being spunked on this one project.

Try and come up with a plan to improve the whole network, or as much as they can.

Which is what they have done- rome wasn't built in a day and you need to start somewhere.

we'd all love HS journeys to London, but the lines need constructing etc. and you have to start somewhere

It's not all about speed though is it?

WisePranker

It's a crazy idea.

Huge outlay for very little real benefit. No doubt the outlay will be even more enormous by the time it eventually happens. Can anyone really see this not going up and up in price and coming in way over budget in the end?

I wouldn't be surprised if its nearer £40 billion than the £32 billion they're claiming.

rjsterry

For comparison, Crossrail's budget is around £15billion. Interestingly, the French are building 250 miles of TGV line for €4billion - not sure why that's so much cheaper.

Monkeypump

A good thing as far as I'm concerned. It's highly likely I'll use it, primarily for work (so costs will be expensed ) and it's about time we had some sort of train service that approaches that available elsewhere in Europe.

Yes, it's a lot of money on one project, but (as said elsewhere) they've got to start somewhere.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

For comparison, Crossrail's budget is around £15billion. Interestingly, the French are building 250 miles of TGV line for €4billion - not sure why that's so much cheaper.

Farmland is cheap!

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

For comparison, Crossrail's budget is around £15billion. Interestingly, the French are building 250 miles of TGV line for €4billion - not sure why that's so much cheaper.

Farmland is cheap!

A fair bit of that in this country too. The main criticism seems to be that it is a railway line for rich people - ironic that the well-heeled residents of Metroland are the ones kicking up most of the fuss.

Here's a map of the route - most of it is through farmland, but I bet the last few miles from Aylesbury cost more than the whole of the rest of the line.

CraigTheBiker

Definitely needed. Existing network can barely support current demand.

But, I have little confidence that it will be done right. Whilst other countries would probably build a new high speed line in 5 to 10 years, we won't even start building for another 15 years. That sums it up.

Other countries spend money building stuff, we spend money paying consultants to talk about building stuff.

coopster_the_1st

I am for HS2.

However I am strongly against the route chosen!

For 5 minutes extra on travel time, the route could have run along the M1/M6 corridor and thus reducing the building and running effects on the environment.

Additionally, stations could be built at Luton airport(Luton), Coventry & Milton Keynes and benefitted another 1m+ people in the country. The current route only blights people on the route and provides no benefits!

Jez mon

As a student, I can pretty much dictate my travel times, and avoid peak fares. Nevertheless, a few weekends ago, when I travelled from Loughborough to Oxford (leaving at 2pm on a Friday, arriving at about 6) , it involved standing up for the whole journey. When I left to go back to Loughborough, I stood from London st Pancras to Luton (leaving London at 8pm on a Sunday evening) and because it was a fairly haphazardly arranged trip home for a mates birthday, I paid a pretty penny for this!

The point...the railways are already overcrowded, extra capacity is needed NOW, not in 2026, which is just a stupidly long time away.

Libraio

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I am for HS2.

However I am strongly against the route chosen!

For 5 minutes extra on travel time, the route could have run along the M1/M6 corridor and thus reducing the building and running effects on the environment.

Additionally, stations could be built at Luton airport(Luton), Coventry & Milton Keynes and benefitted another 1m+ people in the country. The current route only blights people on the route and provides no benefits!

You're government is just as clueless as ours (Dutch). We have a lovely high speed line going from Amsterdam to Rotterdam and then on to Brussels and Paris. It passes The Hague (where our government seats and lots of big companies are situated) but doesn't stop there. And they wonder why people drive up to Amsterdam or Rotterdam and take a plane instead of a more expensive train... :roll:

Stone Glider

^^^^^ +1

chadders81

I've covered this story as a journalist and what very few people have got to grips with (but seems to have been understood on here) is that this is more to do with capacity than speed.

There has to be a new rail line one way or another and building more capacity next to the WCML would bring it to a halt.

It's going to cost £2bn a year - the same as Crossrail. Not seen many people complaining about the price of that project.

Ticket prices will find their market level. Anybody who suggests otherwise is dim as shit.

msmancunia

FoldingJoe wrote:

Apparently it is only likely to reduce motorway traffic by 1%.

As RC mentioned, what do everyone on other parts of the network get when all of the budget for the next 15-20 years is being spunked on this one project.

Try and come up with a plan to improve the whole network, or as much as they can.

Agreed.

Tonight I got the 1820 from Euston to Manchester Piccadilly. It took 2 hours 8 mins - I think that's quick enough to be honest. It wasn't even full - in my standard class quiet coach it was only around a third full, so rush hour capacity isn't a problem there (apart from on Friday nights). Got the tram from Piccadilly to Manchester Victoria and it's taken me an hour to get the 8 miles from Manchester to where I live on the local line. There's a train at 2055, one at 2120, and then there isn't one until 2230. The station is dirty, full of drunks and not really staffed at night, so dangerous - I'm female and I feel really uncomfortable there at night, and my train which must have been 30 years old, was absolutely filthy. It was also Midland rail branded (Northern Rail have the franchise near me) so second hand carriages. The Manchester to London line is absolutely fine - it's the local services which need sorting out. I keep thinking of how much HS2 is going to cost and how much difference it could make to local train routes, which people use day in, day out.

Keith47

A country teetering on the verge of yet another recession is going to take 12 years and spend what will undoubtedly be well over £32Bn for....................100 miles of track.

That few people want or will use.

Bargain. :roll:

il_principe

Keith47 wrote:

A country teetering on the verge of yet another recession is going to take 12 years and spend what will undoubtedly be well over £32Bn for....................100 miles of track.

That few people want or will use.

Bargain. :roll:

Why do you think few people will use it? I used to travel to Birmingham fairly regularly to see clients in my last job. Always day time trips and the train was always busy. I think HS2 will be well subscribed. HS1 certainly has been. My old man lives on the Kent/Sussex border, has to travel to London a fair bit on business. Prior to HS1 this meant a 2 hour trip, now it means 1 hour 5 mins (both including driving time). So on a round trip he's saved 2 hours thanks to the new line.

CraigTheBiker

And the best way to avoid recession is to stop spending?

It's not just about easing capacity in the rail network. There are about 30 flights every day between Manchester and London. These are journeys that could easily be done by train - if only the rail network was up to standard.

rick_chasey

CraigTheBiker wrote:

And the best way to avoid recession is to stop spending?
.

beverick

Hmm. I agree with the basic idea of HS2 (and high speed rail travel in general) but I fear the concept is flawed without a funded commitment to extend high speed rail travel further.

What I mean is that the benefit of providing substantially increased capacity and what may be see as being marginally lower journey times between Birmingham and London doesn't provide sufficient justification for the route in itself. It would be the same as having built the M6 to Birmingham and saying 'well that's it for the UK's motorway network'.

One single line just doesn't work.

In the 30 year timescale proposed for HS2 to reach Leeds and Manchester, we should be looking to build a high speed rail network across the entire UK. OK, as with the current rail lines, make them radiate from London but lets not forget that there would be substantial benefit in building high speed lines that would allow journey times to be cut across the UK. For example, between Aberdeen and Edinburgh or Glasgow, Humberside and Merseyside or the north east, the midlands and the sout coast - especially the port cities. Also, integrate them with air-hubs at Gatwick, Heathrow, Birmigham, Manchester and Scotland. Basically make them go from somewhere, to somewhere.

Instead, I fear is that what we'll get will be 10 years of NIMBY activity followed by so many cuts to HS2 that, if we're lucky, in 25 years we will only have reduced journey times and increased capacity to Heathrow and perhaps Oxford.

I also note, and I suppose with some irony, that the people putting up the "no to HS2" signs along the route, and will lead the charge against the line, are the children of people who campaigned to save the hundreds of miles of railway line that were lost again 'in the interest of progress' between the 10 years from 1956.

Bob

jds_1981

Chadders81 wrote:

Ticket prices will find their market level. Anybody who suggests otherwise is dim as shoot.

Market will be based on business people expensing though...
Nor is it a exactly a free market when you've only got two mainlines heading to Birmingham from London.