LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Was reading that apparently a lot of the extra costs that have spiralled for HS2 have come from Tory MPs in the Chilterns who are demanding a lot more tunnels to protect views etc.

that is one factor but speccing it to run trains at 240mph seems to be a bigger one.

It seems poignant that the original budget was £33bn to build the Y shaped high speed line yet they have already spent that and need to spend the same again to get it completed from the Scrubs to Brum.

At £33bn it was a marginal call on a ROI basis so my theory is that the interested parties blagged a low number on the basis they would spend hard and fast so that it was uncancellable.

Ignore the sunk costs and ask yourself whether at east £30bn is worth it to build a railway from west london to Brum, a journey so short that the trains will only reach top speed for 7 mins until they have to start slowing down again.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Was reading that apparently a lot of the extra costs that have spiralled for HS2 have come from Tory MPs in the Chilterns who are demanding a lot more tunnels to protect views etc.

that is one factor but speccing it to run trains at 240mph seems to be a bigger one.

It seems poignant that the original budget was £33bn to build the Y shaped high speed line yet they have already spent that and need to spend the same again to get it completed from the Scrubs to Brum.

At £33bn it was a marginal call on a ROI basis so my theory is that the interested parties blagged a low number on the basis they would spend hard and fast so that it was uncancellable.

Ignore the sunk costs and ask yourself whether at east £30bn is worth it to build a railway from west london to Brum, a journey so short that the trains will only reach top speed for 7 mins until they have to start slowing down again.

It's almost pointless discussing this with you when you won't consider **capacity**.

UK rails are used vastly more than pretty much any other railway in the the developed world. 70% of all delays are in some part down to congestion.

Every f*cking day there's a signalling problem or a points failure. It's almost certainly in part because they're used so much, way beyond design.

But no, let's wang on about how speed is the problem.

It's 2023, of course you need a f*cking fast train. Trains are unbearably slow in this country.

The millions of hours wasted by this godawful transport system.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

Ignore the sunk costs and ask yourself whether at east £30bn is worth it to build a railway from west london to Brum, a journey so short that the trains will only reach top speed for 7 mins until they have to start slowing down again.

I think most transport investment is worth it. Was the channel tunnel worth it? Not to the original investors, but I'm glad it got built.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Was reading that apparently a lot of the extra costs that have spiralled for HS2 have come from Tory MPs in the Chilterns who are demanding a lot more tunnels to protect views etc.

that is one factor but speccing it to run trains at 240mph seems to be a bigger one.

It seems poignant that the original budget was £33bn to build the Y shaped high speed line yet they have already spent that and need to spend the same again to get it completed from the Scrubs to Brum.

At £33bn it was a marginal call on a ROI basis so my theory is that the interested parties blagged a low number on the basis they would spend hard and fast so that it was uncancellable.

Ignore the sunk costs and ask yourself whether at east £30bn is worth it to build a railway from west london to Brum, a journey so short that the trains will only reach top speed for 7 mins until they have to start slowing down again.

It's almost pointless discussing this with you when you won't consider **capacity**.

UK rails are used vastly more than pretty much any other railway in the the developed world. 70% of all delays are in some part down to congestion.

Every f*cking day there's a signalling problem or a points failure. It's almost certainly in part because they're used so much, way beyond design.

But no, let's wang on about how speed is the problem.

It's 2023, of course you need a f*cking fast train. Trains are unbearably slow in this country.

The millions of hours wasted by this godawful transport system.

This.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

...
It's 2023, of course you need a f*cking fast train. Trains are unbearably slow in this country.
...

No argument that massive spending is required to upgrade the infrastructure but I'd suggest that there is a sweet spot between current speed and 240 mph.

Would road traffic be better if the national speed limit was 120 mph?

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Here's an idea. It's the basic problem of the whole f*cking country.

Every year the population grows by roughly 200,000-600,000.

At some point that means more houses, roads, trainlines, schools, hospitals, power plants, water treatment facilities etc need to be built.

All this sh!t we have was built at some point.

Just because we're surrounded by decrepit sh!t that has been there for 100-200 years even though the lifespan was less than 50, because we refuse to build new stuff, doesn't mean on the rare occasion the new stuff is built we need to limit the standard of it to the standards of 100 years ago.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

The argument is likely because it will barely be able to reach that speed in the UK and so the additional costs will translate to very little in terms of journey time, over, say, a 200mph train.

kingstongraham

Looking at appraisal of the benefits of a road widening, it makes an estimate of the economic impact of the improved journey time extrapolated over 60 years (and the associated increased tax take from that improvement). Surely over 60 years, abandoning a major investment like this will have a much bigger impact on the UK economy than what it will cost to finish? Especially if they stop worrying about making it pretty.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
It's 2023, of course you need a f*cking fast train. Trains are unbearably slow in this country.
...

No argument that massive spending is required to upgrade the infrastructure but I'd suggest that there is a sweet spot between current speed and 240 mph.

Would road traffic be better if the national speed limit was 120 mph?

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

240mph is just the standard for almost all new intercity rail. It's not special. We have just found the world's most expensive way to build it. If you build to the same standard as everyone else it's cheaper because you don't have to redesign all the rolling stock from scratch.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

rick_chasey

Separately there's a thread on twitter about some guy who tried to take a train from London to Scotland and ended up having to take a 3hr cab because the train was cancelled half way down.

Getting pretty annoyed at the shock everyone seems to have about it. I've done the same, albeit over a shorter distance, about 4 times this year already.

Exactly the same story.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes. It's the standard HS1 and the rest of the European HSR network has been and is being built to.

Anyway, for the umpteenth f***ing time, they've already built most of the expensive stuff between here and Birmingham so quibbling about the spec after the contracts have been let will not save money.

Variations always add cost.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Separately there's a thread on twitter about some guy who tried to take a train from London to Scotland and ended up having to take a 3hr cab because the train was cancelled half way down.

Getting pretty annoyed at the shock everyone seems to have about it. I've done the same, albeit over a shorter distance, about 4 times this year already.

Exactly the same story.

Read that as well. Difficult to believe that with an Edinburgh bound train terminating at Preston, the operator thought that ~100 taxis driving 6hour return trips was the solution. Weirdly enough I have previously got a train to Preston then an 160 mile return cab journey to deliver an important document. This was when everyone had a single dial-up internet connection.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes. It's the standard HS1 and the rest of the European HSR network has been and is being built to.

Anyway, for the umpteenth f***ing time, they've already built most of the expensive stuff between here and Birmingham so quibbling about the spec after the contracts have been let will not save money.

Variations always add cost.

It's not the rolling stock at issue, it is the track engineering required to facilitate those speeds.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

The fundamental issue with HS2 as it was originally conceived was the actual lack of demand for it. The original idea was to connect London to the West Midlands, as someone who has spent their entire life living across both these two areas, I never understood why? There never seemed to be any actual desire for West Midlander's to have easier access to London either for work or leisure purposes or vice versa, and the economic argument of boosting infrastructure, trade, job creation etc. also never really seemed to stack up.

I get the idea that as it morphed into the 'Y' network this 'connectivity' would regenerate towns and cities along the network and improve transport infrastructure, but the original idea of opening up better links from London to WM and the North never seemed as though there was an meaningful demand for it.

They would have been far better off spending the money on rebuilding local rail infrastructure and creating an efficient service across the network where it was required.

I cycle across various points around WM and Staffs in particular where HS2 will (perhaps) travel through. They are all just mass brown earth sites with no real construction seeming to have taken place for 5 or 6 years. It just feels like a colossal waste of public money in the way things have actually turned out.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

The counter argument would be that if there is a finite amount of money, where would it best be spent?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

HS2 should help the commuting woes of people travelling on trains out of Euston.

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes, but we cannot even get a train to run reliably between Cambridge and London at slow speeds. High speed network? Forget it. This country is going to the dogs.

I don't think HS2 and RC's commuting woes have much to do with one another. In one the complaint is under investment in the other too much.

The counter argument would be that if there is a finite amount of money, where would it best be spent?

Exactly this - do you spend £30bn getting to birmingham and double to get to Manchester or do you call it quits and spend the money more productively elsewhere.

Why is nobody shouting about Tory snouts in the trough

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I think the 240 mph thing is grandstanding. Fine, but get the basics sorted first.

On what evidence?

Absolutely blown away by the idea that slow trains are better.

Are the tories putting crack in the water supply or something, wtf.

Would your commute be improved more by going at 240 mph, or simply by being on time and reliable? I'll suggest that the figure to improve the speed on one line is not the answer to the nation's infrastructure problems.

Isn't 240mph just the bog standard for modern fast trains?

Trust the Brits to demand their own special speed.

Yes. It's the standard HS1 and the rest of the European HSR network has been and is being built to.

Anyway, for the umpteenth f***ing time, they've already built most of the expensive stuff between here and Birmingham so quibbling about the spec after the contracts have been let will not save money.

Variations always add cost.

It's not the rolling stock at issue, it is the track engineering required to facilitate those speeds.

exactly, it has to be straighter and flatter with better signalling

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Was reading that apparently a lot of the extra costs that have spiralled for HS2 have come from Tory MPs in the Chilterns who are demanding a lot more tunnels to protect views etc.

that is one factor but speccing it to run trains at 240mph seems to be a bigger one.

It seems poignant that the original budget was £33bn to build the Y shaped high speed line yet they have already spent that and need to spend the same again to get it completed from the Scrubs to Brum.

At £33bn it was a marginal call on a ROI basis so my theory is that the interested parties blagged a low number on the basis they would spend hard and fast so that it was uncancellable.

Ignore the sunk costs and ask yourself whether at east £30bn is worth it to build a railway from west london to Brum, a journey so short that the trains will only reach top speed for 7 mins until they have to start slowing down again.

It's almost pointless discussing this with you when you won't consider **capacity**.

UK rails are used vastly more than pretty much any other railway in the the developed world. 70% of all delays are in some part down to congestion.

Every f*cking day there's a signalling problem or a points failure. It's almost certainly in part because they're used so much, way beyond design.

But no, let's wang on about how speed is the problem.

It's 2023, of course you need a f*cking fast train. Trains are unbearably slow in this country.

The millions of hours wasted by this godawful transport system.

why don't you consider that you have been mugged off by a retro fitted capacity argument?

why did they design and build it to world beating specs so trains could run fast if it was all about capacity?

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

why did they design and build it to world beating specs so trains could run fast if it was all about capacity?

We've been mugged off by the f*cking nimby lot who don't want their view spoiled.

Why the focus on world beating, and not on "standard modern fast train"?

And what's the point of covering last distances slower?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

why did they design and build it to world beating specs so trains could run fast if it was all about capacity?

We've been mugged off by the f*cking nimby lot who don't want their view spoiled.

Why the focus on world beating, and not on "standard modern fast train"?

And what's the point of covering last distances slower?

Don't let yourself get distracted by the nimbys.

The route would have been more flexible if it was slower. There is no point in building a system for speeds that can not be achieved for long enough periods to make any difference.

Do you also see that you have strayed off your capacity argument back on to speed

Jezyboy

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

The fundamental issue with HS2 as it was originally conceived was the actual lack of demand for it. The original idea was to connect London to the West Midlands, as someone who has spent their entire life living across both these two areas, I never understood why? There never seemed to be any actual desire for West Midlander's to have easier access to London either for work or leisure purposes or vice versa, and the economic argument of boosting infrastructure, trade, job creation etc. also never really seemed to stack up.

I get the idea that as it morphed into the 'Y' network this 'connectivity' would regenerate towns and cities along the network and improve transport infrastructure, but the original idea of opening up better links from London to WM and the North never seemed as though there was an meaningful demand for it.

They would have been far better off spending the money on rebuilding local rail infrastructure and creating an efficient service across the network where it was required.

I cycle across various points around WM and Staffs in particular where HS2 will (perhaps) travel through. They are all just mass brown earth sites with no real construction seeming to have taken place for 5 or 6 years. It just feels like a colossal waste of public money in the way things have actually turned out.

Given the number of packed trains I've sat on between Manchester/The Midlands and London, I'm really not sure that there's a lack of demand...

Pross

rjsterry said:

Imagine denying reality to the extent that you thought the UN was in control of global migration.

Or that being gay isn't still a reason to fear persecution or death in many countries. It feels like she thinks it is generally accepted in most Western countries and therefore isn't a reason for asylum from anywhere. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to discover she is so think she actually thinks that is the case.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

why did they design and build it to world beating specs so trains could run fast if it was all about capacity?

We've been mugged off by the f*cking nimby lot who don't want their view spoiled.

Why the focus on world beating, and not on "standard modern fast train"?

And what's the point of covering last distances slower?

Don't let yourself get distracted by the nimbys.

The route would have been more flexible if it was slower. There is no point in building a system for speeds that can not be achieved for long enough periods to make any difference.

Do you also see that you have strayed off your capacity argument back on to speed

Because you were asking about speed, not capacity?! You strayed, not me.

And yes, you need speed because if you want to get passengers to travel longer distances by rail, you want high speeds.

You can't just funnel everyone who wants to get north or south fast from London via the East Coast mainline. That's not sustainable.

Jezyboy

The distance that something travels in a couple of minutes at 200+ mph is really quite something too.

kingstongraham

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

The fundamental issue with HS2 as it was originally conceived was the actual lack of demand for it. The original idea was to connect London to the West Midlands, as someone who has spent their entire life living across both these two areas, I never understood why? There never seemed to be any actual desire for West Midlander's to have easier access to London either for work or leisure purposes or vice versa, and the economic argument of boosting infrastructure, trade, job creation etc. also never really seemed to stack up.

I get the idea that as it morphed into the 'Y' network this 'connectivity' would regenerate towns and cities along the network and improve transport infrastructure, but the original idea of opening up better links from London to WM and the North never seemed as though there was an meaningful demand for it.

They would have been far better off spending the money on rebuilding local rail infrastructure and creating an efficient service across the network where it was required.

I cycle across various points around WM and Staffs in particular where HS2 will (perhaps) travel through. They are all just mass brown earth sites with no real construction seeming to have taken place for 5 or 6 years. It just feels like a colossal waste of public money in the way things have actually turned out.

It was always envisaged as being part of a country wide plan, never just London to the Midlands. The first part was to link HS1 to a new line between London and the Midlands. Now it looks like it won't go to London or link to HS1, or any further.

Here's the original idea for High Speed 2 from 2009: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100203063942/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedtwo/highspeedtwo.pdf

Network Rail’s initial work has pointed to a strong case for an entirely new rail line in the corridor from London to the West Midlands. Such a line
would enable faster and enhanced services to be run on new and existing
lines to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and other destinations in the north of
England and Scotland, cutting journey times and increasing capacity
substantially.

High Speed Two’s purpose is to help consider the case for new high speed services from London to Scotland. As a first stage we have asked the
company to develop a proposal for an entirely new line between London and
the West Midlands.