[Closed] HS2 Review

If the Gov were serious about regenerating the N this money would now head in that direction. To add to that scrap the 3rd runway at LHR & improve the likes of Birmingham & Manchester. Imagine the money from both of those 2 projects being spent N of Birmingham rather than on a Londoncentric bias..

Yeah because getting to London 20 minutes quicker is vital.....

Waste of money - we missed the high speed rail boat about 30 years ago when everyone else was doing it.

The review might say that it's all fine and good and crack on...

Problem is that you're then 6 months further down the line with 6 months extra costs and no real progress. It's a nightmare for all the surrounding infrastructure, jobs, revival projects that are now put into limbo.

It's a nightmare for Northern Powerhouse Rail which is linked almost inextricably into HS2 arriving in Manchester and Leeds/York.

This country is incapable of doing infrastructure. Consultation, review, revision (downwards), reconsult... Eventually it's been watered down beyond recognition, it's tears late and it's still cost twice what was quoted. Governments use them as political tools - vote us in and we'll cancel / proceed with* [project] - and that creates further uncertainty and more cost over-runs.

The UK is now trying to build something that France, China, Japan etc sorted 30 years ago.

*depending on if it was their idea or the opposition

It's all about expanding the London commuter zone. Capacity is often cited over speed as the main driver for HS2 however N-S capacity would be less of an issue if as many people were going north at 0800 as were going south. And there are many better ways for spending this money to improve business and commerce in the north. I wonder what the passenger stats at various times of the day are for Berlin <> Munich, Hamburg <> Frankfurt etc. Hats off to Channel 4 for a start.

I live literally above route of HS2 where it will pass under the Chilterns. If I wanted to get on one of the trains to go to Birmingham I would have to travel into London first, which would take about an hour. To save 10 minutes on the journey to Birmingham.......

Yeah because getting to London 20 minutes quicker is vital…..

That's not the main reason behind it and to be fair it's been badly marketed. Very little about the regional markets it unlocks and all trying to say about getting to Birmingham 15 minutes faster.

You're right about Heathrow though. The smart thing to do is cancel the third runway there and use HS2 / NPR to tap into Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds-Bradford airports. And then put a super high speed link between Heathrow and Gatwick. Like the Maglev that China has in Shanghai between the airport and city centre. 30km in 7 minutes. Average speed 160mph.

If only....

I can't see it being cancelled now, so much work already being done at Euston end, huge area cleared, excavated, renovated & being built on . Even though it's well behind schedule in other parts. (And grossly over budget)

What's likely is that they'll just complete the first part London to Brum.

Then ditch the northern part, which is needed more

(I'm typing this squeezed into the luggage rack on the 1843 virgin trains sardine tin out of Euston fwiw)

How much is a ticket going to cost?
If I have to go to London for work on the train Virgin charge am extortionate £220 for a peak service.

I'll give you a review, 10,000 quid an inch.

Changing our minds when we've spent a lot of money is one reason we're short of resources, as is not being honest about how much stuff will cost. In my experience the engineers can make a reasonable assessment of the base cost and risks, but are then told they're being over-cautious. Politically, somebody needs the estimate to be lower, so it gets made lower, and when the real cost becomes apparent the project either gets cancelled or built inefficiently. We also have a more densely populated country than, for example, France, so more people's property is disrupted - but instead of compensating them generously and so getting their support, our government pays the minimum they think they can get away with and then wastes years on public enquiries.

If you want people to not fly then you need alternatives. ie a high speed network to get you around the country. If you want to get freight off the roads then you need capacity.

But then the UK really hasn't got a f***ing clue about infrastructure, huge sections of the network still run on diesel trains for example.

But then the UK really hasn’t got a f***ing clue about infrastructure, huge sections of the network still run on diesel trains for example.

[IMG] https://images.app.goo.gl/BeV98qviTcNYd1aN6 [/IMG]

From the 1980's...
Honestly, our rail system is a national embarrassment. Hampered by decades of underfunding and the previous mentioned issues around large scale infrastructure projects.

Edit: trying to paste an image of a Pacer train but phone not playing ball...

Absolute shocker, should have started up north and worked down.  I hope those poor sods that have been blighted by this and the lousy prices offered for their homes sue the crap out of HS2 for the stress and angst they've put them through (and I've been a railwayman since 1992).

It's been a complete white elephant from the start & even when it was 1st mooted I thought that.
How anyone can think that this country is even physically big enough to warrant spending the amount of money that HS2 costing is beyond me.
Fat cats of civil engineering lining their pockets again? It's like Crossrail, my eldest lad works for TFL is currently seconded to Crossrail. The money going down the pan (or into someones bank accounts) is off the map. He just shakes his head when I ask him about it.

It's not just about hs2, it's to relive congestion on more local lines allowing more frequent lower speed services on a local level.

The lines are saturated with traffic so fast "intercity" type trains can be segregated a bit, so as not to interfere with more regular slower shorter distance trains as much.

It's more a congestion easing measure as it is getting from Manchester to London faster.

as with all these things you hope they make rational evidence based decisions and not politically motivated ones.

Primary issue is that the existing mainline is pretty much at full capacity after a very expensive and disruptive upgrade/modernisation about 10-15 years back that didn't produce the capacity or speed improvement it was supposed to. Not building HS2 simply means that you're back to square one with no plan to solve the capacity and resilience issues on the route between Manchester, Birmingham and London which has a major knock on effect for rest of the network. Only real alternative is quad or six tracks all the way from London to Manchester and that ends up basically the same as HS2 but a lot slower and probably more expensive.

TBH with regards HS2, a white elephant it aint. In fact I can't think of any large scale UK infrastructure project done in living memory that is one (happy to be corrected here but really cant think of one: If you want to see a proper infrastructure b***s up have a look at Berlin Brandenburg Airport or Ciudad Real Central Airport in Spain...)

The only thing the review is liable to propose is a slightly lower line speed (around 190mph as opposed to 230mph). The huge cost of having to tunnel/cut and cover or place in deep cuttings a lot of the route will remain and is due to having to placate a lot of people who don't want the railway near or visible to them as well as the very significant eco mitigation work required for the project both of which are arguably necessary.

HS2 is core to us having a rail network fit for the 20th Century (not a typo). Get the hell on with it! Rename it if need be…

It’s all about expanding the London commuter zone.

There's probably an element of that going to happen. But realistically how many people want to live in Birmingham so badly that they'll put up with a 2h commute to London? Even London isn't expensive enough to make that worthwhile.

Also, commuters aren't the worth thing in the world for a local economy. Compare a village in Surrey with a post de-industrialisation former mining village. People mostly spend their money at home, drawing money out of the big cities and stimulating the local economy.

Squirrel

Subscriber
I live literally above route of HS2 where it will pass under the Chilterns. If I wanted to get on one of the trains to go to Birmingham I would have to travel into London first, which would take about an hour. To save 10 minutes on the journey to Birmingham…….

So what you're saying is, a massive infrastructure project linking two cities isn't going to affect you in a relatively sparsely populated area that's not close to either.

The cynic in me suggests this is a move to temporarily placate the mostly Tory voters of Buckinghamshire in the run up to the coming election to ensure they're back onside, once that's out of the way, HS2 will be back on

There’s probably an element of that going to happen. But realistically how many people want to live in Birmingham so badly that they’ll put up with a 2h commute to London? Even London isn’t expensive enough to make that worthwhile.

People already commute leeds to london.

HS2 is simply a london centric vanity project. What we need is more capacity on existing lines. It would make more sense if it was going further north but even then its daft.

Yes higher speed rail would be good. But its way down the list of priorities for rail in the uk or should be

How very dare you even think that the government would spin us a load of lies in order to win votes. Go to a dark room and have a word with yourself.

To add to that scrap the 3rd runway at LHR & improve the likes of Birmingham & Manchester. Imagine the money from both of those 2 projects being spent N of Birmingham rather than on a Londoncentric bias..

To be fair though I don't think anyone in London wants another runway at LHR - and that includes local Tory MPs. It's more home-county-centric than Londoncentric.

A new high speed line linking Bordeaux to Tours, in French France, was built recently, meaning you can now travel from Bordeaux to Paris in just over 2 hours.

The line is 340kms long, of which 302kms was new track. At the time it was the biggest rail project in Europe and took 5 years to complete.

This line cost under 10 billion euros to complete, paid for by a consortium, who now charge a toll to the train companies that use the line, the government and those meddling European Union chappies who never do a thing for anyone.

I just checked and I can travel from Bordeaux to Paris for 69 euros next Tuesday in plenty of time for breakfast.

HS2 is looking to cost at least £50 billion, probably double that by the time it would be completed.

The cynic in me suggests this is a move to temporarily placate the mostly Tory voters of Buckinghamshire in the run up to the coming election to ensure they’re back onside, once that’s out of the way, HS2 will be back

I agree with Nick. I also think that in 10-15 years the commuting demographics into London might well change.

I’d also prefer a third runway at Heathrow and increased medium jet traffic at Manchester / Birmingham etc than no runway and heavy jets into regional airports.

Come the 2030’s it’ll be viable for these shorter hops to be completed using electrical power, while London gets the pollution from jet fuel.

HS2 is a strange project, and it’s kept me and thousands of others in a job for the past few years. In the rail industry it’s a bit of a joke and seen as an example of how not to run a project.

I’m not sure it’ll be cancelled though, for the simple reason that propping up the construction and engineering industry is more important than placating a few nimbys in the shires.

The other main driver is boosting regional economies, which I’ve always understood to mean turning Birmingham and Manchester into London suburbs. If you think house prices in northern cities are too high now, just wait til hs2 is built.

Money spent on large projects isn't necessarily just lost to some huge company. It supports industries, training, local contractors, manufacturers, second and third tier suppliers, employs people, gets spent on things by those employees.

Also, Heathrow third runway will be privately funded, not state funded.

The only thing the review is liable to propose is a slightly lower line speed (around 190mph as opposed to 230mph)

Just build the damn thing and make it as good as we can!

Having recently travelled from London to Madrid by train I've seen how good it can be, HS2 may be costing a fortune, but if you want people so stop traveling by air this is needed.

The cynic in me suggests this is a move to temporarily placate the mostly Tory voters of Buckinghamshire in the run up to the coming election to ensure they’re back onside, once that’s out of the way, HS2 will be back on

Maybe the answer is for people to commute less. The government make this about linking up the country ... but it is more about extending the commutable area for London, and also making everywhere else easier access for LondonWorld.

The cost to put in the infrastructure is nonsense ... we missed that train long ago.
But for the future we need to burn less fuel, consumer less energy and travel less. Home office working, on line networking, virtual offices all help with this.
One thing the government needs to look at is the Germany system where the different states have different tax levels. There is a national tax payable, and a local state tax ... and I think the late can be +/- about 4%.
Would not having less income tax be a real driver of future growth ... not just a rail line that links LondonWorld to Manchester quickly.
Once you get to Manchester 30 minutes quicker, you still have to go somewhere else at the other end ... let's just work on keeping work "local" and use technology ...

There are a few unions and think tanks warning how hard the impact will be to the north if this does get cancelled.

Which will make it hilarious if it does get cancelled because it's mostly northeners gunning for it's cancellation and whinging that it's just for London.

Simply, why the **** would I and most Londoners (who live here) need to go to Leeds?

Very little about the regional markets it unlocks

I've never understood how it should unlock a regional market, or boost the "northern powerhouse".

It doesn't solve capacity issues. Yes it provides an expensive ticket option for execs to get between London and the North slightly quicker instead of using the cross country trains on the rickety old lines (which aren't that slow), but the real congestion still exists and more so in the local areas, and worse those lines are not being improved because the money is being spent on HS2 instead.

And the world has moved on and far more people realise they don't need to physically be at a meeting a long distance away when it can be done remotely. Price of an HS2 ticket costing as much as a flight, or a couple of quid or less on a conference call and not having wasted half the day getting there and back (despite being "a bit quicker").

Sure, some people need to be there in person, but the time saving is not amazing and with the ticket price it's hardly going to encourage investment in the north. Far bigger things affect that.

HS2 may be costing a fortune, but if you want people so stop traveling by air this is needed.

I hardly think the relatively tiny amount of people who fly London to Manchester is worth building HS2 for, and if the ticket price is more than flying, people are still going to fly anyway.

It's not like this solves a problem for millions of people and businesses. It's a tiny fraction of that.

I hardly think the relatively tiny amount of people who fly London to Manchester is worth building HS2 for, and if the ticket price is more than flying, people are still going to fly anyway.

It’s not like this solves a problem for millions of people and businesses. It’s a tiny fraction of that.

It would probably convince more Northerners to take jobs in London and commute there, which would have the effect of bringing in money earnt in London up north - where it would be spent.

And the world has moved on and far more people realise they don’t need to physically be at a meeting a long distance away when it can be done remotely.

Remote sucks, if you want anything to actually get understood, agreed upon and done.

it provides an expensive ticket option for execs to get between London and the North slightly quicker instead of using the cross country trains on the rickety old lines (which aren’t that slow), but the real congestion still exists and more so in the local areas, and worse those lines are not being improved because the money is being spent on HS2 instead..

I'm not so sure about this, lots of people commute home from London on a Thursday and Friday - they aren't high powered execs amd the trains are compeltely rammed. They are often mid level professionals etc - who sleep on a single bed in shared accomodation for three nights of the week and go home. I think that paragraph shows you are ignorant of London and the people who work there.

HS2 is simply a london centric vanity project.

It simply isn't. You ask for more capacity on existing lines - but this is exactly what HS2 delivers - more capacity.

1) We desperately need modern rail infrastructure

2) It's not just about enabling commuters to get TO London. A lot of business is done based on how far away your clients are, and that is measured in time not distance. Making it quicker to get to and from London makes it easier for people to commute to London for work, yes, but it also makes it easier for businesses in London to work with businesses outside. The reason London is so huge and has so much business going on is because businesses want to be near each other. Take a look at the M3 and M4 corridors - huge multinationals set up offices in these places BECAUSE they are close to London. Well, with high speed rail, Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester etc become close to London in the same way, so they become attractive places for businesses like Oracle, Microsoft, IBM and so on. This spreads the benefits of London around the country. The further the HS rail network goes the more benefit will be felt. Transport is essential for spreading wealth around the country instead of concentrating it in London which is what you Northerners are complaining about.

3) Of course, other projects are needed, but something has to be first. The whole country needs modernising. Now - given that currently the London market is big, why not use go for the largest and most profitable market first to help pay for the large initial cost. I reckon later HS rail projects will be cheaper if we play our cards right (which we probably won't but that's another story) because businesses and skills will already be set up.

Honestly, STW can be a remarkably intelligent place sometimes and at others, like this, it can turn into a whining mob unwilling to even try look at the depth of an issue. It's as if people are trivialising the issue because they're pissed off that one end is in London. Unfortunately, London has been the centre of the UK economy for about 1500 years, a tunnel under the Pennines isn't going to change that on its own.

It doesn’t solve capacity issues. Yes it provides an expensive ticket option for execs to get between London and the North slightly quicker instead of using the cross country trains on the rickety old lines (which aren’t that slow), but the real congestion still exists and more so in the local areas, and worse those lines are not being improved because the money is being spent on HS2 instead.

It might not solve capacity issues on its own but it goes a long way to freeing up the massively busy WCML.
WCML has virtually zero resilience built in and it's trying to operate a mix of regional stopping services, freight and the fast Manchester / Liverpool to London services. You can't run sufficient fast trains when there's a freight train trundling along at 40mph. So capacity is very limited. Get the fast services operating on HS2 and that leaves WCML to handle some fast stuff but much more regional stuff - so the regions are better served. It means more time for freight too and that really needs to be off the roads.

Ticket cost - what is it? I've not seen any figures? Which makes it difficult slagging it off for being "overpriced" especially when you consider that a return from Manchester to London on Virgin can be over £300.

Don't go posting sense and reason here molgrips, it'll never work.

What we need is less trains!

Less capacity!

More baby robins!

Ticket cost – what is it? I’ve not seen any figures? Which makes it difficult slagging it off for being “overpriced” especially when you consider that a return from Manchester to London on Virgin can be over £300.

Return on train can cost that much, depending on time/day, and you can get flights cheaper (BA comes out cheaper for a start), with 1hr journey time.

Point is though, whatever the current price is, an HS2 ticket is guaranteed to be higher. I can't see any way it could be cheaper especially given how much the project is costing and then it'll be run commercially for profit aimed at business people.

lots of people commute home from London on a Thursday and Friday – they aren’t high powered execs amd the trains are compeltely rammed

Cross country trains are run at capacity with just enough carriages for the typical use. They'll always be full.

HS2 speeds doesn't help congested stopping services as it doesn't stop at those places, same as some current long distance trains.

What we need is less trains!

More trains and infrastructure that are of benefit to 90% of commuters, just not high speed vanity projects that benefit 10% (or less).

Cross country trains are run at capacity with just enough carriages for the typical use. They’ll always be full.
HS2 speeds doesn’t help congested stopping services as it doesn’t stop at those places, same as some current long distance trains.

See Crazy-Legs response.

And it's not just stopping services that are the issue, you'd be surprised at the amount of people who stay on the train all the way to Sheffield on a Thursday or Friday.

I have HS1 trains here in noth kent and it is about 25% more expensive than the standard train to victoria and take a similar time as the old train as the first half is on the old track. Also since it was introduced the victoria trains are slower and now take about 10min longer. So have been of very little benifit here. Maybe time wise in Ashford but very expensive.

A new high speed line linking Bordeaux to Tours, in French France, was built recently, meaning you can now travel from Bordeaux to Paris in just over 2 hours.

The line is 340kms long, of which 302kms was new track. At the time it was the biggest rail project in Europe and took 5 years to complete.

This line cost under 10 billion euros to complete, paid for by a consortium, who now charge a toll to the train companies that use the line, the government and those meddling European Union chappies who never do a thing for anyone.

France has a lot of space and unused / low value land. We don't. That is the main reason infrastructure costs so much in the UK, expensive land, hugely complex diversions / bridges / tunnels to avoid national parks etc.

3) Of course, other projects are needed, but something has to be first. The whole country needs modernising. Now – given that currently the London market is big, why not use go for the largest and most profitable market first to help pay for the large initial cost. I reckon later HS rail projects will be cheaper if we play our cards right (which we probably won’t but that’s another story) because businesses and skills will already be set up.

+1

The London / SE is the cash cow for HMRC, it has the highest productivity, the highest paying industries, highest earners, highest taxpayers and is the highest net contributing region to HMRC (after taking infrastructure spending into account*). It makes a lot of sense to invest in the area which will generate the highest return.

That's not to say that other areas don't also deserve investment.

* David Smith covered this in the Sunday Times a few weeks back with a good analysis of the regions taking infrastructure and subsidies etc into account.

Rather than piss money up the wall on HS2 a fraction of that money could (should) be used to upgrade the Midland Main Line (MML), a route that HS2 pretty much follows out of London.

The MML has been the poor relation to both the WCML and ECML for years, with the cancellation of the planned electrification being the latest snub. Instead the London end was 'upgraded' for Thameslink trains, with the ridiculous situation that those slow, stopping trains now take priority over the Intercity services.

There is also the issue of congestion at St Pancras, with the MML services squeezed into the seeming afterthought of platforms 1-4, which throttles any attempts to improve service frequency.

HS2 speeds doesn’t help congested stopping services as it doesn’t stop at those places, same as some current long distance trains.

Well, what you do is take an express train to the main location then change trains.

But even if you don't, it will still free up capacity on the stopping service because currently the same trains have to take people who want to get off at an intermediate point AND those who don't.

Bottom line is, we NEED new rail routes, not just upgrades. It's going to cost a shitload, so we're just going to have to deal with it. Good public services and infrastructure just cost money, that's the bottom line.

It's a lot of money so c*nts in suits talking loudly on their phones and twiddling on laptops can swish back and fore and go to some boring meeting where they talk bollocks to other c*nts. I'd build a mile deep hole under the rails half way along and have carriages where the floor opens up automatically and dumps them all in it

It takes 2h 50mins to travel by train from Liverpool to Hull, costs £73.70 and requires a change at Leeds. That’s a journey of just 128 miles, average speed of 45mph. To drive is 30 minutes faster.

Can we fix that first?

It takes 2h 50mins to travel by train from Liverpool to Hull, costs £73.70 and requires a change at Leeds. That’s a journey of just 128 miles, average speed of 45mph. To drive is 30 minutes faster.

Unless the M62 is screwed, which it frequently is.

The economic arguments for Northern Powerhouse Rail (which is basically what you're talking about), fall flat if HS2 isn't tied into it. To get the most out of a new Trans-Pennine route connecting Liverpool, Manchester, either Bradford or Huddersfield (depending on your exact routing), Leeds and Hull, you also need HS2 landing at Manchester and Leeds.

The two go hand in hand.
Leeds also needs a line off to York and Scarborough, tied into ECML.

This has got to the point where you've been living in a house for decades and, while it all basically functions (just), you've got ancient wiring, holes in the roof, single pane windows and drafts coming up through the floorboards and rather than keeping on re-papering the cracks, you eventually have to say **** it, the entire house needs rebuilding.
Our rail network is that house.

Although I'm very upset at the sheer amount of environmental devastation that is being foisted upon the country. You'd have thought as well that for £100 billion, they might have been able to include better walking and cycling provision within the building work.

from Bordeaux to Paris in just over 2 hours.

The line is 340kms long,

unless I am misreading this thats not really high speed. Edinburgh to london is 650km and takes 4 hours with conventional trains.

You’d have thought as well that for £100 billion, they might have been able to include better walking and cycling provision within the building work.

Yeah, well. That's because none of this 'economic argument' bollocks is joined-up, forward-looking thinking. It's all predicated on keeping things how they've always been, prioritising London and the south east and notional wealth generation that, in reality, benefits a small proportion of the population.

We should be prioritising well being across the whole population, not obsessing about GDP figures and a system that pours money into the pockets of people who already have most of it to start with. You can maybe justify HS2 in those terms, but what it doesn't do is make any contribution to reducing the misery of commuters trapped in the Northern Rail horror show or change our cultural obsessions with the car and commuting to work. And the idea that some sort of trickle down will eventually lead to better northern local train services is a fantasy.

We should be prioritising people's happiness and health and our environment, not outdated economic metrics. And part of that should be centred around creating infrastructure that encourages walking and cycling. HS2 doesn't do one bit of that, not even tangentially.

@tjagain : Yeah, someone wrote a figure down wrong - Bordeaux to Paris is about 600km / 375 miles. Maybe he meant 340 [b]miles[/b] of new line.
So 2hrs 8 mins is an average speed of 300kph / 190mph.

which is definitely High Speed Rail!

That makes more sense

The London / SE is the cash cow for HMRC, it has the highest productivity, the highest paying industries, highest earners, highest taxpayers and is the highest net contributing region to HMRC (after taking infrastructure spending into account*). It makes a lot of sense to invest in the area which will generate the highest return. That’s not to say that other areas don’t also deserve investment.

Precisely the sort of 'cost of everything value of nothing' foxtrot-uniform attitude that gets us up to our eyeballs in national strife in the first place. We in the north continue to look forward to the crumbs.

The economic arguments for Northern Powerhouse Rail (which is basically what you’re talking about), fall flat if HS2 isn’t tied into it. To get the most out of a new Trans-Pennine route connecting Liverpool, Manchester, either Bradford or Huddersfield (depending on your exact routing), Leeds and Hull, you also need HS2 landing at Manchester and Leeds.

The trans-pennine route either upgraded or left to fester connects with York (25 direct trains a day to London), Leeds (30 direct trains a day to London) and Manchester (unsure, ~50 trains a day to London) already. An upgraded trans-pennine is NOT dependent on HS2. Not to say it wouldn't benefit but it's not a dependency. What we need is more people staying in the North and more people coming on the empty northbound trains in the morning.

Should have started up North & all lines that needs electrifying should have been done before this was started. If loads of money was invested oop North etc then maybe in a few years these places would yield more taxes.

A joined up infrastructure plan including reducing the need for airports, getting more freight on the rails, traffic free city centres and beaucoup bike only paths is obvz too much to ask.

MML

Ah yeah - my emergency exit route when the ECML is buggered. Fair point that it's a poor cousin - I know nothing about it other than St Pancras is astonishingly beautiful and the place a waste time when waiting for an ECML train.

Gonna throw this in - all the talk of trans-pennine and the M62

HS2 is awesome because It'll cut down on flying to & from Birmingham like...

Airport managers are understood to have spoken to local council leaders about building a second runway to take advantage of the High Speed Two (HS2) rail line, due to open in 2026. The new line includes a station by the airport.

Source.... https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/massive-expansion-birmingham-airport-could-12076801

That’s because none of this ‘economic argument’ bollocks is joined-up, forward-looking thinking. It’s all predicated on keeping things how they’ve always been, prioritising London and the south east and notional wealth generation that, in reality, benefits a small proportion of the population.

There is definitely an economic argument for a proper network, of which HS2 is only a part. However, just because a new network is justifiable doesn't mean it's being executed well. And just because it's not being executed well doesn't mean the idea should be binned.

It’s a lot of money so c*nts in suits talking loudly on their phones and twiddling on laptops can swish back and fore and go to some boring meeting where they talk bollocks to other c*nts. I’d build a mile deep hole under the rails half way along and have carriages where the floor opens up automatically and dumps them all in it

That rant was worth posting again, succinct, to the point, no filler, and more importantly very accurate....... more like this please

It’s a lot of money so c*nts in suits talking loudly on their phones and twiddling on laptops scientists working on cancer treatments, AI researchers working for deepmind, NGO employees etc can swish back and fore and go to conferences where they bounce of each other’s ideas.

Fixed that for you.

There are people on those trains who are the only reason working class heroes like yourself aren’t living in a backward, second world nation - but one that is still a strong innovator.

Personally, I’d rather be filling the mass graves up with entitled thick ****s who think the world owes them a living.

There is definitely an economic argument for a proper network, of which HS2 is only a part. However, just because a new network is justifiable doesn’t mean it’s being executed well. And just because it’s not being executed well doesn’t mean the idea should be binned.

You're missing my point, which is that basing our infrastructure developments on narrow and questionable economic models and metrics - GDP is the obvious holy cow - is irrelevant to the well being of a vast swathe of the population. We should be spending money on making people's lives better right across society, not fixating on increasing some questionable measure of national wealth.

There may be 'an economic argument for a proper network' in other words, but equally, that argument is misguided and driven by an obsession with generating more and more 'wealth' which most people never benefit from. You could arguably spend that money on the NHS, education, walking and cycling infrastructure, weaning people away from personalised motorised transport and more and have a far greater impact on people's quality of life.

Even in narrow transport terms, investing money in local commuter services run by the likes of Northern Rail would make far more difference to everyday quality of life than splurging it on HS2.

HS2 is expensive due to the Home Counties "retired barrister" effect leading to tunnels, poor ground for the line in the Midlands and silly costs at Euston

All these are gutting the budget so in the north communities are getting cut off and the project rammed through

As for London Crossrail 2 will happen before HS3 gets off the drawing board.
Cs long as decisions are made by people who work in London (DoT and MPs) we'll get London centric investment with the London overhead and the usual crumbs handed to those who are too thick to get into the London bubble with all the same London generated statistics that show it's more efficient to spend in London

There may be ‘an economic argument for a proper network’ in other words, but equally, that argument is misguided and driven by an obsession with generating more and more ‘wealth’ which most people never benefit from

Yes.

There is absaloutely no value in sustainable economic growth driven by a greener form of transport which helps to raise the tax income of the Tresury. That's crazy talk, people don't see anything back from tax at all.

Even in narrow transport terms, investing money in local commuter services run by the likes of Northern Rail would make far more difference to everyday quality of life than splurging it on HS2.

As others have pointed out - there's no point in doing the former without the latter. And to be honest, the London trains are just as if not more overcrowded - so the quality of life impact is bullcrap as well.

There is plenty of point in bringing rail transport in the north up to standard without HS2 - and while yo are at it upgrading northern airports. A significant % of people flying from london have had to travel from Scotland or the big northern cities.

But then its not London so it doesn't count. London must get the vast majority of transport subsidy because no one important lives north of Watford.

Yes rail needs up graded and increased capacity all over the UK - but you get more bang for your buck if you do stuff in the north.

HS2 is the wrong answer to the wrong question.

TJ is correct in that it's the wrong answer, we need

Investment in the northern coast to coast (Liverpool to Manchester to leeds & Sheffield to the NE) and connecting lines
serious money spent on bikes and buses - buses need real priority over cars
this would enable dedicated bus services to replace the rural trains that jam the Westcoast mainline, that would give you the capacity HS2 is trying to solve.

Since posting this I have read the replies with interest and learnt a lot about the possible benefits away from the headline “shorter journey times’ shouted by the media.
I shall go away and process.

Huge waste of cash for a new trainset, to us oop north, we dontr want it we ant newer faster trains to Leeds, Sheffield, Hull,Derby North Wales and more places.

As for boris canceling the trainset, just after or before an election, and alienating all those southerners.

Fianlly boris brought the wright boris bus to london, nowhere else bought any, and now the company in northern ireland wants cash handouts, due to lack of orders, another huge failure, throw in new nuclear power stations, new roads and new trains that dont work, electrification of the railways that collapsed and was cancelled, electrification of the severn tunnel that cant be switched on due to major problems with water ingress and diesel fumes attacking the overhead rails.

Sitting here in a nice new ttain doing 100mph on the way to Glasgow I cannot help think that this is what northern England needs not HS2
£13.30 return for 45 miles each way. 42 mins. Free wifi

It's almost a European experience

I live close to where HS2 will be built, there are going to be a few spin off benefits locally and a huge amount of disruption when it's built but to suggest we don't build a major new modern railway linking north to south that will continue to benefit the country for many years to come is frankly ridiculous & all the enquiry will do is add to the expense.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49450297

George Osborne is holding his own review now, mostly to cover up the fact he knew it was over budget 3 years ago when he was Chancellor but said and did nothing about it.

Politicians really need to stay out of infrastructure, they're useless.

HS2 is expensive due to the Home Counties “retired barrister” effect leading to tunnels, poor ground for the line in the Midlands and silly costs at Euston

And because the railway network has been ignored for so long we've basically forgotten how to build anything so it ends up really expensive. The cost of electrification per mile in the UK is massive compared to most of Europe, for example.

Personally I hope it gets canned.

It will have massive impacts upon the village I live in and none of them will be good. The environmental impact is huge, no one knows how much it’s going to cost which means that it’ll be many times over budget and they’re already talking about pairing back the service. If it gets completed, it’ll be a grade a **** up that doesn’t deliver what it promised.

The construction industry is lobbying hard for it to be completed, it’ll be interesting to see how much they are listened too.

It has always seemed like marginal gains at best, unless you work in the high speed rail construction industry.

It has always seemed like marginal gains at best

Doubling capacity is marginal?

Fact is that our infrastructure is piss poor, and also full. Something needs doing. We will need this eventually. Actually no, we need it now, but we need all the rest of it now too.

Why is investing in basic transport infrastructure so controversial?

Why is investing in basic transport infrastructure so controversial?

Maybe because we’re a relatively small, densely populated country and stuff like this can have a big impact on people’s lives? It’s going to have an awful impact on my village during the construction and once it’s operating and the people working on it are unable to answer pretty basic questions about mitigation in the consultations I’ve been too.

There is also a feeling amongst those affected that stuff is being snuck through. There were many battles about the route near our village. It was accepted eventually once it was moved a bit but they’ve now decided to build a maintenance depot right on the edge of the village which will have noise and light pollution implications for those on the edge.

Totally agree Molls, but this is what the infrastructure of the West Coast mainline looks like, which will get you from London to Manchester or Liverpool in under 2 hours

Once you get to either of those cities, or Leeds or Newcastle or Sheffield and the infrastructure you are then dependent on looks like this...

Ask anyone who uses any train line that doesn't service London where they think the priority should be? We're all stuck on overcrowded 40 year-old rolling stock (which is basically a converted bus that was only ever meant to be a stop-gap) and has a journey time where you'd be quicker walking

If you've not seen it then it's well worth watching the Despatches documentary

HS2 - the Great Train Robbery

The consensus amongst the rail experts seems to be that they'll can it once they've built the section to Birmingham. It'll essentially end up as just a (ludicrously expensive) commuter line into London from the midlands, while the rest of the country's transport network continues to be starved of funding

Yup - get faster and longer trains like the one I used today and yo quadruple the capacity. the train I was on has maybe 800 seats on it - and runs every 15 mins each way taking 37 - 44 mins to do the 45 miles. Faster than you can drive

this is what is needed along with reopening branch lines- not HS2

Yup – get faster and longer trains like the one I used today and yo quadruple the capacity. the train I was on has maybe 800 seats on it –

800 seats?????? How many carriages TJ? I'm guessing this is Edinburgh-Glasgow?

And 216 trains a day- is this really value for money for the government and taxpayer? How full was the train?

Can you see that this couldn't really be rolled out in most places.

The smart thing to do is cancel the third runway there and use HS2 / NPR to tap into Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds-Bradford airports.

Unfortunately the tourists want to go to London and our exorbitantly priced terrestrial public transport will not encourage them to go elsewhere. Make it as cheap as Italy to travel by rail and you may get the tourists to travel to a regional hub away from London. Until this is solved more runways at Heathrow and Gatwick are the future.

Unfortunately the tourists want to go to London

Err, I'm often a tourist & London is one of the last places I want to go!

Vinney - yes Edinburgh / glasgow. 800 seats is a guesstimate. Its new rolling stock, the train is too long for many platforms at least a dozen carriages maybe more and at least 50 seats in each. Its effing huge. And fast. topped 100mph according to my GPS - and its profitable I think -- not sure but its certainly no white elephant

Actually they are used a lot - I took two offpeak trains 10.15 and 4.15 - both around 20% full. The peak ones are standing room only

its 2 an hour early mornings and late evenings, 4 an hour the rest of the time I think none in the dead of night.

there is of course the other Glasgow - Edinburgh lines - Carstairs, East Calder and Bathgate. Bathgate line is reopened in the last few years and the shuttle ( fast train I was on) alternates which bit it goes on thru Falkirk and which stations it stops at - so not all the intermediate stations get the 4 trains an hour. the only thing that poor about it is its useless to get to either airport. Pretty much every town in the central belt gets a train or two an hour. Used a lot by commuters

Of course you have to tailor the service to the need but what it shows is "build it and they will come" Its quicker, cheaper and nicer than driving.

You would not have to replicate this in the liverpool to leeds - but a modern train seating a couple of hundred, traveling at 80 mph plus would make the cross the north of england journeys so much better. Cutting travel times by 25 - 50 % on the leeds / liverpool stuff would increase traffic hugely. Have you seen the crap trains they use now?

this would be nothing remarkable in most of Europe - you know plentiful comfy fast modern trains.

yes Edinburgh / glasgow. 800 seats is a guesstimate. Its new rolling stock, the train is too long for many platforms at least a dozen carriages maybe more and at least 50 seats in each.

They're Class 385's: either a 3-car or a 4-car so you've probably got 2 X 4-car setup (8 carriages total) which is 546 seats.