MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Do a significant number of people really care about saving 20 mins between Leeds/Manchester and London? Would be better to spend £60bn on sharing the prosperity and power London has with some cities in the North! I've yet to see anything in the way of an obviously compelling case for HS2 which wasn't a little strawy.
putting good, free, fast wifi on the train would be more productive.
Oh goody! Something to distract me from Brexit and Trumpton. 😀
few ideas....
High speed passenger travel free's up more space on the slow network for freight.
Freight off the motorways is good
It's can be fast as flying when you consider airports are not in the city centre. There is a current plan for Melbourne to Sydney for similar, the CBD to CBD journey times are comparable to flying with less hassle and stress.
Being able to have reliable links N/S may enable more jobs to relocate
When I was back I did the Newcastle to London Express, very nice, take another 30 mins off the time or more for not stopping and it would be great. When I used to use trains a lot it was annoying how often it would slow down for sections to pass slower trains etc. dedicating lines to HS passenger travel would improve things.
The bigger challenge is breaking the public psyche that cars are king...
I understand the case for it - increases capacity on other routes without crippling the existing network etc.
I'm not convinced that
a) There aren't better ways of spending at least £50 billion to improve transport infrastructure/public transport
b) That any government is capable of not being rogered senseless as the bill keeps going up
c) It won't do anything more than turn the area around Derby into an overpriced suburb of London
d) That it's worth wrecking all the bridleways we use on our night rides for!
c) It won't do anything more than turn the area around Derby into an overpriced suburb of London
I last lived in Loughborough about 15 years ago, catching a morning train sometimes the early one was always full of those on the season ticket to London, plenty choose that already
Upgrading the existing line doesn't really work, it'll cost as much (if not more), take longer to deliver and still not improve the service to any significant extent.
I regularly travel London to Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, but I really don't get the whole capacity issue. The trains are rarely full (except maybe the first one out in the morning). The problem is reliability not capacity.
However I only take the train when I know I've got some leeway on time because I simply can't rely on it arriving on time. Also the main attraction vs driving is that I can do 2 hours work each way... but only if the damn wifi is working, which is often isn't.
Take this away and the train is often far more expensive and always less convenient as it's not door-to-door.
I still don't understand why they don't put a cycle superhighway alongside for the entire route. Would be ace (in my view).
Would be better to spend £60bn on sharing the prosperity and power London has with some cities in the North!
Like what?
Good transport links allow people to live elsewhere and work in London - either all the time or occasionally. This brings money back out of the capital, and that money then grows the economy in those other places.
Some people say that it will simply allow London businesses to poach more people form the North where they won't end up working. However in reverse, it could just as easily allow more businesses to grow in the North and not suffer from not being in London, because they can get there more easily. I know someone who ran a web design business in Cardiff, and people would put the phone down when they discovered they didn't have a London office. If Cardiff was only an hour from London instead of two, that might not've happened. Plenty of people WANT to live and work in the North instead of London, this could help them do it.
I don't know which effect is more likely tbh.
But it's more than just 20 mins off the journey - it's much bigger capacity, and more reliable trains. If you want to improve public transport, you're going to need to invest in the backbone at some point. Are there better alternatives to new backbone lines?
The trains are rarely full (except maybe the first one out in the morning). The problem is reliability not capacity.
It's not the number of people on the train - it's the number of trains on the line - both local, express and freight. Any problem with any of those trains causes the reliability issues. And the infrastructure on the current lines is very old.
but I really don't get the whole capacity issue. The trains are rarely full (except maybe the first one out in the morning). The problem is reliability not capacity.
The capacity is a few things, it's the line and the trains. If your fast trains are being slowed by the local and freight ones then thats a problem. It always seemed to be a common sight to see a few 1000 tonnes of something rolling through a mainline station while waiting for your train. Moving the High Speed infrequent stopping means more freight/slow local services (local stuff to deliver you to the fast pick up points.
As for reliability, the delays and coach replacements etc to make the west coast main line electric etc were madness, building a second line (the current one will not support faster I believe) means you can build for the future not just touch up something from 1900
Would be better to spend £60bn on sharing the prosperity and power London has with some cities in the North!
How would you do that exactly?
You can't just create businesses out of thin air by planting money in the ground...
London is the commercial engine of the UK, better transport links let the benefits filter outwards.
There is no compelling case. It's a good opportunity for a few private companies to make a killing out of the public purse.
A far better investment for the future would be the digital network. Allow more remote working, video conferencing etc. Reduce the need for travel rather than increasing the capacity for it. There is also the cost. If I travel to London, it's usually at relatively short notice and an open return is needed. Virgin prices are £311 return. Given the undoubtable need to acheive a rapid ROI I dread to think what prices will need to be on HS2 lines.
Reduce the need for travel rather than increasing the capacity for it.
I'd say do both, we keep thinking in a binary way, we must do one or the other. The best thing you could do is increase reliability speed and capacity, reduce the need for road and air travel when it's needed.
For most business users £311 rtn sounds not bad considering you be working all the way in and out, don't have to pay for parking and driving (whats the milage rate or hire car for a day trip to London?)
Doing a lot of business travel very short notice and flexible is always expensive, but plenty of people plan and book.
High speed rail is IMO a good thing in general. But there is a HUUUUGH difference between high speed rail in large countries like Australia, France etc.
I understand the capacity thing but the local infrastructure around places like Leeds and west Yorks needs massively improving at the same time as any trophy projects like this. The fact you can get from Leeds to London half an hour faster is just bollocks if you can't get to Leeds in the first place!!
"However I only take the train when I know I've got some leeway on time because I simply can't rely on it arriving on time."
Surely trains are a lot more reliable than roads? Loads more accidents, roadworks etc to cause delays to road travel.
but the local infrastructure around places like Leeds and west Yorks needs massively improving at the same time as any trophy projects like this. The fact you can get from Leeds to London half an hour faster won't is just bollocks if you can't get to Leeds in the first place!!
and here we enter paralysis where neither is done, and nothing happens. See energy discussions.
by the time it's finished driverless cars will be commonplace. If you simply banned undriverless cars from the motorway, you could run more lanes (driverless cars are more accurate) to give ~60% more capacity, cars 3x as close as each other (driverless cars react effectively instantaneously to the speed of the car in front) to give ~200% more capacity and increase the speed limit (driverless cars can be run at faster speeds) to 100mph to give another ~40% more capacity. Overall, 6x the capacity that we have on motorways today, by controlling the environment and avoiding idiots on them. If you do that, you simply don't have a need for this or the majority of other railways (I'd argue that those running right into the centres big cities are the exception, but that need could be met with park-and-ride type functionality)
If you do that, you simply don't have a need for this or the majority of other railways (I'd argue that those runnign right into the centres big cities are the exception)
Pollution, efficiency etc. if a large number of people in this mass transit scheme are all travelling the same way at the same time why not put them in one vehicle...
Pollution, efficiency etc. if a large number of people in this mass transit scheme are all travelling the same way at the same time why not put them in one vehicle...
if you run cars close enough together, I don't see any reason why sticking those people in a train would be significantly more efficient? The savings by sitting folks closer together are probably negated by running excess capacity 80% of the time
Some people say that it will simply allow London businesses to poach more people form the North where they won't end up working. However in reverse, it could just as easily allow more businesses to grow in the North and not suffer from not being in London, because they can get there more easily.
Who wants to pay London prices for houses and then commute to the North to work for cheaper wages? That doesn't make sense.
Waste of money in my view costing more than the entire French TGV network. As OP says it is a stunning amount of money to save a small amount of time. I have been a train commuter for 30 years and the service has always been terrible and expensive (inc when state owned)
We need more airport capacity and better roads (pollution can be dealt with via hybrid cars and tighter controls on trucks)
by the time it's finished driverless cars will be commonplace. If you simply banned undriverless cars from the motorway, you could run more lanes (driverless cars are more accurate) to give ~60% more capacity, cars 3x as close as each other (driverless cars react effectively instantaneously to the speed of the car in front) to give ~200% more capacity and increase the speed limit (driverless cars can be run at faster speeds) to 100mph to give another ~40% more capacity. Overall, 6x the capacity that we have on motorways today, by controlling the environment and avoiding idiots on them. If you do that, you simply don't have a need for this or the majority of other railways (I'd argue that those runnign right into the centres big cities are the exception)
That seems like a massive investment with a high potential for failure when you could, oh, I don't know, link all the cars together say and put a driver in the lead car, and you could run them even closer together by maybe putting rails down the road for them to run on...
I think the business logic is London centric business will move North. Deutsche Bank (and others) tried that with a Birmingham office and its not really worked. The cost savings haven't been there and best local talent gets trained up and moves to London for more money
I'm all for this type of thing, and don't even think we're being ambitious enough. Whatever we build, we'll be saddled with if for the next 50years. So whatever we go for should be cutting edge at the very limit of tech. I suggest...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
It's a good opportunity for a few private companies to make a killing out of the public purse.
They'd employ a lot of locals though.
" the service has always been terrible and expensive (inc when state owned)"
Do you think it's better or worse than when state owned? It's interesting to note how highly the rail network services of other EU nations are rated compared to ours, particularly those which are state owned/run.
It's somewhat ironic, that the nation which first developed public rail networks now has such a mess of bureaucracy and organisation in it's own public transport system. It's also ironic that some of our 'privatised' transport companies and freight networks are now owned/run by state-owned foreign companies...
building a cycle path alongside is a stunning idea. Wouldn't cost much more for a couple of extra metres of tarmac and an extra fence and then a super cycle highway all the way to London!
The proposed route will pass quite close to where I live across a stunning valley and it will spoilt the view out of lots of peoeple's back windows but I support it. Building new infastructure is important as the population grows.
HS2 needs to run all the way to Newcastle, and then Edinburgh, and then Glasgow.
get on with it, now, not in 20 years.
and that's the annoying bit. we're told that HS2 is 'vital to the economy of The North', but let's be honest, it'll be 20 years before it's running. that's not 'vital', that's '**** you'.
molgrips - Member
Would be better to spend £60bn on sharing the prosperity and power London has with some cities in the North!
Like what?
Which I think is why I referenced strawy given I'm unaware of a compelling argument for it. I can more easily see value in upgrading the current infrastructure/line/rolling stock as I believe the digital future will make travel less necessary. Living with what we have and within the limitations of geography etc seems a safer bet over commencing such a grand scheme with dubious benefit and an almost guaranted super escalation in costs.
There are parts of the North with dreadful access to digital/broadband and really poor transport links. HS2 won't aid them. I don't believe that currently 20mins longer on a train journey is preventing power moving out of London, businesses and Govt relocating etc so HS2 seems more likely to increase the North:South divide. There are going to be lots of people whose journey time to London is increased as they will live than 20mins from an HS2 station.
Driverless cars might be an interesting solution to road capacity but I'd like to see a central conveyor belt that cars hitch to on joining motorways. It could be powered by water/wind/solar or the hot air from here! 😉
It's here
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260525/strategic-case.pdf ]The Strategic Case for HS2[/url]
I don't believe that currently 20mins longer on a train journey is preventing power moving out of London
Based on anything more than a hunch?
as I believe the digital future will make travel less necessary.
They've been saying that for decades, hasn't happened, business travel rises every year.
Fundamentally there is no substitute for meeting people in the [s]flash[/s] flesh.
We'd travel even more if it was quicker and cheaper...
molgrips - Member
I don't believe that currently 20mins longer on a train journey is preventing power moving out of London
Based on anything more than a hunch?
Journey times have been decreasing since the wheel was invented but London's power has grown so why do you believe HS2 will buck that trend? Please don't reply "why do you think it won't?" ;).
meeting people in the flash
[img] 
[/img]
Im struggling to see how it will be anything other than a very expensive commuter line sucking more life into the blackhole that is london.
If HS2 is going to happen at least have the common sense to terminate it at St Pancras so it integrates with HS1 and Eurostar and gives something approaching integrated train travel.
HoratioHufnagel - Member
It's hereThe Strategic Case for HS2
Thanks. I read extracts from that a while back but thought it seemed to have been written on the premise of arriving at a new line as the answer. I'm not greatly knowledgeable in the subject though hence my interest in simple arguments by way of the compelling reasons for.
footflaps - Member
as I believe the digital future will make travel less necessary.
They've been saying that for decades, hasn't happened, business travel rises every year
We seem to have the IT now though to better support a "digital by default" approach. Skype/Google apps etc are all no brainers from a time and cost perspective for many business meetings but granted not all.
They've been saying that for decades, hasn't happened, business travel rises every year.
Because the digital infrastructure isn't there! Once you get outside major cities speed and reliability are still very patchy.
Fundamentally there is no substitute for meeting people in the flesh.
Agreed to a point however good digital communications reduces the need for face to face meetings. Say you have monthly team meetings for staff across the country. Regardless of the transport links this is still potentually a hefty bill expecially factoring accomodation / transfer costs, lost time etc. Reducing this to 2 physical meetings and 10 virtual would represent a massive saving in cost and disruption.
Agreed to a point however good digital communications reduces the need for face to face meetings. Say you have monthly team meetings for staff across the country. Regardless of the transport links this is still potentually a hefty bill expecially factoring accomodation / transfer costs, lost time etc. Reducing this to 2 physical meetings and 10 virtual would represent a massive saving in cost and disruption.
I have to drive cross country every six weeks for sales meetings and they're worth every penny. I get to see colleagues face to face which in priceless and can't be replicated on skype. I talk to many people on a daily basis on the phone but face to face is much better.
Reducing to 2 meetings would be detrimental from the relationship point of view. Cost saving in the short term would be fine, in the long term costs would increase, obviously.
Based on anything more than a hunch?
What are you going to do with the 20 minutes you save? Be a faithful unit of production or go for a coffee?
Journey times have been decreasing since the wheel was invented but London's power has grown so why do you believe HS2 will buck that trend?
If that's not full of straw I don't know what is. Journey times to London from an hour away have always been an hour. What's happened is that the radius of places that are an hour away has expanded over the centuries. Due to better technology. Isn't that what you want to happen? Help activity move further away from London?
I get to see colleagues face to face which in priceless and can't be replicated on skype.
With a bit of practise, it could be. We just need to get used to it. Otherwise, we're all ****ed, aren't we? If economic activity is to increase and we DON'T change our working practices, the entire world will consume itself moving more and more people around to deliver nothing more than words.
Video conferencing etc replaces some meetings, but as business becomes more global, the overall need for travelling increases, hence the continual rise in business travel.
Video conferencing etc replaces some meetings, but as business becomes more global, the overall need for travelling increases, hence the continual rise in business travel.
Jevon's paradox, innit. Or, if you prefer, the Khazoom-Brookes postulate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom%E2%80%93Brookes_postulate
We don't NEED to travel, we just like it.
Well I like new bikes, can't have them all the time though.
Is it in left luggage?
I agree with HS2.
Once Brexit hits the fan the sheer amount of folks unemployed will need jobs, however since thee already is a huge skill shortage I expect this current Government to welcome that there Europeans back in to fill the gap.
As for the route, who cares. The route has to go somewhere, better just drawing a line on an OS Map and throw some diggers at it....now.
molgrips - Member
What's happened is that the radius of places that are an hour away has expanded over the centuries. Due to better technology. Isn't that what you want to happen? Help activity move further away from London?
Making London more accessible and encouraging business to be located in other cities are not the same. London could be 2hrs from Newcastle or 1 from Leeds/Manchester but we ought to be investing in those cities being self sustaining vibrant business centres rather than celebrating their increased ability to be commuter suburbs for London.
We do NEED to travel. For business and pleasure. Business is still done face to face and always will be, now more than ever - especially since more and more business is global with nations of other cultures and languages where things don't translate very well over email or link call/video conference. A lot of the day to day admin and contact has been replaced with tech, but the business of doing business is still done face to face - at the end of the day it's all about trust and you don't develop trust over What's App, LinkedIn or, heaven forbid, a phone call!! Business travel is increasing because global business is increasing at a tremendous and exponential rate and it has always been the case that improvements in physical infrastructure facilitates increases in business and ultimately GDP because it means companies can attract people and business contacts from wider afield. Its a self-feeding mechanism. Throttle back on infrastructure and you throttle back on business activity. It is the life blood.
So bring it on - build more rail links, more roads (urgently!), more airports and runways (runway 3 & 4 for Heathrow and more runways for Gatwick and others around the country), and of course improve our digital infrastructure. It all needs doing and a damn sight faster than we are doing now.
No idea if HS2 is a good link or not - I have no doubt we need high speed links connecting all our major cities and towns as well as more local branch lines and trams for more local connections - not good to mix and match them as you just end up slowing the fast trains down. One thing I heard today is that HS2 wont link upto Eurostar - that's a mistake for sure.
Business is still done face to face and always will be
That's what I dispute, that's what needs to change for the good of the planet and all our sanity.
But until then:
we ought to be investing in those cities being self sustaining vibrant business centres rather than celebrating their increased ability to be commuter suburbs for London.
Let's say businesses do relocate or start up in these cities *because* they are accessible from London. If enough of them do this then they'll find eventually that when they pick up the phone to someone they want to work with they'll find they are also in the North and not London.
That's what's happened in the outskirts of London - places like Camberly, Bracknell, Staines, Guildford etc etc.
@molgrips
There are many reasons why businesses are located outside of Central London but in close proximity however unless HS2 vastly exceeds its predicted journey time savings I can't see Newcastle/Leeds/Manchester becoming the new Staines in the foreseeable future hence my preference for investing in those cities in their own right rather than expansion being London dependant.
Even with teleportation and London being accessible in seconds that isn't the same as trying to better balance our economy/country by growing business in other cities. The success of HS2 seems highly dubious which was my original point.
To be honest, free fast wifi and lots of tables would be as much of a benefit as anything else.
Even with teleportation and London being accessible in seconds that isn't the same as trying to better balance our economy/country by growing business in other cities.
Well as said on the EU thread - I'm all in favour of governments properly managing the economy instead of just letting it run riot doing whatever it wants.
I read something that made a good point about reducing travel times to/from London and how it might make things worse for 'the provinces'.
If you're running a small business in Birmingham and you need an ad campaign, or a website or a piece of software designing, you [i]could[/i] spend two hours getting to New Street, getting on the £140 train to London, then getting the tube across London to the trendy offices of the firm you've decided to employ to do that bit of work for you. Or you could choose someone local, they might not be quite as good due to a smaller pool of workers and less experience/variety, but they'll do a decent job and it will cost less.
But if the journey time to London comes down to an hour and a half, or an hour, then at some point you're probably going to end up deciding that the 'better' London designers/marketers/coders are worth the hassle of the journey, so you use them instead of the company in the Midlands (at some point, due to the crap local public transport, it ends up taking longer to get 10 miles in the same county than it does to jump on the HS train and get to central London). The size of London means that there will almost certainly be someone there who can do a job at least as well as your local, provincial supplier. But at the moment, the journey times put people off. As what people consider 'local' grows then they'll start using firms further away.
The counter to that is that the non-London firms are probably cheaper, but will customers based in London want a worse product/service for the sake of saving a few quid?
I'd much rather see the money spent on decent local transport. I live on a main bus route, and yet there's no bus to the train station (which will be on HS2). So it takes me two or three busses and 45 minutes, plus a walk, to get 3 miles to the station, and then HS2 will make it 45 minutes to travel all the way to London. I don't think an hour or 45 minutes to get to London would make a noticeable difference, the thing that's noticeable is that in London (central London at least) you just turn up at a tube station, swipe your oyster card and get catapulted to your destination after at most a 3 minute wait for a train. Compare that to almost every other city where you're lucky if a bus goes to your destination more than once an hour, and there's no Oyster so you have to pay in shrapnel, and the drivers don't give change so you might be out of luck and have to hand over a tenner for the privilege of using a bus!
I wish they would spend some money on the SW trains....London to Bristol seems fast enough then you go back to the 90's to Plymouth then you get on a Deltic to PZ.... thats if the weather is good and you can get past the coast.
The compelling case for HS2 is expanding the size of the London commuter belt and inflating house prices accordingly across a wider radius from the Thames. That's been the Conservative party's main aim since Thatcher. The more people taking out the largest mortgages possible the better.
This not only provides the illusion of wealth, economic growth (essential to secure further borrowing) and a healthy banking system, it also traps working people under the yoke of debt. The more debt a worker has, the less likely that worker is to rock the boat when his or her employer changes the conditions governing the job the worker depends on to service that debt to something less in the worker's favour.
The idea that the government wants to build HS2 to create and support a thriving hub of innovative industry in Bradford is laughable. They do not care about the north of England and beyond.
Its a vanity project pure and simple and will suck more money out of the rest of the country into london.
If the government were serious about regeneration it would be started in Edinburgh or Glasgow and built south from there
Its a vanity project pure and simple and will suck more money out of the rest of the country into london.
Different continent but living somewhere that I can access 2 major cities in under 3hrs door to door it actually has the opposite effect where business can reside outside of the major centres and get in easily enough to work there. Of a sample of the 10-15 of us at our co-working space Friday beers 80% don't earn money in the place we live, we do however spend it.
If it were to do one thing and alieviate the housing pressure in the south east then it may have a big ongoing benifit for essential workers and those that have no real choice but to live there.
To build south from Edinburgh to Glasgow you would end up connecting Newcastle/Leeds/Manchester first, all places that have a good direct train connection mostly - A quick look tells me I can do Newcastle To Edinburgh (1hr45 our 1hr30 back) first class for 70 quid this morning or 40 quid standard. Glasgow down the west coast was never that busy till you hit the Manchester area, it's the bit below that needs the work.
YepThe compelling case for HS2 is expanding the size of the London commuter belt and inflating house prices accordingly across a wider radius from the Thames. That's been the Conservative party's main aim since Thatcher. The more people taking out the largest mortgages possible the better.
That's 8-12 people from "the provinces" drinking their friday beers (and eating their lunch every day, presumably) in a distant city ? Hopefully they don't buy all their shit online, otherwise the local towns might as well shut, hey ?Of a sample of the 10-15 of us at our co-working space Friday beers 80% don't earn money in the place we live, we do however spend it
No that is us working remotely for most of the time but being able to be face to face when we need to. It allows for better remote working when you can easily and reliably get to places you need to.
the TGV in france is great .
Good transport links allow people to live elsewhere and work in London - either all the time or occasionally. This brings money back out of the capital, and that money then grows the economy in those other places.
So it is a commuter line, with another, wider housing bubble, and even more pressure on the busy London services such as buses, tube etc...
I'm also intrigued in the 'London earns the UK it's money' and 'London is the economic powerhouse' argument. To make it this powerhouse, you have to spend far more on infrastructure and services then elsewhere in the country.
If, as others suggest, we invested the £60bn of Hs2, the £00's bn of Heathrow, the cost of crossrail, Olympics, M25 upgrades and various road improvement programmes inside M25 etc etc that has or is to be invested in London and area into (for example) Leeds, how much would we have another economic 'powerhouse', while reducing many pressures on London and spreading the economy wider.
Total Investment vs reward - does London offer best value?
I do think that this forum contains a fair mix of smart and well read individuals regardless of political affiliations - however there is no debate on HS2 it's a "new deal" "Hoover Dam" project designed to create an illusion/distraction, no one in power gives a **** about the North (or Birmingham for that matter) Google ain't building in Manchester or Leeds- it is far easier to borrow money to invest in a flagship project (regardless of any real value) than actually try and distribute infrastructure to the provinces. The current government does not have the time to work on multiple projects while dealing with the biggest fiscal catastrophe since WW2 - easier to turn around and say "look at the investment we are making for you"
Complete bollocks and we all know it.