we don’t need another high speed link to London, we need high speed links between places that aren’t london.

convince me i’m wrong.

It helps if people want to go to at least one of the destinations.

Where do you propose people need to travel between quickly?

Cannot because you are not

Its like the assumption is if we could all get to London faster our economy would boom
I agree that improved links between places – look at Liverpool to Hull 120 miles ish in over 3 hours!!

annebr – Member

Where do you propose people need to travel between quickly?

example*: sheffield to manchester.

a journey of only 30miles, that takes an hour, often much longer.

we don’t even need an expensive ‘high speed’ link, just a cheapo ‘not extremely slow’ service would be a MASSIVE improvement.

(*there are many more, and it’s entirely possible that improved links would lead to increased demand)

(it’s also entirely possible that increased travel between places that aren’t london would free up capacity on the links with london)

we don’t need another high speed link to London, we need high speed links between places that aren’t london.

The number of people wishing to travel on the existing low-speed links suggests that you are wrong.

Transport links to London are good BECAUSE London is so important, not the other way round. They didn’t randomly plan a nationwide transport network converging in one spot and then say ‘oh wow look, this would be a great place for a city, it’s really easy to get to!’ 🙂

Like it or not, London is extremely important – business and the economy there is on a different scale to the rest of the country, so the value to the national economy of transport links is much higher than other places.

These links will allow money and work to be drawn out of the capital to the rest of the country. Wealth needs to be redistributed from London to everywhere else – not from Sheffield to Manchester. If Sheffield and Manchester both become righer from this, then perhaps it’ll be worth improving the links.

However – there are geographical reasons why the transport links between those two places aren’t better – and they haven’t gone away in the last 100 years. A decent trans-pennine link would cost a lot, per mile.

If we as a country have a desperate need to spaff £50,000,000,000 that we haven’t got on transport infrastructure it would be jolly nice if that money was spent somewhere that needed it, rather than just spending on London as we usually do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349

I will vote for anyone that will cancel HS2 and use the money to fix/improve the wider rail, road and cycle infrastructure. Which I think means I have to vote UKIP.

We don’t need to get to London half an hour quicker. It won’t boost the economy in the areas it links to. I lived near Peterborough when that line was upgraded, all that happened was that house prices went nuts as locals were priced out by London commuters. I now live 20 minutes from a proposed HS2 station. What do you reckon will happen? How will my kids afford rent/houses in 10-20 years time?

it is true that London is wealthy, and lots of people want to travel there, but isn’t it widely accepted that the nation would benefit if we could shift our starry eyed gaze away from The Capital for 5 minutes?

And if that isn’t going to happen ‘organically’ then a little encouragement might be in order?

HS2 is the exact opposite of that; further entrenching our Nation’s dedication to the economic success of London at the expense of everywhere else.

My wife considered a job in Manchester, it was a well paid specialist position, but the commute made it completely impractical.

My wife missed out, but perhaps most importantly, the business in Manchester missed out because they were limited to only recruiting people who live in Manchester – i believe that office has now closed.

(not just because my wife couldn’t work their, but they couldn’t recruit an entire team)

with better links, you make business more able to recruit the people they need.

Molgrips, sorry but “Transport links to London are good BECAUSE London is so important, not the other way round. ” is bollox. Good transport links create demand, ask any road planner.

No, London grew partly because of the government choices of investment there. Canary Wharf because of incentives given in the 80s to build, while it was drawn away from manufacturing in the north. London is in the south-east, with most of the country to the north-west. The decisions to build national airports easily accessible only via London meant London prospered at the expense of elsewhere.

Decisions on transport matter. Birmingham grew partly because it was a canal hub, Thames Valley prospers because of Heathrow (that’s why all the US software companies are there), industrial estates grow out around motorways because of the accessibility of transport.

The north needs investment, and 4-tracking between Liverpool -MCR- Leeds- Hull will help a damn site more than HS2

North/south connections are already there.
If there was a better service of course you’d use it (price dependent)
It seems the only objectors I’ve seen are the NIMBY brigade.I’m sure Thomas Telford didn’t have this problem.
Embrace it instead of fighting. If you fight you won’t win.

It seems to me, that over-centralisation in London has led to a position where it can’t supply its own labour market. So the rational thing to do is to move business elsewhere- if the labour you need is in Manchester, go to Manchester.

But instead we’re catering to that over-centralisation by making it easier for people to get to London, effectively turning the other cities that already suffer from Londoncentricity into commuter towns.

But that in turn will lead to yet more over-centralisation so once HS2 is full, London will still be too big, the other cities will be effectively smaller, and all the problems that led to HS2 will be unsolved or made worse.

So the rest of the country gets to pay a stack of cash, in order to have their blood sucked out, and then be told they should be thankful.

iolo – it will go through my back (riding) yard. Like wind turbines, my objection isn’t to do with it being close or some wafty environmental nonsense, it’s because a colossal amount of public money is going to be spent on a narrow one off plan instead of using it to deal with a wider range of interlinked problems

But instead we’re catering to that over-centralisation by making it easier for people to get to London, effectively turning the other cities that already suffer from Londoncentricity into commuter towns.

Indeed. I have colleagues (with good, relatively well paid professional careers) who are commuting from places like Birmingham and Cambridge to London because the can’t afford to live in London. This idea that business will magically move out of London when HS2 is built is a rather large assumption when it seems pretty obvious that the opposite will happen.

And with potentially rising sea levels and more severe weather episodes, how viable will London be in 20 years when HS2 has sucked all the money from the rest of the country?

North/south connections are already there.
If there was a better service of course you’d use it (price dependent)
It seems the only objectors I’ve seen are the NIMBY brigade.I’m sure Thomas Telford didn’t have this problem.
Embrace it instead of fighting. If you fight you won’t win.

Do you even read the thread or just list 10 trolly things likely to get a response and then type them in a random order hoping someone responds?

I would like to see better rail links, more rail links and am happy seeing infrastructure being built in my back yard (but then, I only live a 350m from the West Coast mainline and 2km from the M6) but i’m completely opposed to HS2 as it’s a development that really only exist to benefit that London. Better links coast to coast would be more useful or Birmingham to Manchester as well as Leeds -> Liverpool via Manchester are what is needed, not more London centricity.

Embrace it instead of fighting. If you fight you won’t win.

If you don’t fight, you will definitely lose – the question is what you fight and how you do it.

Do you reckon a one off “Stop HS2 Party” would get enough votes to make a difference at the election? Would split the Tory vote in the shires it will run through…..

iolo – Member

It seems the only objectors I’ve seen are the NIMBY brigade.

i’m objecting, it goes nowhere near my back yard. or anyone i know. Even though i live near the centre of sheffield, and there’ll be a sheffield station, it’ll still be nowhere near me – if anything that’s one of my objections!

Sheffielders will be faced with a choice of 2 stations if they want to travel to London; 1) the cheaper option from the centre of sheffield, or 2) the more expensive option that’s moves slightly faster, but from Meadowhall, which is A) half an hour away, and B) already insanely busy.

Good transport links create demand, ask any road planner.

Yep, and London grew because it had good sea links with Europe and the Roman Empire. I had to laugh a bit at you suggesting it’s all because of Canary Wharf – London’s dominance goes back a lot further than that. They had to build that because the City was short on office space.

This idea that business will magically move out of London when HS2 is built is a rather large assumption when it seems pretty obvious that the opposite will happen.

I’m sure a lot of businesses would rather be out of London as it is – far cheaper. The problem is that all the other businesses they want to deal with are already there, it’s a Catch-22.

However, in your example, the money is already moving out of London, because your colleagues are earning it in London and spending it in Birmingham instead.

So the rational thing to do is to move business elsewhere

How? They’ve been incentivising it for decades. You can’t make businesses move. This whole thing is exactly to encourage investment outside of London. The Thames valley is full of businesses BECAUSE it’s a lot cheaper than London and you can get there easily. It’s all about the M4 and the M3. If a big company is looking to set up shop somewhere in the UK they will want to be within reach of London – HS2 will put more places within that reach.

I’m sure Thomas Telford didn’t have this problem.

He did.

so, what’s the capacity of the existing brum/london rail link, and the demand on the same link?

anyone got any numbers?

However – there are geographical reasons why the transport links between those two places aren’t better – and they haven’t gone away in the last 100 years. A decent trans-pennine link would cost a lot, per mile.

Refurbing the Woodhead tunnel(s) would cost a hell of a lot less than building new ones.

I all for HS2 but at least on the proposed line to Leeds I can’t see the point of getting to somewhere 20-35 minutes outside Derby/Nottingham/Sheffield 35minutes faster is going to help a great deal. Unless the lines go to the city centers what’s the point?

It seems the only objectors I’ve seen are the NIMBY brigade

you mean the only ones who are objecting who have been asked. nobody asked me whether I think it’s a good idea to favour yet more money to London

The 2012 Olympics – ‘Stratford needs revitalising’ I thought london was one of the richest cities in the world with an urgent need for housing? so it needs extra money that other places don’t
the Dome – ‘Greenwich is an internationally recognised venue’ eh?
Heathrow/Boris Island ‘transport hub’ blah blah
not to mention the London Eye, the Tate Modern, all the orchestras, opera companies and massive theatre subsidy

and look at the appoplexy and fearmongering when the BBC decided to move to Salford, didn’t affect program quality did it? made it a lot better for cbeebies for example

What we really need is a complete network of high speed trains. And you do have to start somewhere, don’t you?

‘Stratford needs revitalising’ I thought london was one of the richest cities in the world with an urgent need for housing?

Er yeah, not all of it though!

There has been investment in other areas of the UK – South Wales has plenty of shiny new things for example.

The other thing not mentioned here is the amount of work with will bring involved in it’s construction.
Civil Engineering work which is so desperately needed.

It’s obviously about London if it wasn’t there would be a direct link to HS1 giving the north a direct rail link to Europe.

molgrips – Member

How? They’ve been incentivising it for decades. You can’t make businesses move.

Answered your own question there haven’t you- it’s not a case of making businesses move, it’s a case of stopping helping them not move. You said “They had to build Canary Wharf because the city was short of office space”- and that just shows the circular logic. London needed more offices because too much goes to London. Too much goes to London because every time London runs out of something- people, office space, whatever- more is provided. So if more office space hadn’t been provided, rents would go up, and soon it stops being so desirable to be in London. It’s ironic really that this stuff is all about denying market forces.

And it’ll happen again as soon as HS2 can’t do the job (which traditionally with this sort of thing, will happen pretty much as soon as it opens)

True story- my mate works for a small finance company. They’re based in London because “You need to be in London in our industry because that’s where the top people are”. All but one of the staff moved to London to work there because “that’s where the top jobs are” The proportion of their business that’s actually in London is less than 5%.

so, what’s the capacity of the existing brum/london rail link, and the demand on the same link?

anyone got any numbers?

Check the Route Utilisation Strategy, a few years old now, but has everything you need to know, and more, about the WCML. Section 3 has demand/capacity stuff.

molgrips – Member

What we really need is a complete network of high speed trains. And you do have to start somewhere, don’t you?

yes, so why not start somewhere where there are currently enormous holes in the network, where some infrastructure spending / digging might even be welcome?

However, in your example, the money is already moving out of London, because your colleagues are earning it in London and spending it in Birmingham instead.

Well yes, but it’s a patently ridiculous solution to encourage people to live hundreds of miles away from their workplace. There are other issues at play than simply economic factors such as climate change and other environmental considerations, and the socially destructive effect on communities, families and society at large of people having to spend hours each day travelling to and from work instead of being at home or in their local communities.

People are already prepared to live X hours away from London. All this does is extend how many miles you can travel in that time.

why not start somewhere where there are currently enormous holes in the network

A fair question – where would you do it?

So if more office space hadn’t been provided, rents would go up, and soon it stops being so desirable to be in London

Yeah, so they move to Paris, Madrid, etc etc.

They’re based in London because “You need to be in London in our industry because that’s where the top people are”

Yes, but they all need to be in the SAME place. So if the pressure wasn’t on London it’d have to be on some other city. Having everything in one place is actually MASSIVELY useful from a business point of view.

molgrips – Member

Yeah, so they move to Paris, Madrid, etc etc.

Because London is the only city in the UK 🙄 And if you can’t do business there, you might as well not bother being in the UK at all. What nonsense. As for “They all need to be in the SAME place”, that’s nonsense as well, most large businesses are distributed and in any case that’s only an argument for a single business, not for an industry.

molgrips – Member

A fair question – where would you do it?

the Liverpool+Manchester+Leeds+Hull arc mentioned above sounds bloody clever.

or, if HS2 has to go ahead, then it seems obvious to me that it needs to link up to Scotland, via Newcastle, via Edinburgh, ending in Glasgow.

That would be awesome, but they need to start digging yesterday. in multiple locations, Just F’ing get on with it.

if you’re going to do something for 50billion, then do a really good job and spend 100billion.

if you’re going to do something for 50billion, then do a really good job and spend 100billion.

Think you’re being a bit optimistic there 😆

As a resident of Sheffield, being able to get to Leeds in less than 40 minutes or Manchester in the same time (currently it can take an hour and a half on the train, similar in a car given the pathetic roads around Glossop/Milnrow) every day would make much more of a difference to me- opening up more job opportunities etc- than getting to London half an hour quicker for our annual visit to see some of the wife’s mates, who, thank the lord, have now moved out of London anyway.

Sheffield is one of the worst connected cities in the north, and connecting it to London rather than other northern cities is a waste of time.

dazh – Member

Think you’re being a bit optimistic there

when it comes to engineering, i’m an optimistic kinda guy.

mostly, when you give engineers a realistic challenge, they’ll do a fantastic job.

I thought london was one of the richest cities in the world

It contains some of the most deprived areas in the UK as well….

Ignore the list (that’s just out of London places), look at the dark blue areas:

mostly, when you give engineers a realistic challenge, they’ll do a fantastic job.

Not disagreeing with that as I work for a major engineering consultancy 😉 However as we all know with projects like these it very rarely gets left to the engineers to sort out.

We desperately need good and fast transport links between the major cities of the north (Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield).

Getting between all 4 is currently an absolute pain in the arse.

Top of the absolute farce list is the link between Manchester and Sheffield. You can either get the train, which meanders through the peaks at no great speed, stopping frequently . . .

. . . or you can start off on the M67, a fast, modern, 3 lane motorway which after about 4 miles drops down to 2 lanes, and after another couple of miles ends in a roundabout. If this isn’t bad enough it then drops down to a single lane and a 30mph limit, passes right through a housing estate and gets properly snarled up by a set of traffic lights at a crossroads junction. Who ever planned this needs dragging outside and shooting!

Who ever planned this needs dragging outside and shooting!

Having suffered the crawl through Mottram on countless occasions I’m inclined to agree. However if they have this much trouble putting a railway through some farmers fields in the home counties, I doubt they have the wherewithal to plough the M67 through the middle of the the country’s most popular National Park.

Again, Molgrips:

” I had to laugh a bit at you suggesting it’s all because of Canary Wharf – London’s dominance goes back a lot further than that. They had to build that because the City was short on office space.”

I didn’t suggest that at all. But the recent growth in the financial sector, and its focus on London, was started by tax concessions and incentives given to redevelop the East End, ie London at the expense of the North. They didn’t “have to” build there at all, but it was made financially attractive.
They didn’t have to build the Docklands Railway either, but that was put in before there was demand, to stimulate the development of the area.

As another example of SE-centricity, the Diamond JEt was built in Oxfordshire and scientists moved from the existing Rutherford labs near Warrington, in a purely political move.