HS2, is it right for the UK?

shortchanged_2

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

mayonnaise wrote: »

It doesn't HAVE to be SE centric, but it's the situation we have to deal with at the moment.
Look at flight options to the emerging economies out of LHR and compare them with CDG, Frankfort am Main and Schiphol and you'll know what I mean.
Also, CDG : 4 runways FF : 4 runways Schiphol : 6 runways LHR : 2 runways. Two.
It's a joke. Let's have another runway in LHR and one at Gatwick to start with.
A substantial airport in the North? Even today there's not enough demand to fill the current capacity at Manchester, Leeds Bradford, Newcastle etc..., so why would we need a substantial airport in the North??? As a hub to take some pressure off London airports maybe, yes.

Yes, it's a plan. Sorted.

Close all the smaller airports for these regions, and build super airports instead with first class road and rail links. That would be a better way to spend the money. It should help reduce the dependence on London and then there would be no need for HS2.

andrewf75

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

I'm in favour of large scale rail investment, but I think we need to improve the network as a whole not spend massive amounts on one project for a minority. Journey times to the North are not too bad anyway and anyone needing to get there faster will fly. In any case, business travellers work on the train so is a half hour time saving really worth that much?

DominicJ_2

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

Pennywise wrote: »

It's about time the politicians butted out and left such important things to those who know what they're doing and aren't influenced by tomorrow's newspaper headlines.

I'd be amazed if Beeching read the train plan the civil service wrote for him.....

neilem

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

CLAPTON wrote: »

given HS2 is a cost effective solution and generally supported by industry, why not simply let the private sector fund it and take the profits that will flow?

Has any interviewer even asked this? The railways are privatised, leave it for them to build (surely that is what all those above inflation ticket rises are taking into account)...

Thrugelmir

Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.

No one complained about the impact of Cross Rail nor the cost of £16 billion.

If HS2 links in to Crossrail. Then travel around the UK will be far better.

Having lived and travelled into London from the SE, S and W. Could be so much better. Than arriving at a terminus.

Much prefer the train to flying. Far less wasted time. More comfortable too.

shortchanged_2

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

mayonnaise wrote: »

A substantial airport in the North? Even today there's not enough demand to fill the current capacity at Manchester, Leeds Bradford, Newcastle etc..., so why would we need a substantial airport in the North??? As a hub to take some pressure off London airports maybe, yes.

Why do you think that is?

Would it be because the choice and general cost of flights at these airports is poor in comparison to the London airports.

Would the suggestion of less but larger airports for these areas provide more competition for the London airports and thus less need to travel down to London way for flights.

shortchanged_2

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

Just seen this link posted on another site http://www.500kmh.com/

Looks a more attractive option and certainly a better option for the future of travel.

GingerSte

Yes, the benefits to the UK are far too great to ignore.

You seem to want your questions answering, Michaels, so I'll do my best (for 10:30 in the evening). See my replies in blue below. Apologies for rambling - it's late!

michaels wrote: »

I don't feel able to judge the economic case and I'm afraid I don't trust any of the players to give an unbiased view. I admit at the outset that I am probably biased in favour of HS2. To declare my interest, I am not employed to promote it or anything like that. However, I am a civil engineer, and even if I didn't get any work for this directly in the future, you could argue that I might benefit from increased demand for civil engineers as a result of this project.

Is the issue the speed or is it the capacity? It's mainly the capacity. The south section of the West Coast Mainline (between London and Rugby) is fast getting full, and there's a law of diminishing returns on further improvements. That's not to say that it can't be improved - just not the step change that will be needed going into the future.

Are there other ways to provide the capacity (and possibly some of the speed increases) that are cheaper/less disruptive?

The current issue with capacity is caused by the mix of trains using the WCML (you have to have gaps to allow some trains to run faster than others, or the faster ones get held up). You could free up capacity by getting rid of the slower trains, or getting rid of the faster trains, but that wouldn't be popular. (Actually, HS2 gets rid of the faster trains, by putting them on a different line).

Putting even higher speed trains on the WCML would need even more and even bigger gaps, so that wouldn't be feasible either (also for other reasons, like signalling etc).

Some people have suggested increasing the number of tracks on that section from 4 to 6. That would involve rebuilding every single station, bridge, tunnel, section of track, embankment and cutting for 100 miles of railway, all while keeping said railway open for business in the week so limiting yourself to weekends. Also, think about all the houses and businesses next to the line (on one side or the other). The disruption would be massive. You might say that it would be easier just to build the new tracks on a completely different alignment, where it would cause less trouble - and you'd end up with HS2.

How much of the busines smodel depends on other disruptive technologies/events not 'moving the goal posts' - things like:
- Fuel possibly becoming prohibitively expensive for private cars/aircraft, Fuel is going to get more expensive in the future. The question is how much.
- Self driving vehicles possibly hugely increasing road capacity (and possibly speeds), Possibly. When will this happen, though?
- Video conferencing / virtual reality reducing the requirement for travel, This has been around a while, now. As has the internet. In that time, rail usage has increased rather than decreased. The internet has allowed people to communicate more than ever before, and those people end up wanting to meet up. This is true of business and leisure travellers.
- Other disruptive transport technologies like the proposed California Vacuum tube, maglev etc There are a number of issues with the vacuum tube that will take decades of designing, testing, refining to solve, all of which will take vast amounts of cash and all of which may lead to nothing. I like the way Eton Musk (the inventor of the vacuum tube) thinks, but it's not at a stage where we can pump the necessary cash in yet. Maglev has also been around for decades, but has never really made any inroads into mass transit (except for a few small schemes linking airports to cities). I would also argue that neither of these methods is compatible with the existing system. With HS2 there will be "Classic Compatible" trains running over the new line, and then on to the old. You can't do that with Maglev or vacuum tubes.
- Scottish Independence reducing/increasing travel volumes Yes, the WCML does carry Anglo-Scottish travellers, but they are not the main reason behind the need for HS2. I have no idea what Scottish independence would mean for travel volumes, but I can't see it affecting the business case too much.

Given the huge uncertainties the scale of infrastructure investment seems to be high risk in a way that an incremental approach would not be.

The same argument can be said for any infrastructure (or indeed any other) project which would require investment. However, if the Victorians had used that argument with the original railways, or people in the 60s had used that argument with our present motorways, where would we be now? We cannot predict the future with complete certainty. All we can do is make a "best guess" based on current projections, which is what today's report and its predecessors try to do.

There are many things in the report that can be argued about one way or the other (like what proportion of businessmen would actually get on with their work while on the train). I would also add that in most of the recent re-openings of rail lines we've seen recently (mainly in Scotland and Wales), these estimates have been on the low side, and usage has actually been higher than predicted.

dotdash79 wrote: »

I would prefer to see some cross country express trains Liverpool to Leeds is at least 2 hours.

Links to London are fine, travel between other cities is poor. However new train lines are welcome in any form. I agree with you, Dotdash. However, that's not the purpose of this particular scheme. The "Northern Hub" project should address some of the problem between Liverpool and Leeds, though.

DominicJ wrote: »

The problem with HS2 is its designed to fill a need, and that need isnt improving train travel, its "legacy" for politicians. Possibly, but the opposite is also true of (some/most) politicians: they're too busy thinking about what's currently popular and likely to get them elected next time to properly plan ahead for the future.

My 5pm train home ALWAYS* sits still for 10 minutes waiting for a delayed inter city train to over take. 200m of track further down the line would allow my train to keep going and pull in when the inter city catches up. Or perhaps better track or station capacity further back would allow the intercity to be on time.
That would cost pennies compared to HS2. These sorts of projects would still go ahead with HS2. It's not either/or. I can't speak specifically for this project as I've no idea which train/line you're on.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of small projects like that could be done for the cost of HS2, and the improvement to the rail network would be monumentally greater.
But no one would be able to point to it and say, "I did that" in their memoirs, or their next civil service grade review.

Isnt it an EU diktat anyway? Er, no. The only thing that the EU have done is set standards for "interoperability" for if it's built, so that trains from abroad can use it (via the Channel Tunnel and HS1). They haven't ordered that it be built.
So whine all you want, it'll be built.

*Every single time I've caught that train

mayonnaise wrote: »

I'm broadly in favour of HS2, but believe there are more pressing infrastructure issues to be addressed first.
e.g. huge investment in power generation and expanding airport capacity in the S-E.

I agree that investment is needed in power generation, but there is over 60 million people in this country. We can do more than one thing at a time!

I also agree about SE airport capacity. Last I heard, Heathrow's owners would have built the extra runway themselves if only they'd been given permission. I say, let 'em get on with it! I would also note that on HS2, Birmingham Airport would be 40 minutes from Euston, and so easier to get to than most of the others. There's some capacity for you!

Brallaqueen

No, it's a waste of money and it could be better spent elsewhere.

I dont have a problem with improving rail links per se, but this is too focused on just one line, goes through random small towns (not mine sadly) and just seems to provide a limited return for the expenditure. I'd rather see that same money put towards encouraging london centric businesses to go further afield. on the service as a whole or on more priority (to me) services

zagubov

shortchanged wrote: »

Just seen this link posted on another site http://www.500kmh.com/

Looks a more attractive option and certainly a better option for the future of travel.

They've been discussing this on other fora. Does look better. It's more to do with connecting Scotland and the North of England. Which would be better for everybody. I'd bypass London and connect all points north with the continent, if I had my way.

Of course as the current political system is all about growing the SouthEast, don't expect much support from central government.

We nearly had this a century ago.

We're like a medieval theme park compared with Europe.