[PhilipHart]

Absolutely no problem with that.

If private investors feel they have a sound business case, then let them make the investment.

But not £0.01 of public funds should be used.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Johnnyg

[canucklad]

[quote quote=992080]Critical infrastructure does not all have to be London-centric. Indeed, I had thought that this was a leading complaint of the apostles of Brex**it such as yourself? This really does sound like you’ve advocated moving the goal posts – and are now complaining that the goal posts got moved.[/quote]

Totally agree, I’m not for London Centric development.
Limited resources suggest we need to be a bit cleverer in how infrastructure investment is distributed.

I’m totally against HS2 – IMO. It’s more to do with getting to London than it is the other way. And from what I can see it’s not future proofed. By the time it opens, rail technology elsewhere will have catapulted even further ahead than the 20 minute savings on this white elephant of a line.

Much better to spend more , much more on the ECML all the way up to Edinburgh and onward to Aberdeen and Glasgow. And not shaving minutes but having trains that can properly compete with flight times.
If they did that, I’d see no real need to build a 3rd runway, alas they ( progressive governments ) have bumbled about for purely political reasons and we’ve ended up where we are . In the infrastructure equivalent of no mans land !!

And I’ll add, by the time the 3rd runway is rebuilt fuel technology will surely have moved beyond the fossil fuel argument ?

[TimFitzgeraldTC]

Canucklad

I’m afraid the cost to upgrade the WCML the ECML and the MML line to get the kind of capacity release that HS2 gives is way beyond the cost of HS2 itself. That combined with 30 years on non-stop engineering works which would be required (literally every weekend and holiday season) means that that just isn’t viable. Likewise the type of borrowing used to fund HS2 is not in place or available to fund the conventional rail infrastructure that would be required. It is not as simple as just diverting the money. It simply doesn’t exist just to switch over to other forms of public transport in rail network or elsewhere.

The 20 minute saving the media love to bang on about just isn’t what HS2 is primarily about – it is about the huge release in capacity it gives the 3 mainlines to enhance other rail services and provide more freight capacity.

Anyway wants phase 2 is done it will be have way more affect than the 20 minute saving to Birmingham (which I think 99% of people really don’t care about). More than 1 hour saving on travel to Manchester / Leeds and points further north are of way more interest along with the capacity release mentioned above.

Also HS2 releases the infrastructure and network requirements to make HS3 around the north work. You can’t really have 1 without the other to gain full benefits.

I could go on and on – but sadly much reporting on HS2 leaves a lot to be desired and doesn’t actually explain what it brings. But then hardly a surprise given the UK media.

[capetonianm]

I very much hope that when/if any new rail project is completed, this will release slots on the old infrastructure for the freight, of which so much moves by road, to be put onto the rail network, or even for the new lines to be used for freight at night.

This would make the country’s roads safer and more pleasant to use, reduce pollution, and reduce maintenance costs.

[canucklad]

Hi Tim
I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve said. I get the capacity argument as opposed to the time saving. But and it’s a big but, when it’s cheaper and quicker to fly between Scotland and the South East and BA remains addicted to LHR then I’m afraid a 3rd runway needs to be rebuilt. If for nothing else than to stop a decline in our economic future or at the very least stop its stagnation.
I’ll add, your defacto counter point of view condemns us to a rail service that ain’t going to get any better any time soon

[Author]

Posts