10th January 2012 at 10:16 #489117
Anonymous10th January 2012 at 10:16 #489118
HS2 has been given the green light today.
I thought I would start this discussion off to get comments from posters, both for and against. I am firmly against even though I like trains, as HS2 simply does not make sense. Most people I know feel the same.
What are your thoughts on the matter, and would you pay the substantial premium to use it?10th January 2012 at 10:31 #489119
Costing £32bn and delivered by 2026.
Bearing in mind that will cross at least 4 parliaments and that these things are never on time or within budget, be prepared for £50bn and sometime after 2030 if indeed it ever happens.
Good news as well for all those in the rail industry who love trousering a bit of public money.10th January 2012 at 11:41 #489120
Pro-HS2, Anti-the route it will take. It should be going through LHR, and provide a proper connection tot he HS1 line, rather than the lightweight solution proposed.
A bit of a mess really.10th January 2012 at 11:49 #489121
Official cost of £32.7 billion, probably going to be much higher. On top of this we must not forget that the government is going to have to borrow the money, so at least as much again in interest charges over the years.
Government claims of £44 billion of benefits maybe true, but that is over 60 years! Much less than the current official cost plus interest. And the claim of creating 1 million jobs is an outright lie.
No point routing through Heathrow if Boris Island is built, and people from Manchester wanting to get to LHR will still fly there. No real need to connect to HS1 as flying will always be faster, and AF need to maintain their flights for connection revenue so will offload the other seats for less than the train fare.10th January 2012 at 13:45 #489122
While I quite like the idea of HSR, I’m not too keen on Birmingham (or having my house tunneled under).
I also don’t understand how if most of the route is tunnels or cuttings the trains can go at 400km/h, a speed which even China is scared to put into commercial operation. Also, maglev would have been so much better, not simply a reinvented Victorian railway that takes 20 years to build!10th January 2012 at 15:22 #489123
Although in favour of train travel, I think for a saving of just 20 minutes, the cost and disruption is not worth it. As we know so frequently from these discussions, it’s door to door rather than block times that count, and 20 mins is so quickly lost if you have to wait 1/2 hour for a bus or taxi, or worse, transfer to a regional train for onward travel.
I also believe the HST terminal will be 10 mins away from the main station so any potential gain will be lost in this transfer.
Further, the regional trains will have connections designed to connect with mainline services from Luton, Crewe etc and if he HST is timed to correspond then again any advantage will be lost.
Far better to upgrade the existing lines and rolling stock instead.10th January 2012 at 20:21 #489124
However much the politicians talk they are prisoners to their civil servants and their own vanity and ineptitude. This project has reached such a stage that it cannot be modified. The “changes(?)” are only cosmetic to try to satisfy the concerns of some Tory MPs and their voters affected by the line through their constituencies.
The whole consultation period has been a farce. Nothing of importance (and fundamental cost) has been looked at and solved.
I accept that a new rail line is necessary, at least up to the Midlands but only as part of a wider TGV network. This should correct deficiencies in the height and width of the present lines while into the bargain providing more capacity and freeing up paths (or slots in airline terminology) on the WCML (or MML or ECML).
However, the unnecessary expense of building a useless station at Old Oak Common and running a tunnel into Euston have not been avoided by running the line directly into Paddington.
The “interchange” station in Birmingham is well away from Birmingham International airport duplicating facilities and necessitating the use of a (God forbid the awful name) “people mover”.
The assumption is made that many TGVs will finish at Birmingham when ALL of them could continue on to destinations further north, be they Wolverhampton or Glasgow or wherever, running over the conventional(classic) lines.
Even the supposed connection to HS1 through the bottleneck of London shows a lack of thinking. I often wonder if any of these MPs get out of their cars and actually use public transport. I very much doubt it.
As BUCKSNET has pointed out if you have to pay a premium for this service the airlines (or VIRGIN TRAINS for that matter) will just dump seats on to the market to sink the project.
This project, in its present form, is exactly the same as the Labour one thrown back at us after being Max Factorised by the Tories with no fundamental changes to attack the criticims of it. Let the Tory MPs affected by it throw it back at the government.12th January 2012 at 13:15 #489125
No one has yet mentioned the “Green Aspect of the project….
To move people away from flying domestically into London…This part of the Goverment Spin has surely got to be the most damning yet …and show the project for what it is…..
A TORY GOVERMENT OVER INDULGENCE ….Wouldn’t surprise me if contract back handers are already changing hands……
The busiest domestic air corridor is between EDI and the London Airports—Almost 40 a day –this also doesnt include the frequent flights to East Midlands, Birmingham .Leeds or Manchester
Yet it wont be until 2050+ that Scotland finally can look forward to a fast reliable train service to London !!
By then the pollution caused by these pesky airbuses will have turned Britain into a post acopolptic waste land –if our political elite are to be believed
We need a 3rd runway not a £32B + BRUM express12th January 2012 at 13:35 #489126
I am generally a supporter of High Speed Trains (and use them extensively in Europe) however HS2 seems to be an answer to a question that nobody asked. A saving of 20 minutes to Birmingham at the cost of extensive rural disruption, massive investment and questions about the technology seems a little mad at best.12th January 2012 at 13:54 #489127
Like others I am a great believer in HS trains, having journeyed on many throughout Europe; however the planned HS2 project is a waste of money as it does not address the issues , nor will the technology be modern by the time it is complete. I mean we are still using 30 year old trains on the ECML, that have been refurbed to bits.
Why not think out of the box , like the germans , japanese & china and look at maglev. I know its not perfect yet, but it soon will be and you dont need to do tunnels and cuttings. A more simpler and more cost effective and greener solution12th January 2012 at 14:34 #489128
its a valid point ,one that i had not considered
By the time I’m 6 feet under or closer to it , the first passengers are going to be boarding a train fbased on 20th century technology..
More Booo’s for Mr Camerons folly……
Not that I am questioning Birmingham as a financially rich city but can they in the time span envisaged create £60B worth of Return on Investment making this project financially viable
can’t see many other parts of the UK contribuiting..they will more likely be micro managing their own stretch of track etc12th January 2012 at 14:42 #489129
The fact is that all other european countries, germany, france etc, subsidise their rail industry, therefore they have better inforstructure and rolling stock.
In this country the government try to con us into thinking that private companies are better at running the railways and that it has to be on a profit based model; ie poor old joe public getting fleeced.
What they don’t tell you is that the subsidies paid the the TOCs are greater than BR ever received.
So based on this , lets think who will end up paying for this outdated idea, the TOCs, track operators, rolling stock suppliers. ???
No poor bloody tax payers3rd April 2012 at 17:33 #489130
HS2 goes to court
Claims that the goverment failed to do an adequate environmental assessment and lack of consultation over compensation being the basis for what is likely to be protracted course of litigation3rd April 2012 at 19:42 #489131
Well at least the coallition is doing something to help unemployed barristers.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.