HS2/High Speed 2 - Will it happen?

[StriderX]

I still find it amazing that people are moaning about the cost. The Victorians spent the modern equivalent of 2.6 trillion pounds on the railways in a single decade, they understood the benefit of investing in the future lol.

Didnt Beechings rip like a third-half of the service, i mean understandably it was required. But to say that the Victorians "invested" in the future while also knowing up to half of it was defunct within a century...Hmm. Not sure i'd be so quick to congratulate the country that wasted that amount of wealth on what was essentially a vanity project.

The projects our ancestors achieved might have been high and mighty because we had the global economy essentially in our pocket, Victorian's did a lot of good and bad, but Holy Jebus what a waste it all was for us half way through the last century.

The fact is that ultimately this project is going to be a farce because it has to be, we don't tend to do equitable projects in any manner, especially if there's "friends and money" involved between Westminster's sad ******** who legitimately hate this country and particular businesses (especially construction companies and banks, for obvious reasons).

 

[Werewolf]

Didnt Beechings rip like a third-half of the service, i mean understandably it was required. But to say that the Victorians "invested" in the future while also knowing up to half of it was defunct within a century...Hmm. Not sure i'd be so quick to congratulate the country that wasted that amount of wealth on what was essentially a vanity project.

).

IIRC he made recommendations, the government (as is often the way) ignored a lot of them and went far further than he ever suggested by cutting more services, then pulling up the tracks and selling off the land so services could never be restored using the same land.

One of the issues we have (and I've said this so many times), is that a lot of the projects our ancestors did were the first/nearly the first of their kind, so didn't have the knowledge of the sort of changes that might come after a few years and allow for it, so many other countries basically took advantage of knowing how things change and the lessons in how to make things easier to maintain etc.
It's a bit like the Comet, our aviation industry suffered massively because of the crashes caused by the stresses of repeated pressurisation, whilst Boeing etc who had time to incorporate the lessons about square windows and how to space/double up the rivets in their designs so they didn't have the same problem, so their aircraft had a reputation of being safer when in reality if they'd beaten De Havilland to get the first jet passenger aircraft into service they probably would have had the crashes that killed off the Comet.

 

[ubersonic]

Didnt Beechings rip like a third-half of the service, i mean understandably it was required. But to say that the Victorians "invested" in the future while also knowing up to half of it was defunct within a century...Hmm. Not sure i'd be so quick to congratulate the country that wasted that amount of wealth on what was essentially a vanity project.

It wasn't defunct (and it wasn't within a century either), it was gutted to save money because postwar Britain was broke. If those parts of the network were still open or in some cases restorable it would be a great asset to the country today with congestion on the roads/etc. I.E if it was possible to reconnect the Llangollen line to the main network that would be an excellent boost for accessibility and the area.

Beeching was to transport what Hunt the **** was to the NHS, a bean counter who was so obsessed with balancing the books and trying to make something profitable when it didn't need to be profitable that he never bothered to actually learn what he was in charge of, what it did or what it was supposed to do, hence why history vilifies him.

 

[200sols]

Beeching cuts closed loss making lines, by that time road had taken nearly all rail freight and many of the tiny passenger stations where hardly used, and often built well outside of the villages or towns they served. With hindsight we can say now those lines would benefit many today, but at the time most where hardly used and rail traffic was declining.

 

[a1ex2001]

Beeching cuts closed loss making lines, by that time road had taken nearly all rail freight and many of the tiny passenger stations where hardly used, and often built well outside of the villages or towns they served. With hindsight we can say now those lines would benefit many today, but at the time most where hardly used and rail traffic was declining.

The great mistake was the selling off of the track beds, closing the lines is forgivable given the economic climate at the time selling off the lines just made it impossible to ever reverse the decision and hiked the cost of putting rail line back into place massively.

 

[ubersonic]

Beeching cuts closed loss making lines, by that time road had taken nearly all rail freight and many of the tiny passenger stations where hardly used, and often built well outside of the villages or towns they served. With hindsight we can say now those lines would benefit many today, but at the time most where hardly used and rail traffic was declining.

Hindsight isn't needed, his cuts were stupid then just as they're stupid now.

The argument to cut the loss making lines and just keep the profitable ones was the root of the incompetence, it's why you shouldn't put people in charge of decision making for **** they don't understand. It doesn't matter if some of the lines made a loss, it never did because that could be covered by the lines that make a profit. The point of a successful rail network is to break even not make money, if it's making money that means you're ripping of the public by overpricing a public service.

 

[200sols]

I think your wrong actually, the whole network was loss making, the lines cut simply where not being used and thousands of miles of track was closed well before beeching did his stuff. Even after all the cuts the network was still loss making, it simply couldn't compete with road at the time.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

We definitely need improved infrastructure but my gut tells me HS2 will be a bottomless pit it terms of over spending.

How it will be run once complete is anyone's guess but I wouldn't be surprised to see it sold to a private company for a quid.

Cue price hikes and corporate shenanigans because bottom line and shareholder dividends become more important than running a word class railway that works for everyone.

I may be completely wrong of course but we do seem to have a track record for large projects going the same way.

 

[Tefal]

I still find it amazing that people are moaning about the cost. The Victorians spent the modern equivalent of 2.6 trillion pounds on the railways in a single decade, they understood the benefit of investing in the future lol.

a civilisatio ngrows great when old men plant trees in shows shade they will never sit.

or in this case traisn they will never ride