HS2/High Speed 2 - Will it happen?

Azza · 24 Jul 2017 at 11:21

HS2 will be going along the back of our HQ.

It's going to run on top of the existing rail viaduct and be 17m high, and they believe that building works will cause no discruption to the work environment.

We have another building which is even closer to the existing train line just to the left.

It will sure make for a nicer view!

This is the view from the window behind me as it is now.

StriderX · 24 Jul 2017 at 11:43

Azza said:
HS2 will be going along the back of our HQ.

It's going to run on top of the existing rail viaduct and be 17m high, and they believe that building works will cause no discruption to the work environment. We have another building which is even closer to the existing train line just to the left.

It will sure make for a nicer view!

This is the view from the window behind me as it is now.

Is that where junkies live?

Azza · 24 Jul 2017 at 12:15

haha

I imagine some dodgy people get in there of a night.

But to the right there are a number which Network Rail rent out to businesses and they're being turffed out.

LeMson · 24 Jul 2017 at 12:38

Can't see this every being built, no doubt we will start then stop, maybe repeat stop starting for ages lol

Kronos · 24 Jul 2017 at 13:23

I suspect it will go the way of the Edinburgh trams fiasco, go half the distance but cost hundreds of millions of pounds more than originally planned and was 5 years late.

Puzzled · 24 Jul 2017 at 13:26

High speed rail with change over requiring bus connection in the middle of the journey

platypus · 25 Jul 2017 at 10:20

Freefaller said:
The way I see it is that the infrastructure needs massive overhaul.

To do that you need to take lines out of action for several months if not longer. If you do that, you push congestion onto the roads, or on smaller lines causing massive problems.

Just look at TfL/Tube - the ideal situation would be to suspend the tube for years and rip it out and start again. However, Crossrail will address a lot of it by increasing the capacity of London by 10%. Once in place they will be able to close certain stations/sections to upgrade them properly rather than the patch work they currently do on our rail infrastructure.

The London to B'Ham route isn't hugely needed, but with Manchester growing the way it is, and getting more mobility to people in the northern part of the UK I think this could really help. Taking an hour off the journey to B'Ham and even more for some of the northern towns is hard to scoff at. Personally I travel up to Manchester and Leeds relatively regularly - if I can knock off an hour or more via HS2 - then it cannot come quickly enough.

WE need to improve our infrastructure in this country, end of. Rail is part of it. More freight, more regular trains on the existing routes,

It will create jobs, and improve local lives in the long term. If we want to grow we need to commit to infrastructure projects to provide the foundations for growth.

That's my opinion anyway.

edit: wow - old thread!

Rail is indeed part of that infrastructure, but this vanity project is not the answer. It's just an expensive excuse to drive more investment and tax payers money into London.

They quietly cancel the electrification projects across the country, in the same week as confirming all these £Billion contracts for HS2. Reduce burden on the west coast mainline. Massively overhaul Euston. Provide further rational for CrossRail 2.

We now have a "high speed national network" that doesn't have a connection to our busiest airport or Europe. The cancelling of electrification plans means already ordered rolling stock needs to be altered at further expense.

This is a national infrastructure project with so many **** ups of gigantic proportions, even for Britain.

Why doesn't the Channel tunnel network extend up to say Birmingham, Mancester, Edinburgh? Imagine how much freight we could get off our roads if lorries could get on/off a train in those cities to deliver/collect freight intended to/from Europe? It's because the government doesn't give a **** about anything north of London.

ubersonic · 25 Jul 2017 at 10:32

I would like to see it happen, high speed links between some of our major cities will be great for commuting, travel and day tripping (Londoners being able to spend the day in Edinburgh and vice versa, etc). It's good to see our rail network being advanced into the 20th century (no that's not a typo, other major EU countries have had this type of stuff for years) and it doesn't look too expensive either.

Freefaller · 25 Jul 2017 at 10:38

platypus said:
Rail is indeed part of that infrastructure, but this vanity project is not the answer. It's just an expensive excuse to drive more investment and tax payers money into London.

They quietly cancel the electrification projects across the country, in the same week as confirming all these £Billion contracts for HS2. Reduce burden on the west coast mainline. Massively overhaul Euston. Provide further rational for CrossRail 2.

We now have a "high speed national network" that doesn't have a connection to our busiest airport or Europe. The cancelling of electrification plans means already ordered rolling stock needs to be altered at further expense.

This is a national infrastructure project with so many **** ups of gigantic proportions, even for Britain.

Why doesn't the Channel tunnel network extend up to say Birmingham, Mancester, Edinburgh? Imagine how much freight we could get off our roads if lorries could get on/off a train in those cities to deliver/collect freight intended to/from Europe? It's because the government doesn't give a **** about anything north of London.

I completely agree with what you're saying. You're right it is a vanity project.

It's a shame they're not investing in the upgrades across the country - the country does need better/high speed rail. It does need investment in infrastructure.

If HS2 was better prepared/presented/managed I think it would be less controversial. It is an OTT project. but I support it from the perspective of it enhancing our infrastructure - I don't support its management, or the way it is being "sold".

We're doing a lot of the electrification works at the moment but you're right, we need the DfT to continue to support this rather than pulling the plug. Diesel rolling stock is not sustainable.

I completely agree in regard to the extension of the channel tunnel - it makes so much sense. In fact I went to a DfT advisory board in my old role, and challenged them on some of the blind spots, of which that was one of the examples. I'm a nobody in the grand scheme of things, but apparently it was "interesting and something to think about"... Lots of lip service.

On the contractor side of things, we're at the behest of the clients that need the work. If the work isn't required then there is no work to do. So from a selfish point of view, I like these projects being approved - but from a detached point of view I'd rather the right work was signed off that is going to add value to UK PLC rather than just making London more expensive and busy. When working on Crossrail, I thought it was a worthwhile project and really exciting - but there's so much more value that can be added across the country than ploughing high speed pipes into London - but then if that means that the infrastructure across the country gets upgraded as a result - then I can live with that.

platypus · 25 Jul 2017 at 11:28

Freefaller said:
On the contractor side of things, we're at the behest of the clients that need the work. If the work isn't required then there is no work to do. So from a selfish point of view, I like these projects being approved - but from a detached point of view I'd rather the right work was signed off that is going to add value to UK PLC rather than just making London more expensive and busy. When working on Crossrail, I thought it was a worthwhile project and really exciting - but there's so much more value that can be added across the country than ploughing high speed pipes into London - but then if that means that the infrastructure across the country gets upgraded as a result - then I can live with that.

That was sort of my point though, any infrastructure being upgraded across the country is purely as lip service to London. Improving conditions for London, and thats what needs to change. How about we look at an infrastructure project that benefits the North, that London might be allowed to connect up to? Radical thinking I know.

I'm actually all for HS2, or at least a properly planned and thought out HS2. And one that goes nowhere near London. Make HS3 the project to connect HS2 to London, but make HS2 a proper network for the North and Scotland. UK PLC = the United Kingdom Pays London Cash as far as I'm concerned (ok bear with me on that it's all I could come up with on the spur of the moment

). And until Westminster starts giving a damn about anything other than London though it's not going to change.

Not extending to the channel tunnel borders on criminal negligence as far as I'm concerned. But why am I surprised? Incompetence is bread into these people at politicans camp.

chanjy · 25 Jul 2017 at 13:00

platypus said:
I'm actually all for HS2, or at least a properly planned and thought out HS2. And one that goes nowhere near London. Make HS3 the project to connect HS2 to London, but make HS2 a proper network for the North and Scotland. UK PLC = the United Kingdom Pays London Cash as far as I'm concerned (ok bear with me on that it's all I could come up with on the spur of the moment ). And until Westminster starts giving a damn about anything other than London though it's not going to change.

Not extending to the channel tunnel borders on criminal negligence as far as I'm concerned. But why am I surprised? Incompetence is bread into these people at politicans camp.

Don't want to get into South vs North argument but I think there is plenty of evidence that the North gets its fair share of investment. London pays a thirs of all UK taxes and definitely doesn't get a third of the total spending.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/07/london-top-taxpaying-city-uk-report

And how many people would actually use a HS1-HS2 link? Answer is a lot less than you would think (enough for 1 or 2 trains a day max), making joining them up not a great use of money.

platypus · 25 Jul 2017 at 13:08

chanjy said:
And how many people would actually use a HS1-HS2 link? Answer is a lot less than you would think (enough for 1 or 2 trains a day max), making joining them up not a great use of money.

I don't know on this point, do you? I suspect that it would be far greater than you think, if for example as I said above, freight could miss out driving from south to north by simply getting on a train somewhere in Europe. I am not thinking of tourist traffic here.

Freefaller · 25 Jul 2017 at 13:09

I agree our northern business whilst thriving, is only a small part of new infrastructure and mainly small design and build jobs. Having a proper northern network of high speed rail would be massively beneficial to the UK - and it means that we get some interesting and exciting work, and get more graduates and young minds working on these projects which leads to more ideas, more innovation, and makes UK PLC and our skills more appealing and marketable.

platypus said:
That was sort of my point though, any infrastructure being upgraded across the country is purely as lip service to London. Improving conditions for London, and thats what needs to change. How about we look at an infrastructure project that benefits the North, that London might be allowed to connect up to? Radical thinking I know.

I'm actually all for HS2, or at least a properly planned and thought out HS2. And one that goes nowhere near London. Make HS3 the project to connect HS2 to London, but make HS2 a proper network for the North and Scotland. UK PLC = the United Kingdom Pays London Cash as far as I'm concerned (ok bear with me on that it's all I could come up with on the spur of the moment ). And until Westminster starts giving a damn about anything other than London though it's not going to change.

Not extending to the channel tunnel borders on criminal negligence as far as I'm concerned. But why am I surprised? Incompetence is bread into these people at politicans camp.

The Running Man · 25 Jul 2017 at 13:17

Thing is... in London you have a fantastic system and miles more trains to passengers to carriages to other places. I catch the Overground or underground in London and each train has like 9 carriages

Now try catching the Leeds to Manchester at working time and they send 2 carriages so at my stop half the time you can't even get on the carriage at all.

chanjy · 25 Jul 2017 at 14:14

platypus said:
I don't know on this point, do you? I suspect that it would be far greater than you think, if for example as I said above, freight could miss out driving from south to north by simply getting on a train somewhere in Europe. I am not thinking of tourist traffic here.

Your point about freight coming from Europe isn't really valid though as lorries can't just drive onto trains and drive off unless there is the correct infrastructure for them to do so. There are no drive on/drive off terminals anywhere in Europe apart from at Calais, so you might as well just take the ferry which is cheaper and much better value for money.

Also your freight trains would take up valuable train paths for passenger trains, and reduce the number of services available on routes where people actually want to travel.

See this report for example

chanjy · 25 Jul 2017 at 14:14

The Running Man said:
Thing is... in London you have a fantastic system and miles more trains to passengers to carriages to other places. I catch the Overground or underground in London and each train has like 9 carriages

Now try catching the Leeds to Manchester at working time and they send 2 carriages so at my stop half the time you can't even get on the carriage at all.

We need HS3 as well as HS2

Freefaller · 25 Jul 2017 at 14:25

Freight trains could and can run at night. And if you have more lines available they can decongest the existing network.

Sankari · 25 Jul 2017 at 14:28

Is HS2 still a thing? Do they have a projected completion date yet, or is the project permanently stuck in the realm of 'Trust us, we'll get it done some day'?

StriderX · 25 Jul 2017 at 14:29

I do love how the government talks about anything other than London as "supported", when HS2 is more or less a London line, at around £30b for Crossrail 2 and £60b for HS2, its 9000% more than the lovely £1b they are spending up nurf on rail service.

This is entirely to do with the BBC article that showed up yesterday, they really need to just admit they only care about London and stop attempting to fool people otherwise (Northern Powerhouse which is now based... you guessed it in London, har har).

If they had kept HS3 with HS2 then it may have been less "problematic", but they shafted that for "later".

chanjy · 25 Jul 2017 at 20:12

StriderX said:
I do love how the government talks about anything other than London as "supported", when HS2 is more or less a London line, at around £30b for Crossrail 2 and £60b for HS2, its 9000% more than the lovely £1b they are spending up nurf on rail service.

This is entirely to do with the BBC article that showed up yesterday, they really need to just admit they only care about London and stop attempting to fool people otherwise (Northern Powerhouse which is now based... you guessed it in London, har har).

If they had kept HS3 with HS2 then it may have been less "problematic", but they shafted that for "later".

It might seem that way because of the visible projects that get attention but Londoners pay way more tax than they get back in Government spending

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less

But yes, we should definitely do HS3 as well!