why all the hate for hs2?
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
Soldato
Motorways would be far more beneficial than a fast railway that goes to Birmingham...
Indeed, the real transport problem isn't the speed or capacity of the national (London-Brimingham-Manchester) network that's only used by a few thousand people per day. It's the millions of people who struggle with their local/regional daily commutes.
I would spend the HS2 money on improving the local/regional transport in our middle sized towns and cities. Taking 10 minutes of the daily commute of 5 million people is far better than taking 20 minutes of a journey only undertaken by 5000 people.
Soldato
To see how HS2 will fail you just have to look at HS1 failure. It offers marginal time saving, because majority of delay stems from the fact that once it reaches built up areas on the outskirts of London it cannot travel at anywhere near it's nominal speeds because of safety and noise pollution. Local trains from Chatham to London had to be slowed down to justify the cost of ticket on HS1 train to St. Pancras while originally saving only 7-8 minutes off the journey times. HS1 trains now travel empty, because the cost of a day ticket in peak time is higher than cost of running HGV lorry into London's Congestion Charge. Commuters are not stupid.
The mythical daily commuters who need their journey to Birmingham shortened by less than 20 minutes at the additional 30-40% in ticket cost cannot and should not be a reason to hold half the country hostage, dig up London and green belt for 20 years and keep pouring billions into black hole of last century tech that will still spend 15 minutes waiting for a green light at the cross rail junction to Victorian train stations of the capital. Wiring Brum in super fast fibre optics for data centres or building a single large international office complex in any of the cities up north would benefit the local economy infinitely more than running third train service between north and south.
The mythical daily commuters who need their journey to Birmingham shortened by less than 20 minutes at the additional 30-40% in ticket cost cannot and should not be a reason to hold half the country hostage, dig up London and green belt for 20 years and keep pouring billions into black hole of last century tech that will still spend 15 minutes waiting for a green light at the cross rail junction to Victorian train stations of the capital. Wiring Brum in super fast fibre optics for data centres or building a single large international office complex in any of the cities up north would benefit the local economy infinitely more than running third train service between north and south.
Your missing the bigger picture, a high speed link between London and the midlands with future extensions branching out to Manchester and Leeds and the possibility of future extensions to Glasgow and Newcastle doesn't just take 20 minutes off 5000 peoples commute. The faster route frees up space on other routes meaning less trains needed which frees up track for freight trains which in turn means less trucks on the road which means less congestion on the country's roads.
IMO improving our rail network is well worth the expense, if I had my way we should also be looking into using the country's waterways again to transport non time essential loads.
Soldato
But HS2 Kills Kittens!
And by supporting it you in turn are harming said kittens!
And by supporting it you in turn are harming said kittens!
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
HS2: Expensive, long delivery time, marginal benefits, uncertain return
Any fool can see this project is a waste of time, which makes me wonder which financial benefactor is politically linked in to push its messianic qualities. This isn't about benefit for the country, its a financial return for a particular group or individual.
Any fool can see this project is a waste of time, which makes me wonder which financial benefactor is politically linked in to push its messianic qualities. This isn't about benefit for the country, its a financial return for a particular group or individual.
Um, you're talking about the smaller picture - the HS2 impact. The bigger picture IS the hundreds of local and regional infrastructure projects. None as big and sexy as HS2, but in aggregate have a larger impact.
Caporegime
Money would be better spent on existing road network.
Man of Honour
They should create a Crossrail/Tube-type of network in the big cities, and then link them up to a high speed service. Having just got back from a trip to the East of France, I had forgotten how pleasant trains could be (I used to use them all the time in Europe) with a decent infrastructure.
The TGV was hitting speeds of 322 Km/h and was so smooth you forgot you were on a train. The seats were comfortable, the cabins spacious, we had wifi, and charging points. Heck even the "slow" double decker trains were pootling at over 160km/h with complete comfort.
Fast inter-city connections are excellent in Europe and are beneficial, and what's crazy is that the time it took us to get from London to almost the German border took as much time as it would have to have taken the train from London to Edinburgh.
Europe has got it right - the UK are trying to catch up. Perhaps they're not going about it the right way, but the UK desperately needs better infrastructure, and the problem is all the lines they currently have is poor and not up to spec. Rather than doing patch-work improvements, it's better to either rip it all out and start again, or just build a new network which is better using innovative technologies. Transport, and rail and construction industries now are heavily focussing on innovation, and future proofing (as much as possible) - the criteria for concrete for example is to last 100 years.
I think whilst they may not be going about it the right way, it is something the UK desperately needs, and I'm just comparing it to the experience I have had in the many European cities and countries I've visited.
The TGV was hitting speeds of 322 Km/h and was so smooth you forgot you were on a train. The seats were comfortable, the cabins spacious, we had wifi, and charging points. Heck even the "slow" double decker trains were pootling at over 160km/h with complete comfort.
Fast inter-city connections are excellent in Europe and are beneficial, and what's crazy is that the time it took us to get from London to almost the German border took as much time as it would have to have taken the train from London to Edinburgh.
Europe has got it right - the UK are trying to catch up. Perhaps they're not going about it the right way, but the UK desperately needs better infrastructure, and the problem is all the lines they currently have is poor and not up to spec. Rather than doing patch-work improvements, it's better to either rip it all out and start again, or just build a new network which is better using innovative technologies. Transport, and rail and construction industries now are heavily focussing on innovation, and future proofing (as much as possible) - the criteria for concrete for example is to last 100 years.
I think whilst they may not be going about it the right way, it is something the UK desperately needs, and I'm just comparing it to the experience I have had in the many European cities and countries I've visited.
Too many of you are focusing on the passenger benefit, one of the major benefits of the scheme is the additional freight capacity
"The UK rail freight sector contributes £299 million in profits and wages to the UK economy.
On average a gallon of fuel will move a tonne of goods 246 miles on rail but only 88 miles by road.
Each freight train takes about 60 HGVs off the roads. "
Add to that the sharply increasing demand for rail freight (10% from 2010-11 to 2011-12), there are expected to be an additional 240 freight trains per day over the next few years. On existing lines with limited spare capacity, where are they going to go?
"The UK rail freight sector contributes £299 million in profits and wages to the UK economy.
On average a gallon of fuel will move a tonne of goods 246 miles on rail but only 88 miles by road.
Each freight train takes about 60 HGVs off the roads. "
Add to that the sharply increasing demand for rail freight (10% from 2010-11 to 2011-12), there are expected to be an additional 240 freight trains per day over the next few years. On existing lines with limited spare capacity, where are they going to go?
Soldato
I'd rather the money was spent on more useful things like better healthcare, faster broadband, lower student fees etc.
Caporegime
I know people keep saying that it just saves 30 minutes, which is pointless, lets extrapolate that a bit...
Lets say there is a train every 30 minutes between 6am and 8pm (so 28 journeys, 56 each way)
Each journey services on average 200 commuters.
Each commuter has an hourly salary rate of £15.
That's 11,200 journeys a day, saving 5600 hours, or £84k. That's in the region of £30m saved annually in travel time alone.
Lets say there is a train every 30 minutes between 6am and 8pm (so 28 journeys, 56 each way)
Each journey services on average 200 commuters.
Each commuter has an hourly salary rate of £15.
That's 11,200 journeys a day, saving 5600 hours, or £84k. That's in the region of £30m saved annually in travel time alone.
Train journeys aren't always wasted time though. You can get a lot of work done on a train.
Exactly! That's a trivial saving compared to the many millions (not thousands) of people who lose 10s of minutes each day on their local/regional commutes. That's where the real problems lie and the investment in transport infrastructure should go.
Slightly confused with your logic though.... Who gets paid travel time? I don't know anyone working in business who does when going to and from work.
If its more just an opinion of what peoples time is worth, then we live in a world now where people can still be working from a train and ultimately it may also be a choice that they live where they do.
The West Coast Mainline which is the current route that serves what HS2 will be similar to has far more than a train every 30 minutes and is served by both London Midland and Virgin, along with London Overground from Watford Junction as well.
If its more just an opinion of what peoples time is worth, then we live in a world now where people can still be working from a train and ultimately it may also be a choice that they live where they do.
The West Coast Mainline which is the current route that serves what HS2 will be similar to has far more than a train every 30 minutes and is served by both London Midland and Virgin, along with London Overground from Watford Junction as well.
when I worked in the private sector I'd get paid travel time, or at least the time back if I was asked to work somewhere further from house. Say my normal commute was 1 hour/day, if I had to do a 3 or 4 hour commute I'd generally get either 4 hours pay or a half day alter on that month.
I'd love to see a comparison of the time saved for people using HS2 against the time that could be saved if the same investment was made, but covering the current main west/east cost lines, including more rolling stock, more lines etc. I've no doubt people will argue "the investment wouldn't be made" but what if it was - pound for pound the same?
I'd love to see a comparison of the time saved for people using HS2 against the time that could be saved if the same investment was made, but covering the current main west/east cost lines, including more rolling stock, more lines etc. I've no doubt people will argue "the investment wouldn't be made" but what if it was - pound for pound the same?
Soldato
The expenditure of HS2 would rid the entirety of the NHS debt and give much needed funding to local hospitals and health care establishments.
What's more important? Your health service or a very small minority saving 30 mins on their journey.
What's more important? Your health service or a very small minority saving 30 mins on their journey.
You would get sod all for the money, its costs far far far more to upgrade existing lines, for many reasons, main one being you just can't shut a main line for 4 years.
The argument shouldn't be why are we sending money on this rather than other projects. It should be why are we not doing this and other major projects.
They pay for themself in the long term, Germany has the sight to play the long games and it pays off for them far more than it doesn't.
The argument shouldn't be why are we sending money on this rather than other projects. It should be why are we not doing this and other major projects.
They pay for themself in the long term, Germany has the sight to play the long games and it pays off for them far more than it doesn't.
Soldato
