why all the hate for hs2?
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,547
- Location
- Falling...
It's a step in the right direction for overhauling the entire infrastructure that the UK desperately needs.
Whether HS2 in it's current guise is necessary or an HS2 equivalent utilising existing infrastructure is possible I don't know, but I personally think it's good to see some forward thinking from the government. Yes the budget/costs have spiralled too far out of control, however, brought back into line, within reasonable costs HS2 is a great idea but not just HS2, the whole of the UK trains need a refresh. Enough of this patchwork mentality. Yes the advantages will not be borne overnight, but that's what longtermism is - futureproofing.
Whether HS2 in it's current guise is necessary or an HS2 equivalent utilising existing infrastructure is possible I don't know, but I personally think it's good to see some forward thinking from the government. Yes the budget/costs have spiralled too far out of control, however, brought back into line, within reasonable costs HS2 is a great idea but not just HS2, the whole of the UK trains need a refresh. Enough of this patchwork mentality. Yes the advantages will not be borne overnight, but that's what longtermism is - futureproofing.
But why should the tax payer pay for it all? and if they do go ahead with it the tax payer has to pay again to use it.
WE should pull all tax money from the railway and make them stand on their own two feet or die.
Because rather like the road network (which the railway helps quite a bit with by reducing the load), transportation of people and goods is a necessity in the modern age?
The rail network carries quite a bit of freight, and could potentially carry a lot more reducing the strain on the roads, and reducing the number of heavy trucks on the road.
Unfortunately unlike say your local Haulage firm which doesn't have a distinct separate cost to point to when it starts taking up room on the road network (and thus increasing the maintenance needed), the rail network is quite easy to see the costs involved in it's use.
The HS2 is rather like building a new motorway - we don't generally expect the likes of Stobart to pay for it, instead (like the rail operators), the haulage and transportation companies pay for it in their taxes etc, and the general population get the use of an increase in the transport capacity of the country.
We really desperately need a lot more railway track to be laid and put into use, HS2 is from memory doubling the capacity for much of it's route, which is far more important than the "it'll save 30 minutes" line you keep seeing touted.
The rail network carries quite a bit of freight, and could potentially carry a lot more reducing the strain on the roads, and reducing the number of heavy trucks on the road.
Unfortunately unlike say your local Haulage firm which doesn't have a distinct separate cost to point to when it starts taking up room on the road network (and thus increasing the maintenance needed), the rail network is quite easy to see the costs involved in it's use.
The HS2 is rather like building a new motorway - we don't generally expect the likes of Stobart to pay for it, instead (like the rail operators), the haulage and transportation companies pay for it in their taxes etc, and the general population get the use of an increase in the transport capacity of the country.
We really desperately need a lot more railway track to be laid and put into use, HS2 is from memory doubling the capacity for much of it's route, which is far more important than the "it'll save 30 minutes" line you keep seeing touted.
That was Beeching's brief (and mentality). It has been shown elsewhere that such thinking is flawed.
Even loss-making railway lines can have a net positive effect when you look at the big picture.
I just wonder if, after HS2, the powers that be will lose interest in further railway development. Either it goes well, but costs so much that future projects get can't be justified...
Or worse - what if HS2 is an utter disaster and failure. That might make people decide that the railways aren't worth investing in, full stop.
It's a high-risk project, and I think either way could be bad for future rail infrastructure projects... either because there is no money left or nobody willing to take the risk.
That crash happened because the driver was allegedly going twice as fast as he should have been going for that section of the track, and he became distracted. Not sure if it was "high speed rail" as such, rather normal rail - any one?
Last edited:
He was going 200km/h and regardless of human fault it still happened and killed 80 people.. Isnt this rail going to be double that?
Im still not convinced we need a high speed track with the current climate.. 21 billion is a lot of money in a time were paying 20% tax due to the debt were in, when people are struggling with managing to eat let alone pay for a high speed transport.
You could probably improve more existing lines to cope withcongestion for half that price, and if conservative do what they normally do they will only sell it privatly which would mean the chinese got a ready built investment at our cost, while then raping the same tax payer in high prices.
Im still not convinced we need a high speed track with the current climate.. 21 billion is a lot of money in a time were paying 20% tax due to the debt were in, when people are struggling with managing to eat let alone pay for a high speed transport.
You could probably improve more existing lines to cope withcongestion for half that price, and if conservative do what they normally do they will only sell it privatly which would mean the chinese got a ready built investment at our cost, while then raping the same tax payer in high prices.
I'm in favour of high speed rail in the UK, and used to be a fan of HS2. Thinking about it though I'm not so sure anymore. The cost is ballooning and the benefits don't seem that great, shaving a relatively small amount of time off existing journey times. I think to turn HS2 around they need to connect HS2 to Europe's high speed rail network via HS1 - imagine being able to get onto a train at Manchester and arrive in Paris four hours later. I think this would bring about more economic benefit to the North than the existing plans, which just make London the centre of everything again.
One interesting alternative to HS2 I heard about was to build a network of roads purely for cycles, often running parallel or above extant trunk roads. From my point of view this makes sense - I live 20 miles away from work which is very cycle-able but the roads just put me off being too narrow and too fast. It'll never happen though, no government is going to do anything that benefits motorists even if it'd save cyclists lives.
One interesting alternative to HS2 I heard about was to build a network of roads purely for cycles, often running parallel or above extant trunk roads. From my point of view this makes sense - I live 20 miles away from work which is very cycle-able but the roads just put me off being too narrow and too fast. It'll never happen though, no government is going to do anything that benefits motorists even if it'd save cyclists lives.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Eskimos who protest against the development of ice fishing pools in their area. Short for Not In My Back Igloo Sucker
Which ever company is going to run it should pay for it. Or the tax payer pays for it and any profit
they make must be paid back to the government until the cost of the HR has been paid off.
I'm aware that new street is right in the centre, I was asking where HS2 would stop as I heard it was quite far out.
Turns out they're building a new station near moor street for it, so it still should be pretty central.
RE the two new aircraft carriers:
Please tell me I am reading that wrong and they mean predicting rates rather than factoring in at all? VAT was at 17.5% (with the likely hood of it going up at the time) and inflation was at around ~4.5% when the initial contracts were drawn up (July 2008). If it's the former - lost count how many times GDP figures were grossly predicted and revised.
Please tell me I am reading that wrong and they mean predicting rates rather than factoring in at all? VAT was at 17.5% (with the likely hood of it going up at the time) and inflation was at around ~4.5% when the initial contracts were drawn up (July 2008). If it's the former - lost count how many times GDP figures were grossly predicted and revised.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,617
- Location
- Dewsbury
That's completely irrelevant to the HS2. The driver on that particular incident was doing twice the speed limit for the area and bend that the train was on, no wonder things went wrong the way they did. Just because a train on HS2 may be going 200km/h or faster, doesn't mean it's automatically going to crash.
---
I for one would like to see HS2 go ahead. The current railways are at breaking point at the moment so any let up in capacity is desperately needed. If someone goes wrong with say, the WCML, there's always the option of moving passengers onto a HS2 train.
On top of that, the extra jobs available that'll be generated by the amount of workforce needed for a massive project like this will also be a boon to the unemployed in this country.
Yep it's a lot of ********. VAT/inflation & forex are always accounted for - reporting costs/projections in varying economic terms is a stupid way to go about things and only serves to confuse.
I highly doubt these issues have a great influence over the increase especially given how many U turns have been made during the whole project - which is exactly what will see hs2 spiral out of control. Pushing on with things when every sane person would insist that the design is matured a bit further/a problem is resolved before progressing.
Last edited:
My house mate and I were talking about HS2 this morning, being both massive Simpsons fans we instantly thought of Monorail:
This is the hook they need! It worked in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook
Back on topic. HS2 report overstated benefits by six to eight times, experts say. 1/4 of a million pounds for a report of this magnitude sounds like a bargain to me!
This is the hook they need! It worked in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook
Back on topic. HS2 report overstated benefits by six to eight times, experts say. 1/4 of a million pounds for a report of this magnitude sounds like a bargain to me!
instead of hs2, can we use the money on something that go across the country instead going up and down? im sick and tired of spending 7 hours in my car driving from great yarmouth to liverpool every few weeks.... i can do the same 200 odd miles from london in half that time....
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 4,503
- Location
- Darkest Worcestershire
It should be build, just to it **** off the nimby's
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,547
- Location
- Falling...
Strategically it serves little purpose (at the moment). At least they've addressed getting across London with Crossrail.
However my dream (!) is to have all the major cities connected by fast rail networks. Whilst I LOVE driving, it would take loads off the road, meaning emptier roads for when I want to go for a blast.
The only reason I don't take more trains is the expense and the length of time it takes.
Long term view should be to strive for a fast infrastructure all around the country. Yes, tele/videoconferences should be encouraged, however, if we can take the cars off the road, so much the better. Ultimately, people still need to meet face to face, but not only that, freight and goods can use the high speed links at night too - minimising the need for an extensive road freight network.
Look at France, it takes about 5.5hrs to get from Paris to Nice - that's nearly 600 miles. It takes 4.5hrs to get from London to Edinburgh and that's only around 400 miles. The average speed of the France journey is 109mph, the UK journey is 89mph. If the trains were as slow as in the UK, it would take, 6h45mins to get from Paris to Nice. If UK trains were as fast as France it would only take about 3h35mins to get to Edinburgh from London.
To me although seemingly inconsequential, those are rather big differences.
The amount of freight and goods you can haul on a train is equivalent of several dozen HGVs.
Personally I can only see this as a good thing.
More private investment, and more financial scrutiny is required for sure, but at the same time if you scrimp on money too much you end up with a below par railway which then undoes all the point of it.
Once the fast infrastructure is in place, you can then add the local services to interconnect the smaller towns. Trying to build the capillaries before the arteries is daft. Not wanting to improve the trains is even more daft (IMO).