why all the hate for hs2?

[Glaucus]

More would still be spent on London. Just not per head. With your twisted logic we should invest every penny we have as a country in London as it's by far the most densely populated place?
t?

Not at all, where did you get that gem from?
Public transport is incredibly expensive and only suits densely populated areas, it is no wonder that expenditure per head is most expensive in London. That is where it is needed.

 

[Diddums]

Let's cut to the heart of the matter here: London is the powerhouse of the UK and without it this investment money wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[Basher]

That is my argument. I want to be able to do stuff as I travel as I don't need to be in an office to get stuff done, I would suggest that is the same for most people who travel like I do often. I have wifi, but it's not brilliant and the phone signals would be much better, though I tend not to make calls on a train.

Give me the ability to work with solid internet and the extra 15 minutes is not wasted, but the billions they seek to use is. IF we need to do this, make it a 400mph system, not a 200mph system. THAT is progress that will last. London to Scotland 1 hour is what I will get excited about.

Strongly agree. The HS2 plan is just not all that ambitious. The time saving proposed is not all that meaningful, particularly in an environment where people will almost certainly have to travel less.

 

[platypus]

Let's cut to the heart of the matter here: London is the powerhouse of the UK and without it this investment money wouldn't exist in the first place.

Which is obviously a self-fuelling situation.

Unless the government starts to give a flying **** about the rest of the UK, the same will continue.

 

[platypus]

I don't get why we don't just go for maglev?

As the trains wouldn't be able to travel at their full speed for long enough it loses the economic argument.

 

[FoxEye]

Aye, people don't tend to realise that one some lines they might only be able to do 3-4 hours work a night without totally closing it down.

They did upgrades to the line near me and it took a year+ despite them being able to close some of the track as there was a second line running alongside.

Also if you put in new up to date lines you can get higher capacity on those lines, then shut down the old line and update it to the same standard at a later date if needed.

The network should really be a minimum of two lines each direction for every semi mainline route, preferably spaced far enough apart to allow for work on one set to be done without interrupting the other.
Unfortunately like a lot of the innovations the UK brought to the world, as we were the first we're stuck with stuff that isn't as good as some other countries simply because everyone learned lessons, and once you've already got a version of something in place it becomes very hard to persuade people that it's worth the cost to upgrade or replace it.
One of the reasons come countries are skipping copper phone lines entirely in some areas, as if you're laying new cabling anyway it's better to lay fibre (IIRC BT and VM aren't even doing that in the UK as standard).

The other problem is that all of our infrastructure and services are in the hands of private corporations.

Which is why some parts of the country will NEVER see high-speed internet.

"You are not economically viable." In other words, "What's in it for us?"

That's the true legacy of privatisation. You will only get a service so long as it is profitable to give you that service. Parts of the country that are considered difficult, or costly to service will simply not be serviced. Upgrades like fiber cabling will be rolled out in a half-hearted way, and only then with tax money paying for 50% of it.

The system we've devised in this country - private industry run infrastructure with government subsidy - is the worst of all worlds. No wonder so few countries have copied us! Most are keeping their infrastructure in state ownership.

 

[Murf]

Not at all, where did you get that gem from?
Public transport is incredibly expensive and only suits densely populated areas, it is no wonder that expenditure per head is most expensive in London. That is where it is needed.

From your previous quote which I've re-quoted below.

Fact is the denser the population the more money needs to be spent on public transport and the more sense it makes.

Let's cut to the heart of the matter here: London is the powerhouse of the UK and without it this investment money wouldn't exist in the first place.

It's the powerhouse because it gets the most investment. It gets the most investment because it's the powerhouse. See the problem?

The economic disparity between the 1st and 2nd cities in the UK is massive in comparison to other developed countries.

In Germany you have Munich and Frankfurt to counter Berlin, US has Chicago and LA to counter New York, Spain has Barcelona to counter Madrid.

In the UK, it is London or nothing. How does it make sense to invest 24 times the amount per head on London than in it does on the North East? How can we do anything other than increase the size of the problem by pouring all of our resources into one city?

Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham, Cardiff, Swansea, Belfast etc. should be getting decent investment. Not just public transport, but digital infrastructure, business parks, grants to incentivise companies not to base in London etc.

And if we addressed that imbalance, London wouldn't even need Crossrail 2.

 

[clv101]

Well said Murf. The disproportional focus on London is part of the problem.

 

[233]

any status updates on HS2? not seen or heard anything for a while



theres certainly the demand for rail infrastructure on a more local level though, The new borders line from Edinburgh to Tweedbank is by all accounts doing great business, to the extent they are having to provide extra capacity.

 

[scorza]

Heard they were opening a stretch earlier than planned - only from Birmingham to Crewe or something I think.

 

[Buffman]

Seems good to me. Extend it up to Glasgow /Edinburgh /north east also.

 

[doodah]

Swore there was a more modern thread on HS2, at least one with the last reply been newer than 4 years old lol.

Interesting to see the quote(s) at the start of this thread been ~£32bn, then that jumped up to ~£55bn (with contingencies I believe), then ~£88bn and now according to a leaked government report it could now cost up to £106bn (lets be honest this won't be the final upwards revision). I believe the last benefit–cost ratio I saw was hovering around £1.30 for every £1 spent and this was with either the £55bn or £88bn total cost.

It's very likely ministers/planners were grossly incompetent and/or misleading parliament though the author of that report isn't exactly impartial but are we really surprised by such an accusation? I know it's more than just cutting times and reducing capacity but my issue with projects like these is I absolutely believe successive UK governments will completely **** it up with budget overruns, huge delays and scaling back to mitigate these two things. We have spent £8bn so far and haven't really started....

Edit - @Freakbro thanks, my search skills are nicht gut today

 

[Freakbro]

Swore there was a more modern thread on HS2, at least one with the last reply been newer than 4 years old lol.

Yea, it's here https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/hs2-high-speed-2-will-it-happen.18300111/page-11

So I posted an article in Aug 18 in that thread saying :

Our "infrastructure tzar" has said HS2 needs another £43 billion, on top of the current £56 billion construction cost, to make it worthwhile...

Interesting to see the quote(s) at the start of this thread been ~£32bn, then that jumped up to ~£55bn (with contingencies I believe), then ~£88bn and now according to a leaked government report it could now cost up to £106bn (lets be honest this won't be the final upwards revision). I believe the last benefit–cost ratio I saw was hovering around £1.30 for every £1 spent and this was with either the £55bn or £88bn total cost.

It's very likely ministers/planners were grossly incompetent and/or misleading parliament though the author of that report isn't exactly impartial but are we really surprised by such an accusation? I know it's more than just cutting times and reducing capacity but my issue with projects like these is I absolutely believe successive UK governments will completely **** it up with budget overruns, huge delays and scaling back to mitigate these two things. We have spent £8bn so far and haven't really started....

Seems he wasn't far off then!

 

[Diddums]

These massive projects are all the same. I can guarantee that tons of the funds are in little brown envelopes.

I’d like to see a full and comprehensive audit done from the top down, exploring every penny spent, but they’d probably just pay off the auditor anyway.

 

[garnett]

Just looking for a thread myself.

@doodah - I was doing the same maths as you...

If the cost/benefit ratio is based on the £56bn then at £86bn it goes below 1! 0.85.

At £106bn (which appears more and more realistic) it's 0.69.

Compared to EU projects that looks truly godawful...



Source - https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/pdf/3_full_en.pdf

 

[Dis86]

It's like they're doubling down on a losing hand!

 

[Orionaut]

HS2 will be of little benefit to "The North" All it will do is allow a relatively small number of wealthy London professionals, who will be able to afford the silly season ticket prices, to move to the midlands, commute into London, and price all the local people out of the property market. very few people "In the North" want HS2. What they would like is improved local services. Not ones that will only benefit the top 1% of earners to the detriment of everybody else. :/

 

[VincentHanna]

I thought the conservatives said they would cancel HS2 pending a review?

 

[Orionaut]

I thought the conservatives said they would cancel HS2 pending a review?

And if they spend the money instead on something that will actually benefit people living in the North they would make themselves hero's!

 

[garnett]

I thought the conservatives said they would cancel HS2 pending a review?

I think that's the crux of it. They initiated a review, then held back releasing it prior to the GE so that their MPs could all campaign on a implied HS2 cancellation. Now the report's set to say carry on regardless of cost, and Johnson's got another dilemma that he'll presumably decide on a whim.