why all the hate for hs2?

[explicit4u]

So let's be generous and say there are 2 usage spikes between 06:00 and 08:00 in the morning and 16:00 and 18:00 in the evening, that 56 trains and approx 62,000 passengers, doesn't sound great for £100bn investment!


Currently it cost approx £140 for a ticket from London to Crewe, how much is it going to cost on the new line, less, can't see that! Who exactly is going to be shelling out £200 a day to commute from London/North or visa-versa, it really just BONKERS!

As posted above, you need to include the number or extra services that will be able to run on the existing infrastructure thanks to HS2 releasing capacity. Those lines will also be easier to close and upgrade so even more services can run.

We have all been here before....

1860-Lets build a huge Ship that can carry 4500 passengers and steam from England to Australia and back without having to refuel. because it will be a brilliant and innovative advance in transport and everybody will want to use it and we will make pots of money..

(No, They didn't)​

1960-Lets build a (Technically brilliant, absolutely no criticism there at all) really fast civil airliner so people can travel around the world at twice the speed of sound because it will be a brilliant and innovative advance in transport and everybody will want to use it and we will make pots of money..

(No, They didn't)

2060-(well near enough really) Lets build a (Technically brilliant, absolutely no criticism there at all) really fast railway between London and Birmingham because it will be a brilliant and innovative advance in transport and everybody will want to use it and we will make pots of money..​

(No, They won't, and even if they did, the number of regular daily season ticket holders for the route will be unlikely to top 100,000 people even if they were all standing, so the numbers who would benefit from this represent only a tiny fraction of 1% of the UK population to the likely detriment of tens of millions of others)

​

2060 is almost 30 years away from when trains are expected to be running on the line. It'll almost certainly be late, but it's highly unlikely to run into some of the problems that have plagued other rail projects like Crossrail.

That's also an unfair comparison, there's nothing technically innovative about HS2. It's a conventional high speed rail line, using existing materials, and will use a signalling system that's been widely tested and is already implemented around Europe. The main benefits (and the whole reason it's being built) will not be for passengers who use the line itself.

 

[Faustus]

Looks like Boris and the Chinese read my earlier post as it’s being reported today the government are talking to the Chinese about building HS2. The Chinese say they could build the lot in 5 years and at a much lower price. Give it to the Chinese Boris, they will do a better job.

 

[Spook187]

Looks like Boris and the Chinese read my earlier post as it’s being reported today the government are talking to the Chinese about building HS2. The Chinese say they could build the lot in 5 years and at a much lower price. Give it to the Chinese Boris, they will do a better job.

Never gonna happen. So chuck all the british workers out of work.

 

[Firestar_3x]

But will hopefully give the UK construction industry a reality check, stop taking the **** or the Chinese will build it instead.

 

[Skillmister]

I believe the future of the office environment is virtual and augmented reality, the need to be there could well be rather moot in 10 years time. Why travel anywhere when you can create a fully interactive shared space environment with your colleagues with totally connectivity from your own living room. Movement of people for manual labour tasks in the future, oversimplifying the point, but we've pretty much accepted that automation will task most of that.

The major techs like Apple, Google, Microsoft there all working toward this.

We'll be left with a transport network mostly used for leisure purposes. To the point of spending what'll likely top 200 billion pounds, well it's happening I guess:/

As of 1 March I'll have been working from home for a year. Saving approximately 1h 30 a day of commuting time and £8 a day in fuel. Its the future for sure.

HS2 doesn't make sense in a world where this is becoming more commonplace

 

[Em3bbs]

As of 1 March I'll have been working from home for a year. Saving approximately 1h 30 a day of commuting time and £8 a day in fuel. Its the future for sure.

HS2 doesn't make sense in a world where this is becoming more commonplace

Yet rail passengers continue to rise consistently in this world where some people can work from home.

 

[Skillmister]

Yet rail passengers continue to rise consistently in this world where some people can work from home.

For now. Working from home still seems to be growing slowly. My company only have about 50 people doing it out of about 500 who could but more are transitioning.

 

[Em3bbs]

For now. Working from home still seems to be growing slowly. My company only have about 50 people doing it out of about 500 who could but more are transitioning.

I think we're probably a bit skewed in this forum as for what type of companies we work for, which will have a higher number of people who have roles that can work from home. It's only really IT jobs that it's possible to work from home full time, even my own technical role I have a lot of partner facing work which requires me to commute a few days a week. Most companies already have good work from home policies, especially compared to even 10 years ago, yet rail travellers continue to rise.

 

[StriderX]

Rail travelers continue to rise in on a single artery for the reason of there being no regard for any other part of the country that was not circling the black hole that is London.

Continuing to indulge that trend is foolish, as it will merely continue to cause the same issue.

Rail travelers in general is obviously rising because cars are disincentivised for various reasons, which should be expected and should be dealt with appropriately, not continuing to chase the smallest slivers out of a depressing city at the cost of investment elsewhere.

 

[Em3bbs]

Rail travelers continue to rise in on a single artery for the reason of there being no regard for any other part of the country that was not circling the black hole that is London.

Continuing to indulge that trend is foolish, as it will merely continue to cause the same issue.

But more and more people who work in London live outside now (myself included). We'll be at a stage where it will be completely viable to live in Birmingham and commute to London, and at the same time attracting decent talent to live there and companies to start think about starting up/relocating there as well to save costs.

 

[Orionaut]

I think we're probably a bit skewed in this forum as for what type of companies we work for, which will have a higher number of people who have roles that can work from home. It's only really IT jobs that it's possible to work from home full time, even my own technical role I have a lot of partner facing work which requires me to commute a few days a week. Most companies already have good work from home policies, especially compared to even 10 years ago, yet rail travellers continue to rise.

OTOH, what kinds of jobs require tens of thousands of people to make daily trips from London to Birmingham?

(Other than long distance commuting by top earning London workers to find cheaper housing, which isn't going to help the midlands/north at all!)

 

[StriderX]

But more and more people who work in London live outside now (myself included). We'll be at a stage where it will be completely viable to live in Birmingham and commute to London, and at the same time attracting decent talent to live there and companies to start think about starting up/relocating there as well to save costs.

Clearly unreasonable in the long term, I can only imagine the political disaster this will ignite.

It's far more reasonable to simply make it tenable to have businesses operate in Birmingham, so that people actually want to go there to invest further. Perhaps we could instead just stop pretending anything will change, erase parliament and just have the City of London legislate, nothing would change fundamentally.

 

[Destination]

So hilarious, if the Chinese build this, and actually go 100% over their budget and 100% over their time to delivery, they still come in sooner, and cheaper than the current estimates...

Make Britain Great Again....

 

[jpaul]

at the same time attracting decent talent to live there and companies to start think about starting up/relocating there as well to save costs.

yes, need to get rid of this tech centric strategy for london, cambridge ....
it's a catch22 ... derviative employers google , apple , microsoft, amazon, setting up in London , through some misdirected idea that people want to live there
....it's not a silicon valley standard of living.

you need to include the number or extra services that will be able to run on the existing infrastructure thanks to HS2 releasing capacity

empty promises

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/1185/1185we32.htm

3. SO WHY DO NORTHERN CITIES AND BUSINESSMEN THINK THEY WILL GAIN?
There are reasons that explain why northern cities and businessmen think they will gain:
— Cities served by an HS2 station think that their local economies will gain, but while the city may indeed benefit it is only at the expense of its hinterland. And only a few cities are proposed to have a station (London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester). The rest will not benefit.
— Cities and businesses are not being asked to choose between having HS2 and having other transport investment. There are major benefits related to incremental non HS2 transport improvements which would be available far earlier than if the money is wasted on HS2.
— Regional development and spatial economics are complex areas. It is not surprising people take at face value what Government tell them.

 

[Orionaut]

Clearly unreasonable in the long term, I can only imagine the political disaster this will ignite.

Indeed, this is precisely why people in the midlands/north do NOT want it!

 

[Em3bbs]

yes, need to get rid of this tech centric strategy for london, cambridge ....
it's a catch22 ... derviative employers google , apple , microsoft, amazon, setting up in London , through some misdirected idea that people want to live there
....it's not a silicon valley standard of living.

empty promises

But the thing is they do want to live there, it's not misdirected at all. I can't begin to tell you the difference of global talent you are able to attract to London vs. somewhere else. Things are getting better now thanks in part to improved rail links, but even getting decent people from abroad to work in the Thames Valley was hard 10 years ago because it's was not perceived to be easy to get to from London. Now that Crossrail is on the horizon (lol maybe), it's changed a lot.

There's a reason companies like Microsoft, Vodafone, EE and Apple have moved many roles from places hard to get to like Newbury, Thames Valley Park etc. to places easily commutable from London.

 

[Robert]

I like the idea of fast trains, but in reality stations need updating, cross rail for the north, better trains, more trains....this will be out of date before it arrives and will probably end up costing ludicrous amounts to use.

also, brum will have a new station...so will be a total faff for changing. I also like the “Leeds/Manchester is definitely happening............but there will be cost savings” :/

 

[jpaul]

But the thing is they do want to live there, it's not misdirected at all.

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/List/Best-Cities-for-Jobs-UK-LST_KQ0,23.htm

maybe I'll have to revise my opinion on cambridge ....

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ffordable-employee-satisfaction-a8599161.html

The ease of acquiring a job, the cost of living in the area and overall job satisfaction were all taken into account when determining which UK towns and cities were the most ideal locations for workers.
Manchester, which ranked second last year, dropped to seventh on the list, with major cities including London, Glasgow and Cardiff not making the top 25.
The top 10 towns and cities to work in, according to the study:

1. Slough
2. Gloucester
3. Cambridge
4. Reading
5. Guildford
6. Stoke-on-Trent
7. Manchester
8. Derby
9. Bolton
10. Chelmsford

... from the internet echo-chamber,
a strong component of job satisfaction is work-life balance(smiley) , quality of living

 

[Em3bbs]

@jpaul I don't disagree with any of that, but that's a survey of people who already live in those places. Try getting someone really good from New York, Berlin or even London to relocate to Slough or Stoke-on-Trent.

 

[StriderX]

Make Slough and Stoke-on-Trent worth living in then... get the government to invest in it. You can make anything a garden if you actually care and put the effort in.