why all the hate for hs2?

[Deleted member 68110]

Have you actually been somewhere where HS2 is being built?

The local populations have largely given up campaigning against it now it’s actually being built. In the run up there was huge local opposition to almost every meter of track being built.

Various sections of it were challenged several times each via the court system by local campaigners.

I don’t know what else to say other than ask if you have a short memory?

So nothing that's got in the way? (like I asked)?

Bizarre to focus on stuff that got nowhere in order to try to dismiss what looks like legitimate criticism of eg the cost tripling and tripling again, while the touted connections have more than halved.

 

[jonneymendoza]

The rail system is rubbish for so many.
Its expensive. That's the worst part. It's sometimes cheaper to get the train as a single passenger. But soon as you add a second person.. Drive.

Its been years since ive used a train because its just not financially viable.

I obviously see the appeal when you're commuting busy city to busy city but really, you still need to be shortish distance from origin to station and especially station to destination.

Soon as you have to drive? For me it's car all the way.
Even to London it was cheaper to drive to the furthest out underground than get the train.
To the airport I get the national express bus. Sure its slower. But it's comfier, nicer, cleaner and 10x cheaper. No exaggeration. My last but trip was 10x cheaper to Gatwick from Cardiff!



I see the idea of a fleet of AI electric cars as more viable. Essentially like uber. But better. Obviously its a long way off and still might be more expensive than ownership. But seems more viable mid term

Brilliant. Well said

 

[Raymond Lin]

The rail system is rubbish for so many.
Its expensive. That's the worst part. It's sometimes cheaper to get the train as a single passenger. But soon as you add a second person.. Drive.

Its been years since ive used a train because its just not financially viable.

Even for a single person...it can be cheaper to drive.

For example. I live in Herefordshire, my mate has decided (for some reason), to go for a stag do in Cardiff. A return ticket looking at 3 months in advance is still £40 return. Even just me...it does not cost £40 to drive there, even in my thirsty car it's about half that and there are 4 of us going.

My mate thought he would take the train, until he saw the price.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Even for a single person...it can be cheaper to drive.

For example. I live in Herefordshire, my mate has decided (for some reason), to go for a stag do in Cardiff. A return ticket looking at 3 months in advance is still £40 return. Even just me...it does not cost £40 to drive there, even in my thirsty car it's about half that and there are 4 of us going.

My mate thought he would take the train, until he saw the price.

Well said.

Way cheaper to drive and more convenient and comfortable.

Can't stand the public transport as a whole. Expensive, uncomfortable, dirty, smelly and 1/3 of the time doesn't work due to delays, signal failures or strikes where they are literally asking for more money...

And who's gunna bow down and give them all a pay rise? Not from the government pocket but from us...

 

[SpellowHouse]

That’s a very odd way of looking at it.

The decision was made nearly a decade ago to build it and the borrowing was subsequently put aside.

Cancelling it now will not save a material amount of money, most of the expense has already been incurred.

Likewise there is a clear difference between borrowing to build infrastructure that is going to be in place for decades if not 100 years and for day to day living expenses which is what you are suggesting.

We don’t have the cash for this, it’s coming from borrowing and that is absolutely fine. Borrowing to invest is exactly what we should be doing and should have been doing the whole time at a much greater rate than we have done.

Borrowing to cover day to day costs is not a viable solution in the long term.

Not really odd, we had even less money ten years ago.

I am not saying it should be cancelled, but I am saying it should never have been started.

The problem with borrowing is that this government has just been running up the debt and it's getting ridiculous. Again, bad timing.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

So nothing that's got in the way? (like I asked)?

Bizarre to focus on stuff that got nowhere in order to try to dismiss what looks like legitimate criticism of eg the cost tripling and tripling again, while the touted connections have more than halved.

So because local opposition could not stop it means there wasn’t any? Ok.

Local opposition absolutely did delay the project and cost it significant amount of money, the same can be said for pretty much all large infrastructure projects.

Just look at things like Hinkey Point B and Sizewell C if you want two classic examples of locals kicking off but ultimately loosing but leading to delays.

At no point did I say there wasn’t legitimate criticism of HS2. I have no idea where you got that from. There were absolutely other projects that had better benefits but I’m not arguing against that notion. I even said in this thread it could have paid for 4 nuclear power plants (and then some).

Not really odd, we had even less money ten years ago.

I am not saying it should be cancelled, but I am saying it should never have been started.

The problem with borrowing is that this government has just been running up the debt and it's getting ridiculous. Again, bad timing.

I think that’s where we will fundamentally disagree. There is absolutely zero issues with borrowing if it’s being used to invest in infrastructure (and education) that will enable the private sector to grow over the long term.

The issue is that our governments don’t do that, they want returns on a 4 year electoral year which inevitably means spending to pump growth rather than creating the environment needed for it to flourish on its own.

 

[413x]

So because local opposition could not stop it means there wasn’t any? Ok.

Local opposition absolutely did delay the project and cost it significant amount of money, the same can be said for pretty much all large infrastructure projects.

Just look at things like Hinkey Point B and Sizewell C if you want two classic examples of locals kicking off but ultimately loosing but leading to delays.

At no point did I say there wasn’t legitimate criticism of HS2. I have no idea where you got that from. There were absolutely other projects that had better benefits but I’m not arguing against that notion. I even said in this thread it could have paid for 4 nuclear power plants (and then some).



I think that’s where we will fundamentally disagree. There is absolutely zero issues with borrowing if it’s being used to invest in infrastructure (and education) that will enable the private sector to grow over the long term.

The issue is that our governments don’t do that, they want returns on a 4 year electoral year which inevitably means spending to pump growth rather than creating the environment needed for it to flourish on its own.

Even though I think Hs2 is a collosal waste I totally agree that the way our democracy works means its never in political interests to say "we will increase taxes now to reap the reward 10 years from now"

So rather than long term planning you get election boosting spending. Debt it always the next lots issue to deal with.


One of the few better things of monarchy is that generally, legacy is important, your family inherit your throne, so you plan to improve the future rather than focus purely on present.

 

[Deleted member 68110]

So because local opposition could not stop it means there wasn’t any? Ok.

Local opposition absolutely did delay the project and cost it significant amount of money, the same can be said for pretty much all large infrastructure projects.

Just look at things like Hinkey Point B and Sizewell C if you want two classic examples of locals kicking off but ultimately loosing but leading to delays.

At no point did I say there wasn’t legitimate criticism of HS2. I have no idea where you got that from. There were absolutely other projects that had better benefits but I’m not arguing against that notion. I even said in this thread it could have paid for 4 nuclear power plants (and then some).



I think that’s where we will fundamentally disagree. There is absolutely zero issues with borrowing if it’s being used to invest in infrastructure (and education) that will enable the private sector to grow over the long term.

The issue is that our governments don’t do that, they want returns on a 4 year electoral year which inevitably means spending to pump growth rather than creating the environment needed for it to flourish on its own.

A lot of strawmen and revisions there.
The comment of yours I picked up on was this...

Have you seen the opposition to HS2? The NIMBY population would never allow a flat, straight rail line to be ploughed through a national park, its just a complete non-starter.

You made out the criticism of hs2 was nimbyism.

Now you've pretty much acknowledged the flaws I highlighted in that. We got there in the end I guess.

 

[Raymond Lin]

For the record, I think a good high speed rail is great, I LOVE trains in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan etc, but over there the cost is reasonable, it’s fast, it’s on time, it’s clean and did I say it’s fast? The UK is building trains that Japan did 50years ago (okay the HS2 is marginally faster than a 50 year old Shinkansen if someone want to be pedantic). The new maglev between Tokyo to Nagoya, eventually to Osaka goes about double the speed of the HS2 (they have their own problems and challenges) but it just feel like the way we are doing it is just worse, whatever it is. Our rail system is old, badly maintained, badly run, overpriced, it’s just bad for a 1st world country.

I’m not sure what the solution is, I know the solution isn’t more cars and wider roads…I don’t want a City like the US where cars dominate but a good balance and for that we need a good rail network…

 

[ianh]

Our rail system is old, badly maintained, badly run, overpriced, it’s just bad for a 1st world country.

I’m not sure what the solution is, I know the solution isn’t more cars and wider roads…I don’t want a City like the US where cars dominate but a good balance and for that we need a good rail network…

Yeap, 100% agree.

What I think would probably be better is more "main-line/fast" train lines going East/West - West/East across the country rather than everything having to go South to London to swap over to the next North bound i.e. in a recent trip for me to travel from Kings Lynn to Banbury via train takes 4h30mins (13 stops) and costs £100 (checked today) with travel from Kings Lynn south to Ely then west to Birmingham then back south east to Banbury or for the same trip by road its 2h15 and £30 in petrol in the RS6 or <£10 in my C1. Why would I ever take that set of ridiculous trains? I wouldn't and so I add myself to the traffic clogging up the roads all because the trains are just bad.

Better East/West - West/East up and down the country seems to be far more important for commerce, people, businesses etc than just more "everything goes to London yet again" trains, especially when Manchester/Birmingham are already becoming far more popular (cheaper) places to work from/commute to compared to London, especially if you can work from home most of the time.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Yeap, 100% agree.

What I think would probably be better is more "main-line/fast" train lines going East/West - West/East across the country rather than everything having to go South to London to swap over to the next North bound i.e. in a recent trip for me to travel from Kings Lynn to Banbury via train takes 4h30mins (13 stops) and costs £100 (checked today) with travel from Kings Lynn south to Ely then west to Birmingham then back south east to Banbury or for the same trip by road its 2h15 and £30 in petrol in the RS6 or <£10 in my C1. Why would I ever take that set of ridiculous trains? I wouldn't and so I add myself to the traffic clogging up the roads all because the trains are just bad.

Better East/West - West/East up and down the country seems to be far more important for commerce, people, businesses etc than just more "everything goes to London yet again" trains, especially when Manchester/Birmingham are already becoming far more popular (cheaper) places to work from/commute to compared to London, especially if you can work from home most of the time.

I think it is logical that any major rail will go to London, being that is where most of the population is. In Korea their version of the bullet train goes from Seoul to Busan. It is a literal cross country service, almost like London to Edinburgh, but in like 3hrs. In Japan they do and did start their Shinkansen from Tokyo, their new Maglev too. The logical plan and is what they are doing is join Tokyo to Osaka, the 2 largest cities.

Now Japan has the Shinkansen go all the way to Fukuoka up to Hokkaido...although not to Sapporo yet...to illustrate the difference, the green line is the Shinkansen and the Purple line is the normal train. You have to change when you get to Hakodate. They also have a Shinkansen from Tokyo to Kanazawa (west coast) now too, but this line was more recent.

The time for the green section of the journey is about 4hrs and a bit, the same as the purple part.



I want something like that here.

Although to do that, it's not cheap, it's actually cheaper to fly...by like half and then some, but at least it is still on time!

 

[ianh]

I think it is logical that any major rail will go to London, being that is where most of the population is.

And that is why they already have multiple fast train lines going to London, do they really need one more costing £75-100 Billion or could the rest of the country have "better" train lines with all that HS2 money instead?

I mean my point is moot as the HS2 is already being built so what I think means nothing but I can't see how one more train line to London will be "better" for the UK vs improving hundreds of smaller lines and maybe getting people off the road?

 

[Raymond Lin]

And that is why they already have multiple fast train lines going to London, do they really need one more costing £75-100 Billion or could the rest of the country have "better" train lines with all that HS2 money instead?

I mean my point is moot as the HS2 is already being built so what I think means nothing but I can't see how one more train line to London will be "better" for the UK vs improving hundreds of smaller lines and maybe getting people off the road?

It's just how they do urban planning...may be logical is the wrong word, it's just what everyone does, all over.

 

[Ali195]

It's meant to be about capacity but the speed factor sounds more sexy for PR.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

And that is why they already have multiple fast train lines going to London, do they really need one more costing £75-100 Billion or could the rest of the country have "better" train lines with all that HS2 money instead?

I mean my point is moot as the HS2 is already being built so what I think means nothing but I can't see how one more train line to London will be "better" for the UK vs improving hundreds of smaller lines and maybe getting people off the road?

It’s about increasing capacity, not speed.

Put non-stopping trains services onto new lines leaves more scope for local services and freight on the existing lines.

If you think the trains to London are fast, think again. The only proper high speed train the ‘U.K.’ has is via the channel tunnel.

For example, the trains to London where I live are two tracks only past shenfield and the two extra tracks that run to shenfield are for the exclusive use of the Elizabeth line. All the trains from Norwich, Clayton and South End all converge on the same point. They are dog slow because of the number of them all running down the same track. Even if they wanted to run more trains, they can’t because there isn’t the capacity

The trains are usually standing room only during peak times and that’s post covid.

It could be worse, for a ‘western economy’, the trains in the states are utter garbage by comparison.

 

[SpellowHouse]

I think that’s where we will fundamentally disagree. There is absolutely zero issues with borrowing if it’s being used to invest in infrastructure (and education) that will enable the private sector to grow over the long term.

But how can we possibly justify investment in a railway when people are cold and hungry? If we invested in half a dozen power stations, fine, but a railway? To me that is the worst of politicians being "out of touch" with the ordinary people. We have a railway. It will do until better times. Right now the priority should be different.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

But how can we possibly justify investment in a railway when people are cold and hungry? If we invested in half a dozen power stations, fine, but a railway? To me that is the worst of politicians being "out of touch" with the ordinary people. We have a railway. It will do until better times. Right now the priority should be different.

I’d suggest going back to read my post, I never said they should have invested in a railway. I said they should be investing in infrastructure (and education), I never gave a view on what that infrastructure should or shouldn’t be.

You are reading things which are not there.

Plus the energy price problem only happened in the last year. HS2 is nearly a decade in at this point. You can’t pull out the energy prices card to criticise HS2.

 

[SpellowHouse]

I’d suggest going back to read my post, I never said they should have invested in a railway. I said they should be investing in infrastructure (and education), I never gave a view on what that infrastructure should or shouldn’t be.

You are reading things which are not there.

Plus the energy price problem only happened in the last year. HS2 is nearly a decade in at this point. You can’t pull out the energy prices card to criticise HS2.

Not really. You said we fundamentally disagree. I have been talking about HS2, if you aren't, then what is it we disagree on?

The energy price problem is recent, yes, but it's been made a lot worse by the fact that the UK government kicked the can down the road on energy policy for the last forty years. We could be well on the way to resolving that had we invested in power stations rather than a railway. It's a question of priority and even ten years ago, a railway was not a high priority. In passing, I just don't think that individual ministers should spearhead projects like HS2 (Osborne). It should be up to a committee to decide on priorities, not ministers.

 

[ianh]

If you think the trains to London are fast, think again. The only proper high speed train the ‘U.K.’ has is via the channel tunnel.

Aren't intercity 125 trains considered "fast"? I know cross country rail is slow but the mainlines I've been on (Kings Lynn to London, Stoke to London, London to Edinburgh etc) are all 70mph+ over long sections it seems, with few stops outside of major cities or cross-connection points (Crewe for example) and are faster end to end than car travel.

I'll happily admit I'm no train expert, but for me it's just that the idea of spending up to £100 billion so "some Londoners can commute to work quicker" (which is how this HS2 comes across to most people outside London due to poor communication from the Gov) vs spending that same money across the whole system to benefit everyone, is a hard sell to most people across the rest of the UK who are paying for it.

I genuinely struggle to see (again down to poor Gov comms) why getting people to London between 15-81 mins faster than today, depending on your starting point (15min from Derby but 81min from Manchester Airport), is worth the vast expense. I think in a few decades we'll look back at this as the giant folly/white elephant that most people seem to think it is but I hope I'm wrong as the decision is made and the money is spent.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I have not looked into which stations the HS2 stops at between Manchester to London but around the world, trains of this nature isn’t really for commuting, they do not stop in many stops if you want it to do what they are build to do, which is get up to 200+ mph. They serve to connect the large cities together, make people travel internally easier and more convenient and safe.

I would not expect it to be economical to commute in one of these daily between Manchester to London going by the cost for a similar train in other parts of the world where trains travel is already cheaper.