Nothing, none of the governments cared about whats beyond the M25.
why all the hate for hs2?
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
Nothing, none of the governments cared about whats beyond the M25.
Funny because HS2 is almost entirely outside the M25 and people do nothing but moan about it.
Last edited:
You mean that transport system which they sold to the public as "getting people out of London" which was really "lets get MORE people into London while other parts of the UK can burn in poverty"
It was a big drive to benefit London. Not Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or any other big city.
People have the right to moan about it when their taxes are going to nothing else than wasted projects which doesn't benefit them or their surround areas. Other parts of the world can get it right, why cant the UK?
Sigh.
The whole point of HS2 is to add capacity. Taking high speed trains off regional lines means you can run more regional and freight trains through them and reduce bottlenecks.
It’s not really about saving 12 minutes or whatever it is at all.
The trains didn’t actually need to go as fast as they do to achieve all of the aims of the project. It would have been cheaper also with slightly slower trains.
Then why start the project from London instead of from the top such as Manchester or even Leeds
(which I thought was the original plan)? I'm sure there are more fright trains moving up north of the country.
Last edited:
Exactly.
Yes, because getting the London traffic off the WCML provides the capacity increases for freight. It has to go to London.Yeah, that's why they started the project from London instead of from the top such as Manchester or even Leeds
The plan was always to start with the leg between Birmingham and London.Yeah, that's why they started the project from London instead of from the top such as Manchester or even Leeds
The lines between Birmingham and London are some of the most used in the country.
Soldato
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned in the thread before, but there is an underground train station under Manchester.
I don't know why it was abandoned or how far it goes. But I wonder if any of the hs2 planners knew about it.
I was watching one of the travel vloggers on YouTube and he went to Stockholm, Sweden. They have an underground very fast track.
On a slightly different tangent I'd like to see existing train stations be standardised, particularly when it comes to platform height. Because the amount of stations disabled people in chairs need a ramp for is ridiculous and embarrassing. It really shows how some folks are happy to trundle along with 1950s stations.
I don't know why it was abandoned or how far it goes. But I wonder if any of the hs2 planners knew about it.
I was watching one of the travel vloggers on YouTube and he went to Stockholm, Sweden. They have an underground very fast track.
On a slightly different tangent I'd like to see existing train stations be standardised, particularly when it comes to platform height. Because the amount of stations disabled people in chairs need a ramp for is ridiculous and embarrassing. It really shows how some folks are happy to trundle along with 1950s stations.
Commissario
I think i've said it before.
But as an idea of how badly planned/thought out and how little the rail network thinks of disabled people when they redid our local station in a "multi million pound refit" to much publicity back in the late 90's they didn't bother to replace the ancient foot bridge as "not enough disabled people use the station to justify a new foot bridge with lift".
So for another 10-15 years they continued to have anyone in a wheelchair having to be pushed across the tracks, which IIRC meant either turning up and waiting for a station attendant to be free and able to confirm that it was safe for them to accompany you over the track (meaning trains had to slow down/be put on warning/hold), or you had to ring up in advance, both of which meant you couldn't use a train on the spur of the moment or without considerable planning to allow for when they could do that.
It was no wonder disabled people didn't use the station, it wasn't suitable for anyone with any mobility problems (even "just" a bad knee or ankle) and barely safe for people with poor eyesight as the old bridge was (and still is) pretty bad IIRC higher than standard steps, and risky when wet. At the time the decision was made to not put the disabled access in there were petitions from the local disabled people/groups explaining that the primary reason they didn't use it more was because it was unusable for them.
A large part of the problem with "standardising" the stations is something that actually ties into the reason we need a lot more rail tracks laid, at the moment any work on any station is massively disruptive and can take years to do what should be a few months work, because every time you work on the track or the station you need to at the very least slow down all trains using that route even if they're not on the line you're working on, and there are almost no places where you can route around works.
IIRC it took something like 5 years of work for them to put new overhead footbridges with lifts in at Watford Junction (or was it Clapham?), including something like a year to get the lifts installed after they'd got the rest of it usable, mainly because they could only work for a few hours overnight and close the tracks over which they were working for maybe a day or two at a time on bank holidays.
It also doesn't help that they've basically sold off much of the "extra" land that used to be around train stations and directly adjacent to them, so they can't expand the stations that need it even just lengthways along the side of the track in many place.
Soldato
But isn't everything the government does badly planned/thought out?
Actually, I keep saying that, but I should really clarify that I think the Civil Service is the problem. The government make decisions, but based on the wrong advice and then the implementation sucks. Double fail.
To me, all they were doing with HS2 is (again) the London-centric thinking. Everything revolves around London. It would have been far better had they actually tried to revitalise the North instead of giving all those poor Northern people a train so they could come to London.
Our economy is messed up because we destroyed the wealth creation of the North. It's not going to recover by shipping everyone to London. We have to stop destroying or selling off our wealth creation..... just because we don't like those northern people.
The relative poverty of the North is holding back the entire country, yet STILL, they can't think outside London.
£100 billion with nothing to show for it, arable land torn up, schools and hospitals literally falling apart. 760k people using food banks according to the trussell trust, social housing in tatters. All for a rail network that if modernised correctly could have serviced the whole country, but instead will offer about as much utility as pushing Field Marshall Haig's drinks cabinet one inch closer to berlin in 1915. But hey! at least you'll be able to get into london 20 minutes quicker, and London seems to be coming up trumps thanks to the North investment that was promised in scaling it back. It is important that London doesn't get forgotten in all of this, after all.
No idea. Why would anyone hate HS/2?
Last edited:
Soldato
Agreed. And, I think it will ill-conceived from the start.
The government rightly understand that the North is holding back the UK economy. But, to my mind, transport is not the problem. The problem is, for the past forty years or so, the government has hated the North and destroyed it's wealth making capability. THAT is what needs restoring - not a railway line. Railway is nice, but it's missing the point and it's not a priority when the country is a tad broke.
Last edited:
Practically speaking I think a large majority would agree that HS2 is a good idea, but as is tradition, it was driven into the ground by politics.
Had there been dedication and alignment, the project would have been completed and at least in the ballpark with regards to budget.
It screams of a bigger problem too. We setup a supply and skills chain for this project and should have roadmapped in more than just HS2. Stopping and starting every couple years is a large part of why it’s all so expensive, and it’s not like we couldn’t benefit from other/upgraded lines. Europe seem to have it right.
In order for any environmentally friendly approach, we need a working transport system that people want to use. That doesn't involve grotty, inefficient trains and a rail line that literally disappears beneath the waves in the winter at times, or requires you to slow down because it needs updating for the current (yet astonishingly, obsolete) rolling stock to run on properly. To be clear, I'm not boring anyone with the climate change argument here, but I see nothing wrong with making the world a little bit more pleasant to live in. And it's not just the north spellow. It's been class warfare for centuries now.
In principle I think HS/2 is a phenomenally good idea, it's just a shame that the same politics and self interest we saw we Brunel was laying tracks reared its ugly head. HS/2 should have been a national endeavour, providing a backbone for higher speed, cleaner transit that would have connected everyone.
Imagine my dismay when predictably, some idiot with a posh accent, and the arrogance to insist that they know better just saw an angle to line his pockets.
I always find it crazy that someone can burn through so much public money and deliver so little on the political equivalent of an internet argument.
Allow me to enlighten you to the skill of a professional Bullsh*tter:
20 whole minutes of talking about nothing. Such is the contempt this man holds us all in while wanting more wealth.
I think they're paid by the word. There salary should be performance based.Allow me to enlighten you to the skill of a professional Bullsh*tter:
20 whole minutes of talking about nothing. Such is the contempt this man holds us all in while wanting more wealth.
It's like that with everything in this country. Policies are made primarily for London, often not really working elsewhere. Or at the cost of other areas.
Last edited:
Around £9 an hour, in fact. Not including expenses.
I'm actually trying to think of a time when a policy enacted by central government has ever actually benefitted anyone but London in recent memory (this should not be construed as me hating on London, although. You know. I'm not fond of the place) - it's fascinating that Westminster has gotten the North and the South competing for relative scraps from the table. Don't get me wrong, I recognise that the capital should have decent infrastructure - but so should everywhere else. Perhaps it's time to move Parliament out of London. The society is too incestuous, and the relationship between State, Media and the Financial services far too intertwined.