yeah its happened before when they build across peoples homes, the governments idea of market value is a lot less than normal peoples idea of market value. its a **** take that they can do it in the first place, id want twice market value for the bloody hassle of having to move
why all the hate for hs2?
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
yeah its happened before when they build across peoples homes, the governments idea of market value is a lot less than normal peoples idea of market value. its a **** take that they can do it in the first place, id want twice market value for the bloody hassle of having to move
No, they don't get market value. I realise this document says they will, but trust me, they won't.
Associate
Personally I think it's £32bn that could be far better used than shaving 30 minutes off a train journey, especially seeing as it's going to take at least 14 years to build. And completely agree that government should pay market value + a sum for the hassle of being forced from your home.
Soldato
That's actually on paper vs slowest train figures. In practice the saving will be closer to 18-20 minutes at the most optimistic values. As someone who lives on HS1 line I can tell you the time saving figures are always wrong. The trains can't run with theoretical maximum speed through built up areas in London, and in peak time there is never enough rail tracks to the hubs to allow fast trains to run prority services without slowing down for other less precisely timed services sharing the same tracks. In fact if Virgin Trains were travelling at their theoretical speeds all the way through London, the saving of HS2 to Virgin service would be approx 11 minutes if i remember correctly.
It's not going to Edinburgh or Glasgow. Not in our lifetime anyway. It doesn't even technically go to Manchester yet, it's a planned phase two if phase one can be finished in anywhere between decade and 14 years. If it was announced as 3 hours to Edinburgh service I think people would have much less of a problem with it
And this is one of the problems. This project requires rebuilding the station terminal (there are blocks of flats at the moment where the terminal is planned) and widening outgoing tracks through London. Everyone seems to be blissfully blind to the fact this means approx 8 years of reduced service on the very line it was supposed to help and 6 years of misery for anyone using Euston station and (also) surrounding roads. All that so in 14 years, theoretical thousand of still train journey loving rich Birminghamians can shave 20 minutes off their presumably still regular journey to the city they couldn't quite rely on reaching by train for by then over a decade.
True story at this point - when HS1 javelin services were launched the figures quoted for medway towns to St.Pancras were 21 minutes. However, after first test runs this immediately was downgraded to 34 minutes. At the time regular "fast" train to London Victoria was taking just 8 minutes longer to get there, so considering VASTLY higher cost of javelin services, there were no takers. Almost immediately 4 times an hour service was reduced to twice an hour, additional stations were added to javelin service, extending journey to approx 37 minutes (some services up to 42 minutes) while service to Victoria was... slowed down. To 52 minutes. To justify higher cost of javelin ticket. Several years later the trains are still running empty, with seats available even in peak hours and rail attempts to push passengers off regular trains into javelin service by gradually shortening the trains running from coast through north kent by one or two carriages.
And this is why I think HS2 doesn't make sense. Because we don't really need faster trains. At least not sponsored by taxpayer, we don't. When you think of trains and commuting, speed is rarely the issue. We need cheaper trains. If there is one public transport policy that Britain needs, it's a cap on train journey cost. And HS2 will cost you crazy.
Look in fear Brummies and try to imagine what will be asked of you, if the cheapest peak time high speed ticket for 32 miles journey from Kent to St.Pancras and back on HS1 costs:
Last edited:
Soldato
Hmm, I like the principle of spending money on British infrastructure, and if the business case for the line is well worked out then it seems like a reasonable investment to me (unless this countryside it's going to ruin is of special scientific interest or something - I hate countryside getting ruined, but sacrifices have to be made every day, and this one would seem to be worth it). However, if I was given the money to invest in infrastructure as I saw fit I'd probably do something about poor broadband speeds, and if I got any spare change I'd pay the ITER people to boss fusion quicker. But, as I know that this wouldn't happen if they didn't build HS2 I'm perfectly happy with it.
Of course, if the analysts are wrong and HS2 overspends massively or loses loads of money I'd be annoyed, but for now I'll trust them.
Of course, if the analysts are wrong and HS2 overspends massively or loses loads of money I'd be annoyed, but for now I'll trust them.
Fusion is pretty much cracked and there's no real way to boost the speed of it.
The reactors take decades to build and years to bring on line.
The first reactor prooved their calculations. Next reactor they are building now boosts that knowledge(ITER -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) and will prove the next step and the one after that is a proper power station (demo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO)
Just look at the length to do stuff
2006-11-21 Seven participants formally agreed to fund the creation of a nuclear fusion reactor.[9]
2008 Site preparation start, ITER itinerary start.[20]
2009 Site preparation completion.[20]
2010 Tokamak complex excavation start.[21]
2011 Tokamak complex construction start.[21]
2015 Predicted: Tokamak assembly start.[12]
2018 Predicted: Tokamak assembly completion, start torus pumpdown.[12]
November 2019 Predicted: Achievement of first plasma.[22]
2026 Predicted: Start of deuterium-tritium operation.[22]
2038 Predicted: End of project.
And demos time frame
Conceptual design is to be complete by 2017
Engineering design is to be complete by 2024
The first 'Construction Phase' is to last from 2024 to 2033
The first phase of operation is to last from 2033 to 2038
The plant is then to be expanded/updated
The second phase of operation is to last from 2040 onwards
The reactors take decades to build and years to bring on line.
The first reactor prooved their calculations. Next reactor they are building now boosts that knowledge(ITER -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) and will prove the next step and the one after that is a proper power station (demo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO)
Just look at the length to do stuff
2006-11-21 Seven participants formally agreed to fund the creation of a nuclear fusion reactor.[9]
2008 Site preparation start, ITER itinerary start.[20]
2009 Site preparation completion.[20]
2010 Tokamak complex excavation start.[21]
2011 Tokamak complex construction start.[21]
2015 Predicted: Tokamak assembly start.[12]
2018 Predicted: Tokamak assembly completion, start torus pumpdown.[12]
November 2019 Predicted: Achievement of first plasma.[22]
2026 Predicted: Start of deuterium-tritium operation.[22]
2038 Predicted: End of project.
And demos time frame
Conceptual design is to be complete by 2017
Engineering design is to be complete by 2024
The first 'Construction Phase' is to last from 2024 to 2033
The first phase of operation is to last from 2033 to 2038
The plant is then to be expanded/updated
The second phase of operation is to last from 2040 onwards
Last edited:
Soldato
People are stupid.
It is a good idea. We need more capacity anyway and even better, make it high speed.
Most other first world countries have them, we are lagging behind. Also looking at a train line is better than looking at grass anyway. The noise might be bad at night but nothing is perfect.
And so is nuclear. France really are on the ball when it comes to trains and nuclear power, we should be more like them in these areas. We should have done this stuff 10 years ago. Yay Labour.
It is a good idea. We need more capacity anyway and even better, make it high speed.
Most other first world countries have them, we are lagging behind. Also looking at a train line is better than looking at grass anyway. The noise might be bad at night but nothing is perfect.
And so is nuclear. France really are on the ball when it comes to trains and nuclear power, we should be more like them in these areas. We should have done this stuff 10 years ago. Yay Labour.
Caporegime
Yeah. Screw it all! Lets burn all the trees so we suffer from lack of oxygen 
Soldato
Yeah. Screw it all! Lets burn all the trees so we suffer from lack of oxygen
Some trees will be cut down but we are hardly chopping down forests to buid this thing.
Caporegime
Yeah I know, just sayin
Soldato
You must have missed my post where I pointed out it would also lead to more space for fright on the slower lines and thus has more benefit that just cutting journey times.
Caporegime
I've been to London and Birmingham at ridiculous times / rush hour before, and the lines aren't exactly heaving.
It's the internal London lines they need to improve in most cases
P.S: I presume by having this new flashy rail system the other lines fairs will drop
Soldato
Why is it so important to get to Birmingham so fast? I can understand the advantages of getting away from it quicker, but really... The place is utterly without consequence.
We're a rather cramped little country and slamming an obscenely expensive and very long white elephant through the heart of it just seems an act of vandalism. They must be able to spend all that cash on something else more useful?
(I live in Aylesbury and we get HS2 on our doorstep.)
We're a rather cramped little country and slamming an obscenely expensive and very long white elephant through the heart of it just seems an act of vandalism. They must be able to spend all that cash on something else more useful?
(I live in Aylesbury and we get HS2 on our doorstep.)
I still say spend the money elsewhere.
London to Birmingham is the least of our problems. Although Birmingham has a high passenger demand the services are not over-crowded.
Source
London to Birmingham doesn't figure at all on the list of the most over-crowded services. Spend the cash lengthening and increasing the number of platforms and installing new lines.
London to Birmingham is the least of our problems. Although Birmingham has a high passenger demand the services are not over-crowded.
Source
London to Birmingham doesn't figure at all on the list of the most over-crowded services. Spend the cash lengthening and increasing the number of platforms and installing new lines.
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
This.
I rarely use a train, so the only use I'd get would be indirect, and that's assuming they allow cargo to go between the midlands / London and I actually order something that goes via the HS2
Waste of money. Give everyone fast broadband or something, upgrade something the whole of the UK could benefit from.
Soldato
Over budget and will take too long...
Not to mention NIMBY
kd
Not to mention NIMBY
kd
yorkshire and the lakes are world heritage sites as well. they still have trains running through them.
the point is that these brilliant pieces of countryside have trains, as you say, have had trains running through them for over a hundred years. why should the chilterns be different considering the massive effort (driving up the costs) to avoid as much disruption as possible via the use of tunnels etc?
there is no reason the chilterns should be different. the people complaining about world heritage status wouldnt give a damn if it was being built elsewhere, through the scottish highlands, the lake district, pennines or where ever.
like bt's FTTH upgrades then? not everyone needs fast internet believe it or not. doesnt mean we shouldnt upgrade the infrastructure where there is a problem.
Last edited: