why all the hate for hs2?

HS2 would have removed high speed trains off the main lines to allow for more regional trains and/or freight trains. Only after it began to be cut back did its goals become rather pointless and now we're at a point where it looks like it'll run on exisiting lines designed for tilting trains without using tilting trains - so they'll have to run them slower.
HS2 as a concept is a great idea - right up until the idiots in charge decided to meddle with it.
 
Read a very good article on why HS2 will now make train travel worse for everyone. The conclusion being it all needs to be built , including ` HS3` or none.
 
Harlequin said:
Read a very good article on why HS2 will now make train travel worse for everyone. The conclusion being it all needs to be built , including ` HS3` or none.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link? I'd love to read it.

GIBURROWS said:
I'd love a trustworthy financial audit into this.
Click to expand...

Setting aside every single one of my misgivings about Labour, if they placed in their mandate that they'd audit every single rotten choice made over the past 14 years, would enact the Leveson conclusions entirely and place a moratorium on all non essential city infrastructure investment in the first term in favour of diverting more funds to devolved government, I'd get off the fence and vote for them. As it stands, as much as I plan to tell my local MP to seek employment elsewhere, I can't bring myself to vote for Labour. There are just too many views I disagree with, and the 28 billion climbdown is - for now - another nail in the coffin. I think the one thing that would sway me back towards them would be a manifesto promise to invest into rebuilding social structure such as housing, hospitals, schools, reinvestment into security and health services...

Sorry. Getting off track. Zing.
 
Goodie said:
didn't the tories salt the earth by selling off all of the compulsory purchased properties along that section to make it not feasible? I'm sure I read that when they announced the initial scrap.
Click to expand...
Rishi did say they'd do that, but in reality it's not actually happened yet thankfully.
 
The main issue with HS2 aside from the sheer cost of it, was it sucked up money away from other areas into a line that would only benefit a very small portion of travel in the UK, the usual London and North west powerhouses, when it got cancelled there was suddenly announcements of money to spend on rail infrastructure in other parts of the UK.

So when people say do it properly, to me properly, is it would go to the north east, to Scotland, to Norfolk, Suffolk, every city in the country would have a station. It went through Leicestershire but had no stops in the country, if it was about capacity, it would have stops, but instead the reason given for no stops, as its primary purpose was speed.

Some interesting quotes.

The High Speed Rail Group estimated selling the rights to run the line could be worth up to £20bn.
Click to expand...

This seems to be the reason its had a partial reversal, it might be profitable, although I expect the reality will be nothing like this.

Whilst a report commissioned by Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham and former West Midlands Mayor Andy Street, which was published last month suggested that by reducing speed you could deliver a new line for between 60% and 75% of the cost, which experts argue - along with private funding - would reduce the cost burden associated with the project.
Click to expand...

If it was just for capacity, why not do this, why does it need to go so fast, is the reason capacity or luxury speed?
 
Last edited:
General housing doesn’t need material amounts of government money, it’s all paid for by its owners. Housing is generally constrained by regulation, not a lack of money.

if you mean council housing, sure but they’d need to abolish the right to buy at a discount first and the council must replace any that are sold.

Edit: you don’t need it to stop to create capacity. High speed intercity trains do not stop at every stop. If you take high speed non-stopping services off the regular lines you can have more trains that do stop at the relevant stations.

It worries me that this still needs to be said on page 90 of this thread.
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
General housing doesn’t need material amounts of government money, it’s all paid for by its owners. Housing is generally constrained by regulation, not a lack of money.

if you mean council housing, sure but they’d need to abolish the right to buy at a discount first and the council must replace any that are sold.
Click to expand...
if they want to keep right to buy that is fine imo BUT on the condition that a new council house is built (in advance) for every house which is sold........ technically its doable, after all, it is generally profitable to build houses so i cant see why its not feasible.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
General housing doesn’t need material amounts of government money, it’s all paid for by its owners. Housing is generally constrained by regulation, not a lack of money.

if you mean council housing, sure but they’d need to abolish the right to buy at a discount first and the council must replace any that are sold.

Edit: you don’t need it to stop to create capacity. High speed intercity trains do not stop at every stop. If you take high speed non-stopping services off the regular lines you can have more trains that do stop at the relevant stations.

It worries me that this still needs to be said on page 90 of this thread.
Click to expand...
I obviously meant social housing yes, as thats the bulk of the housing problems.

The point about stops is, it only increases capacity for the places it stops at, spending so much money on a project with so little stops is farcical, and as proven by the release of money after it got cancelled, it was sucking up resources from other parts of the country to pay for it, my area e.g. had 10s of millions of funding approved for capacity increases, new route and maintenance within 2 weeks of HS2 cancellations.

Circa 40 billion of funding would be a complete game changer for housing, it would improve lives so much for millions of people, instead of just those who want a faster train between london and the north west, its hard for a government to claim they cant afford it when they spend it on a vanity project instead.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
if they want to keep right to buy that is fine imo BUT on the condition that a new council house is built (in advance) for every house which is sold........ technically its doable, after all, it is generally profitable to build houses so i cant see why its not feasible.
Click to expand...
Exactly. But the discount takes it well below the cost price which was the problem.

chrcoluk said:
I obviously meant social housing yes, as thats the bulk of the housing problems.
Click to expand...
You need to be more specific and in any case, you would need less social housing if the general supply was better (e.g. cheaper due to supply/demand).
 
chrcoluk said:
If it was just for capacity, why not do this, why does it need to go so fast, is the reason capacity or luxury speed?
Click to expand...

The capacity freed up is the on the existing West Coast Main Line. By moving the extremely fast traffic away from there, slower commuter and freight trains now have more slots and flexibility down that route. The 125mph trains require a lot of space in signalling terms, and them not being on the existing lines any more gives a lot of opportunity. If it was done at a reduced cost (by lower track speeds) then you make travel slower than it is now. Why on earth would you aim to make the situation worse than it is? Yes, HS2 will "only" shave off a few minutes on the Crewe to London leg but it's not a regression, and to state again, the opportunity for other trains on existing WCML is huge once the 125/140mph trains are gone.
 
Last edited:
chrcoluk said:
If it was just for capacity, why not do this, why does it need to go so fast, is the reason capacity or luxury speed?
Click to expand...

Its the same rolling stock just different speed, so it wouldnt actually save much money ( Zefiro V300) The other plans are for ballasted track and reverting to none European gauge loading; which, would limit trains in the future to single deck only, and have compatibility issues with the rest of HS2. So no i think it`ll be built to plan. The big news is that Crewe onwards would not be built by the HS2 consortium , as an audit of that company is showing huge waste (and potential legal action against them).
 
squerble said:
The capacity freed up is the on the existing West Coast Main Line. By moving the extremely fast traffic away from there, slower commuter and freight trains now have more slots and flexibility down that route. The 125mph trains require a lot of space in signalling terms, and them not being on the existing lines any more gives a lot of opportunity. If it was done at a reduced cost (by lower track speeds) then you make travel slower than it is now. Why on earth would you aim to make the situation worse than it is? Yes, HS2 will "only" shave off a few minutes on the Crewe to London leg but it's not a regression, and to state again, the opportunity for other trains on existing WCML is huge once the 125/140mph trains are gone.
Click to expand...
You think extra capacity for one single line in the west good value? At the expense of other lines and other infrastructure projects elsewhere in the country.

What current problems do we have that are serious that HS2 will resolve?
 
Harlequin said:
Its the same rolling stock just different speed, so it wouldnt actually save much money ( Zefiro V300) The other plans are for ballasted track and reverting to none European gauge loading; which, would limit trains in the future to single deck only, and have compatibility issues with the rest of HS2. So no i think it`ll be built to plan. The big news is that Crewe onwards would not be built by the HS2 consortium , as an audit of that company is showing huge waste (and potential legal action against them).
Click to expand...
Ok so you think their idea s a bit of a dud, overstated savings.

Its good on the consortium changes, at least they doing something about that situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom