By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I'm guessing there's probably a mix of views & feelings about it on here, but if those who are interested missed it this morning, one caller to the R5live phone in was an engineer who was allowed to remain anonymous. He said he'd sat in on early high level meetings, and was shocked that the project was given the go-ahead based purely on desk-top assessments & analyses, including costs. In other words without anyone even putting their feet on the ground to look at any of the geology or topography of the route! No wonder the cost has exploded.
Atonished at how some of our politicians keep getting away with their sheer ineptitude & stupidity. I stopped being surprised at the self-interest, greed & corruption years ago.
It should be shelved as it's collosally expensive (x10 the prices some other countries pay for high-speed railways) and will never be completed on time.
The UK and England specifically is a crowded place, building things like HS2 require monumental expense as everything is owned and plenty of people are very nimbyish even though the majority will claim they aren't. There is countless litigation and appeals.
Connecting cities directly would be a better use of the money but it's just as likely to fall fowl of the land purchasing and nimbyism as any other project. Unless people are willing to accept something for the greater good (something we know many aren't) then I don't really see any of these new projects coming in on a reasonable budget or in a reasonable time.
HS2 as it stands it a total rip-off though.
SB
I think there will be plenty of farmers who will happily take a premium for a few strips of land.
I knew a few in Kent who cashed in on Eurostar. One lost his gallups, I used to run up them, brutal on the legs, cna made a killing for what was a run of sand and shredded tyres.
It is expensive and there are always plenty of other things to invest in. I do like the idea of connecting East to West better. Examples well presented in the thread.
It's a very tough call and without more information we can only continue with our own brand of speculation.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
It's like this whole London to 60 campaign from Ipswich - I'd rather the trains just be reliable rather than 1 train every hour get there 15 minutes faster
you would but i suspect regular commuters would prefer the faster travel time.
That's purely guesswork on my part but i would prefer my travel time to be faster but i don't live in Suffolk anymore so i don't use the service.
A total waste of money - one that will merely be added to the numerous other white elephants the UK has chucked money at.
This absurdity will not come into force until 2030 at the earliest. Can anyone predict rail use that far ahead ? Look how technology has changed the way we shop, and pay for things in the past 5 years, let alone a decade.
With increased automation will come a lesser need to be moving workers around the country on a daily basis, as with conferencing calling.
It is said that each war starts out being fought with the tactics and equipment of the previous. The money being wasted here should be used for upgrading the country's broadband, to ensure faster movement of information and data, not people.
During the years of HS2 dithering there's been a digital revolution. 20 minutes quicker on a train journey is neither here nor there to most. People work whilst commuting now on their phones/tablets & laptops. That's when they're commuting at all, of course, a lot have the option of Working From Home now for most of the week. The need to commute 5 days a week is a rapidly shrinking market. The Season Ticket customer base should worry train companies more than the need for HS2.
It was a political project, pushed by Osborne at the same time as he was cutting just about any other part of the public sector he possibly could and the 'published' benefits of reducing journey times are minimal.
However, despite the costs, I'm now broadly in favour of HS2 as it represents the only way to improve existing rail capacity because by taking the fastest trains off the existing line more frequent, but slower, services can run on them without needing to leave large gaps for fast chains.
Also, the idea that it can be easily scrapped having sunk billions into it already seems fallacious. Construction has already started with large amounts of disruption in Camden - obviously that doesn't count for the Tory MPs vehemently against it. The environmental case against it is pretty weak too, it ignores the alternatives which will be more cars rather than fewer journeys.
One final point though, it needs to be the whole project and not just the London - Birmingham and Manchester part. Rail infrastructure in the north is appalling - not helped by the Tory habit of downgrading projects immediately post-election and only reinstating them just in time for the next one.
As with Heathrow's third runway, it has many problems but is still the best realistic alternative.
Sorry, meant to reply a long time before this, but been busy.
Very interesting insights there, thanks. As too from many other posters incl SaleAway, Stokie, Harry10 amongst others.
Govt needs to look at a balance sheet of essential pros & cons, including the points raised in the thread - not just at the finances. Re the ££ spent so far though, I'm mindful of an old saying "what's the point of throwing good money after bad?". Sometimes it's better to just cut your losses.
Not convinced current cabinet has the brains or objectivity shown by contributors to this thread to sift through all considerations & arrive at best decision for the country as a whole tho!
Sorry, meant to reply a long time before this, but been busy.
Very interesting insights there, thanks. As too from many other posters incl SaleAway, Stokie, Harry10 amongst others.
Govt needs to look at a balance sheet of essential pros & cons, including the points raised in the thread - not just at the finances. Re the ££ spent so far though, I'm mindful of an old saying "what's the point of throwing good money after bad?". Sometimes it's better to just cut your losses.
Not convinced current cabinet has the brains or objectivity shown by contributors to this thread to sift through all considerations & arrive at best decision for the country as a whole tho!
This is a government that spent millions on a ferry company that didn't even exist though.
And then had to compensate another company for not considering their tender, again, on a contract that didn't even yet exist.
Is it not the case that there is a funded project to have the entire Oxford to Cambridge line open by the mid-2020s?
Quite a lot at the western end (Oxford to Bicester) has already been reopened.
Oxford MK and Cambridge is likely to be a massive corridor of growth. Some track exists from the old varsity line and it is a live funded project.
As you suggest, the West bit was pretty quick and easy, the East bit is preexisting network but the real issue is the central bit from Cambridge to Bedford. In this section, the old varsity line has been repurposed as the guided busway that runs from CB to Huntingdon. When you also think that they want build an expressway from Huntington to Oxford too this is where the monumental issues are.
The Government have made it clear that this is no longer the 3rd priority after Crossrail and HS2 as Network Rail are already ridiculously overstretched. I think it's been earmarked as privately funded but its in reality in limbo.
It's like a micro version of HS2. It begins with pomp and ceremony with ridiculously little thought, an obviously lightweight budget and timescale that is well short of realistic. Inevitably, true costs are now emerging and its completion has been kicked to 'late 2020s', which actually means 2040, assuming something shinier doesn't come along, putting this further down the priority list.
The proposed budget was something ridiculous like £500m. About 2 months of HS2 spend. If completed it will actually be about £3 billion, you'd imagine.
It was a political project, pushed by Osborne at the same time as he was cutting just about any other part of the public sector he possibly could and the 'published' benefits of reducing journey times are minimal.
However, despite the costs, I'm now broadly in favour of HS2 as it represents the only way to improve existing rail capacity because by taking the fastest trains off the existing line more frequent, but slower, services can run on them without needing to leave large gaps for fast chains.
Also, the idea that it can be easily scrapped having sunk billions into it already seems fallacious. Construction has already started with large amounts of disruption in Camden - obviously that doesn't count for the Tory MPs vehemently against it. The environmental case against it is pretty weak too, it ignores the alternatives which will be more cars rather than fewer journeys.
One final point though, it needs to be the whole project and not just the London - Birmingham and Manchester part. Rail infrastructure in the north is appalling - not helped by the Tory habit of downgrading projects immediately post-election and only reinstating them just in time for the next one.
As with Heathrow's third runway, it has many problems but is still the best realistic alternative.
Yes, this is one of the Cameron ?Osborne vanity projects but unlike the over expensive Nukes this has some necessity, created by the privaitisation & the franchise system. Railtrack oversold the line so there was no capacity creating delays for the franchise holders who then make compensation claims for delay ( I understand Abellio get back X 4 from the DfT what they hand over to the traveller) paid for by the tapxpayer - many £ Millions a year. As you say the original line can not be expanded so a new line is necessary. There the problems commence and that is simply a case of substandard government - ministers and their conntracting strategies - anyone with any knowledge of the cock-ups on the Channel tunnel is not surprised at the way this is going. SNCF rail construction costs are about 1/2 those in the UK but even more savings are made whan time is accounted for & Swiss Rail is even more cost effective. But all of this modernisation should have commenced when the 125 proved so successful. By the time HS2 is built no one will be able to afford to use it - ticket costs are already creating a decline in train usage It costs more to get from Norwich to Liverpool Street than it does to get from St Pancras to Rome
The reason for HS2 which seems to have been lost is that the Brum to London route is full to capacity. South of Brum it serves Rugby, Northampton, Milton Keynes. There are commuter services that run from Bletchley calling at Leighton Buzzard, Tring, Berkhampstead, Hemel Hempstead, Kings Langley and Watford. If some of the Birmingham New steet to Euston trains were moved to HS2 it means you can increase the trains serving these stations. This will get people out of their cars and reduce the traffic on the M1 which the West coast line runs close to. That's why HS2 was a new route. The fact that it can get you there 20mins earlier was a selling point but not the prime reason.
Don't believe a word I say. I'm only kidding. Or am I?
By chance I stumbled across the vlog about HS2 on youtube today with some incredibly well informed input from a railways engineer including a piece on how HS2 will benefit Aberystwyth, miles from the route.
It wasn't clear how routes to the far East of Birmingham would benefit though.
This is a government that spent millions on a ferry company that didn't even exist though.
And then had to compensate another company for not considering their tender, again, on a contract that didn't even yet exist.
We're fecking mad.
From horse's mouth (yesterday apparently, but I've only just seen it)
The engineering of HS2 is complicated; the politics is very simple: you can’t claim to be a government committed to infrastructure and cancel the country’s biggest infrastructure project; you can’t claim to be the party of the north and cancel the new north/south railway line
Oxford MK and Cambridge is likely to be a massive corridor of growth. Some track exists from the old varsity line and it is a live funded project.
As you suggest, the West bit was pretty quick and easy, the East bit is preexisting network but the real issue is the central bit from Cambridge to Bedford. In this section, the old varsity line has been repurposed as the guided busway that runs from CB to Huntingdon. When you also think that they want build an expressway from Huntington to Oxford too this is where the monumental issues are.
The Government have made it clear that this is no longer the 3rd priority after Crossrail and HS2 as Network Rail are already ridiculously overstretched. I think it's been earmarked as privately funded but its in reality in limbo.
It's like a micro version of HS2. It begins with pomp and ceremony with ridiculously little thought, an obviously lightweight budget and timescale that is well short of realistic. Inevitably, true costs are now emerging and its completion has been kicked to 'late 2020s', which actually means 2040, assuming something shinier doesn't come along, putting this further down the priority list.
The proposed budget was something ridiculous like £500m. About 2 months of HS2 spend. If completed it will actually be about £3 billion, you'd imagine.
[Post edited 25 Jan 2020 6:39]
The Cambridge to Oxford route didn’t go anywhere near Huntingdon but went due west from Cambridge.
The track west of Cambridge was used for the University’s radio telescope.
The reason for HS2 which seems to have been lost is that the Brum to London route is full to capacity. South of Brum it serves Rugby, Northampton, Milton Keynes. There are commuter services that run from Bletchley calling at Leighton Buzzard, Tring, Berkhampstead, Hemel Hempstead, Kings Langley and Watford. If some of the Birmingham New steet to Euston trains were moved to HS2 it means you can increase the trains serving these stations. This will get people out of their cars and reduce the traffic on the M1 which the West coast line runs close to. That's why HS2 was a new route. The fact that it can get you there 20mins earlier was a selling point but not the prime reason.
I'm not a fan of HS2 Smokey because of the cost and also because the country isn't vast enough to need it. You do however raise a good point about line congestion, I don't know what the answer is but would it not be quicker and cheaper to simply build a new line for standard double decker trains?
“Hello, I'm your MP. Actually I'm not. I'm your candidate. Gosh.”
Boris Johnson canvassing in Henley, 2005.
The reason for HS2 which seems to have been lost is that the Brum to London route is full to capacity. South of Brum it serves Rugby, Northampton, Milton Keynes. There are commuter services that run from Bletchley calling at Leighton Buzzard, Tring, Berkhampstead, Hemel Hempstead, Kings Langley and Watford. If some of the Birmingham New steet to Euston trains were moved to HS2 it means you can increase the trains serving these stations. This will get people out of their cars and reduce the traffic on the M1 which the West coast line runs close to. That's why HS2 was a new route. The fact that it can get you there 20mins earlier was a selling point but not the prime reason.
Stations are often ignored when people talk of full capacity. There are probably a hundred or more stations that could do with additional platforms. It is the fact that slow trains remain stationary for so long at intermediate stations that reduces a lines capacity.
For example there has been talk of an extra platform at Ipswich to stop trains sitting stationary in the tunnel.
Yes, this is one of the Cameron ?Osborne vanity projects but unlike the over expensive Nukes this has some necessity, created by the privaitisation & the franchise system. Railtrack oversold the line so there was no capacity creating delays for the franchise holders who then make compensation claims for delay ( I understand Abellio get back X 4 from the DfT what they hand over to the traveller) paid for by the tapxpayer - many £ Millions a year. As you say the original line can not be expanded so a new line is necessary. There the problems commence and that is simply a case of substandard government - ministers and their conntracting strategies - anyone with any knowledge of the cock-ups on the Channel tunnel is not surprised at the way this is going. SNCF rail construction costs are about 1/2 those in the UK but even more savings are made whan time is accounted for & Swiss Rail is even more cost effective. But all of this modernisation should have commenced when the 125 proved so successful. By the time HS2 is built no one will be able to afford to use it - ticket costs are already creating a decline in train usage It costs more to get from Norwich to Liverpool Street than it does to get from St Pancras to Rome
Not to mention this -
Maybe had we dicided to stay in the eu we would have had 50% funded by them? Oh I forgot the eu don’t do anything for us. https://t.co/asq8OSN4Yb
I wouldn’t use a Radio 5 Live caller as a source of information on what is a very complex issue. Indeed some of the route survey work has been world leading.
The anti-HS2 lobby are heavily mobilised and a lot of poor reporting going on, Chiltern NIMBY conservative pressure is significant.
My organisation Is heavily involved in UK infrastructure and HS2. HS2s case is flawed due to the ROI approach taken. HS1 failed some of its case, especially Ebbsfleet regeneration. But if you ask Eurostar users, Kent commuters, users of Kings Cross and St Prancras, and the people and businesses who have benefited and they’ll be no complaints.
Critically the skills and supply chain from HS1 went into Crossrail, and the benefit of moving that Supply Chain into HS2 is significant.
Also HS2 is a capacity benefit. Freeing up 11 trains per hour on the West Coast mainline for freight and commuter services. And doubling the intercity capacity. There are no other projects ready to go, they’d be 5-10 years. West Coast line expansion would be hugely disruptive and costly.
The Northern Mayors are pulling because of this, and also the 60mins travel time reduction.
If you’ve used the M6, Euston or stood on a train for over 2 hours you’d also be pulling the project forward.
The issue with HS2 is not the case it’s the execution, and the classic problems with cost estimation and detailed design / commissioning.
Crossrail has been very problematic - you won’t care in a decade when the dangerous central line congestion has been resolved and you’re travelling on a line that is going to really impress.
My concern is whether HS2 can be efficiently delivered with Crossrail lessons learnt.
Of interest is that UK has allowed Hinckley Point to be built... whose sister projects in Finland and France are decades late and with budgets out of control. Where’s the public outcry? Heathrow new runway is going to be very troublesome with the M25. Indeed a train to Manchester Airport from Euston with HS2 will take 60mins rather than 180mins.... now that would have been joined up thinking.
I wouldn’t use a Radio 5 Live caller as a source of information on what is a very complex issue. Indeed some of the route survey work has been world leading.
The anti-HS2 lobby are heavily mobilised and a lot of poor reporting going on, Chiltern NIMBY conservative pressure is significant.
My organisation Is heavily involved in UK infrastructure and HS2. HS2s case is flawed due to the ROI approach taken. HS1 failed some of its case, especially Ebbsfleet regeneration. But if you ask Eurostar users, Kent commuters, users of Kings Cross and St Prancras, and the people and businesses who have benefited and they’ll be no complaints.
Critically the skills and supply chain from HS1 went into Crossrail, and the benefit of moving that Supply Chain into HS2 is significant.
Also HS2 is a capacity benefit. Freeing up 11 trains per hour on the West Coast mainline for freight and commuter services. And doubling the intercity capacity. There are no other projects ready to go, they’d be 5-10 years. West Coast line expansion would be hugely disruptive and costly.
The Northern Mayors are pulling because of this, and also the 60mins travel time reduction.
If you’ve used the M6, Euston or stood on a train for over 2 hours you’d also be pulling the project forward.
The issue with HS2 is not the case it’s the execution, and the classic problems with cost estimation and detailed design / commissioning.
Crossrail has been very problematic - you won’t care in a decade when the dangerous central line congestion has been resolved and you’re travelling on a line that is going to really impress.
My concern is whether HS2 can be efficiently delivered with Crossrail lessons learnt.
Of interest is that UK has allowed Hinckley Point to be built... whose sister projects in Finland and France are decades late and with budgets out of control. Where’s the public outcry? Heathrow new runway is going to be very troublesome with the M25. Indeed a train to Manchester Airport from Euston with HS2 will take 60mins rather than 180mins.... now that would have been joined up thinking.
[Post edited 25 Jan 2020 11:56]
That he was a high level civil engineer who sat in on the early meetings was clear from what he said; and the thrust of his comments is backed up by an official report that has emerged since (can't remember name of it), as well as by some of the comments in this thread from people who are better qualified to comment than me.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
