HS2, for or against?

[cee-dee]

Are you for or against the construction of the HS2 rail link?

Me, I'm not for it because I think the country is too small to reap the benefit of a high speed rail line. No sooner will it have got up to speed, it'll be time to start slowing down and like some motorways, they put far too many junctions/stops on the route. It'd be like using a Jumbo jet on short-haul flights.

Also, I think people should be encouraged to travel LESS, not more. Commuting long distances is crazy. Business meetings (in particular) should be done by video conferencing, not expensive time/money wasting junkets.

I think a much better thing to do with the money for the projected cost of HS2 would be to fit solar panels on every house. That way, electricity being generated but unused by the household could be fed back in to the electricity network.

What say you?

[ed_blackadder_1]

Against, it will do nothing for my area at all it will still take hours to get here with traffic jams and road works, and all those homes being bulldozed, A lot of money for something to make the lives of a few easier by 30 minutes, A scar on the landscape.

Spend the money on existing rail links, we have a really popular branch line here and it has 2 carriages on it , most of the time spent standing up crammed in like sardines, old dirty smelly rolling stock,  but we don't count as we don't live in a city.  It costs £9 return to travel the 44 miles to the nearest city, which is brilliant as the car parking is £10 for the day. I would use it a lot more if it was more pleasant to use.

As you can tell I feel strongly about this.

[margaret*e]

Against, I don't think the time diference justifies the cost, by a programme I was listening to yesterday it it's only going to make the journey 15 to 20 minutes quicker, and travelling from NE to London you will have to change trains halfway.

[duck_a_lorange]

Against, they only want passengers who get on in London and get off at the other end (don't even know where that's supposed to be.) 

All the new intermediate stations will be miles away from existing ones so you gain twenty minutes but lose half an hour getting to the station to catch the train.  Pointless.  It's like planting a tree and cutting all the branches off to streamline it.

[al**bear]

In total agreement

[spawnjohnuk]

Against,

could not agree more wit all said so far ,especially cd

[xtf70]

Against, although I was partially persuaded by the argument that the government should demonstrate their commitment to the north by building the northern half up from Birmingham first...

[upthecreekyetagain]

When I first heard the proposal for HS2 and the price tag attached to it then my gut reaction was 'no way!'

It's not until you get beyond that and consider the need for such a link that you can start to assess the potential benefits.  Taken in isolation it may seem unnecessary in the same way that the M1 between London and Birmingham was considered by many at the time as a white elephant.  That one motorway was the precursor however to a national network of motorway links.

The rail links between the North and South of the UK are reaching capacity whilst at the same time the demand continues to rise.  It's very well to suggest we should discourage travel but that genie is out of the bottle. 

Of course the signalling and the rails on the existing lines could be upgraded but the cost of doing so in comparison to the additional capacity on a unit basis would be just as high, if not higher, as that for HS2 - with the additional problem of reduced capacity and travel disruption such an upgrade would cause.

Yes the distance between London and Birmingham is relatively short and the additional capacity and time savings are difficult to justify - however, as with the M1, HS2 can be the start of a national high speed train system - the distance from London to Glasgow is greater than to Paris, Bonn or Amsterdam, further than Paris to Geneva. 

If a negative attitude had been adopted when rail links were first mooted, (and indeed motorways), this country would never have developed in the way we have - not because railways were profitable, (they weren't), not because they weren't expensive, (they were), not because they didn't mean that houses and countryside weren't 'spoiled', (they did), but because they did encourage more movement of goods and people enabling the economy to grow.

[aernethril]

Against completely.

One aspect that does not seem to have been covered is the vast increase to traffic and congestion at the London end which is already one of the worst areas for that and the resulting pollution.

Second, they can say what they like now, but common sense shows that there is no way it will stay to the already obscene budget as it's going to take ...15 years?? to build.

Third, it's going to serve such a relatively small number of commuters and businesses and, add the the increased congestion in joining it in London, many will still prefer to use their car!

Fourth, that huge sum of money could be far better invested now in improving the current infrastructure to railways.  The claim that this would cause years of misery for commuters on existing lines is utter bovine.  ALL those routes HAVE to be maintained, improved, upgraded anyway so if more money was put into this now, it will give a much better and improved service around the country that benefits many more areas and communities and businesses and far faster.

[charliebird123]

Totally against,the money would be better spent upgrading the rest of the rail network.

[spawnjohnuk]

the present economic climate is reason enough to shelve the idea,I honestly can't understand spending money on this,I also cannot for the life of me see why tax payer pays and not private rail owners as they get all the profits from rail travel now anyway,so if they want it,let them dip their pockets

I can think of ten thousand things to spend tax money on that helps people of this country and this isnt one of them.

[upthecreekyetagain]

All those arguments are the same as the ones put forward when the M1 construction was proposed

The increase in traffic and congestion in London - what it will mean is that Euston which is only running at 60% capacity will be better utilised - we have the situation at the moment where there is a station running below capacity whilst the tracks it links to are at full capacity.

It won't stick to budget - on that basis no public projects would ever be started

It will only serve a small proportion of commuters - there is no reason why this should be the case - 'build it and they will come' - as was proven with the M1 - moving commuters from existing track will allow greater utilisation of this for freight which is being driven from the railways because of lack of capacity.

Money better utilised upgrading existing routes - exactly the same argument as put forward when motorways were proposed - where would we be now if all the A roads had just been changed to dual carriage ways leaving them running through towns and villages - in any case the existing routes are running at maximum capacity, increasing this by 25% may satisfy demand for the next ten or twenty years but what will happen then - a new proposal for an HS2 link???

Why can't the private rail owners pay - the current rail infrastructure is not in private ownership - Network Rail is a statutory corporation which doesn't pay dividends.

There are other things we could better spend the money on - I'm sure that for every proposal someone can always think of something that THEY believe the money could be better spent on!  If we followed that line of thinking then nothing would ever get built

[cee-dee]

When I posted the thread, I expected an old adversary to be in favour and I guessed right. TBQH, I enjoy crossing swords because of the reasoned arguments produced and the civility proffered.

Now, to the subject matter. The comparison between HS2 and the M1 are invalid because not only does the M1 now exist, but also the M6, the M40, the M4 and the A1M plus a multitude of interconnecting roads and motorways quite apart from the existing rail links which are far better than when the M1 was being proposed (late 50's).

The whole idea of HS2 is idiotic and constant references to "this, that or the other" on the way to industrialisation are also invalid as they were new "things" and HS2 is only an insignificant departure to add to existing transport infrastructure. It's a bit like someone in 1860 proposing a new canal to link London and Scotland!

[upthecreekyetagain]

Now, to the subject matter. The comparison between HS2 and the M1 are invalid because not only does the M1 now exist, but also the M6, the M40, the M4 and the A1M plus a multitude of interconnecting roads and motorways quite apart from the existing rail links which are far better than when the M1 was being proposed (late 50's).

Maybe I'm being thick but I don't understand that argument - I accept the M1 and the rest of the Motorway now exists but it didn't when the M1 was first proposed in exactly the same way that a high speed rail network doesn't currently exist in the UK.

The Motorway network was designed as much to relieve traffic on the existing roads as it was to take traffic from the rail network.  The proposed HS2 link and hopefully eventually a full UK high speed rail network is designed also to take traffic from the existing road and rail networks, both of which are at virtual capacity.

The whole idea of HS2 is idiotic and constant references to "this, that or the other" on the way to industrialisation are also invalid as they were new "things" and HS2 is only an insignificant departure to add to existing transport infrastructure. It's a bit like someone in 1860 proposing a new canal to link London and Scotland!

You argue as though you believe that high speed rail is old technology - it isn't - far from it - the majority of industrialised nations are and already have invested heavily in this new technology - once we led the world in technological innovation now it seems that we must fight Luddite attitudes just to try and catch up in these fields.

[upthecreekyetagain]

PS - building HS2 is akin to the building of a canal in the late 19th century - specifically the Manchester Ship Canal

[blackburn_stevie]

Do I want the new train system? ...... Yes and No.

If it runs from London to Glasgow with just one stop in Brum, then Yes, I'll have it with just one proviso. If it goes over budget, then the extra cost is met by the MPs that are currently telling us how much it will cost.

On the other hand, it would be a "No" if the train stops at every chicken coop between London and Glasgow then, as was pointed out earlier, the train would spend more time getting up to, and braking down from, it's top speed.

[joe_bloggs*]

Apparently the money estimated (at the moment before it inevidently rises) for HS2 we could build 3 nuclear power stations,that would benefit the whole country,not just those who could afford to use HS2,bring dowm energy costs,and bring energy security under our control,or we could also solve the housing crisis where millions on waiting lists are denied an affordable home by a massive social house building program bringing training and employment to hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers

That is the infrastrucure we should be investing in,not some rich peoples train sets

[cee-dee]

The HS2 is old technology with a few modern bells and whistles.

1/ It still runs on rails.

2/ It still runs on flanged metal wheels.

3/ It still needs stations and platforms.

Britain can't lead the World with HS rail travel because other countries have a better chance of doing so with their existing long distance networks and there's absolutely no chance of Britain thinking that playing catch-up for catch-ups sake is going to lead to some World-beating pipe dream.

The M1 was "new" in that it was to be a completely new road with "gentle" curves, wide carriageways, a hard shoulder and no crossroads in complete contrast to the roads that existed at that time. Also, the M1 was for all vehicles, it wasn't proposed just for buses to carry commuters.......

The HS2 isn't "new" in the same way in comparison to existing rail lines except that it'll largely avoid many centres of population and (presumably) allow a much faster speed.

I just cannot see how it will relieve any congestion or take much (if any noticeable) traffic from existing road and rail links.

We tried to be innovative with the Concord(e) and that didn't lead to anything along the supersonic lines (no pun intended) and any gain in time with the HS2 will be eaten up in actually getting to somewhere to get on the thing.

We should be trying to encourage business in the locality not promote idiotic long-distance travel for no useful purpose. Who is going to benefit from HS travel? Why do they need HS rail travel anyway? What are they doing that requires the saving of a few minutes of travel time?

[upthecreekyetagain]

The HS2 is old technology with a few modern bells and whistles.

1/ It still runs on rails.

2/ It still runs on flanged metal wheels.

3/ It still needs stations and platforms.

On that basis I guess you would argue that we should all still be flying off on holiday in 707s

Britain can't lead the World with HS rail travel because other countries have a better chance of doing so with their existing long distance networks and there's absolutely no chance of Britain thinking that playing catch-up for catch-ups sake is going to lead to some World-beating pipe dream.

I accept that we can no longer lead the world in high speed train links but that doesn't mean that if we expand their use in the UK we are playing catch-up for catch-up's sake.  There are real benefits in the system as is supported by the way in which their use is being expanded across the world.

The M1 was "new" in that it was to be a completely new road with "gentle" curves, wide carriageways, a hard shoulder and no crossroads in complete contrast to the roads that existed at that time. Also, the M1 was for all vehicles, it wasn't proposed just for buses to carry commuters.......

Not sure I understand that argument - high speed rail is as different to the existing network as the M1 was to dual carriageways of the day - in any case just because motorways are no longer a "new thing" isn't an argument against new ones being built and the existing ones being upgraded even further. 

As for the argument that motorways were for all vehicles is just not true nor relevant, try riding a bicycle on them or for that matter getting a train to run on them!

The HS2 isn't "new" in the same way in comparison to existing rail lines except that it'll largely avoid many centres of population and (presumably) allow a much faster speed.

You've described exactly how motorways were new in comparison to the "old" road network.

I just cannot see how it will relieve any congestion or take much (if any noticeable) traffic from existing road and rail links.

As the existing North-South links are running at capacity and demand is increasing every year I wouldn't have thought it would take much imagination to see that there will be a demand for the new service if it is built - whether it will relieve congestion on existing links is debatable - motorways haven't reduced congestion if you compare traffic on the normal A roads now with what it was in the '60s - that doesn't mean there wasn't the need nor demand for a motorway network.

We tried to be innovative with the Concord(e) and that didn't lead to anything along the supersonic lines (no pun intended) and any gain in time with the HS2 will be eaten up in actually getting to somewhere to get on the thing.

I take your point but high speed rail is hardly a new technology - the 'beauty of the proposed HS2 link is that one end, (London), will use exactly the same station as you would use travelling on the existing rail network and the station in Birmc is close to the city centre and a people mover to link the new station to Moor Street station is planned.  If the proposed station at Birmingham International Airport was also built as proposed then it would only take 10 minutes longer to get to this airport than it does to travel to Gatwick!

We should be trying to encourage business in the locality not promote idiotic long-distance travel for no useful purpose. Who is going to benefit from HS travel? Why do they need HS rail travel anyway? What are they doing that requires the saving of a few minutes of travel time?

Not sure that I agree with you on that - the better the travel links the more work opportunities that are opened up to those who don't live nearby.  Employment opportunities tend to conglomerate around certain areas whereas demand often lies further away - you can't always build more houses near where work is available.

I'm not sure that it is the high speed which is the governig factor for high speed train links - there is a need to expand capacity and into the future - investing in old style rolling stock and track would be like British Airways investing in old models of aircraft rather than the technologically latest ones.

On the other hand if you consider the literally tens of millions of rail journeys that take plkace each year and reduce each by just a few minutes then that is an awful lot of 'man-hours' - of course when the M1 was built all the hype was about how much more quickly you could travel from London to Birmingham - it now takes longer than it did then on the 'old' roads!!!

[cee-dee]

Hmmmmm, you can't ride a bike on the M1? You can't drive a car, a lorry or a conventional bus on the existing rail tracks either never mind on the HS2 rail tracks.

Like I said, we should be encouraging business locally, even discouraging commuting long distances. One of the daftest examples of long distance business was harvesting produce in Norfolk, transporting it to Lancashire for processing/packing and transporting it all the way back to Norfolk for sale. Fresh eh?

Apart from people, what else can the HS network carry?

Surely if you're travelling from Birmingham and need to go to Gatwick, you might as well fly there directly then change planes and fly on to wherever you're going?

There's far too many other things needing to be built to make the thing work and if it isn't all ready at once, the early bits will be be in need of updating to catch up with what's built later.

Adding up the few minutes saved and making out they're "man-hours" isn't a saving in man-hours at all. It would be if they were all travelling individually but they're all travelling in the same cattle waggons so the saving is still only a few minutes.

The end of the Rainbow isn't in London and if people think that's so, they're sadly mistaken.

You said there are real benefits in the system? List them?