[Politics] HS2 Decision

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Given that this will - using the terminology of our current PM - spaff about £100 billion against the wall, has anyone got strong views one way or the other on this?

 

[darkwolf666]

Yes, scrap it...

 

[Uter]

Yes. It's long overdue and entirely necessary.

 

[essbee1]

Utter waste of money on a scheme that will not function as intended and with money
that could be used to upgrade existing lines or fund real projects that will benefit
society rather than the construction business fat cats and their politician crony mates.

I live in London outskirts and while I am not directly affected, it has caused some places
I liked to be knocked down. Lord knows how you would feel if your house was in its
way.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I don't mind having a high-speed railway link around the country. Improving public transport is a good thing.

What I don't get at all is why it will take ten years to build a railway line from London to Birmingham. Ten years? I just don't understand that at all.

And I will mind if as soon as we've spent our 100 billion on it some cheapskate franchise gets to run trains on it, make a profit whilst charging a fortune for tickets and not investing in a decent service

 

[Mackenzie]

Seems a bit of an odd decision, given that the rest of the network is a shambles.

 

[Ernest]

The idea is good but yet again we can’t manage a major infrastructure project, see Crossrail. Why is this

 

[Badger]

I actually think it's a good thing. The UK desperately needs to upgrade its rail infrastructure. I think it will be a great success in the end.

The whole planning process seems to have been a joke though.

 

[schmunk]

I'm a firm 'meh'.

 

[A1X]

The £100bn figure is bollocks, the current estimated cost is around half that.

This is by far the best piece on HS2 I've read - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-financial-benefit-controversy-a8937936.html

 

[Badger]

Seems a bit of an odd decision, given that the rest of the network is a shambles.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. The network is a shambles, so they're improving it. Why is that an odd decision?

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I would rather that money be used to terminate contracts with the companies currently running the franchises. Bring the whole network back in house, standardise the fares to make it genuinely enticing to use the trains rather than drive everywhere. The only thing which makes me think Brexit could be a success is the idea of ending the privatisation of public services and bringing them back under the control of the UK government. Public transport should be standardised across the country for the benefit of everyone, reducing fares, increasing choice and range of services and making it more appealing to people to use the services available rather than hopping in their car.

... but that's not what is going to happen. HS2 I don't feel too passionately about either way, I think the idea of linking the country is good in theory but it doesn't seem necessary. I understand the desire for the high speed link, but I think having reliable Wifi on the trains would probably be a better use of the money in the short term.

 

[pb21]

I actually think it's a good thing. The UK desperately needs to upgrade its rail infrastructure. I think it will be a great success in the end.

The whole planning process seems to have been a joke though.

I've been involved with some of the planning process, albeit at the peripheries of the scheme, and IME the planning process has indeed been a joke.

 

[essbee1]

I'm not sure I follow your logic. The network is a shambles, so they're improving it. Why is that an odd decision?

They're not though. HS2 is a new scheme and the money could have been used to upgrade/existing lines. It doesn't do much
for the existing.

I think that is the point here Badger.

 

[nicko31]

£330,000,000 per mile for HS2

I'd deal with Hull to Liverpool first for a fraction of the cost

 

[Grombleton]

Like the theory, but convinced by the execution.

 

[Madafwo]

I believe it has the potential to be brilliant but I have a strange feeling that various things will be cut back on to cut costs and as such it will end up being a bit of a let down.

This country just doesn't do forward thinking when it comes to infrastructure so by the time it is built it won't be fit for purpose.

See Crossrail and Thameslink 2000.

 

[A1X]

HS2 is a new scheme and the money could have been used to upgrade/existing lines. It doesn't do much for the existing.

HS2 is not being paid for out of the rail budget, it has it's own budget. And as per this article it frees up space and capacity for other services.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-financial-benefit-controversy-a8937936.html

Besides, even sinking the full fantasy £100bn figure into the existing railway network would make surprisingly little difference. The WCML was upgraded in the early 2000s for £13bn, that merely kicked the can down the road for that railway filling up on capacity until around 2025. And that was one upgrade on one line which bought about 20 years worth of breathing space. HS2 should be good for a century or more.

 

[Uter]

They're not though. HS2 is a new scheme and the money could have been used to upgrade/existing lines. It doesn't do much
for the existing.

I think that is the point here Badger.

Apart from freeing up paths for additional services.

In any case, there are lots of upgrades going on. E.g. the East Coast mainline is being upgraded and that with add extra paths in a couple of years.

 

[A1X]

I'd deal with Hull to Liverpool first for a fraction of the cost

The problem with that is it doesn't do anything to cater for the current capacity constraints between Willesden and Rugby, which is the second biggest pinch-point (after Welwyn) on the UK rail network right now.