HS2 given go-ahead to start construction in 2016

A Dub in Glasgo

CIE wrote: »

What really is not needed is 250 miles per hour between London and Birmingham; that's a joke.

HS2 is not about running between London and Birmingham, it is about running between London and the major conurbations in Britain. Eventually HS2 will be extended to go to the Northwest of England or Northeast of England and onto the Central belt of Scotland.

robd

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

Megatrain.com is pretty good value for train travel in England.

£17billion for a 20min reduction to Birmingham is a disgusting waste.



London to/from... Current timings on existing lines Proposed (with HS2 completion to Birmingham) Proposed (with HS2 completion to Manchester and Leeds)
Birmingham 1 hour 12 minutes (fastest) 49 minutes
Manchester 2 hours 8 minutes 1 hour 40 minutes 1 hour 20 minutes
Liverpool 2 hours 8 minutes 1 hour 50 minutes 1 hour 36 minutes
Leeds 2 hours 20 minutes 2 hours 20 minutes 1 hour 20 minutes
Newcastle 3 hours 30 minutes 3 hours 30 minutes 2 hours 30 minutes
Edinburgh 4 hours 30 minutes 4 hours 30 minutes 3 hours 30 minutes
Glasgow 4 hours 31 minutes 4 hours

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2

Yes but you're not looking at the time savings in context. It's 23 minutes on the fastest train which is a 32% time savings. Also most journey times are more like 1:26 which would be a 37 minute or 43% saving. The % saving is the important context.

Also, it really comes into its own when high speed is extended to Manchester and Leeds. Manchester would be 48 mins or 38% quicker. Leeds would 60 mins or 43% quicker.

Lines as they are are at capacity so improving track is unlikely to truly increase journey times for majority of journeys. Also HS2 is designed for larger loading (as in double decker) trains which couldn't run on current lines.

But yes, cost per mile is very high.

corktina

blackdog2 wrote: »

Is it really worth it? The trains there now seem quite competent, lay on an improved fast track internal air service and that seems like several billion better saved!

air travel is about as un-green as you can get, very short haul even more so. ALso most airports are miles from where people want to be.

HS2 will be (as has been said) about moving people to Liverpool manchester Leeds and Sheffield and more importantly beyond to places like DUBLIN. This will benefit us at no cost.

murphaph

robd wrote: »

Also, it really comes into its own when high speed is extended to Manchester and Leeds. Manchester would be 48 mins or 38% quicker. Leeds would 60 mins or 43% quicker.

Exactly. This first phase (though very expensive looking alright) will provide a spine with very high speed capacity. The relatively short distance between London and Birmingham won't exploit this to the full BUT if/when it's extended to the northwest and even Scotland it will be absolutely essential.

This investment should be viewed in the context of European high speed rail as Britain is physically connected to the European high speed network. Indeed, not opening up the rest of the island to HSR when the Channel Tunnel already exists, seems to me to be a far bigger waste.

Manchester-Paris should be entirely possible on the train with this. Germany is steadily building its own HSR network, no fanfair, no politics. The biggest project currently underway is the improvement/new build of the Berlin-Munich corridor, which at present is easily beaten by the plane and is barely comparable with driving sometimes. They are building some very large structures to keep the line straight and the speed up. It'll connect into the Munich-Ingoldstadt section which was built for 300km/h and so that section will only start to show its true value in 4 years or so.

CIE

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

HS2 is not about running between London and Birmingham, it is about running between London and the major conurbations in Britain. Eventually HS2 will be extended to go to the Northwest of England or Northeast of England and onto the Central belt of Scotland

...at an even greater cost than the colossal €21 billion being spent on London-Birmingham. Total costs are to come to the ludicrous sum of €39 billion at least, and perhaps even higher.

corktina wrote: »

This will benefit us at no cost

For one, I don't see how a new railway that is not on Irish soil benefits Ireland, whether in the UK or not. For another, are you sure that the funds are all from within the UK? because if there are EU funds involved, it can't be at no cost to Ireland.

corktina

well if it speeds up the flow of freight, that surely will please you, might even get some of it to transfer to rail (in Hollyhead).

and it will benefit hugely anyone wishing to get anywhere in europe if they can get a fast direct train via the Channel Tunnel from (lets say) Crewe.

As for you thinking Ireland may be paying for some of it, since when did we do anthing except TAKE from the EU , not give to it!

CIE

corktina wrote: »

well if it speeds up the flow of freight, that surely will please you, might even get some of it to transfer to rail (in Holyhead)

Why would it do that? High-speed lines are not used for freight. Most of them have grades too steep for heavy freight trains. Reportedly this line is being built not to transfer capacity from the traditional lines but to add to it, which means no additional capacity is to materialise on the traditional lines but they stay just as busy as before.

corktina wrote: »

and it will benefit hugely anyone wishing to get anywhere in Europe if they can get a fast direct train via the Channel Tunnel from (let's say) Crewe

You still have to get there from Ireland. How's the Rosslare connectivity nowadays? any better? Holyhead or Liverpool?

corktina wrote: »

As for you thinking Ireland may be paying for some of it, since when did we do anything except TAKE from the EU , not give to it

I see you bought the propaganda out of the EU. Ireland's given way too much to the EU; it's part of the reason Germany went from being the "sick man of Europe" to its leading nation in about half a decade. There's a reason why the EU tries to shut up its whistle-blowers.

corktina

where do i start?

well, as you are a Rail Enthusiast, you will know that discussions are taking place right now to run freight on HS1 using 92 class electrics.

Most passenger traffic from Ireland heading for the continent is likely to come via Dublin as thats a quarter of the population on its own never mind all that could flow from the North and West that way. As a knowledgeable person on Railways you will also know that that the line from Holyhead runs direct to Crewe, which is a major junction from where you can get more or less anywhere in the UK and will certainly be linked to HS2. SO you get the LUAS to the port, the ferry to Hollyhead and the train to Paris or beyond with perhaps a change at (say) Crewe. Sounds simple to me.

Ireland has given away nothing to EU, it has been a net beneficiary on a huge scale.

L1011

corktina wrote: »

Ireland has given away nothing to EU, it has been a net beneficiary on a huge scale.

Not for any year recently, net contributor for some time

And when you take away CAP - without which, the non agrisufficient nations of Europe such as the UK would starve - we've been a net contributor for decades.

People believe some level of pro-EU propaganda without looking at the figures.

corktina

show us the figures then... Ireland has been a net beneficiary from EU membership OVERALL, I didnt say it was for any particular year,

L1011

corktina wrote: »

show us the figures then... Ireland has been a net beneficiary from EU membership OVERALL, I didnt say it was for any particular year,

CAP excluded, we're *still* a net contributor overall.

I've done the maths before, I'm not doing it again. We received very little more than we paid out from day 1, when CAP is left out of the equation. Since the mid 1990s we've paid out more than we got back, growing to about 2Bn *per annum* more now.

foggy_lad

corktina wrote: »

where do i start?

well, as you are a Rail Enthusiast, you will know that discussions are taking place right now to run freight on HS1 using 92 class electrics.

Most passenger traffic from Ireland heading for the continent is likely to come via Dublin as thats a quarter of the population on its own never mind all that could flow from the North and West that way. As a knowledgeable person on Railways you will also know that that the line from Holyhead runs direct to Crewe, which is a major junction from where you can get more or less anywhere in the UK and will certainly be linked to HS2. SO you get the LUAS to the port, the ferry to Hollyhead and the train to Paris or beyond with perhaps a change at (say) Crewe. Sounds simple to me.

Ireland has given away nothing to EU, it has been a net beneficiary on a huge scale.

Most people will avoid the very expensive trains and bring their car either via the uk or direct sailing to France.

corktina

MYOB wrote: »

CAP excluded, we're *still* a net contributor overall.

I've done the maths before, I'm not doing it again. We received very little more than we paid out from day 1, when CAP is left out of the equation. Since the mid 1990s we've paid out more than we got back, growing to about 2Bn *per annum* more now.

You may as well say if you excluded the wages costs, the Railways run at a profit!

corktina

foggy_lad wrote: »

Most people will avoid the very expensive trains and bring their car either via the uk or direct sailing to France.

Most people maybe but that doesnt change the fact that this is a no cost to Ireland option for people who DO want to travel by train.

Have you seen the cost of taking your car on the ferry lately?

L1011

corktina wrote: »

You may as well say if you excluded the wages costs, the Railways run at a profit!

CAP is required if the Brits want to continue having people not die of malnutrition on their welfare levels.

corktina

MYOB wrote: »

CAP is required if the Brits want to continue having people not die of malnutrition on their welfare levels.

Rubbish.The Brits would be first to tell you how they were happily importing stuff from their Commonwealth pre-cap and how much they;d love to go back to that

L1011

corktina wrote: »

Rubbish.The Brits would be first to tell you how they were happily importing stuff from their Commonwealth pre-cap and how much they;d love to go back to that

Costs wouldn't be any lower than they would be sans CAP. The UK has got itself convinced of something that doesn't add up.

Victor

Threads merged

corktina

CAP is designed to keep prices up not reduce them. Hence farmers being paid NOT to produce things

L1011

corktina wrote: »

CAP is designed to keep prices up not reduce them. Hence farmers being paid NOT to produce things

Paid not to produce things which are in ridiculous over supply.

If CAP ended, food prices would likely double in a week, particularly in countries that don't grow enough of their own. Like Britain.

corktina

over supply reduces prices. When free market forces are allowed to determine prices, production will rise and prices will fall.

L1011

corktina wrote: »

over supply reduces prices. When free market forces are allowed to determine prices, production will rise and prices will fall.

Over supply leads to lower prices for an extremely short period of time, if at all, before small suppliers fold and the remaining ones up their prices.

Even what we got from the EU that wasn't for farming was generally a waste, upgrading roads to a 'standard' that was below what we needed at the time let alone a design year of +25 years and so on. We built the motorway network ourselves, not with EU funding.

corktina

Thats not true. The early road schemes were largely funded by the EU and the later ones are mostly PPPs

L1011

corktina wrote: »

The early road schemes were largely funded by the EU and the later ones are mostly PPPs

That's not true (to use your phrase, but accurately)

The bulk of the MIU motorways are Irish govt funded contracts.

There are a few PPPs, but that is all

Extremely little of the MIU network received EU funding. One section of the M4, possibly two of the M7, two or threee of the M1 at most received the old 85%. Some more received as low as 2% in NDP1 and the vast majority were 0%.

The EU funded road projects were generally sub-standard S2 roads, many now bypassed or planned to be.

corktina

:D:rolleyes:

CIE

Back on topic: No wonder this project is so expensive...only 1.2 miles of it are to be above grade; the rest is to be in tunnels or deep cuts. No viaducts. It may end up being Britain's longest tube line...all for vanity.

Daily Telegraph

A Dub in Glasgo

To keep the NIMBYs happy. That article refers to 1.2 miles in the Chilterns (which is not the whole route!). It will be very expensive redeveloping London Euston station area and approaches, linking it to HS2 and bringing it into Birmingham city centre with an international train station.

gsxr1

Great news for the contractors. Should be loads of work over there for a few years.
Cant wait to see it in action.

CIE

gsxr1 wrote: »

Great news for the contractors. Should be loads of work over there for a few years.
Cant wait to see it in action.

They haven't even funded it yet. Gotta wait five years to even break ground, and who knows if either of us will be alive when it's supposed to open fifteen years from now?

Der Spiegel takes the glass-half-empty view. There is still a lot of opposition (one may call them NIMBY, or maybe they have valid views) and there are some practical reasons this project is a "dud"...

...The project is supported by all three large parties in the House of Commons. But outside the parliament, there are plenty of opponents, and their numbers have grown consistently in recent years. Both residents who live close to the planned route and environmentalists have become vocal in their hostility to the plan, and aren't likely to back down.

Indeed, demonstrations have become regular events in the villages along the planned HS2 route. The opposition group Countryside Alliance is concerned that the project will destroy the idyllic, rolling landscape. Hunters are worried about their centuries-old hunting grounds and local representatives, most of them Conservatives, fear the anger of their voters. ...

But its not just concern about the landscape that has opponents fired up. There is also widespread doubt over government claims regarding the benefits of high-speed rail. Does a 30-minute reduction in travel time really benefit passengers? After all, the new trains will not roll into Birmingham's main station, but will terminate at a purpose-built station at the edge of the city. Time saved on the trip would, for many passengers, be spent on getting into the centre of town. Those wanting to change trains to a regional line would almost certainly prefer to travel with a conventional train to the main station. ...

corktina

the line isnt designed to serve Birmingham, its to serve the entire northern end of the country...and its a 30 minute saving versus increasing delays for ever more as the existing line is virtually maxed out.

The alternative is more roads or totaly ungreen short haul air services.