HS2

[matherto]

Just seen that John Bishop has sold his mansion to the HS2 project ‘despite vocal criticism of the project’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47845861

And I’m sat here thinking ‘why would anyone be against high speed rail?’

What am I missing about this that makes it so controversial?

Our rail system is appalling and embarrassing, surely this would help? Not to mention the jobs created and economic benefits?

 

[horsechoker]

Just seen that John Bishop has sold his mansion to the HS2 project ‘despite vocal criticism of the project’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47845861

And I’m sat here thinking ‘why would anyone be against high speed rail?’

What am I missing about this that makes it so controversial?

Our rail system is appalling and embarrassing, surely this would help? Not to mention the jobs created and economic benefits?

I think the environmental effects however with Brexit still highly likely I think this, Heathrow 3rd runway and other infrastructure projects are necessary.

 

[limerickcitykid]

Imagine thinking rail and train systems in the UK are appalling and embarrassing

 

[jojojo]

I doubt anyone's against high speed rail. It's just that the project itself requires massive spending, and has massive environmental and social impact - without actually dealing with the real infrastructure problems that stop a lot of people switching to public transport.

A lot of the journey time improvements (20 minutes off the 2 hour journey from London to Manchester for example) come from fewer stops, and the use of transport hubs, rather than higher track speeds. The trouble is, having arrived in Manchester, you're then entering an area with patchy metro (tram) and local train coverage, and multiple private uncoordinated bus companies.

The Manchester Metro is so successful it's packed solid for long periods of the day, and most of its park and rides are full before 8am. Yet, it still doesn't cover the whole of greater Manchester, and almost every journey involves getting a tram into town and another one out again. That 20 minutes for a relatively tiny number of passengers who do that London run occasionally is more or less irrelevant for people trying to get from one part of Manchester to another - every day, with potentially massive environmental impact if they switch from cars.

The same goes for Leeds, HS2 will cut its journey time to London but will reduce services on the traditional route through Doncaster - for a big chunk of Yorkshire the journey time will go up, and will start with people doing a trip on the slow overcrowded local service to Leeds. Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool is a more critical route from a commuting and freight perspective but that work hasn't been funded in any meaningful way. HS2 gives the illusion of government investment in northern infrastructure projects without the reality.

It does reduce journey times from Birmingham to London - potentially to a point where if you live in central Birmingham, you could work in London. It's arguable that it'll bring higher house (apartment block) costs to Birmingham and more coffee shops, but it won't bring the good jobs to Birmingham, and it might even do the opposite.

So yeah, nothing wrong with it in principle, but given it's sucked a lot of funding away from other projects and is likely to keep sucking - it's not greeted with a lot of enthusiasm even by people like me who want to see more, better, cheaper public transport options.

 

[matherto]

Thanks @jojojo for that, that explains things a lot more.

 

[Rado_N]

It's a massively stupid waste of money. A ridiculous amount of money.

 

[Sweet Square]

Imagine thinking rail and train systems in the UK are appalling and embarrassing

Have you ever used them ?

 

[Mb194dc]

It's the cost.

Compare how much it is per mile to high speed rail in any other country. Its about 4x as much compared to France iirc. Potentially could cost £100bn.

Id say do it for 70%+ less or scrap it.

UK always gets done on infrastructure projects.

 

[horsechoker]

Imagine thinking rail and train systems in the UK are appalling and embarrassing

Other than London Underground, the rail network is pretty bad compared to many EU countries.

 

[limerickcitykid]

Have you ever used them ?

I use them everyday and they shit all over the majority of countries.

 

[dbs235]

Other than London Underground, the rail network is pretty bad compared to many EU countries.

What makes theirs better? (Genuine question, I'm curious).

 

[horsechoker]

What makes theirs better? (Genuine question, I'm curious).

Faster, fewer delays, better quality, prices albetter reflect the service.

 

[Sweet Square]

I use them everyday and they shit all over the majority of countries.

Which rail service ? The one I use chiltern railways is far too expensive, doesn't run past 1:00 am even on weekends, delays and there been times I've had a train cancelled because the driver forgot to show up(Which basically means a hour wait).

Also what other countries are you comparing to ?

 

[rcoobc]

Which rail service ? The one I use chiltern railways is far too expensive, doesn't run past 1:00 am even on weekends, delays and there been times I've had a train cancelled because the driver forgot to show up(Which basically means a hour wait).

Also what other countries are you comparing to ?

Don't you have drastically reduced service on weekends too?

 

[Sweet Square]

Don't you have drastically reduced service on weekends too?

I think so but just checking now the last train I can get to anywhere on any day is 23:15. Maybe I'm being unfair but seems pretty earlier(Plus the chance it might not go when it arrives due to the driver fecking off.).

 

[limerickcitykid]

Which rail service ? The one I use chiltern railways is far too expensive, doesn't run past 1:00 am even on weekends, delays and there been times I've had a train cancelled because the driver forgot to show up(Which basically means a hour wait).

Also what other countries are you comparing to ?

I take the London tube system every day along with have several times taken trains out to Essex, or up to Manchester and Newcastle. I also know of friends and colleagues who frequently use the services to the likes of Liverpool and Brighton.

Look at any ratings or rankings of country's rail systems and the UK rank at least in the top 10 in Europe and top 20 in the world, often ranking much better. Often times the biggest factor bringing the UK down is the price but a high prices doesn't make the rail system and infrastructure "appalling and embarrassing" nor is being in the top 20 in the world. Nor do some delays to a service which many countries wouldn't even be offering in the first place. Do you actually think the UK is the only place who has delays? There are delays everywhere. I've had trains in Germany which have gone to completely different destinations than what the signs said on the train. That doesn't make their entire rail system "appalling and embarrassing."

I've used public transit in much of Europe along with Canada and USA. You want to see appalling and embarrassing rail systems? Go to Canada and the USA, their public transit systems are shit. The UK's is definitely not.

 

[MJJ]

I take the London tube system every day along with have several times taken trains out to Essex, or up to Manchester and Newcastle. I also know of friends and colleagues who frequently use the services to the likes of Liverpool and Brighton.

Look at any ratings or rankings of country's rail systems and the UK rank at least in the top 10 in Europe and top 20 in the world, often ranking much better. Often times the biggest factor bringing the UK down is the price but a high prices doesn't make the rail system and infrastructure "appalling and embarrassing" nor is being in the top 20 in the world. Nor do some delays to a service which many countries wouldn't even be offering in the first place. Do you actually think the UK is the only place who has delays? There are delays everywhere. I've had trains in Germany which have gone to completely different destinations than what the signs said on the train. That doesn't make their entire rail system "appalling and embarrassing."

I've used public transit in much of Europe along with Canada and USA. You want to see appalling and embarrassing rail systems? Go to Canada and the USA, their public transit systems are shit. The UK's is definitely not.

I agree with limerick, London public transport system is pretty good.

 

[SilentWitness]

Lots of my mates are working on HS2 developments as archaeologists and to say it isn't going smoothly would be putting it lightly.

 

[Pexbo]

I doubt he’s really against the project. It gave him an excellent bargaining position though, clearly.

 

[Sweet Square]

I take the London tube system every day along with have several times taken trains out to Essex, or up to Manchester and Newcastle. I also know of friends and colleagues who frequently use the services to the likes of Liverpool and Brighton.

Firstly chill out a bit.

The London underground doesn't count. Go anywhere outside of the cities and you start to see why people hate the railway services.

Do you actually think the UK is the only place who has delays? There are delays everywhere. I've had trains in Germany which have gone to completely different destinations than what the signs said on the train. That doesn't make their entire rail system "appalling and embarrassing."

When did I say that ?

Often times the biggest factor bringing the UK down is the price but a high prices doesn't make the rail system and infrastructure "appalling and embarrassing"

So you've never seen a match day thread ? THAT'S A JOKE

Of course it plays a part. If your paying some of the highest princes in Europe and getting the 8th best railway it's pretty embarrassing.

 

[Buster15]

Just seen that John Bishop has sold his mansion to the HS2 project ‘despite vocal criticism of the project’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47845861

And I’m sat here thinking ‘why would anyone be against high speed rail?’

What am I missing about this that makes it so controversial?

Our rail system is appalling and embarrassing, surely this would help? Not to mention the jobs created and economic benefits?

Quite right.
Just imagine if the Victorians had thought like many do today.
The only reason we have a rail network is because of their forward thinking.
The trouble with this country is that we know the cost of literally everything but the value of nothing.
I am amazed that so many complain about almost any inferstructure improvement but also complain about transport delays.
In the not too distant future, private cars will have to give way to better and less polluting public transport.

 

[Mogget]

I take the London tube system every day along with have several times taken trains out to Essex, or up to Manchester and Newcastle. I also know of friends and colleagues who frequently use the services to the likes of Liverpool and Brighton.

Look at any ratings or rankings of country's rail systems and the UK rank at least in the top 10 in Europe and top 20 in the world, often ranking much better. Often times the biggest factor bringing the UK down is the price but a high prices doesn't make the rail system and infrastructure "appalling and embarrassing" nor is being in the top 20 in the world. Nor do some delays to a service which many countries wouldn't even be offering in the first place. Do you actually think the UK is the only place who has delays? There are delays everywhere. I've had trains in Germany which have gone to completely different destinations than what the signs said on the train. That doesn't make their entire rail system "appalling and embarrassing."

I've used public transit in much of Europe along with Canada and USA. You want to see appalling and embarrassing rail systems? Go to Canada and the USA, their public transit systems are shit. The UK's is definitely not.

So you think the train system in the UK is good because you use the tube (which is excellent) and occasionally go on one off long trips?

The trains pretty much everywhere else in the country are shit. But yeah, let's spend money on HS2. Because what this country needs is more money spent on making it even more London-centric.

 

[0le]

I doubt anyone's against high speed rail. It's just that the project itself requires massive spending, and has massive environmental and social impact - without actually dealing with the real infrastructure problems that stop a lot of people switching to public transport.

A lot of the journey time improvements (20 minutes off the 2 hour journey from London to Manchester for example) come from fewer stops, and the use of transport hubs, rather than higher track speeds. The trouble is, having arrived in Manchester, you're then entering an area with patchy metro (tram) and local train coverage, and multiple private uncoordinated bus companies.

The Manchester Metro is so successful it's packed solid for long periods of the day, and most of its park and rides are full before 8am. Yet, it still doesn't cover the whole of greater Manchester, and almost every journey involves getting a tram into town and another one out again. That 20 minutes for a relatively tiny number of passengers who do that London run occasionally is more or less irrelevant for people trying to get from one part of Manchester to another - every day, with potentially massive environmental impact if they switch from cars.

The same goes for Leeds, HS2 will cut its journey time to London but will reduce services on the traditional route through Doncaster - for a big chunk of Yorkshire the journey time will go up, and will start with people doing a trip on the slow overcrowded local service to Leeds. Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool is a more critical route from a commuting and freight perspective but that work hasn't been funded in any meaningful way. HS2 gives the illusion of government investment in northern infrastructure projects without the reality.

It does reduce journey times from Birmingham to London - potentially to a point where if you live in central Birmingham, you could work in London. It's arguable that it'll bring higher house (apartment block) costs to Birmingham and more coffee shops, but it won't bring the good jobs to Birmingham, and it might even do the opposite.

So yeah, nothing wrong with it in principle, but given it's sucked a lot of funding away from other projects and is likely to keep sucking - it's not greeted with a lot of enthusiasm even by people like me who want to see more, better, cheaper public transport options.

HS2 phase 1 is aimed at relieving the pressure on the west coast mainline service (services from Euston). The time savings because the route will be "high speed" is just an additional benefit. By doing this, you increase the capacity of the entire network, because fast services will go to HS2 and more stopping services will run on the west coast mainline. I would need to check, but the other phases are also primarily also aimed at providing additional capacity. Any arguments against HS2 because its just "faster" don't really make a lot of sense.

The arguments that you should improve existing infrastructure is valid, but there are already schemes in place. For example, one is to replace the ageing pacer's and sprinter's although I believe this is delayed. Electrification projects are also being rolled out, but again, also delayed and their scope has been reduced by the current Secretary of State for Transport. Even so, you can only do so much before it just makes sense to build a new line.

 

[11101]

And I’m sat here thinking ‘why would anyone be against high speed rail?’

"Not In My Back Yard"

Everyone knows its good for the country but nobody wants to be the one having a giant new railway built at the end of their garden. It's not just HS2, any major infrastructure project gets wrapped up in years of delays whilst the rest of the world gets on with overtaking us. @jojojo once it is completed all the way to Manchester it will halve the journey time. The 20 minute reduction is just from the bit to Birmingham.


I don't know how true Bishop's claims are but i know a few people who had to sell their houses and all of them got huge uplifts on the market rate on the condition they went without a fight.

 

[Mozza]

The stupid part is not running to central Birmingham, and not having the bollocks to pick one of Nottingham, Leicester or Derby for the East Midlands stop

 

[jojojo]

HS2 phase 1 is aimed at relieving the pressure on the west coast mainline service (services from Euston). The time savings because the route will be "high speed" is just an additional benefit. By doing this, you increase the capacity of the entire network, because fast services will go to HS2 and more stopping services will run on the west coast mainline. I would need to check, but the other phases are also primarily also aimed at providing additional capacity. Any arguments against HS2 because its just "faster" don't really make a lot of sense.

The arguments that you should improve existing infrastructure is valid, but there are already schemes in place. For example, one is to replace the ageing pacer's and sprinter's although I believe this is delayed. Electrification projects are also being rolled out, but again, also delayed and their scope has been reduced by the current Secretary of State for Transport. Even so, you can only do so much before it just makes sense to build a new line.

The trouble with looking at HS2 to address the capacity issue, is that it emphasises hub traffic (which isn't particularly congested) and it's doing it at the expense of investment in regional infrastructures (existing or not) that are congested, and that those projects are still being cut or "postponed". If we were doing both I'd have fewer misgivings. As it is, it's hard to get past the view that it's a London-centric model, targeted at a minority of traffic with massive associated costs.

If we want to reduce car miles and lorry miles, it's not really addressing it. It's already quicker (most times!) to do Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston by train and the surveys suggest that only 4% of people doing the London Manchester trip will be influenced (car v train) by better hub to hub services. So no, I'm not against the project. I just doubt that it can deliver the benefits it claims, or do so with the time/cost model they currently suggest. Nothing wrong with building stuff that we'll be glad to have in 10/30/50 years (we still rely on Victorian engineering/construction for parts of the nation's infrastructure), we just need to get on with the other stuff we need to do in the next 5/10 years.

 

[Carolina Red]

You want to see appalling and embarrassing rail systems? Go to Canada and the USA, their public transit systems are shit.

Or worse, non-existent.

 

[jojojo]

Everyone knows its good for the country but nobody wants to be the one having a giant new railway built at the end of their garden. It's not just HS2, any major infrastructure project gets wrapped up in years of delays whilst the rest of the world gets on with overtaking us. @jojojo once it is completed all the way to Manchester it will halve the journey time. The 20 minute reduction is just from the bit to Birmingham.

I've seen the 1 hour journey thing quoted for London-Manchester - but I've also seen it queried as just another headline. It's basically the calculation that says - track distance about 320km and speed about 320km/hour. Even HS2 don't think their actual timings will look like that, given that the trains terminate in central London and central Manchester.

It can happen, and though neither the rolling stock that's being designed nor the tracks being laid are capable of the 400km/hr top speed that was quoted in relation to the "one hour" idea that's not to say that a nice straight track with no stops can't achieve it with the next generation of upgrades. Which is nice, but again not particularly important when it comes to tackling road miles v train miles.

As for the rest of the world, well yeah, and transport infrastructure in general has been massively neglected (outside central London) for decades now. It just feels like we've imported a headline project - the HS bit of the story - from countries with different travel problems. In particular hub based solutions that were developed with longer distances, regional capitals, and lower population densities in mind.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The trouble with looking at HS2 to address the capacity issue, is that it emphasises hub traffic (which isn't particularly congested) and it's doing it at the expense of investment in regional infrastructures (existing or not) that are congested, and that those projects are still being cut or "postponed". If we were doing both I'd have fewer misgivings. As it is, it's hard to get past the view that it's a London-centric model, targeted at a minority of traffic with massive associated costs.

If we want to reduce car miles and lorry miles, it's not really addressing it. It's already quicker (most times!) to do Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston by train and the surveys suggest that only 4% of people doing the London Manchester trip will be influenced (car v train) by better hub to hub services. So no, I'm not against the project. I just doubt that it can deliver the benefits it claims, or do so with the time/cost model they currently suggest. Nothing wrong with building stuff that we'll be glad to have in 10/30/50 years (we still rely on Victorian engineering/construction for parts of the nation's infrastructure), we just need to get on with the other stuff we need to do in the next 5/10 years.

I don't think we were offered the option of using the money elsewhere though. It was High speed rail or nothing. This was to offer a fig leaf to the embarrassingly huge sums spent during the recession on cross rail. That by 2032 ish this project would built so don't question the massive austerity spending cuts while watching the most expensive metre for metre railway ever, being built at the same time, in surprise surprise London.

Would anyone be shocked if it was cancelled after cross rail is finished ?

 

[Billy Blaggs]

I wish they had high speed rail in Florida. Driving to work is the worst thing about my job!

 

[Ady87]

I take the London tube system every day along with have several times taken trains out to Essex, or up to Manchester and Newcastle. I also know of friends and colleagues who frequently use the services to the likes of Liverpool and Brighton.

Look at any ratings or rankings of country's rail systems and the UK rank at least in the top 10 in Europe and top 20 in the world, often ranking much better. Often times the biggest factor bringing the UK down is the price but a high prices doesn't make the rail system and infrastructure "appalling and embarrassing" nor is being in the top 20 in the world. Nor do some delays to a service which many countries wouldn't even be offering in the first place. Do you actually think the UK is the only place who has delays? There are delays everywhere. I've had trains in Germany which have gone to completely different destinations than what the signs said on the train. That doesn't make their entire rail system "appalling and embarrassing."

I've used public transit in much of Europe along with Canada and USA. You want to see appalling and embarrassing rail systems? Go to Canada and the USA, their public transit systems are shit. The UK's is definitely not.

The world doesn't revolve around London, but much of the UK transport system does. Trains in/around/out of London I imagine are a pleasant experience. I live 30 mins by train from Liverpool/Manchester and my experience has been poor. Can rarely get a seat and punctuality is abysmal. I've not been able to get to and from London for less than £90 when I've tried in the last year and I just got to and from Barcelona for £59 last week.

In multiple EU cities over the last couple of years I've experienced fast, efficient double decker trains with loads of space that cost half the price.

 

[Carolina Red]

I wish they had high speed rail in Florida. Driving to work is the worst thing about my job!

Could you imagine how nice it would be if we took the money we’ve spent blowing stuff up and built a legit rail network with it?

We went from the biggest transit rail system in the world to Amtrak

 

[Billy Blaggs]

Could you imagine how nice it would be if we took the money we’ve spent blowing stuff up and built a legit rail network with it?

We went from the biggest transit rail system in the world to Amtrak

It would be fantastic mate! They keep talking about a light rail system here but it never happens.

 

[Hammerfell]

Firstly chill out a bit.

He was perfectly “chill”.

 

[jojojo]

I don't think we were offered the option of using the money elsewhere though. It was High speed rail or nothing. This was to offer a fig leaf to the embarrassingly huge sums spent during the recession on cross rail. That by 2032 ish this project would built so don't question the massive austerity spending cuts while watching the most expensive metre for metre railway ever, being built at the same time, in surprise surprise London.

Would anyone be shocked if it was cancelled after cross rail is finished ?

I think you're right - it was a "be grateful or get nothing" offer. A grand headline scheme capable of distracting people from other austerity policies.

I think we may well see them reduce the budget, accepting a slower top speed, less ambitious capacity (trains per hour) targets, reducing the Euston extension in favour of a hub further out, delays on some of the routes and associated constructions - probably with the blame pinned on greens and miscellaneous luddites.

The most cynical part of my brain, thinks they'll wait until the juiciest contracts with the best cancellation penalties and the fewest actual deliverables are safely handed out their mates, then they'll discover the negative aspects of the project and send it out to their mates for consultation on alternative proposals and cost control strategies.

 

[11101]

I've seen the 1 hour journey thing quoted for London-Manchester - but I've also seen it queried as just another headline. It's basically the calculation that says - track distance about 320km and speed about 320km/hour. Even HS2 don't think their actual timings will look like that, given that the trains terminate in central London and central Manchester.

It can happen, and though neither the rolling stock that's being designed nor the tracks being laid are capable of the 400km/hr top speed that was quoted in relation to the "one hour" idea that's not to say that a nice straight track with no stops can't achieve it with the next generation of upgrades. Which is nice, but again not particularly important when it comes to tackling road miles v train miles.

As for the rest of the world, well yeah, and transport infrastructure in general has been massively neglected (outside central London) for decades now. It just feels like we've imported a headline project - the HS bit of the story - from countries with different travel problems. In particular hub based solutions that were developed with longer distances, regional capitals, and lower population densities in mind.

Part of the reason we don't have those regional capitals is because they've been so disconnected from London for so long. I don't see a huge amount of difference between the UK and somewhere like France when it comes to city profile, with one giant hub and multiple mid sized secondary cities of fairly similar population and GDPs. Aside from Birmingham the distances aren't vastly different either.

The specs issued for the rolling stock tender are for a minimum speed of 360km/h and a journey time of 45 mins from Birmingham to London including two two minute stops. The 49 minute Birmingham estimate comes from that with some margin built in, so i don't see a reason to doubt the Manchester estimate either. The question mark, as always, will be whether the government build it properly or start trying to cut corners mid way through.

 

[jojojo]

Part of the reason we don't have those regional capitals is because they've been so disconnected from London for so long. I don't see a huge amount of difference between the UK and somewhere like France when it comes to city profile, with one giant hub and multiple mid sized secondary cities of fairly similar population and GDPs. Aside from Birmingham the distances aren't vastly different either.

The specs issued for the rolling stock tender are for a minimum speed of 360km/h and a journey time of 45 mins from Birmingham to London including two two minute stops. The 49 minute Birmingham estimate comes from that with some margin built in, so i don't see a reason to doubt the Manchester estimate either. The question mark, as always, will be whether the government build it properly or start trying to cut corners mid way through.

As I say, I see Manchester's travel issues from the perspective of daily journeys being carried out by millions of people, and I see the "car to rail" intercity problem in terms of how people view the overall point to point journey. I'm not opposed to fast trains - I like trains! I just understand the negativity that HS2 attracts, and I'm not impressed by the economic or environmental arguments that have seen in prioritised over regional assets.

On the timetables thing, it's a bit academic until we see real trains on real tracks with real stations and interchanges. But going back to basics, Birmingham is a little over halfway to Manchester. If I take the 49 minutes as a HS2 approved marker, I'd guess that means Manchester comes down to maybe 1:30 if things work as intended (with a best case 1:20 maybe, depending on what actual speeds are achieved through the city segments) - that's 30/40 minutes off the current journey that sits at the 2 hour mark. Nice but not game-changing in my opinion.

 

[Sweet Square]

Reminder of just how shite UK train service is

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Cal?]

Reminder of just how shite UK train service is

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Why would anyone choose not to fly for that journey?

 

[NinjaFletch]

Why would anyone choose not to fly for that journey?

I've done London to Edinburgh a lot over the years and it's half the time and 1/10th the price to fly. Imagine Glasgow is the same.

I do get why people don't like flying, and I always feel a pang of guilt about the environmental impact (and security is obviously a hassle), but at least you get a fecking seat.