HS2 probably not going to run into central London

[masquesmog]

The issue we have is Governments saw its aquisition as a chance to prune the system, prioritise the car [Hellow Earnest Marples] and ultimately under-invest and give it to private companies and foreign state railways for a penny! The taxpayer pays into private shareholders pockets and we see the results. Thats why the system is flipped!

From an article in 2019 when the West Coast changed franchisee:

... almost all of whom are now run by other European Countries.

German state railway Deutsche Bahn operates four British railways including the London overground and the Grand Central line to Sunderland. Seven UK railways are operated or partly-operated by Dutch state railway Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), including Merseyrail, Scotrail and the West Midlands Railway. Seven railways are operated fully or partly by French state railway SNCF, including Transport for Wales and the Thameslink.

Out of roughly 30 UK railways, only six are fully owned and operated by private companies or British government authorities

Madness. There must be a reason why this rarely, if ever, exists in any other country.

..... and no, the answer isn't bring back the old British Rail, but to have a single nationally owned, modern and well run rail system. Like virtually every other developed economy. A good name might be British Rail.

 

[Emmersons_BrazillianDong]

The idea is that it will free up capacity on the other lines etc and speed up other services that use that portion of track. Of course, it is and always was a complete load of horsesh1t that someone somewhere will have made a gigantic amount of cash from, but for whom the British public will see virtually no benefit. Even the Brummies never wanted it. Shambles, makes me so angry.

Just so that I'm clear? Are you saying that the capacity isn't needed?

I'm not trying to be combative and I also don't disagree that it's been poorly managed, but to softest the capacity isn't needed is demonstrably wrong

 

[Norfolkred1]

It is not and will never be the Bullet train, and will hardly ever be on time. So a complete waste of time effort and obviously ever increasing money spent on it. Welcome to the 'White Elephant Line'.

 

[thewanderer]

The idea is that it will free up capacity on the other lines etc and speed up other services that use that portion of track. Of course, it is and always was a complete load of horsesh1t that someone somewhere will have made a gigantic amount of cash from, but for whom the British public will see virtually no benefit. Even the Brummies never wanted it. Shambles, makes me so angry.

This is absolute nonsense.

 

[Brian Marwood]

My memory of Old Oak Common
View attachment 51782

This image could spawn a new thread of it's own - great historical trainspotting locations of the past. I give you Tinsley!

 

[Colin Warnek]

From an article in 2019 when the West Coast changed franchisee:

... almost all of whom are now run by other European Countries.

German state railway Deutsche Bahn operates four British railways including the London overground and the Grand Central line to Sunderland. Seven UK railways are operated or partly-operated by Dutch state railway Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), including Merseyrail, Scotrail and the West Midlands Railway. Seven railways are operated fully or partly by French state railway SNCF, including Transport for Wales and the Thameslink.

Out of roughly 30 UK railways, only six are fully owned and operated by private companies or British government authorities

Madness. There must be a reason why this rarely, if ever, exists in any other country.

..... and no, the answer isn't bring back the old British Rail, but to have a single nationally owned, modern and well run rail system. Like virtually every other developed economy. A good name might be British Rail.

It exists in under-developed countries. I remember getting a train in Bosnia with Swedish signage all over.

Not sure it should exist in any country that claims to be advanced.

 

[masquesmog]

It exists in under-developed countries. I remember getting a train in Bosnia with Swedish signage all over.

Not sure it should exist in any country that claims to be advanced.

I didn't want to use advanced/developed etc. But even then, the two companies that run the Bosnian system (with some logical division I think) are both publicly owned by the Bosnian government.

Yes, I was once on a private line in Paraguay (that was **** as well) but I thought "yeah, the UK and Paraguay" wasn't a good argument.

Different but related:

According to new numbers released by the Office of Rail and Road, the Elizabeth line has become the most punctual train in the entire country, just over three months since it opened officially on May 24.

It can be done. Yes, it was delayed and over budget. But this can happen in more advanced countries than the UK:

8 years delayed, 200% over budget

a tiny project compared to the Elizabeth Line. The EL is 10x longer than the new line in Amsterdam (admittedly not all new track), and the tunnel is 3x longer. The EL tunnel is 2x longer than the whole of the Dutch extension.

but, be warned ... will never happen

 

[Steve Bee]

It is deplorable in this country: the complete lack of any foresight, planning and insight into the need for a modern co-ordinated, integrated, transport system. Politicians cannot run a raffle, let alone a cheap, efficient, reliable, public transport system.

In the 6th richest economy in the world, we have the most aged, inadequate, slow, over-priced, publically subsidised, creaking, railway infrastructure in Europe. We pay the highest fares per passenger mile in Europe, with passengers experiencing cancelled trains - daily- and the constant failure of an under-invested system ["signalling problems" / broken down trains / "fault on the line", etc].

Why have we accepted the joke of Avanti West Coast and all its predicessors, dirty diesel multiple units and carriage stock built over 30 years ago and "stations" converted into nothing more than bus-shelters. The only alternative is the unsustainable use of the private car. We pour billions into tarmacking vast tracts of arable farmland and building by-passes to speed up congestion to the next roundabout. We have no joined up thinking on transport. Some Cities have reasonably modern trams, whilst others are in the dark ages. Whats wasteful is having empty heads in the Cabinet who have no idea and dont care.

Its easy to be dragged into the media-fueled ignorance and hysteria when HS2 is mentioned - but the big picture is: where do we want to be in transport terms, next week, next month, next year and in 10 years time? Its beyond a joke for those of us who use public transport. As for being "carbon neutral" and meeting Climate Change targets - its a pzz take.

That piece was so long, we are now the 7th richest.

 

[r00fie1]

That piece was so long, we are now the 7th richest.

Hey ho

 

[r00fie1]

This image could spawn a new thread of it's own - great historical trainspotting locations of the past. I give you Tinsley!

Damn good idea

 

[atypical_boro]

Just so that I'm clear? Are you saying that the capacity isn't needed?

I'm not trying to be combative and I also don't disagree that it's been poorly managed, but to softest the capacity isn't needed is demonstrably wrong

I’m not saying the capacity isn’t needed. But this wasn’t the only way to increase capacity.

 

[atypical_boro]

This is absolute nonsense.

So is this. ^

 

[r00fie1]

I’m not saying the capacity isn’t needed. But this wasn’t the only way to increase capacity.

How do you see the solution to increase capacity?

 

[atypical_boro]

How do you see the solution to increase capacity?

There are countless other routes that could have been deployed/upgraded to help increase capacity. Some of them may have actually benefitted those in the midlands and north.

At the Genesis of HS2 a proposal was tabled which would have linked Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield by a triangular HS rail route, effectively creating an economic region which could have rivalled London, and would have hugely increased capacity on the network linking to Liverpool, Hull, Nottingham, Newcastle and Birmingham etc. This would have benefitted the entire nation, or certainly the majority of it, maybe even helping to make London (an already very well connected city) an affordable place to live again.

 

[Andy_W]

Complete horse**** from the Sun, as always. There's absolutely zero chance this would not go from the station the thing actually starts at, they (the Tories) see that as the most important, and the further you get from that the less important we all are. Labour would do the same mind, but more for economic reasons, whether anyone likes it or not, not linking this with central London would be economical suicide.

Still see there are lots of misunderstandings or misinformation about HS2 mind:

Sure, it's going to cost 100bn, but that 100bn isn't ***ed away like everyone claims, it will pay itself back (probably multiple times), but just may take longer than expected.

That 100bn hasn't gone into a hole in the ground either (albeit a lot of that is spent on digging holes), loads of that money is being split out to thousands of companies/subcontractors and probably 100k workers, and it's all getting taxed (at high rates), repeatedly. Trust me I know, I tender for loads of it.

It's not just about saving 15 minutes or half an hour, it's adding much more capacity too, this means more trains at more times, which likely means more connections at more regular intervals.

It's 100% necessary, the main problem with it is it's about 20-30 years too late, should have been done ages ago, and now it is being built it should have been made to operate quicker (effectively 30-year-old tech) or cover a longer route. If it had been done decades ago, it would have been much cheaper, even after factoring for inflation. The ******* about and whinging is what has largely delayed it, if they had just cracked on it would have been easier and cheaper.

Sure, they've gone way OTT on the designs for some aspects, which is leading to overspending/ worse value, but it's not their fault, it's our own ludicrous laws and regulations crippiling us, and giving in too much to landowners and asset owners (utility companies and the like), who are having our pants down.

I'm all for HS2, no matter what, as no matter what the growth would still benefit everywhere in the UK, but it really does need to carry on to where it was going to, and I think it will get extended once the trains start running and people realise the difference it will/ has made.

We need to go back to adding more infrastructure, not constantly fiddling with the overcrowded infrastructure already in place, to try and squeeze out 1%, then doing the same again a decade later when it didn't work as usage increased.

 

[atypical_boro]

The ******* about and whinging is what has largely delayed it, if they had just cracked on it would have been easier and cheaper.

When you’re spending that amount of money on a public infrastructure project, you need public buy in from the start. This route doesn’t have it, never had it and never will have it. They’re now way behind schedule and way over budget, by the time it is actually complete it will make crossrail look like a fantastically well delivered project, and as you’ve implied yourself, probably need doing all over again given how far behind the technology is.

Sorry to those of you who are working on the project (if indeed any of you are ) but the whole thing is a gigantic **** up of epic proportions.

 

[Facefuzz]

Serious question, why would anybody want to get to Birmingham faster?
Jokes aside, it’s a ludicrous plan to start with which is, and was always going to be, managed badly. That’s how private companies with government projects run in this country. So long as the men at the top get their back handlers then they don’t really give a **** I’d it works or not

 

[Emmersons_BrazillianDong]

Complete horse**** from the Sun, as always. There's absolutely zero chance this would not go from the station the thing actually starts at, they (the Tories) see that as the most important, and the further you get from that the less important we all are. Labour would do the same mind, but more for economic reasons, whether anyone likes it or not, not linking this with central London would be economical suicide.

Still see there are lots of misunderstandings or misinformation about HS2 mind:

Sure, it's going to cost 100bn, but that 100bn isn't ***ed away like everyone claims, it will pay itself back (probably multiple times), but just may take longer than expected.

That 100bn hasn't gone into a hole in the ground either (albeit a lot of that is spent on digging holes), loads of that money is being split out to thousands of companies/subcontractors and probably 100k workers, and it's all getting taxed (at high rates), repeatedly. Trust me I know, I tender for loads of it.

It's not just about saving 15 minutes or half an hour, it's adding much more capacity too, this means more trains at more times, which likely means more connections at more regular intervals.

It's 100% necessary, the main problem with it is it's about 20-30 years too late, should have been done ages ago, and now it is being built it should have been made to operate quicker (effectively 30-year-old tech) or cover a longer route. If it had been done decades ago, it would have been much cheaper, even after factoring for inflation. The ******* about and whinging is what has largely delayed it, if they had just cracked on it would have been easier and cheaper.

Sure, they've gone way OTT on the designs for some aspects, which is leading to overspending/ worse value, but it's not their fault, it's our own ludicrous laws and regulations crippiling us, and giving in too much to landowners and asset owners (utility companies and the like), who are having our pants down.

I'm all for HS2, no matter what, as no matter what the growth would still benefit everywhere in the UK, but it really does need to carry on to where it was going to, and I think it will get extended once the trains start running and people realise the difference it will/ has made.

We need to go back to adding more infrastructure, not constantly fiddling with the overcrowded infrastructure already in place, to try and squeeze out 1%, then doing the same again a decade later when it didn't work as usage increased.

You said it much better than I did bud. But that's effectively what I was referring to. The timings are a red herring and the capacity needed was urgent at the turn of the millennium.

It absolutely should be extending as far north as possible and trying to solve the west/east issues in the north too

 

[Emmersons_BrazillianDong]

When you’re spending that amount of money on a public infrastructure project, you need public buy in from the start. This route doesn’t have it, never had it and never will have it. They’re now way behind schedule and way over budget, by the time it is actually complete it will make crossrail look like a fantastically well delivered project, and as you’ve implied yourself, probably need doing all over again given how far behind the technology is.

Sorry to those of you who are working on the project (if indeed any of you are ) but the whole thing is a gigantic **** up of epic proportions.

I agree that buy in from the start would be ideal and where you would want things to be but I disagree that it's an imperative.

Sometimes you've got to do the right thing regardless of what the general public ( who, let's be honest, are largely ignorant in regards to transport infrastructure) think.

I'm a little young to remember exactly, but wasn't there much negativity about the Channel Tunnel at the time? I'm pretty certain there was

 

[atypical_boro]

I agree that buy in from the start would be ideal and where you would want things to be but I disagree that it's an imperative.

Sometimes you've got to do the right thing regardless of what the general public ( who, let's be honest, are largely ignorant in regards to transport infrastructure) think.

I'm a little young to remember exactly, but wasn't there much negativity about the Channel Tunnel at the time? I'm pretty certain there was

Probably. And how much value has it delivered? It’s great for people who live in London and Kent, but the rest of us still fly to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam.

That said, it was a much better idea than the HS2 route they went with. Was the Chunnel already this far over budget and behind schedule at this stage?