HS2 - Stupid? (High Speed 2 Rail Link)

[TheAnimus]

So the dear old taxy spendie times that have set us in such good stead are still holding support in some areas.

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

This is one I just can't fathom, first off why do we need the high speed link? Will an extra couple of min make that much difference, its half an hour for £32bn.

Who will actually use a link to Birmingham? I just smacks of pork barrelling? Surely we should be looking to upgrade some of the most used links, the over subscribed which have frankly extortionate ticket prices.

And then there is the ultimate elephant in the room, I live firmly within my means, heck I didn't even have a car until this month, but I find most train tickets extortionately expensive. I can do a 600 mile trip on a tank of diesel without any issues. I'd be lucky to get a ticket to manchester for that cost, let alone getting one on a friday evening without booking miles in advance.

So thats the thing, we already have the faster train service, its just its too expensive. Why can't we have a cheaper rail service with investment going on the overcrowded routes to allow more transit and lower prices?

I've yet to see anything that really makes a good case for it. Can someone link me?

In the mean time:
http://stophs2.org/

[Saracen]

Trains have the advantage, of course, of being less stressful than driving, and you can work on the way. If you're going city centre to city centre, it can even make sense. But if you live in the sticks?

If we visit the in-laws, it takes about an hour by train (once on the train) and two hours by car. But we've got to get to the station (15 minute walk), wait for the train (5 mins if it's on time, which it often isn't), then get to the in-laws at the other end. If they pick us up, it's 20 mins by car. If they don't, it's £25 each way by taxi, or about 2.5 hours by several buses.

And even then, the train costs more for one of us than the petrol does for both of us.

And that's now, before we spend another fortune on HS2.

Like you, Animus, I'd rather they got a decent public transport service (and that does not just mean trains) before faffing about with extremely expensive status symbols. So France has one? So what? They've also got a ruddy sight bigger country than us. HS2 is a bit like buying Ferrari on the Isle of Wight .... by the time you get out of second gear, you're running out of road.

[scaryjim]

Most of the people I know who live in Birmingham think it's a positive thing. It'd encourage more public sector jobs to move out of London, to somewhere infinitely cheaper where you can enjoy a much better quality of life on less money. And it would make it a lot easier for people from the west to get into London if they needed to.

Plus, assuming it gets the full extension, cutting an entire hour off my return trip to London when I need to go there for work would make a pretty significant difference to me once a month: and I know people who do that journey far more often than that. So frankly no, I don't think linking the major metropolitan centres of this country with a significantly faster rail link is stupid.

Funny that...

[SeriousSam]

As there is already a servicable route between London & Birmingham I honestly don't understand why we need this at all.

The only reason I can see for it relates to the rather odd situation that occurs on the existing line. Basically London to Northampton used to be one company and then Northampton to Birmingham was another. Eventually the latter company bought out the former and ran the whole line, however there was a disparity in wages* and due to neither set of employees being willing to rationalise the wage structure we ended up with the bizzare situation where the train staff changed over at Northampton. Thus you ended up with more staff working at any one time than if they did the whole journey.

*The L-N wages were higher than the N-B ones.

Consequently some of the payback may be in terms of eliminating this somewhat idiotic situation. However, we the taxpayer will probably see none of it, even in terms of price cuts, and it will probably mean job losses as well. Especially as having to work the whole route would pretty much eliminate being able to live in the middle. So unless you were willing to move north or south, you'd be surplus to requirements.

[TheAnimus]

Most of the people I know who live in Birmingham think it's a positive thing. It'd encourage more public sector jobs to move out of London, to somewhere infinitely cheaper where you can enjoy a much better quality of life on less money. And it would make it a lot easier for people from the west to get into London if they needed to.

No, it would make people from Birmingham get in easier. Places like Manchester would see f all difference! Places closer to London, smaller towns would see a reduction (high speed, fewer stops).

The only ones benefitting would be in the major hubs. And frankly 30 mins each way? For how much?

Lets do some maths, assume 80 trips a day, at full capacity? thats 80 * 1,100 x 365 days = 32,120,000
Now if this costing £32BN over a few decades, lets discount that to £60BN for the 15 years inflation.

Assume we have a modest 3% loan payment, that means each year it will be an extra £1.8BN to pay, or £54 per trip.

Is it really worth that? I can't possibly see how.

[Bugbait]

Trains have the advantage, of course, of being less stressful than driving, and you can work on the way.

I beg to differ . Being crammed into an electric can like a sardine isn’t my idea of non-stressful. If it wasn’t for the fact that driving and parking in central London was ridiculously expensive, the higher wages and the frequent eye candy on the tube I wouldn’t bother with public transport.

And even then, the train costs more for one of us than the petrol does for both of us.

I wonder about how they price it, not to be competitive that’s for sure? When I briefly worked near Northampton, driving from Willesden Green (I’m embarrassed to admit I lived there once) the petrol would cost around £15 return in my very inefficient crap box of a car back then. The return train ticket at peak times? Around £54 from memory. Off-peak was £30-35 odd. Guess what? I drove…

Most of the people I know who live in Birmingham think it's a positive thing. It'd encourage more public sector jobs to move out of London, to somewhere infinitely cheaper where you can enjoy a much better quality of life on less money. And it would make it a lot easier for people from the west to get into London if they needed to.

That’s all well and good but at the cost of £32bn? Personally that should be funnelled into the rotting infrastructure in London first. After all, London would be footing the bulk of the bill for its construction?

[redddraggon]

That’s all well and good but at the cost of £32bn? Personally that should be funnelled into the rotting infrastructure in London first.

What rotting infrastructure? If you mean public transport, London's public transport is bloody marvelous compared to the rest of the country.

[Bugbait]

What rotting infrastructure? If you mean public transport, London's public transport is bloody marvelous compared to the rest of the country.

Even when you factor in the number of users? Even minor delays in service can quickly result in severe overcrowding. Bank station for instance closes down far more often than it should due to overcrowding. If any of the tube lines are offline for more than an hour it causes noticeable overflow onto surrounding tracks.

Outside of the major cities, is public transport beyond buses even a necessity? By necessity I don’t mean nice to have for those without other means. Take the public transport out of London and it would shut down.

[TheAnimus]

What rotting infrastructure? If you mean public transport, London's public transport is bloody marvelous compared to the rest of the country.

Really not true.

Look at something like the Northern Line. Yes it might be blood marvelous if your only use of it is popuping up to Camden Market to buy some sick boots. 1.5 million journies a day iirc. Not nearly enough. It is ridiculously over crowded and busy. It is also horrifically expensive. Easily £1500 per year, for something which when the weather isn't bad, is simply a bloody nice bicycle jolly.

Something like the link to Birmingham is erm, not. And I don't think that is because it is too slow.

Now I don't think he was saying lets go spend £32bn on the tube. I think he was mearly saying how can we spend so much on a link which we don't really want or need, when there are dire issues on links people really do use and desperately need.

[Splash]

That’s all well and good but at the cost of £32bn? Personally that should be funnelled into the rotting infrastructure in London first. After all, London would be footing the bulk of the bill for its construction?

Have to disagree with you here - London's public transport is among the best I've seen. As for London footing the bill I was rather under the impression that this was to be funded by central government, meaning that we're all paying for it. I was also under the impression that London>Birmingham was only stage one, and that it was planned to stretch to Leeds/Manchester in time.

I could be wrong on both of those counts, been a long time since I looked at anything to do with HS2. There's definitely the argument to be made that both the East and West Coast Mainlines could do with some funding though - the amount of bottlenecks on the EC line whereby all it takes is a single set to break down to backup the entire line, potentially for hours is unfunny.

As far as travelling to London goes though I honestly think that anyone who chooses to drive into central London needs their head looking at.

[Splash]

Take the public transport out of London and it would shut down.

Seems a fair point to make. Perhaps if they moved some of the jobs elsewhere in the country the Tube wouldn't be so overcrowded? Maybe... Birmingham?

[Bugbait]

Now I don't think he was saying lets go spend £32bn on the tube. I think he was mearly saying how can we spend so much on a link which we don't really want or need, when there are dire issues on links people really do use and desperately need.

That’s pretty much spot on. I’m not saying the London public transport system (not just the tube) needs a £32bn injection but if that amount of money is going to be spent it should be on improving an infrastructure that would benefit more. I rarely catch the bus (by choice) in London so can’t comment but I don’t think there’s a single tube line that isn’t overcrowded for hours each day. The Jubilee line heading out to Canary Wharf is a nightmare most days and largely one of the reasons I won’t work out there (unless the offer is very attractive).

[TheAnimus]

The people saying transport in London is great, its not. Buses are terribly slow, worse than a lot of other europian capitals thanks to a lack of carpet bombing or socialists bulldozing.

So that leaves the underground and the overground. The overground orbital is stupid ass pork barralleing because it goes nowhere people like. This is why its always empty. A rush hour train on the overground is less populated than a 4pm northern line service.

But the real issue is most people judging the London transport are doing so with a 'zone 1' mentality. There are huge strips of London which have no rail links anywhere, it would be a low cost, high demand service that would do quite well at getting ticket money too.

A half hour faster link, on a link which is only constrained by rolling stock capacity (there is plenty on Chilterns etc) why?!?!?!

[Barakka]

I can do a 600 mile trip on a tank of diesel without any issues. I'd be lucky to get a ticket to manchester for that cost, let alone getting one on a friday evening without booking miles in advance.

I get 280 miles to a tank of petrol in my car, Manchester to London would cost me around £90 in fuel, a return train ticket booked in advance would cost as low as £42 standard and only £65 first class. So with two people in the car it only works out slightly cheaper on the train so i'd drive even though the car would take 3.5 hours rather than 2.5 hours on the train.

However, if the train journey was 1.2 hours i'd definitely consider using it over the car, hell i'd actually consider going to London full stop (as long as it's not for too long )

[redddraggon]

The people saying transport in London is great, its not. Buses are terribly slow, worse than a lot of other europian capitals thanks to a lack of carpet bombing or socialists bulldozing.

They might be slower than other European capitals but have you used buses in North Wales or Northern England in general?

[TheAnimus]

They might be slower than other European capitals but have you used buses in North Wales or Northern England in general?

funily enough no, but next time we're in a densily populated area with 8 million+ people there each and every day, you will make some sense.

Until then, how come the leading European city has its tube trains stop shortly after midnight.

And, once again, no one is saying this money should be spent on London, just that London simply has lines which are oversubscribed, suffer big delays which we think should take precedence over this upgrade.