Is there a redeeming quality to the current state of HS2?
Posted by johnjax90@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 216 comments
[removed]
Posted by johnjax90@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 216 comments
[removed]
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
Once it is done people will wonder how they did without it. See HS1.
LANdShark31@reddit
You mean once a fraction of it is done. I can olalready get to Birmingham pretty quickly. I do it regularly in fact.
aricbodaric@reddit
For a walk up anytime return fare of £197
That's more than a return flight to Iceland.
That's more than 4 days unlimited travel on regional trains through the entirety of Europe.
That's because of terrible capacity on our premier intercity line. You can't fit any more trains without reducing the moneymaker, freight. So instead you price people out of certain services, force them onto others, and lock them into exact trains.
Or, you build more lines.
The former "works", for now, but a day trip to London from Birmingham (and perhaps more importantly, vice versa) is starting to become near impossible for the average person, because an "affordable" train won't get you to your destination until the afternoon in a lot of cases. And spontaneity is impossible. It damages our economy.
Take something like theme parks, as an example industry. The UK's main whole-family theme park is in Staffordshire. It's on the West Coast Mainline. It's shite in the rain. How would a family in the south treat this as a viable option on today's railway? Just go through their decision making in your head. I bet if you do, you'd come to the conclusion that it's pay an absurd amount of money, commit to go regardless of the weather, or don't go at all.
HS2 will reduce the cost immensely, the capacity it brings will mean the cost of a journey will be significantly lower than today. That's because instead of people clamouring for 2000 seats an hour between the two cities, the operator is going to be trying to fill 10,000-15,000 PLUS an hour. For a change, instead of trying to put people off travel, they'll be desperate for people to use it - more bums on seats per train, the less the overheads of drivers, signallers, maintenance etc stings. We can have things like the Deutschland Ticket, we can push people towards rail as much as we like as a country.
And we haven't even spoken about the hellscape of peak-time travel between Coventry, International, Birmingham and Wolverhampton, the effect that has on WM, and how much better that will be when fast Avanti services aren't eating up all the capacity.
It's a massive boon and it's being explained and sold terribly.
Teembeau@reddit
"The former "works", for now, but a day trip to London from Birmingham (and perhaps more importantly, vice versa) is starting to become near impossible for the average person, because an "affordable" train won't get you to your destination until the afternoon in a lot of cases. And spontaneity is impossible. It damages our economy."
But what is the actual demand for that? The person who has to do a meeting with a client in the centre of London at 10am? I mostly meet clients around lunchtime to avoid the rush. I don't care if it's 10 or 1, and nor do they. I have to do a trip, spend a few hours with them. I can do work before I go or after. Even if you have to do 10, you can drive to St Albans or Slough, park and take a train in.
Lots of people don't want to go to London, exactly, but Hammersmith or Barnet, at which point, driving is OK.
You can sometimes travel at night, stay in a hotel cheaper than going somewhere at peak.
Lots of people aren't in a hurry. I'm off to London tomorrow for some sightseeing and I'm taking the coach. It's cheaper and slower, and I'm fine with that.
Take something like theme parks, as an example industry. The UK's main whole-family theme park is in Staffordshire. It's on the West Coast Mainline. It's shite in the rain. How would a family in the south treat this as a viable option on today's railway? Just go through their decision making in your head. I bet if you do, you'd come to the conclusion that it's pay an absurd amount of money, commit to go regardless of the weather, or don't go at all.
No-one is going to do that unless they have no car and can't drive. A car is going to be cheaper. Even hiring is going to be cheaper. The roads are quiet as it's a weekend. Everything from the kids can be easily carried. The car is going to be faster, cheaper, more reliable. Heck, doing a coach tour is going to be better than a train as it's so much cheaper.
There's quiet a narrow number of use cases where rail works for people. Are they travelling alone? Is the place they are going to congested? Are they in a hurry? Commuting into the centre of cities or going to see a client is about it. And the demand for both of those is down because of Microsoft Teams.
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
London, Birmingham, Manchester, long Anglo-Scottish trips. Hey, I have an idea...
Teembeau@reddit
And we already have trains, many of which run empty.
aricbodaric@reddit
Long distance UK trains running empty? 😂
Teembeau@reddit
Late night London to Bristol. Maybe 5 people in a carriage
Life_Emphasis6290@reddit
May as well make all Motorways just one lane in that case. Should be enough to cater to the 4AM peak that you design infrastructure to.
Your whole argument is nonsense... HS2 will bring extra capacity, especially during peak times. Despite your own narrow use case for using rail, there are many others who would benefit from this.
aricbodaric@reddit
This is basic rail geography that people always miss.
Trains don't "live" in London. They have to return to depot, which is almost always on the "country end" of lines. Late night trains tidying up the end of their diagram for the day aren't planned in to move passengers, they're there to move trains.
Plus, once a train is serviced, staffed and out on the network, it's running costs are minimal. Those 5 people per carriage are more than enough to make the trip worth it for the operator.
Annnnd...that capacity at night is irrelevant to capacity issues at other times. There's barely a road in the UK that isn't dead late at night, shall we rip those up? Come onnnn
Teembeau@reddit
I'm not missing anything. You questioned long distance trains running empty, I gave you an example.
"Annnnd...that capacity at night is irrelevant to capacity issues at other times."
There are plenty of barely used trains in the daytime around the country. If they were busy we wouldn't be throwing £12bn of taxpayers money at railways per year.
Life_Emphasis6290@reddit
Presumably it will continue to fulfill all of the use cases for all of the people who use these exact services today. It's really easy to tell how many people have these narrow use cases just by using your eyes. Sorry it doesn't work for your immediate requirements to casually meet clients in Hammersmith at midday.
Teembeau@reddit
The question is how many more people want it than now. Look up stats on rail revenue and it's below COVID because a large chunk of peak rail demand has fallen. Off peak has risen, but that has plenty of spare capacity.
aricbodaric@reddit
Revenue is a nonsense figure when looking at transport infrastructure. What's the revenue of the M6? What's the revenue of your street? When should we consider abandoning them due to lack of revenue?
Teembeau@reddit
There is plenty of money in VED to pay for the highways like the M6. Town roads are locally funded, but you don't have a lot of options, unless you want trains, with bin men going down them. Do you want to go with that as a solution for getting bins collected? Lots of trains down to Acacia Avenue?
There are alternatives to trains, and those are buses, coaches and cars. Why do the railways get £12bn a year, but National Express and Flixbus get £0? Especially as coaches are more environmentally friendly according to the Department For Transport.
aricbodaric@reddit
How on earth are you reasoning that NatEx and Flixbus get £0 of public money towards their operation??
Teembeau@reddit
They get subsidies?
aricbodaric@reddit
There's very very high demand. Hence the premium. Trains don't cost more to run in the morning, they don't need to warm up or anything. If there wasn't the demand, the operators would reduce the prices to fill seats, empty seats are a drain.
Yes, with our current rail system, that's very much the case. Stand at Ringsheim for Europa Park, or Marne-la-Vallee for Disneyland Paris at 0930 and you'll see that that's a symptom of our railway, not a given. I feel like you're getting my point but somehow trying to use it against my point at the same time?
Yes, in a country that charges what it charges for rail, because of terrible capacity. That's the point. Again you're ingesting the point but using it as an argument against capacity? Car Ownership costs, fuel and parking would not be cheaper than a high capacity railway, that's the point. It's cheaper now, because our railway doesn't have the capacity to take cars off the road, so can't be priced competitivly. Prices must be artificially inflated in the periods that people would want to travel in, to discourage travel in those periods.
Teembeau@reddit
There's very very high demand. Hence the premium.
Is that about people getting on at Birmingham and going to London, or all the stops along the way like Milton Keynes? Let me ask a very specific question: how many people buy a peak Birmingham to London ticket? How many buy an off-peak London to Birmingham ticket? Not riding the line at some point, but at least that complete journey?
Yes, in a country that charges what it charges for rail, because of terrible capacity. That's the point. Again you're ingesting the point but using it as an argument against capacity?
No, it's not about that. There is plenty of off-peak train capacity. Do you ever go on trains off-peak? A lot of them are barely used. It's about the complication of doing a trip to Alton Towers. You've got a couple of kids, you've got to get to a station, take a train, maybe another train, then maybe a bus, then what do you do if it's a weekend? How do you get to a hotel? Are you going to build a line for that? It's the connection problem. Every point of that causes a delay. You get to one station and now have to wait for a train or a bus. And you cannot have these running every 2 minutes everywhere in the country or they'll be running empty.
I feel like you're being blinded by either your own experience or a misconception that the railway exists solely to cater for the long distance, in-person-meeting-having business person. Leisure is far more important to the railway than it ever has been, as is people just...you know, existing in a country without a car, visiting friends and family, going to uni in another city, shopping trips, etc.
Actually no, I use public transport for work, leisure. I don't run a car and use mostly buses, coaches, trains and the odd taxi. Today I'm visiting my brother which is a mix of coach and train. Then off to my mother's by train. Then home via bus. We don't need trains for a few people to get somewhere. Coaches, buses and cars work better. You want to go to Alton Towers, there's probably a coach company near you that organises trips.
The problem is, leisure rail doesn't pay the bills. Leisure is worth running because you've already spent money on the infrastructure. Operationally it barely makes any money for 3 reasons. 1) roads are quiet so not so inconvenient and 2) you're more likely travelling as couples and individuals 3) you're generally not in such a hurry so coach travel works.
We already spend £12bn subsidising our railways. How much more do you want to spend to have Alton Towers maglev running at bargain prices, and cutting every train fare to be competitive with coach travel?
BrillsonHawk@reddit
Yes but only people who live in London, because thats the only bit deemed important enough to build
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
yawn
Maybe HS2 should have been explained on the side of a bus or something
Dennyisthepisslord@reddit
And the Elizabeth line
rdu3y6@reddit
Elizabeth Line (ne Crossrail) is a better example as HS1 is only useful if you're going to Paris which no one does regularly.
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
Or Brussels, the Netherlands, Germany, the Crimea (maybe not at the moment)...
rdu3y6@reddit
C'mon people use the Elizabeth line as part of their everyday commute, going out, meeting friends etc. No one is doing that on Eurostar and HS1 to Paris and beyond.
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
There are weekly commuters, and plenty of regular travellers. I've done numerous days trips for work.
Teembeau@reddit
People did just fine without HS1. It took about another 30 minutes to Paris. If you're off for a weekend, or going to see a client for rare meeting, how much do you care about the journey taking 30 more minutes. It opened in 2007 and you can see the effect on passenger numbers. It barely changed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17525872
The National Audit Office (NAO) said the project went ahead based on "hugely optimistic assumptions" about passenger numbers, which were not realised.
It also said the £6.16bn cost of the London to Folkestone line had exceeded the savings from shorter journey times.
jsm97@reddit
But the value of HS1 is not created by shorter journey times to Paris ? The value is created by the enabling of higher frequencies on South London commuter services and increased capacity at the port of Dover.
Teembeau@reddit
And what's that calculated at?
tdrules@reddit
South London being less of a shithole than it once was thanks to very good commuting capacity
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
People once did just fine with the ferry.
Teembeau@reddit
Well, if you want to measure it in terms of investment returns, the Channel Tunnel was a waste of money. Getlink, the owners are worth about £10bn. The price of construction in today's money is between £12-20bn.
But it's not about whether something is better, but at what cost. What money can it earn, what benefits to people does it provide beyond fare revenue? And it lost money. Spending it on something else would have been better.
City rail lines often make sense like Crossrail, because you have the density of people.
UnacceptableUse@reddit
I don't know if you can make a comparison between cost with inflation and current valuation of a company like that
Teembeau@reddit
Inflation should mean it's worth more. Until it gets near to end of life. You invest £12-20bn into something, you collect fares and pay dividends to shareholders, and the market cap reflects value based on dividends. It should be at least £12-20bn + inflation, not less than that.
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
The life of the concession, rather than the life of the tunnel.
It also had an unusually high number of small investors, not all of whom were in it for the money (luckily, with hindsight!); some people genuinely wanted to be a part of it happening.
Teembeau@reddit
When have they ever been worth more than £12bn since it opened?
And well, let's have all the HS2 fanboys putting money in their pockets instead of the rest of us paying for it.
UnacceptableUse@reddit
But the current valuation of the company doesn't reflect the performance of the company over its entire history, no? It speaks more to the potential remaining value than overall return
Teembeau@reddit
Now look at the history of the company. Between 1987 and 2009 it paid no dividends. It went bankrupt in 2006. There was never a golden high value to the company.
UnacceptableUse@reddit
Well that's definitely a stronger argument for it's failure
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
The tunnel was privately funded, so unless you were a shareholder it doesn't matter.
Teembeau@reddit
The point is, whoever paid for it, there was no value created by it. If the public really cared that much more than a ferry, they wouldn't have lost money. The public would have paid so much more for the convenience that they'd be profitable.
It was a subsidy from the shareholders to the public. They chose to take a risk and lose money. HS1 was forced on taxpayers by the government.
LondonKiwi66@reddit
It was completely mis-sold to the public. It was never about getting there faster it was about increasing capacity on that rail corridor.
takenawaythrowaway@reddit
If it was about increasing capacity they could have just increased the commuting capacity in Birmingham and solved 90% of the problems. It was a vanity project.
jsm97@reddit
You can't upgrade the West Coast Mainlime anymore than has already been done. It is full. You can not fit any more trains on the timetable. The only possible solution is new track.
takenawaythrowaway@reddit
We don't have double decker trains yet. That would increase capacity hugely. Even with all the work to do that would still be less than the insane work that is being carried out for hs2.
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
It would only increase capacity as far as the first platform or bridge. And rebuilding the lines would mean many many years of disruption, for a relatively small benefit; station dwell times would become a problem (the UK isn't like France where it is assumed everyone is going to/from Paris).
jsm97@reddit
Double deckers do not solve the frequency issues on local services. Birmingham is full of suburban stations with only 2 trains per hour which can't have a more frequent service because it would cause intercity trains to get stuck behind them and a more frequent service is required to unlock housing and development.
The only serious alternative to HS2 is four-tracking the entire West Coast Mainline. So that intercity trains have their own seperate tracks. The goverment did consider This as part of the original business case for HS2. That report estimated the costs of doing so at 80% of HS2 at only 50% of the benefits.
Any-Republic-4269@reddit
Indeed anyone who lived through the last time the WCML was upgraded in the early 2000s can vouch for that. In fact there are curious echoes of HS2 - over budget, over promised and ultimately de-spec'd but more successful than expected
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
A good way to increase commuter capacity is to move the long distance trains to a dedicated line...
takenawaythrowaway@reddit
New commuter lines is much cheaper than high speed
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
But the long distance trains would still be in the way.
spidertattootim@reddit
Let's see your fully costed plan and engineering program for doing that, then.
Ok-Middle8656@reddit
If it was just about capacity why did it need a straight fast route? It could have been built more cheaply by being more meandering route.
Worth_Gap4226@reddit
The main benefit in theory was releasing railway for cargo freight. The passenger capacity/speeds was just what was used to sell it better to the public.
My SIL works on HS2 and they are repurposing some of the zoned areas for other rail projects, so it's not a complete waste.
I feel for those who had to sell their homes through compulsory orders and can't even buy them back. Some housing is being sold back but only to cash buyers as you can't get a mortgage on them (due to the works that have already been done next to some of the property)
Teembeau@reddit
Because really, it's a political ego project. The modern equivalent of emperor's building statues of themselves.
You can tell it's nonsense because of the constant shift in scope and justification. No one in politics cares about it now, they know it's a bad idea and they get no glory from it which is why it has no completion date and no budget. When it's finished it will be the bare minimum so someone can say "it's done" even though it goes to a station 45 minutes from where people want to go.
WitShortage@reddit
It's very weird that we consistently frame projects in terms of speed, rather than capacity.
I think if it were marketed as "we can carry double the passengers" or "no train would be over capacity" it would get a lot more public support
dpk-s89@reddit
Because the media wont sell a positive story...yet £100bn for small digit journey time improvements drives clicks from the 'outraged public'
Said public who have no idea about infrastructure delivery so they get on their high horse and politicians latch on to it for their poll ratings and election potential rather than for the good of the country...
Teembeau@reddit
How dare they think that a railway being built with their money that has no budget and no delivery date is a bad idea, hmm?
dpk-s89@reddit
Fair point....but the monetary benefit as a result of land value uplift resultant from the scheme could have generated more for public services through increased tax revenue and land value capture would have helped to deliver other local infrastructure needs, providing greater benefits than the £100bn price tag....which isnt a one off lump sum cost anyway...
Teembeau@reddit
"could have" We don't even have a budget for this now. It's impossible to do any cost benefit on it
UnacceptableUse@reddit
If there's one thing I've learnt from the world of work it's that people in general absolutely suck at communicating and organising and it's a miracle we manage to get anything across the line
Dense_Appearance_298@reddit
Yes and no
Yes: a principle objective was increasing capacity.
No: the designers had the choice of max speed and they chose 225mph - a high speed even relative to other high speed railways, this made all the engineering (and all the costs) significantly higher. The public should expect the journey times to be short on a 225mph railway - if they don't extend to Euston then it'll take longer to get from central London to central Birmingham on the "high speed" railway. They're now talking about cutting the speed to 185-200mph.
bounderboy@reddit
Every time we have a mass infrastructure project in this country it’s dragged through mud by politicians, media and people on the take..
However once it’s done it’s spectacularly successful -
New Wembley, millennium Dome, 2012 olympics, HS1, Elizabeth line!
Oh I see a pattern - it’s London!
why we allowed this project - especially in the North - to be castrated is so disappointing ….
Dense_Appearance_298@reddit
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, with the exception of the millennium Dome example, but my original point was that people are wrong when they say "High speed 2 was never about high speed, it was about capacity" - this is false insofar as it's a high speed railway line, it's literally in the name, and if they don't complete the extension to Euston then it'll be a slower journey from central London to central Birmingham on the "high speed" railway.
bounderboy@reddit
Millennium Done was a years project that now is a successful arena and has completely transformed the area around it - that was my thinking
Teembeau@reddit
It cost us over £800m to build it and it was flogged of for a fraction of that. £25m.
So, £750m+ of public money wasted. If someone wants to put on concerts they can build their own halls, like Vue or Cineworld build cinemas.
bounderboy@reddit
Yeah don’t like that - but actual structure and idea played out well and who knows maybe there is some maths that recouped the loss in regeneration of area - based on no facts just blind hope
Teembeau@reddit
But that's like saying that we got a Toyota that works, but had to spend Ferrari money to get it.
It was a waste of money. It wasn't 100% wealth destruction but...
If you want to regenerate an area you come up with a sweet deal on business rates. Build your hall in this place and we'll zero rate you for 25 years.
Teembeau@reddit
Millennium Dome was a failure. Olympics were a failure. HS1 was a failure. Elizabeth Line delivered to estimates.
The dome cost £850m, was hilariously bad for a year and sold off for £24m.
The Olympics failed to deliver the sports participation promises. 9bn down the toilet.
There's a national audit report into HS1 that failed to deliver the promised benefits and was not worth it.
ambadawn@reddit
The millennium dome was not successful.
Level-Location1679@reddit
nor was HS1
Snoo63@reddit
If they were serious about improving north-south connections, they would've started in the north.
tdrules@reddit
The capacity constraints are below Birmingham though, a Northern Phase 1 wouldn’t resolve that.
Conscious_Ring_9855@reddit
I think part of the thinking is that if the northern part is built then the southern part becomes inevitable.
tdrules@reddit
An argument only ever made after the fact.
Snoo63@reddit
Exactly.
But, if you make the southern part massively over budget, then you can cut the northern part, that you weren't actually serious about making, without as much political flak, because it's massively over budget already.
Level-Location1679@reddit
The project was bungled by the Tories who viewed it as some kind of executive express that should be a design master piece with fat contracts with plenty of cream for their donors rather than a functional bit of infrastructure that benefits the entire nation and is delivered on a reasonable time line and budget using existing and considerable skills capacity at National Rail
Contact_Patch@reddit
Designers were told.
Dense_Appearance_298@reddit
That's correct I suppose
Contact_Patch@reddit
HS2 are the ones that set the design requirements, not the designers.
Prefect_99@reddit
Which could have been done at a fraction of the cost. And made many more connections.
phatboi23@reddit
for freight.
tdrules@reddit
Most suburban rail lines are hamstrung by intercity travel, especially in Manchester.
No_Law_1528@reddit
Freight and local commuter traffic, long distance high speed traffic to HS2
DrMacAndDog@reddit
This was said many, many times. Those who, for whatever reason, objected to it always repeated the speed rather than capacity.
AnonymousTimewaster@reddit
Even without that though, shaving off time between two major cities is a great way to encourage economic growth in the long term.
Fuck, even just having a modern train rather than one petering along at 50mph would do wonders.
Mr_Reaper__@reddit
HS2 is one of the largest rescue archaeology and nature restoration projects ever undertaken. It's created thousands of new jobs and upskilled thousands of people. It's created longterm projects for hundreds of small to medium businesses supplying parts and services to the project.
Particular-Bid-1640@reddit
This. I'm an Ecologist and I've worked off and on HS2. It's trained me and hundreds of ecologists, it's given us excellent real-time data, and it's providing an unbroken rail corridor (great for wildlife) over previous mono-culture farms.
We get to dictate the ecology as ecologists, which is much better than many large housing developments I've worked on.
The protestors usually don't understand how ecology actually works.
Mr_Reaper__@reddit
Thanks for replying, it's so interesting to hear from someone who's actually involved in the other side of HS2. Do you know where I can look to read more about the details of the ecology projects? I'd love to know more about the actual work being done.
mashed666@reddit
They are doing a lot of canal stuff around the bits they've cancelled.... They should have just kept it going... What was the point in cancelling stuff where they'd already broken ground...
diabeticoats@reddit
It's a disaster and a missed opportunity.
For a start, it should connect to HS1. Manchester to Munich, Birmingham to Brussels, Leeds to Lyon and so on. It's about 800m too short. Terminate at kings cross not Euston.
Secondly, it's been horrendously mismanaged. Costs have ballooned and contractors are getting overpaid. Engineering has been done for a 230mph railway when it just didn't need to be.
Thirdly, its been cut. Instead of Birmingham to London it's a suburb of Birmingham to zone 2 of London. Waste of time.
Fourthly, it doesn't go to Manchester or Leeds or anywhere useful. It's a £120bn railway from London to Birmingham. Not to Wales, Scotland or the second city.
And lastly, it's a missed opportunity. Most rail journeys are commuter. You take that £120bn and split it up. Manchester, here's £8bn, quadruple the size of your tram network. London, here's £15bn, let's see docklands extended and the dozen rail projects that have been shelved and so on. It could have been transformative.
Instead, it offers few benefits for an eye watering sum.
Teembeau@reddit
"Manchester to Munich"
That doesn't work. Rail competes with flight over a short distance like London to Paris because of the hassle factor with getting to and from airports. The greater distance, the more air gets an advantage. I quite fancied going to Avignon by train instead of flying, but it's 6+ hours and costs a fortune.
diabeticoats@reddit
The point being that there should be an easy way to travel on train to the continent.
That should have been prioritised.
Imagine a train that went Central Manchester to Paris. Four and a half, five hours?
Compare that to travel to the airport from the city centre, check-in, security, flight, travel into Paris. It wouldn't be much quicker.
Yes, there won't be a big call for trains to Germany's second city from England's second city, but it should be possible.
And I regularly get trains towards Liverpool, but I don't go there. The service stops at others along the way
In short, HS2 is a horrendously missed opportunity
Teembeau@reddit
Your idea is based on the common flawed assumption that everyone goes from the centre of a city to the centre of the other city. If you live outside of a city, or are going outside the city, the numbers are different.
I had to work out Swindon to NATO in Brussels once and there's nothing in it. Because Swindon to St Pancras takes a bit longer than Heathrow and there's almost nothing between the airport and the railway station for NATO. And that's Brussels which doesn't have the distance of Munich. The work didn't happen in the end but honestly I probably would have flown just because the airport hotels would be cheaper than the city.
diabeticoats@reddit
Central hubs have good connectivity. Or they should do.
Which was the bit you missed in my first statement, most rail travel is commuter
We must make it easier to get to our central hubs. But ultimately, making it so that Birmingham to Brussels was an option would have been logical. Why do HS1 and HS2 terminuses 800m apart when you are throwing £120bn at it?
Because this has always been done with a a London centric mindset and not a UK mindset.
Teembeau@reddit
But any connectivity still takes time. Swindon to London is a good fast train but because of the distance to Heathrow being shorter it makes little difference.
I agree on the HS1/HS2 thing. Sounds crazy. But how many people want to go Manchester to Paris. This comes down to understanding people's desires. Is it to see the Eiffel Tower for a weekend, to have a meeting at Montparnasse, to go to a factory on the outskirts, champagne tasting in Reims, or Disneyland?
One of the issues with rail is that it's hard to change. Car, bus, air, you can redeploy. I'm very much against EWR because the real problem in Oxford is Headington, where the hospital sector is, not the centre.
TheBearPanda@reddit
Cancelling the track to Manchester is the worst thing Sunak did by far.
Additional-Ask-5512@reddit
They did it the wrong way round. Should have started North, Leeds to Manchester say and moved South. All the fanfare at the time was levelling up or Northern Powerhouse, whatever the catchphrase of the day. Same old Northern Shithouse with creaking infrastructure
Life_Emphasis6290@reddit
But isn't the capacity issue mainly between Birmingham and London. If you don't solve that, you haven't solved anything? You've effectively built a new motorway that is still connecting to the old A-road for the last half of the journey.
Teembeau@reddit
What capacity issue?
WhyIsItGlowing@reddit
They thought they were being clever about it by starting in Old Oak Common and leaving Euston for a bit later to avoid that kind of "London's good, time for the cuts" thinking but it still left them with all the home counties NIMBYs to get through.
Undrcovrcloakndaggr@reddit
"Is there a way to salvage the project and achieve the goals it originally intended to?"
I think you've misread the intention tbh... it's my belief the goal originally intended was entirely to make money for shareholders & in that regard it's a huge success.
TheRebelPercy@reddit
There should be a public enquiry into it as it is a national disgrace.
Billions of taxpayers money wasted.
SaltyName8341@reddit
What and waste more money on an enquiry to find out what we all know
LANdShark31@reddit
What do we already know? Because this keeps happening clearly we’re not learning from what we allegedly know.
BrillsonHawk@reddit
There are some very good books regarding major projects like this. It primarily comes down to a lack of quality planning at all levels. It leads to massive problems and massive cost overruns, because procurement, recruitment, programming, etc is almost done as they go along. Its a problem thats rife throughout construction - not just on these huge projects.
Thats not the only problem with government projects though. The government signs stupid cost plus contracts, which will only work if government employees know what they are doing. The government has absolutely no idea how to manage the construction companies, so they sign off almost everything they ask for - completely suicidal.
dbxp@reddit
The planning system is based on objections so there's no way for a third party to support a project. This means the system doesn't really work for national projects whether they be rail lines or wind farms.
TheRebelPercy@reddit
If you can, watch Panorama - HS2 : The Railway that blew Billions.
LANdShark31@reddit
It to mention that they had to apply to every local authority they passed through. National projects like this should get permission at a national level.
ratty_89@reddit
We know that far too any levels of subcontractors are involved. NIMBYS have been pandered to excessively. Regulations have been blindly followed (full traffic bridges on byways in Buckinghamshire).
It is literally in my back garden and it annoys the shit out of me how badly it has been executed. If it had been completed with competency, hedgerows and cover would have been established to hide it, but it is still. Monstrous scar across the landscape.
To add, I am all for a robust rail infrastructure. But the south needed it less than the north does, this leg panders to the London centric way this country works (which I detest).
theother64@reddit
No one can make a decision the route has constantly changed. Designed redesigned over and over.
Took them ages to decide what to do about entry into London especially. It wasted so much money.
The Oakley report was fairly though and not that old.
SaltyName8341@reddit
That consultants are a waste of money and NIMBY's are blocking infrastructure projects.
Bravo-701@reddit
It's called greed and corruption. It will always happen. The Covid 19 enquiry cost best part of £400m
cbawiththismalarky@reddit
Please explain how it was wasted
TheRebelPercy@reddit
Poor contractor management for the civils work.
Massive redundancy payments for staff and staff getting paid for doing nothing.
£100 million for a bat tunnel and other projects to appease local parish councils, NIMBYs and land owners.
Scraping of Phase 2 at the cost of £2 billion.
Massive spending on property for cancelled works.
Constant movement of goal posts. Is it about speed? Capacity? Economic activity?
cbawiththismalarky@reddit
You mean we paid for something
sundance464@reddit
We paid outrageous amounts of extra money to achieve less than we expected to
Yes, we've got "something" but we definitely spent a whole lot of money we didn't have to which absolutely counts as wasted
cbawiththismalarky@reddit
This infrastructure that will be available for half a century cost more than projected much of it due to increases in inflation and fuel costs and it's wasted because the payback time isnt fast enough for press barons and people who measure infrastructure success in months, as I said in other comments I pity people with such short term thinking you must be constantly disappointed, your lives must be so shit...
TheRebelPercy@reddit
What the fuck are you on about?
Most people agree that national infrastructure needs investment.
However, the shit show that is HS2 is a good example of how not to do it. Greed, corruption and incompetence.
We are a small, democratic island and can’t just do what the Chinese do but we must better than this.
cbawiththismalarky@reddit
Oh most people do do they, except I keep reading on this very page that we can't and don't build anything and if you have some specific allegations about corruption I'd love for you to bring it forward and for it to be proven, except just like press you have nothing to back those allegations at all except "trust me bro"
sundance464@reddit
I'm not opposed to HS2, I think we should have finished it despite the excess costs
You don't think we could have got the same result for less money though?
Apart from anything else we could have done it quicker and saved the inflation / fuel costs...it's a well documented disaster in terms of forward planning and effective project delivery.
To say I'm disappointed by the delivery, and the fact that as a result it isn't going to be as good as it should have been is correct
Don't worry, it won't ruin my life though
K-Motorbike-12@reddit
Knowing someone who has worked on this, the public, or atleast rich public, are part of the reason this is billions over budget.
People purchased the land the tracks had to go through, got planning permission then the government had to buy the land at far higher costs.
We the public are one of the primary reasons this failed.
OldGodsAndNew@reddit
They had an inquiry into why the Edinburgh trams went massively over budget and behind schedule
The inquiry itself got major criticism for going massively over budget and behind schedule
Fanny_Flapps@reddit
Wasn't wasted if it got you a villa in St Tropez, old bean
TheObrien@reddit
Redeeming quality:
Personally - I think it’s amazing they’ve committed to the level of over engineering they have. From environmentally friendly perspectives, to station designs.
The viaducts - especially that one (the big one) look amazing.
And when it opens, like all things… the budget issues and such will be forgotten.
Old_Roof@reddit
Building it to Crewe would redeem it as that would free up the WCML
brushfuse@reddit
When it finally opens, people will think it’s a marvel, and want more of this high speed, high capacity railway. Its ridiculous cost is really the only thing that is making it massively unpopular. Let’s hope they don’t buy crap trains with ironing board seats.
woman_on_the_move@reddit
I feel that one half of this country never takes the trains anyway and resents any public money being spent. The other problem is it is seen as more funding on getting to london faster. Personally given that birmingham is England's poorest city and having a rough time lately. Our local train system is totally dominated by trains to london and we do need hs2 to take the capacity and the development of curzon st is no bad thing. It has cost too much and taken too long that that's the power of the planning lobby. I predict that once its done a lot of people will use it and regional railways will benefit a lot. But since lots of people won't use a train since they will still moan but that's life in Britain.
I am trying to imagine getting about france without high speed rail but that's unfair. They got the opportunity to lay the rails first and have a lot more room. We had to take in Buckinghamshire and it was never going to go well!
Teembeau@reddit
I feel that one half of this country never takes the trains anyway and resents any public money being spent.
25% never use them and if you extend it to one journey per year, it's 50%.
The other problem is it is seen as more funding on getting to london faster. Personally given that birmingham is England's poorest city and having a rough time lately. Our local train system is totally dominated by trains to london and we do need hs2 to take the capacity and the development of curzon st is no bad thing.
The simple fact is (and I am not a Londoner, but go there sometimes by coach) no other city is like London for density. And when you have that density, trains works for miles around. Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol have a central area that is hard to drive in but much smaller than London. You can easily drive to places like Trafford, Small Heath or Clifton.
If you live in Birmingham and want to get to an engineering company in Northampton it will be quicker to drive it.
It has cost too much and taken too long that that's the power of the planning lobby. I predict that once its done a lot of people will use it and regional railways will benefit a lot. But since lots of people won't use a train since they will still moan but that's life in Britain.
No, it's a fault of government not doing the planning properly. They never really started this with a proper idea of it. They could have passed planning bills that would have allowed them to do anything.
But also, why should people who never pay for trains pay lots of money for them? There are clearly some external benefits, but how much? The £12bn we already spend? I don't believe its that much. Especially when you consider that the mainlines pay their way.
I predict that once its done a lot of people will use it and regional railways will benefit a lot. But since lots of people won't use a train since they will still moan but that's life in Britain.
People in rural areas don't use trains now. Ever ride one? They're nearly empty. Because when density is low, cars work better. Buses are more economical.
I am trying to imagine getting about france without high speed rail but that's unfair. They got the opportunity to lay the rails first and have a lot more room. We had to take in Buckinghamshire and it was never going to go well!
Have you looked at the geography of France and the map of the TGV network? It's a huge country with major cities far away. TGV replaced internal flights because it was such a huge distance. Paris to Bordeaux is 500 miles, which means you can leave work and do it in an evening rather than spending all day on it. That has huge benefits. it saves flying. How many people care about getting from Birmingham to Manchester in 1hr instead of 1:30?
jsm97@reddit
About £42B per year (source. Of which £10B comes from fares and the majority of the rest comes agglomeration effects on productivity.
Teembeau@reddit
"The study, commissioned by the Railway Industry Association "
So, companies that want more railways built. I'm sure it's totally legit, then ;-)
jsm97@reddit
Almost all companies want railways built. This is a ridiculous argument. Pressure groups can commission research. They are not the ones actually doing the research.
Teembeau@reddit
Do they? What's your source for that? I run a company and I don't care that much. And I'll tell you why, because I'll have to pay for it. And I don't think it's worth it. Rail has its uses, but a lot of the time, road travel is more efficient.
And don't be so naive. Everyone who does a report for someone knows that if they give the wrong answer, they won't get asked to do work for them. You can't exactly lie, but you can certainly massage things, omit things and exaggerate things.
jsm97@reddit
The private sector is significant investor in UK rail projects. Some, like the Elizebeth line and Manchester Metrolink have been up to 50% privately financed. Private companies pay for these things because they benefit from them in Land Value uplift, agglomeration and multiplier effects on productivity, labour market thickening ect. A coffee shop in Milton Keynes will benefit from HS2, that benefit may be less than than a property developer but they will still benefit indirectly.
As someone who writes business cases for transport infrastructure projects for a living nothing makes me laugh more than when someone thinks they can judge the benefit cost ratio of a project on a two second glance with cursory knowledge of the subject. You have no idea what goes into a BCR.
Everyone commissions research into the things they want to do. That's just how the world works. It's no different to the goverment commissioning a consultancy to write a business case or a property developer commissioning a traffic assessment. Quantifying productivity benefits from the entire British rail network is difficult and expensive and is not something someone would commission unless they were looking to make the point that the rail network is a phenomenal economic sucsess and we should build more.
Teembeau@reddit
"As someone who writes business cases for transport infrastructure projects for a living nothing makes me laugh more than when someone thinks they can judge the benefit cost ratio of a project on a two second glance with cursory knowledge of the situation. You have no idea what goes into a BCR calculation."
Well, except that I remember reading the Economic Case for HS2 not long after it was published and seeing lots of quite obvious flaws in it. How it undervalued the switch to remote work, how it didn't consider the value of working on trains, how it just assumed linear growth in demand without understanding what had caused 25 years of growth.. The number of passengers expected for HS1 was what, 30-40% higher than actual?
And I'm telling you about business demand based on what I'm seeing, as someone who works in business. You may know more about rolling stock and track, but I know the patterns of work that are happening, how much everyone is doing meetings on Teams. I've seen ORR statistics on season ticket sales. I can see house prices in London not keeping up with the rest of the UK, because people doing office work don't need to be there so much. That Monday and Friday demand for transport in London is soft. I have both statistical and anecdotal data on this. If you want to show me yours, go right ahead.
I'll tell you about how most business people I know behave. They drive if they can and use trains where it's impractical. They get into their Honda Civic that rarely fails. It doesn't go on strike, it doesn't have cancellation because of lack of crew, they get a seat because someone didn't put on a 5 seat train, or just cancel reservations. They don't have to share it with someone listening to techno openly. They can get better coffee en route. And it doesn't have the problem of waiting for connections like trains and buses do. You can make EWR super fast and shiny and someone going from near Milton Keynes Central to the Said Business School or the Mathematics institute will love it. But a doctor leaving their home in Stony Stratford to go to a meeting at the John Radcliffe Hospital will still drive because it's around an hour by car and that's the time just to make the bus connections.
Teembeau@reddit
It was a waste of money since 2013, if not earlier.
The primary value of railways is commuting into cities and city to city travel. Not people going to bands at a weekend, or to see their girlfriend or old ladies going from Chippenham to Swindon. That stuff can run, but because the infrastructure has already been spent on.
Which gives us two problems with HS2.
1) Even at the new fast speeds, it's still too long to commute. Roughly speaking the upper limit is door-to-door 1 hour, and at best it's 49 minutes. So add in time getting to and from home and office, no-one wants to commute it. And that gets even worse with remote work, where at the higher end, people do it more.
2) People going city to city don't care about the current speed. You want to go Birmingham to London for a meeting, it's fine. Sure, faster is nicer, but you will still do the meeting. Oh and post-2015, people do a lot more meetings on Teams.
High speed rail is mostly useful for very long distances like Paris to Marseille (500 miles), Beijing to Shanghai (750 miles). Roughly speaking, where it's so far people will fly it. Birmingham is ridiculous, even Manchester is a push. When people say "but the Europeans have them" it's actually a small number of large countries.
The only other argument is capacity, and I've asked people to explain this repeatedly. The trains are not full of people that want to go from Birmingham to London. Demand has actually fallen for business travel since about 2013.
The reason why its stalling is that everyone in politics basically knows it's nonsense. The public don't care that much. It has no real advantages (unlike people being able to go to Marseille in 4 hours instead of 8).
The only sensible high speed train in the UK might be London to Newcastle, then fork to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Even then, we don't have the uses like the French do (going away to the Med for a long weekend) and demand has fallen post-remote.
jsm97@reddit
The west coast mainline is chronically over capacity due to physics. It has little to do with businesses travel. Local services, especially into Birmingham are full. We need to run these local services more frequently so we can unlock Land Value Uplift from new development to grow the economy and provide housing and workplaces. But we can't run more of these local services because the mainline is full. Fast intercity services need a large "block" of empty track ahead of them so that they do not catch up to and get stuck behind local services. The only way to do this is by taking the fast intercity services off the mainlines and onto their own dedicated new track.
Teembeau@reddit
Which local trains into Birmingham are full?
jsm97@reddit
The entire West Coast Mainline between London at Crewe is at 100% operational capacity. As an example there are 2 trains per hour between Stechford and New Street which inadequate for a city of Birmingham's size. There is zero capability to increase this to 3 or 4 trains per hour without cutting other services.
Teembeau@reddit
How many people want to ride that? It's about £4 a ticket, which suggests the trains are not exactly rammed.
jsm97@reddit
I'm confused why you're skeptical about the fact that people in a suburb of Birmingham might want to go into the city centre ? But regardless passenger numbers are only relevent so far as they are a proxy for land value uplift and agglomeration effects which is what actually creates economic returns.
You can't build housing in any serious quantity or density in Stetchford because the transport situation is so dire that is a far less attractive investment that other better served areas of the city. Building HS2 gives you the capacity to run more frequent trains between Stetchford and New Street which unlocks new development and raises the value of existing development. That is one of the main ways in which transport infrastructure generates an economic return. It's why the Elizebeth line which serves areas that mostly already have a station was 50% funded by the private sector.
Teembeau@reddit
I don't know. Lots of work in Birmingham is outside of the centre in factories and parks. But if you're saying there's huge demand, show me some numbers.
Competitive-Zombie28@reddit
It's united the country in how pointless it is
jaymatthewbee@reddit
Eventually the piece between Birmingham and Manchester will also get built, just under a different name.
Adrian_Shoey@reddit
HS3..?
SamplePresentation@reddit
Hs3 is northen powerhouse rail. Or what left of it anyways
Mr_Reaper__@reddit
Birmingham is a terminus station though, so it'll have to be a separate service for Birmingham and Manchester, meaning half the capacity per route. If they had any sense it would've been built to allow a through station at Birmingham so the HS2 line could continue north, rather than Birmingham being an awkward spur off the main line.
jaymatthewbee@reddit
There’s supposed to be a spur that connects it to the West Coast mainline and Handsacre Junction.
Mr_Reaper__@reddit
In an ideal world the HS line would continue north at least as far as Birmingham taking as much intercity traffic as possible off the west coast mainline. But even if the HS line continued to Manchester after the Birmingham spur the London-Birmingham section will always be hampered by having to run separate services for Birmingham and Manchester.
rdu3y6@reddit
Do you really think so?
60sstuff@reddit
if we call it the freedom pass line we will be grand
UnacceptableUse@reddit
Great British Sovereign Line
Realistic_Let3239@reddit
Nope, and given how many projects the money from it got "diverted to", after they cancelled the rest of HS2, had already been completed years before, I'm amazed there hasn't been any investigation into where the billions of pounds vanished to.
Heck a local project that was "funded" from that money hasn't even started work and no one is sure if there even is money for it.
Mammoth_Spend_5590@reddit
Yeah it's really fast
gherkinassassin@reddit
I mean if you into smashing up some of the last remaining ancient woodlands and other sensitive habitats the UK has left, then it's been money well worth spent!
jsm97@reddit
And when the the capacity problems that HS2 was designed to solve don't magically go away and we end up building a road instead at 70% of the cost and 40% of the benefit they'll be in an even worse state.
cbawiththismalarky@reddit
Please tell us about these ancient woodlands and their values?
gherkinassassin@reddit
Well, many of them have been damaged, or partially or completely destroyed. They are irreplaceable and therefore invaluable. The UK has around 3% of its ancient woodland remaining, and HS2 did a serious number on a substantial amount of them.
Surely by any reasonable thought process, we as a society can understand the intrinsic value of life on this planet beyond our own?
Here's further reading, I highly recommend it
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/49413/html/
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitoring-the-environmental-effects-of-hs2-2025
https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/1800a83a-1fc4-49e1-bac3-d970caf4451b/phase-one-ecological-survey-data
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/background-information-and-data-for-the-hs2-phase-2b-ses2-and-ap2-es-ecology-and-biodiversity
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2a-background-information-and-data-ecology-and-biodiversity
cbawiththismalarky@reddit
Tell me about these ancient woodlands you're obviously an expert
gherkinassassin@reddit
Tell me everything you know about them and I'll find see about finding the resources to fill in your knowledge gaps.
In the meantime while Im finding you the resources, read the links I posted so you have a better understanding about the topic we are engaging in.
cbawiththismalarky@reddit
Cool, tell me the significance of the 1600 cut off
OkSun8521@reddit
How will it reduce capacity to Manchester?
Kientha@reddit
Because the trains will need to run on the existing lines which are also already at capacity but because the trains aren't designed to run on the existing Birmingham to Manchester like, they'll actually be slower than the existing trains thus reducing the capacity further
OkSun8521@reddit
I don't get it.
The trains that will run London - Manchester are the new HS2 trains? But they'll run on the old tracks?
jsm97@reddit
HS2 trains are shorter than the current Pendalinos and they don't tilt meaning that once they come off HS2 and Handsacre Junction just north of Birmingham and join the existing West coast mainline they will have to run at 110mph instead of 125mph (as the current trains do) and they will have less seats per train.
Traditional_Mango_71@reddit
London to Manchester trains don’t use the existing Birmingham to Manchester route which goes via Wolverhampton and won’t do after HS2. HS2 trains to beyond the delta junction near Birmingham will continue to Handsacre where they will join the existing Trent Valley route.
Even If the route to Handsacre also gets stupidly cut the then at least most of the Birmingham services will be off the WCML improving things to Manchester & beyond.
Non tilting Evero trains currently running aren’t much slower than the Pendolinos as acceleration is better, HS2 trains are likely to be the same.
JustTooOld@reddit
There will still be three trains an hour from Euston to Piccadilly, not sure where the OP is getting 4 from. Its areas such as Stockport that are the problem
Ok-Cold3937@reddit
They don’t know this. It’s just a convenient bullshit.
Flagon_dragon@reddit
Something conceived in the 80s, designed in the 90s, and built anyway whislt disregarding the changing reality of progress.
The argument has changed so may times (speed? capacity? freight?) it should have either started in the north, or been repurposed as true capacity and building new garden towns on the route.
The way it is being built (large companies forming even larger temporary companies to build sections) as an idea that it will somehow deliver a better outcome for the taxpayer must be one of the greatest lies ever told.
jsm97@reddit
You do not need to built new towns alongside the route of a railway specifically designed to increase the frequency of commuter trains by taking the intercity trains off the mainlines. And even if you were going to do this the correct thing to is to build them on the current west coast mainline after HS2 is open and not have them be served by HS2.
The entire point of increasing capacity on the mainline is to unlock Land Value Uplift from existing land near the current railway that is not currently viable for development because of capacity constraints
Realistic-River-1941@reddit
It was always about capacity, but the PR was handled badly and they didn't take action when the public assumed it was about speed.
There is nothing unsual about consortia being formed.
MoffTanner@reddit
Don't worry there's plenty of time for it to get even worse. It's not got a public targeted go live date at all anymore, them not being willing to give that implies things are being horribly mismanaged and the talk is of shortening trains and cutting speeds for further short sighted cost cutting.
ihathtelekinesis@reddit
At this rate it might open before East-West Rail.
ShotInTheBrum@reddit
HS2 and its supply chain have taken on a lot of apprentices.
Some of the engineering on the project is amazing.
Danielharris1260@reddit
It is is shame how it all went I guess you could say the ridiculous price of it has made people very weary and angry with the UK planning process and has caused there to be more effort to streamline it. Big chunk of the extra cost came from unnecessary tunnels and consultations.
DrMacAndDog@reddit
Blame the residents of Buckinghamshire
I_ALWAYS_UPVOTE_CATS@reddit
Nah blame the people with the power who listened to those NIMBYs ahead of the best interests of the country.
AncientsofMumu@reddit
I don't live in the area, nor have I been affected by HS2, but if they wanted to run a railway past my country home I'd be fucking raging too.
UltimateGammer@reddit
Aye, and you'd be right to, but you'd hope people in charge wouldn't bow to a bunch of irate cottagers.
DrMacAndDog@reddit
Sure sabotage your country for your convenience.
AncientsofMumu@reddit
Did you choose to miss the entirety of my post or are you a bit simple?
DrMacAndDog@reddit
The “entirety” of your post?!! You didn’t write the bible pal, you just had a petty rant and guess what, it’s just that pettiness that is at the root of this. The “entirety” of your post is tiny.
AncientsofMumu@reddit
And yet you missed it entirely.
DrMacAndDog@reddit
Nope. I got it.
DrMacAndDog@reddit
A lot of the people in power live in Buckinghamshire
CroggpittGoonbag@reddit
A lot of people would have raised the same concerns if they were in their shoes.
They have every right to kick up a fuss but the blame should be on the system we have in place that meant we gave concessions and spend a huge sum of money in order to placate a small number of people at the expensive of every tax payer in the country.
The government need to be able to tell people tough shit in order for us to get any infrastructure in place for a reasonable price (along with addressing other cost factors unique to the UK).
Alternatively if they were in a legal bind then they should of thought about that before committing to the project.
Regardless it's a huge cock up and I think a review into why it happened and how to ensure we don't do this again is a must.
CptBananaPants@reddit
My ex was from Bucks. Fuck you, Amy.
Ferrovia_99@reddit
HS2 is a shining example of the power of the individual to ruin projects of national strategic importance. HS2 was the right idea, done in completely the wrong way. But what's new? Par for the course for UK infrastructure.
Upstairs-Balance9846@reddit
hs2 was just used as a little project the tories used to syphon money of to their friends.
the redeeming quality is that we now know to build a railway, we have to put the legistlation in first and railroad it through.
ApplicationCreepy987@reddit
They said the same about crossrail. The rest is history.
MerlinOfRed@reddit
It always amazes me how big infrastructure projects like this are seen through such a short-term lens.
"It doesn't change the current way my life works, so it is pointless".
We're still using the railway lines built when Queen Victoria was on the throne. There is absolutely no way the Victorians could have predicted the way they would be used today. Long-term cost-benefit analysis would have been pointless. Our whole economy now survives on them. We absolutely cannot predict how HS2 will be used in 150-200 years time. Crossrail and HS1 show that we can't really predict how they'll be used in 10 years time.
Just build the lines. It's one of the few things that future generations won't mind being in debt for - they will benefit as much as us. That's the logic Japan use and their island nation has one of the worlds best high speed networks.
rdu3y6@reddit
The Victorians built the railways with short term profit in mind for the private companies that planned, built and operated them. There wasn't any national infrastructure master plan.
MerlinOfRed@reddit
Exactly.
Yet look at how it played out.
If they had decided it wouldn't have been profitable in the short term then then they wouldn't have don't it and we'd be missing a key part of our infrastructure today.
Short term thinking doesn't work here.
Teembeau@reddit
"Our whole economy now survives on them."
That is frankly nonsense. 9% of all passenger Kms travelled are by rail, and falling. 8% of freight is by rail. Because vans and cars are more flexible, buses and coaches are cheaper. Rail suits high density travel. People going into and between large cities.
And no-one knew how long they would last but that's no reason to make daft 150-200 year predictions. 20 years is a realistic timeline for a project.
MerlinOfRed@reddit
Ah right, yeah 8-9% is nothing. Our economy wouldn't grind to a halt if it suddenly disappeared.
Teembeau@reddit
I didn't say it was nothing. I was disputing "our whole economy runs on it". Most of the demand for trains is London.
"most the evidence both from other countries and our own history suggests that it will be a benefit long-term"
The UK should close down roughly half its train lines as they are so poorly utilised. Many services are worse for the environment than putting every passenger in a taxi. This is also true of many parts of Europe. They only exist because Victorians built them and we have them. Buses would be more efficient. Dig up the rail, put down tarmac and use them for public transport at peak hours, all vehicles outside of that.
dauty@reddit
Old Oak Common is potentially great, linking HS2 and Heathrow/Elizabeth line/GWR together in West London
dauty@reddit
to be faIr, even if you see HS2 as unremittingly failed and wasteful, it's encouraging to hope that people are increasingly fed up of all our national infrastructure being colossally over budget and shit. Or, to paraphrase Walter Benjamin in a different context: : history is full of unfinished attempts waiting to be inherited. Eventually (hopefully) we'll get better at doing these things in a cheaper, faster, more sensible way, with less corrupt consultancy over-inflation and misery
ARobertNotABob@reddit
Still an over-expensive white elephant, diluted and late, that will provide almost zero nett benefit to the economy.
cbawiththismalarky@reddit
It was decided before it started by the media that it was doomed, they've constantly briefed against every bit and made sure the the narrative that we can't build things is firmly fixed into the publics mind, just like the Elizabeth line it will bring economic wealth to both ends and everywhere in between. You're all deluded by the press and the need for doom laden stories and you miss the thousands of jobs that have been created, the success of the engineering works and the need in the first place, but continue on moaning because when you decide everything is shit then it inevitably will be, I pity you all.
Ferrovia_99@reddit
I can only hope that, when it's finally finished, it becomes a bit like the first Shinkansen line; way over budget, way past its finish date but ultimately a success and people will soon forget what an absolute farce it was to build.
dbxp@reddit
I guess you could say it's a jobs creation program just by its nature of being a massively expensive domestic project
Teembeau@reddit
Anywhere where people spend money is a jobs creation program.
Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy. A boy smashing a window is a good thing because it creates a job for a glazer to fix it. Of course, it means the person smashing it has less money for a new pair of shoes, so you destroy the job of the shoemaker.
If we spend £100bn on HS2, where don't we spend £100bn? How many people have to wait for a hip operation?
Beneficial-Pitch-430@reddit
Redeeming quality… I drive past a few sections daily and the engineering and equipment is awesome.
Familiarsophie@reddit
A big part of the issue is that when it was started the route it was due to relieve capacity on wasn’t totally overwhelmed. So no one thinks it’s worth it. Of course by the time it’s done.. the west coast will be over capacity making it necessary.
For context - crossrail was first raised in the late 1940’s!!! And was finally finished in 2021… only finally being done after the existing network was completely overwhelmed.
The hardest bit of public infrastructure is convincing people they will need something before they need it.
DonBenson@reddit
It's created some jobs I guess
my-comp-tips@reddit
An awful lot of money has been spent and its also taken a long time. HS1 from London to the channel tunnel felt a lot quicker than this.
ActionBirbie@reddit
Those projects were completed before the 24hour news cycle and social media circle jerking were around.
my-comp-tips@reddit
Very true.
KonkeyDongPrime@reddit
The public infrastructure funding model needs a complete overhaul. HS2 proved beyond all doubt that it’s not fit for purpose.
Second lines are needed all over the country. Every major route should have a fast intercity service running in parallel to a donkey line. The only way the model worked for the funding for HS2, was based on an assumption of achievable speed, which was unachievable in practice and then also forced the route to be sub optimal. The routes up North were a lash up to destroy the case for a decent trans-pennine service.
Shit was always going to hit the fan. If the model was just ‘we need additional lines, slightly faster than the ones we currently have’ then the entire thing would have been cheaper and simpler.
Then you factor in infrastructure underinvestment leading to a skills gap, so the politicians only workaround is to ask their mates at large management consultancies. These people don’t know their arse from their elbow at the best of times, but they scored all the big contracts just to sublet them to various rival engineering consultancies.
mangonel@reddit
"bungled"
Sabotaged, more like. Sabotaged and then the earth salted.
argosafe@reddit
No. Hope I'm around to see the, magnitude of the fail.
Remote_Development13@reddit
As a Brummie, I'm quite looking forward to seeing the renovated Curzon St station
bluejackmovedagain@reddit
It's going to improve local rail services in Birmingham. Currently, local provision is constrained by the fact that services have to fit in the timetable gaps between intercity trains, and given that more than 1250 trains stop at New Street daily there aren't that many gaps available.
Although, I'm sure there were much cheaper solutions to the problem.
SilyLavage@reddit
If there is it's so small as to be insignificant. The project has been an absolute disaster, there's nothing to be proud of in it.
AutoModerator@reddit
Please help keep AskUK welcoming!
When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' you may receive a ban for violating this rule.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.