observer Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 High speed rail - estimated cost (at the moment) £33billion - good or bad idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I'm a luddite and to prove it, who wants or needs to travel by land at such speed. Too disruptive. Too expensive. Happy days 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I don't see why being able to get from London to Birmingham 25 minutes quicker is so important Total waste of money 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 The original railways were built by private enterprise who knew there was profit to be made. If it's such a good idea then surely private enterprise would rush in to build HS2. As its going to be the taxpayer forking out I get the distinct impression that it will be a waste of taxpayers money as well as being a very expensive rail journey for the traveller. Its a vanity project by the politicians who can always spend other people's money. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 The tax payer will build it and then like HS1, sell it on. People may know that I have cpanigned in recent years for better rail, locally at least. I however am against it. If you look at the SWT that use HS1, then there is a premium charged to use the HS1 services as opposed to the normal line services (same destination, markedley quicker). As pointed out above, who will use HS2 to save 20 mins. Business only probably. However there is the prospect of Central Manchester to say Paris in less than 4 hours which is tempting and possibly beating a plane. Watch the HS2 part 2 route north of Birmingham. Hasnt been puiblished yet and is rumoured that it goes through some marginal tory seats. Possibility it may skirt the east of Warrington and come into Manchester that way. In all, i can think of better ways to spend £32bn. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I think I read that the cost to the taxpayer works out at £1,700 per family for every family in the UK. And that's just for the Birmingham to London leg. £1,700 would easily pay for all the Easyjet flights from Birmingham to London that a family is likely to take in their lifetimes!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Not exactly a vote of confidence then! Can't say I'm convinced either way - whilst there seems to be a case for modernising our transport infrastructure, we don't seem to have a good record with "big projects", by the time this gets built it could end up costing ten times this initial estimate and be too costly to use for most ordinary folk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Can't help suspecting that any logical judgement about this sort of project is less important than politicians egoes* (same as with large sporting events) More important to get goods off the road, and on to rail, than marginally faster passenger transport to limited locations. * not sure of spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevofaz25 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 NIMBY and twin-sets will have a lot of say in the future of HS2- cuts through too many Tory seats in "Middle England". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I'm a luddite and to prove it, who wants or needs to travel by land at such speed. Too disruptive. Too expensive. And likely to give any lady on board an attack of the vapours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 But the reasoning behind this link is this. "When the waters start to rise due to global warming and the south off england starts to sink beneath the waves, they will be able to evacuate the most Important prople further north in a very short time and so save many more of them than would be possible otherwise." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Quoting a chap on Question Time. The only reason you can get from London to Manchester in 2 1/2 hours now is because the train doesn't stop anywhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Think the theory is to have seperate tracks for a hierarchy of modes: (a) High Speed (inter City) - using seperate "straight" lines. ( Comuter (local) - stopping at every station. © Freight (containers). Problems arise however, as with road systems, at the transport hubs, where these systems converge and congestion arises, especially if there is shared track. The obsession with speed tends to be buisiness led, in the case of goods; retailers tend to no longer keep large stocks in situ; many foods are imported by air from all over the world, rather than home grown locally. So the debate is widened to our overall "modern" lifestyle demands, which places these added pressures on our transport infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 But the reasoning behind this link is this. "When the waters start to rise due to global warming and the south off england starts to sink beneath the waves, they will be able to evacuate the most Important prople further north in a very short time and so save many more of them than would be possible otherwise." Will that be on expenses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 We don't need high profile white elephant boondoggles like HS2. What we really need is more alternative ROUTES for the existing modes of traffic - both for road traffic and for rail traffic. Parallel east and west coast mainlines, another M6, more trans-pennine routes, an alternative to the A14, and many others. That way the disruption caused by a breakdown, an accident, a surge in demand on a particular day, engineering works, weather, or any one of a hundred different causes is minimised. The result would be a transport infrastructure which might not be the fastest in the world - on the odd occasion when everything happens to be running smoothly - but could easily be among the most reliable. It would then succeed in meeting the primary purpose of such as system. Getting people and goods to their destinations at the expected time, every time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Steady on there lad. That's expecting a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Hope they listen to you Ink; then I'll get some shares in a tarmac Company! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.