HS2

[Workingman]

Kripes! We are on the island of Great Britain!

France is on the continent of Europe. It is more than 2.5 times the physical size of GB and is directly connected to Spain and Germany, which are all roughly the same in size, as well as Italy at 1.5 times the size of GB. All of their high speed railways are inter-connected. If Paris is the hub the relative capitals are all about 1,000km away. They are all on one land mass and in the same trading bloc. It is not that difficult to make out a case for them to be connected with high speed rail.

By the time we get HS2 we will be almost half a century behind. Maybe it would be better for us to look at alternatives. Decent speeds on comfortable trains connected and running to all parts N.S. E. and W. would be a good start.

[Kaz]

Crommers, spot on! We need an applause smilie on here

[cromwell]

Thanks, WM and Kaz.
Suff I understand and respect your position. I would say though that as with any project you have to have a business case. What are you getting and how much are the benefits of the project going to cost you? The benefits of HS2seem to be a bit vague, but fair dos, not as vague as the budget because no one knows how much it is going to cost. Also as France is a much bigger and less densely populated country than the UK the benefits of a high speed line are more easily realised there.
But only today Grant Shapps, the Transport Minister, has added a bit more confusion.
He has said that in some areas HS2 has been over specified and criticised the project's "obsession" with cutting journey times.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ant-shapps

What this might mean is that the route north of Birmingham might change slightly, meaning that trains might run slower to Leeds and Manchester.
So who knows? We might get it, it might miss us or we could end up with NPHS2 - not particularly high speed 2.

[Workingman]

Shapps also said that it should have started at Leeds and Manchester and worked its way south. Why not?

I suspect that had it been so the true costs would have shown up and it could have been stopped or suspended for some time at Birmingham. That would have created a triangle of powerful and well-connected cities of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester to rival London; and that would never do. It is, after all, for London's benefit.

[TheOstrich]

What this might mean is that the route north of Birmingham might change slightly, meaning that trains might run slower to Leeds and Manchester.

Yep, on current form, I suspect that by 2035 it'll be HS2 to Sheffield followed by a Pacer to Wakey, Crommers …..

Meanwhile down here (I admit this is slightly off topic), in this current round of transport announcements, Boris has again pledged funding for the A303 Stonehenge improvements. This has been going on since the mid 1970's and it is still undecided whether it's to be a tunnel (still arguing over length), a bypass, or a combination of both. Estimated costs have risen from £22m (then) to £2bn (now). Recent local internet punditry for a cheaper and more environmentally-friendly solution include (a) putting up a long fence to stop the tourists slowing up to gawp at the stones and (b) moving the whole damn lot back to Wales where they came from!

[Workingman]

Shapps also said the government will tackle it like the 2012 Olympics.

Goodness, I hope not!

The Os started out at Labour's bid of £2.4bn, but they ended up under the Tories at about £14bn to £15bn, and Bojo's devious barstewards claimed that they came in at about £450mn under budget.

Creative accounting: or what?

[Suff]

Cromwell,

Most of my work in business is to create the infrastructure on which they do business. The business case is EBITDA negative. Always!

However the elephant in the room is that if I do not do my projects, then they will either fail to do business or fail to keep up. There is no business case or value for the "potential" to not do the business you should.

It is only after you do the infrastructure and after you provide the pathways to support business, that you take advantage of it. But, like the Victorian railways, you take advantage of it for 100 years, not the next government.

I don't disagree that HS2 would have been better started in the North and "connected" to the South. But successive governments have been bothered about the votes in the south and could care less about the North. That needs to change. Whether it changes or not is another matter.

The thing about HS2 is that it will span more than one government. So it depends on the next government as to whether it will be a success, or even completed, or not.

[Suff]

The Os started out at Labour's bid of £2.4bn

Right, Athens in 2004 was $2.6bn, Beijing in 2008 was $40bn.

Rio, after London was $4.6bn.

The Sochi winter games in 2014 was $51bn

The average sports-related cost for the Summer Games since 1960 is US$5.2bn

The Labour bid was a fairy story. Just like all their creative accounting. The Tories were left with the job of making it happen.

[cromwell]

The thing about HS2 is that it will span more than one government. So it depends on the next government as to whether it will be a success, or even completed, or not.

Yes, you have something there for sure. HS2 may or may not be in this neck of the woods in 15-20 years time.
By which time the responsibility for the project will lie (in all probability) with a completely different set of politicians. Thinks back 15 years and Tony Blair was PM, Gordon Brown was Chancellor.. since then we have had four different Prime Ministers, different leaders of the opposition - all change basically.
It is the same with the promise to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2035, and be carbon neutral by 2050.
Whoever is in power then to have to implement such promises (or not), it won't be the people who made them!