pap Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 The government has given the green light to a 32.7Bn project to introduce high-speed rail between London and Birmingham, and onto other cities in later phases. Journey times between the two cities will be reduced by as much as 30 minutes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/10/hs2-rail-project-green-light I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, it's good to see infrastructure creation, especially with the jobs that it'll bring throughout the supply chain during construction. On the other hand, it's almost 33 billion quid. That's today's "happy path" estimate, although if history is anything to go by, we'll end up paying a lot more. I am unlikely to get much use out of the new facilities. Despite petrol prices being a complete p*ss-take, the railways are actually even worse. Thoughts?
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Most definitely. High speed railway is the future! Now if only we can make it as cheap as continental Europe, we're on the right track. I've always agreed with Ken Livingstone's attitude to public transport, make it cheap and convenient and people will use it. Train tickets at the moment though can sometimes take the ****.
Saint_Jonny Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 30 billion quid for a 30 minute improvement? So a (probably more than) billion quid a minute. Don't see the point myself.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 30 billion quid for a 30 minute improvement? So a (probably more than) billion quid a minute. Don't see the point myself. It'll go to leeds, manchester and liverpool as well I believe. And it is worth it on a 80 minute journey, that's a reduction of 38%! The increased capacity over time is huge. And also, it's about time we moved into modern rail properly, countries like France have had high speed rail for decades.
Pancake Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 The wholesale rape of the British countryside.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 The wholesale rape of the British countryside. Why? Rail tracks are all over the countryside already...
pap Posted 10 January, 2012 Author Posted 10 January, 2012 30 billion quid for a 30 minute improvement? So a (probably more than) billion quid a minute. Don't see the point myself. To be fair, the 30 minute saving is between London and Brum. You save a lot more time as you travel further away.
Saint_Jonny Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 (edited) Fair enough if you use trains a lot I'm sure its a bit more exciting! Rail fairs make me a bit sick to be honest, works around the same price for me to run a car for a year than to get the train back home only when I have too (Huddersfield to Southampton, xmas / easter / summer - £230 return if I buy it on the day). Anyway that is beside the point. Woooo Thomas the tank engine and that. Edited 10 January, 2012 by Saint_Jonny
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 I work in the industry, so should be completely for it, but it is a waste a money and will have a serious detrimental effect on a cracking bit of the English countryside (the Chilterns).
pap Posted 10 January, 2012 Author Posted 10 January, 2012 Most definitely. High speed railway is the future! Now if only we can make it as cheap as continental Europe, we're on the right track. I've always agreed with Ken Livingstone's attitude to public transport, make it cheap and convenient and people will use it. Train tickets at the moment though can sometimes take the ****. In total agreement on your last point. I'm not saying all train operating companies are the same. Liverpool and the Wirral have an excellent local rail service. It's cheap, frequent, and in many, is faster than the same journey made by car - as it should be. That said, InterCity and commuting really does take the biscuit, and I do feel for commuters. I commuted by train from Southampton to London myself for 3 months. Ended up coming to an arrangement with the boss whereby I could arrive at 10.30am and bugger off at around 7:30pm. The other thing I don't get is why train tickets are so much more expensive when buying them at short notice. If the train is going anyway and there is capacity, seems crazy to deter a potential passenger by charging them through the nose. I would be quite interested to know what it actually costs to get someone from Liverpool to London.
stevegrant Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 What could possibly go wrong, the nation foots the bill for building it and Network Rail maintains it, while a private company comes in and benefits from the profits, just like the rest of the rail network. Fantastic. I'm all for getting from A to B in less time, but those claiming it'll alleviate the crush on commuter services into London from Birmingham so the proles can have a seat on Virgin and London Midland services are missing the point. The way the prices continue to rise without any tangible improvement in the service provided by the franchises (my train into Clapham Junction has been late on at least 5 occasions since the new year already!), they'll have enough seats to accommodate everyone anyway, and with the downturn in passenger numbers on the "normal speed" lines, the franchises will be forced to whack their prices up again.
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 (edited) It'll go to leeds, manchester and liverpool as well I believe. And it is worth it on a 80 minute journey, that's a reduction of 38%! The increased capacity over time is huge. And also, it's about time we moved into modern rail properly, countries like France have had high speed rail for decades. You can currently do Leeds/Manc/L'Pool in a touch over 2 hours. That's quick enough. Will knocking a few mins off it really make that much difference? I travel by train all the time and generally speaking its good enough, a bit of money pumped into bits of the current network would be far more worthwhile. Edited 10 January, 2012 by Sour Mash
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 In total agreement on your last point. I'm not saying all train operating companies are the same. Liverpool and the Wirral have an excellent local rail service. It's cheap, frequent, and in many, is faster than the same journey made by car - as it should be. That said, InterCity and commuting really does take the biscuit, and I do feel for commuters. I commuted by train from Southampton to London myself for 3 months. Ended up coming to an arrangement with the boss whereby I could arrive at 10.30am and bugger off at around 7:30pm. The other thing I don't get is why train tickets are so much more expensive when buying them at short notice. If the train is going anyway and there is capacity, seems crazy to deter a potential passenger by charging them through the nose. I would be quite interested to know what it actually costs to get someone from Liverpool to London. For the same reason that all sorts of businesses offer discounts for buying in advance.
dune Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 I work in the industry, so should be completely for it, but it is a waste a money and will have a serious detrimental effect on a cracking bit of the English countryside (the Chilterns). I wouldn't call the countryside around there anything special. 1 little line won't make much difference and there s going to be a 6 mile tunnel under the most scenic bit.
stevegrant Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 The other thing I don't get is why train tickets are so much more expensive when buying them at short notice. If the train is going anyway and there is capacity, seems crazy to deter a potential passenger by charging them through the nose. Same as airlines, they take advantage of peoples' need to travel and willingness to pay through the nose for the privilege.
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Fair enough if you use trains a lot I'm sure its a bit more exciting! Rail fairs make me a bit sick to be honest, works around the same price for me to run a car for a year than to get the train back home only when I have too (Huddersfield to Southampton, xmas / easter / summer - £230 return if I buy it on the day). Anyway that is beside the point. Woooo Thomas the tank engine and that. If you booked in advance and used a young persons rail card you could do it forr about £30/40 return.
Colinjb Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 In comparison to the rest of europe, this type of investment in our public transport is long overdue. Work needs to be done to remove the reliance on the car in the future and this is a good start, rising fuel prices and the time of travel between the second city and London will hopefully ensure that this is by far the prefered route to take.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 You can currently do Leeds/Manc/L'Pool in a touch over 2 hours. That's quick enough. Will knocking a few mins off it really make that much difference? I travel by train all the time and generally speaking its good enough, a bit of money pumped into bits of the current network would be far more worthwhile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#Journey_times Here's the journey times. I think it will make a huge difference to capacity and business.
dune Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Same as airlines, they take advantage of peoples' need to travel and willingness to pay through the nose for the privilege. Do any other fans forums charge people to post to your knowledge, or is it just this one that seeks to take advantage?
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#Journey_times Here's the journey times. I think it will make a huge difference to capacity and business. Trust me, it won't. It would be great for me and help guarantee work for nearly another 20 years, but its definitely not worth the money or even the environmental impact.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Trust me, it won't. It would be great for me and help guarantee work for nearly another 20 years, but its definitely not worth the money or even the environmental impact. It will increase capacity as more trains can run in the same given time. It's about time we moved to the 1980's(France got high speed in 1981) in terms of rail infrastructure in my opinion! And the environmental impact could be positive if more people end up using trains instead of cars and planes. What do the trains run on?
buctootim Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 (edited) By instinct Im in favour of upgrading the UK's pretty **** poor infrastructure, but this seems like an awful lot of money for limited gains. The claimed £47bn in benefits are risible - even accounting over 60 years and including the fares generated they still dont exceed the costs of construction when inflation is included. Was in Holland last week and it was noticeable just how much cheaper, smooth, frequent and more spacious the 'normal' trains were. Edited 10 January, 2012 by buctootim
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 By instinct Im in favour of upgrading the UK's pretty **** poor infrastructure, but this seems like an awful lot of money for limited benefits. Was in Holland last week and it was noticeable just how much cheaper, smooth, frequent and more spacious the trains were. I've been on trains in France, Germany, Italy, Austria and the Netherlands and all of them were substantially better than our trains on cost, space and timing.
trousers Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 What do the trains run on? Electricity produced by fossil fuels?
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Electricity produced by fossil fuels? Usually more efficient than direct fossil fuels I guess. Electricity produced by not fossil fuels would be the best option though!
dune Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 I've been on trains in France, Germany, Italy, Austria and the Netherlands. Is that all. I would have expected you'd have been on trains in every country on every continent.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Is that all. I would have expected you'd have been on trains in every country on every continent.
trousers Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Usually more efficient than direct fossil fuels I guess. Electricity produced by not fossil fuels would be the best option though! Indeed. I assumed you knew the answer having posed the question... ;-)
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Indeed. I assumed you knew the answer having posed the question... ;-) Ahahahaha, I had no idea, but surmised they would probably be electric! So thanks for the info.
pap Posted 10 January, 2012 Author Posted 10 January, 2012 Same as airlines, they take advantage of peoples' need to travel and willingness to pay through the nose for the privilege. It works for the airlines because much of the time, there simply isn't an alternative. Trains have competition all over the shop. Speaking from my own experience, whenever I've needed to get somewhere else in the country at short notice, I've almost always plumped for the car, with cost being the biggest factor. I suspect many others make the same decision, so it could ultimately be counter-productive.
Verbal Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Ahahahaha, I had no idea, but surmised they would probably be electric! So thanks for the info. They're electric. Seems a whizzo idea to me, tearing up the Tory shires to plonk down some speeded up 19th century technology The flaw in the thinking, though, is that bringing Birmingham and the North closer to London will benefit Birmingham and the North, whereas all it'll really do is bring the rest of Britain closer to the centre of the universe. Heads, London wins, Tails the provinces lose.
bridge too far Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 At the moment it takes about 45 minutes to get to London from, say, High Wycombe. If this is built, it will take the same time to get to London from Birmingham. Surely one effect will be that a lot of people who find the cost of housing very high in Buckinghamshire will move closer to Birmingham. I'm not sure whether that will mean house prices will rise in Birmingham though. I'm undecided on this project.
solentstars Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Great news its about time we modernised the thirdworld train system we have in place . Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 It will increase capacity as more trains can run in the same given time. Really! Wow! Thanks for explaining that, we had no idea
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 At the moment it takes about 45 minutes to get to London from, say, High Wycombe. If this is built, it will take the same time to get to London from Birmingham. Surely one effect will be that a lot of people who find the cost of housing very high in Buckinghamshire will move closer to Birmingham. I'm not sure whether that will mean house prices will rise in Birmingham though. I'm undecided on this project. You think ordinary people will be able to use this to commute between Birmingham and London?
bridge too far Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 You think ordinary people will be able to use this to commute between Birmingham and London? I don't know - you'd know more than me. On the one hand, I can see that the creation (allegedly) of 40,000 jobs is good but on the other hand there are so many far more important ways to spend this money. As I say, I'm undecided.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Really! Wow! Thanks for explaining that, we had no idea Well, I know it was a stupid thing to explain, but I said it would increase capacity and you said 'trust me, it won't.' Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment.
scott_saints Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Why are people complaining about it ruining the countryside? It's just one line. It's only grass anyway.
buctootim Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 You think ordinary people will be able to use this to commute between Birmingham and London? Millions of people do already commute into London in order to benefit from London salaries and outlying area house prices. This will increase the radius.
dune Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Well, I know it was a stupid thing to explain, but I said it would increase capacity and you said 'trust me, it won't.' Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment. You don't need to explain yourself or back down. Most of the adults on here need to have these things explained to them. You were quite right and Sour Mash was quite wrong. Do you ever get the feeling that your prodigal teen status is both a blessing and a curse?
derry Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 It'll take 14 years to complete and in that time we should have borrowed something like £180billion to give away in foreign aid. We must be bloody bonkers.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 You don't need to explain yourself or back down. Most of the adults on here need to have these things explained to them. You were quite right and Sour Mash was quite wrong. Do you ever get the feeling that your prodigal teen status is both a blessing and a curse?
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Well, I know it was a stupid thing to explain, but I said it would increase capacity and you said 'trust me, it won't.' Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment. You said it would make a 'huge difference to capacity and business.' Relative to the money its costing it really won't.
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Millions of people do already commute into London in order to benefit from London salaries and outlying area house prices. This will increase the radius. I know millions commute in every day. Just don't expect this high speed line to be affordable for every day commuters. It'll be used by those on business expenses etc in my opinion.
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 I don't know - you'd know more than me. On the one hand, I can see that the creation (allegedly) of 40,000 jobs is good but on the other hand there are so many far more important ways to spend this money. As I say, I'm undecided. Agreed. It has obvious plus points, but that sort of serious money could really make an impact elsewhere.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 You said it would make a 'huge difference to capacity and business.' Relative to the money its costing it really won't. Ah fair enough, I thought you were referring to my first bit, not the business part. I do think we need the infrastructure upgrade regardless though.
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Ah fair enough, I thought you were referring to my first bit, not the business part. I do think we need the infrastructure upgrade regardless though. The West Coast mainline has only just finished being upgraded and has knocked a good 50mins off getting to Manchester and Liverpool from London.
Saintandy666 Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 The West Coast mainline has only just finished being upgraded and has knocked a good 50mins off getting to Manchester and Liverpool from London. Well, that's good news as well then!
aintforever Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 Waste of money. A bunch of ****** commuters get to work 30mins earlier, big deal. Don't see why it will make any difference to business, people can work on the train now anyway.
The Cat Posted 10 January, 2012 Posted 10 January, 2012 I work in the industry Is that you who pushes the trolly up and down the train desperate for someone to buy a cup of horrible tea and a biscuit for £12?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now