HS2

[mapperleywhite]

A headline surfaced on the BBC today that a number of houses, including new ones, will have to be demolished in order to accommodate the route of the HS2 in Mexborough, south Yorkshire.

I also read today that 200+ houses would have to be demolished in London in order that the terminal would be in Euston. This could be avoided if the London terminal would be in Royal Oak, not to mention an £8.25 billion saving on track between there and Euston.

Demolition of houses when we have a shortage seems especially stupid.

Even though I live 130 miles/200 km from London, there's absolutely no advantage in me flogging to the 'East Midlands hub' (which should have been built at East Midlands airport) over getting a taxi to Nottingham station and making the same journey as present.

I read also that consultants are gobbling 35% of any expenditure on this project, compared to typically 20% in our peer countries.

Railways in this country are the classic hot potato that is passed from one side of the political spectrum to the other, with only short term solutions.

Like the NHS.

But, as of today, whilst I recognize the need for a radical fix for our railway system, HS2's escalating costs and highly marginal benefits make it a no-no.

PS: would be happy if Bellusci left

[Sniffer]

As a Railwayman I can only agree with you (I'd probably go further, to be honest). They penny-pinch on the front line and spend money like water elsewhere. HS2 isn't needed any more than HS1 was. They are vanity projects gone horribly wrong. We could have had the same High Speed trains by upgrading existing track, putting in more passing loops and through roads at a fraction of the cost. There would no doubt be some pinch points but they could surely be got around. The trouble is "upgrade and maintain" isn't sexy but "A brand new line for a brand new future", or whatever waffle they came out with, is.

[Barlow Boy]

I saw figures of £55 Billion mentioned by the government, with industry experts claiming it will be at least double that figure. All this to save 20 minutes to 30 minutes travelling time.

Surely, it would be better to give this level if funding to the NHS and other public sector areas where we will all benefit, rather than just those commuters who are actually going to use this thing (that's if it's ever actually built, of course).

[Another Northern Soul]

This subject will go on and on and on like a rail announcer stuck on Repeat but cost an awful lot more money. I'm not even being political here, I think it's a disgraceful, unscrupulous folly of an idea when, as BB says, there are much more important matters needing attention.

[Deleted User 728]

This subject will go on and on and on like a rail announcer stuck on Repeat but cost an awful lot more money. I'm not even being political here, I think it's a disgraceful, unscrupulous folly of an idea when, as BB says, there are much more important matters needing attention.

I think a serious look at the motorways is more important than building new railways.

The number of cars in this country is getting silly now, with so many households having two compared to twenty years ago.

It used to take me an hour and a bit to get to London, now I'm lucky if I do it in two.

Leeds is now a four or five hour trip minimum depending on the time of day.

The M25 is beyond a joke.

[johnh]

HS2 is a vanity project. The costs (which no one knows) far outweigh the benefits. It is likely to be closer to 100m than 55m and we will have to borrow the money to pay for it. Far more important things to spend borrowed money on.

[Deleted User 728]

Does it go through Manchester ??

I just wonder if the BBC's move has had anything to do with it ?

[johnh]

Does it go through Manchester ??

I just wonder if the BBC's move has had anything to do with it ?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is eventually going, via Manchester, to Leeds?

[rss1969]

This subject will go on and on and on like a rail announcer stuck on Repeat but cost an awful lot more money. I'm not even being political here, I think it's a disgraceful, unscrupulous folly of an idea when, as BB says, there are much more important matters needing attention.

I think a serious look at the motorways is more important than building new railways.

The number of cars in this country is getting silly now, with so many households having two compared to twenty years ago.

It used to take me an hour and a bit to get to London, now I'm lucky if I do it in two.

Leeds is now a four or five hour trip minimum depending on the time of day.

The M25 is beyond a joke.

Agree.

I am fortunate that I do not have to travel much to big city's on Motorways now.

I live right by the M42 sort of in between the run North to the M1 and South joining the M6.

Anywhere close to Birmingham is just gridlocked or crawling and as soon as you enter the M1 North it is nearly as bad.

How about building 6 lanes on our current motorways and ditching this nonsense?

[Deleted User 728]

How about building 6 lanes on our current motorways and ditching this nonsense?

Yep, I'd go along with that, or indeed any other plan to ease congestion.

I know in Lagos and Tokyo they've tried alternate days for cars with plates ending in even numbers one day and odd the next, Monday to Friday.
It sounds laughable but if it means a percentage of people get into car sharing and exploring public transport then it could be worth experimenting with. Also, the lane thing in the US where only cars with at least one passenger can use them.

I also really like the M6 toll - it saves AGES coming down that way.