[Closed] HS2 - again.

It helps if people want to go to at least one of the destinations.

Where do you propose people need to travel between quickly?

Cannot because you are not

Its like the assumption is if we could all get to London faster our economy would boom
I agree that improved links between places - look at Liverpool to Hull 120 miles ish in over 3 hours!!

annebr - Member

Where do you propose people need to travel between quickly?

example*: sheffield to manchester.

a journey of only 30miles, that takes an hour, often much longer.

we don't even need an expensive 'high speed' link, just a cheapo 'not extremely slow' service would be a MASSIVE improvement.

(*there are many more, and it's entirely possible that improved links would lead to increased demand)

(it's also entirely possible that increased travel between places that aren't london would free up capacity on the links [i]with[/i] london)

we don't need another high speed link to London, we need high speed links between places that aren't london.

The number of people wishing to travel on the existing low-speed links suggests that you are wrong.

Transport links to London are good BECAUSE London is so important, not the other way round. They didn't randomly plan a nationwide transport network converging in one spot and then say 'oh wow look, this would be a great place for a city, it's really easy to get to!' 🙂

Like it or not, London is extremely important - business and the economy there is on a different scale to the rest of the country, so the value to the national economy of transport links is much higher than other places.

These links will allow money and work to be drawn out of the capital to the rest of the country. Wealth needs to be redistributed from London to everywhere else - not from Sheffield to Manchester. If Sheffield and Manchester both become righer from this, then perhaps it'll be worth improving the links.

However - there are geographical reasons why the transport links between those two places aren't better - and they haven't gone away in the last 100 years. A decent trans-pennine link would cost a lot, per mile.

If we as a country have a desperate need to spaff £50,000,000,000 that we haven't got on transport infrastructure it would be jolly nice if that money was spent somewhere that needed it, rather than just spending on London as we usually do.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349[/url]

I will vote for anyone that will cancel HS2 and use the money to fix/improve the wider rail, road and cycle infrastructure. Which I think means I have to vote UKIP.

We don't need to get to London half an hour quicker. It won't boost the economy in the areas it links to. I lived near Peterborough when that line was upgraded, all that happened was that house prices went nuts as locals were priced out by London commuters. I now live 20 minutes from a proposed HS2 station. What do you reckon will happen? How will my kids afford rent/houses in 10-20 years time?

it is true that London is wealthy, and lots of people want to travel there, but isn't it widely accepted that the nation would benefit if we could shift our starry eyed gaze away from The Capital for 5 minutes?

And if that isn't going to happen 'organically' then a little encouragement might be in order?

HS2 is the exact opposite of that; further entrenching our Nation's dedication to the economic success of London at the expense of everywhere else.

My wife considered a job in Manchester, it was a well paid specialist position, but the commute made it completely impractical.

My wife missed out, but perhaps most importantly, the business in Manchester missed out because they were limited to only recruiting people who live in Manchester - i believe that office has now closed.

(not just because my wife couldn't work their, but they couldn't recruit an entire team)

with better links, you make business more able to recruit the people they need.

Molgrips, sorry but "Transport links to London are good BECAUSE London is so important, not the other way round. " is bollox. Good transport links create demand, ask any road planner.

No, London grew partly because of the government choices of investment there. Canary Wharf because of incentives given in the 80s to build, while it was drawn away from manufacturing in the north. London is in the south-east, with most of the country to the north-west. The decisions to build national airports easily accessible only via London meant London prospered at the expense of elsewhere.

Decisions on transport matter. Birmingham grew partly because it was a canal hub, Thames Valley prospers because of Heathrow (that's why all the US software companies are there), industrial estates grow out around motorways because of the accessibility of transport.

The north needs investment, and 4-tracking between Liverpool -MCR- Leeds- Hull will help a damn site more than HS2

North/south connections are already there.
If there was a better service of course you'd use it (price dependent)
It seems the only objectors I've seen are the NIMBY brigade.I'm sure Thomas Telford didn't have this problem.
Embrace it instead of fighting. If you fight you won't win.

It seems to me, that over-centralisation in London has led to a position where it can't supply its own labour market. So the rational thing to do is to move business elsewhere- if the labour you need is in Manchester, go to Manchester.

But instead we're catering to that over-centralisation by making it easier for people to get to London, effectively turning the other cities that already suffer from Londoncentricity into commuter towns.

But that in turn will lead to yet more over-centralisation so once HS2 is full, London will still be too big, the other cities will be effectively smaller, and all the problems that led to HS2 will be unsolved or made worse.

So the rest of the country gets to pay a stack of cash, in order to have their blood sucked out, and then be told they should be thankful.

iolo - it will go through my back (riding) yard. Like wind turbines, my objection isn't to do with it being close or some wafty environmental nonsense, it's because a colossal amount of public money is going to be spent on a narrow one off plan instead of using it to deal with a wider range of interlinked problems

But instead we're catering to that over-centralisation by making it easier for people to get to London, effectively turning the other cities that already suffer from Londoncentricity into commuter towns.

Indeed. I have colleagues (with good, relatively well paid professional careers) who are commuting from places like Birmingham and Cambridge to London because the can't afford to live in London. This idea that business will magically move out of London when HS2 is built is a rather large assumption when it seems pretty obvious that the opposite will happen.

And with potentially rising sea levels and more severe weather episodes, how viable will London be in 20 years when HS2 has sucked all the money from the rest of the country?

North/south connections are already there.
If there was a better service of course you'd use it (price dependent)
It seems the only objectors I've seen are the NIMBY brigade.I'm sure Thomas Telford didn't have this problem.
Embrace it instead of fighting. If you fight you won't win.

I would like to see better rail links, more rail links and am happy seeing infrastructure being built in my back yard (but then, I only live a 350m from the West Coast mainline and 2km from the M6) but i'm completely opposed to HS2 as it's a development that really only exist to benefit that London. Better links coast to coast would be more useful or Birmingham to Manchester as well as Leeds -> Liverpool via Manchester are what is needed, not more London centricity.

Embrace it instead of fighting. If you fight you won't win.

If you don't fight, you will definitely lose - the question is what you fight and how you do it.

Do you reckon a one off "Stop HS2 Party" would get enough votes to make a difference at the election? Would split the Tory vote in the shires it will run through.....

iolo - Member

It seems the only objectors I've seen are the NIMBY brigade.

i'm objecting, it goes nowhere near my back yard. or anyone i know. Even though i live near the centre of sheffield, and there'll be a sheffield station, it'll still be nowhere near me - if anything that's one of my objections!

Sheffielders will be faced with a choice of 2 stations if they want to travel to London; 1) the cheaper option from the centre of sheffield, or 2) the more expensive option that's moves slightly faster, but from Meadowhall, which is A) half an hour away, and B) already insanely busy.

Good transport links create demand, ask any road planner.

Yep, and London grew because it had good sea links with Europe and the Roman Empire. I had to laugh a bit at you suggesting it's all because of Canary Wharf - London's dominance goes back a lot further than that. They had to build that because the City was short on office space.

This idea that business will magically move out of London when HS2 is built is a rather large assumption when it seems pretty obvious that the opposite will happen.

I'm sure a lot of businesses would rather be out of London as it is - far cheaper. The problem is that all the other businesses they want to deal with are already there, it's a Catch-22.

However, in your example, the money is already moving out of London, because your colleagues are earning it in London and spending it in Birmingham instead.

So the rational thing to do is to move business elsewhere

How? They've been incentivising it for decades. You can't make businesses move. This whole thing is exactly to encourage investment outside of London. The Thames valley is full of businesses BECAUSE it's a lot cheaper than London and you can get there easily. It's all about the M4 and the M3. If a big company is looking to set up shop somewhere in the UK they will want to be within reach of London - HS2 will put more places within that reach.

I'm sure Thomas Telford didn't have this problem.

He did.

so, what's the capacity of the existing brum/london rail link, and the demand on the same link?

anyone got any numbers?

However - there are geographical reasons why the transport links between those two places aren't better - and they haven't gone away in the last 100 years. A decent trans-pennine link would cost a lot, per mile.

Refurbing the Woodhead tunnel(s) would cost a hell of a lot less than building new ones.

I all for HS2 but at least on the proposed line to Leeds I can't see the point of getting to somewhere 20-35 minutes outside Derby/Nottingham/Sheffield 35minutes faster is going to help a great deal. Unless the lines go to the city centers what's the point?

It seems the only objectors I've seen are the NIMBY brigade

you mean the only ones who are objecting who have been asked. nobody asked me whether I think it's a good idea to favour yet more money to London

The 2012 Olympics - 'Stratford needs revitalising' I thought london was one of the richest cities in the world with an urgent need for housing? so it needs extra money that other places don't
the Dome - 'Greenwich is an internationally recognised venue' eh?
Heathrow/Boris Island 'transport hub' blah blah
not to mention the London Eye, the Tate Modern, all the orchestras, opera companies and massive theatre subsidy

and look at the appoplexy and fearmongering when the BBC decided to move to Salford, didn't affect program quality did it? made it a lot better for cbeebies for example

What we really need is a complete network of high speed trains. And you do have to start somewhere, don't you?

'Stratford needs revitalising' I thought london was one of the richest cities in the world with an urgent need for housing?

Er yeah, not all of it though!

There has been investment in other areas of the UK - South Wales has plenty of shiny new things for example.

The other thing not mentioned here is the amount of work with will bring involved in it's construction.
Civil Engineering work which is so desperately needed.

It's obviously about London if it wasn't there would be a direct link to HS1 giving the north a direct rail link to Europe.

molgrips - Member

How? They've been incentivising it for decades. You can't make businesses move.

Answered your own question there haven't you- it's not a case of making businesses move, it's a case of stopping helping them not move. You said "They had to build Canary Wharf because the city was short of office space"- and that just shows the circular logic. London needed more offices because too much goes to London. Too much goes to London because every time London runs out of something- people, office space, whatever- more is provided. So if more office space hadn't been provided, rents would go up, and soon it stops being so desirable to be in London. It's ironic really that this stuff is all about denying market forces.

And it'll happen again as soon as HS2 can't do the job (which traditionally with this sort of thing, will happen pretty much as soon as it opens)

True story- my mate works for a small finance company. They're based in London because "You need to be in London in our industry because that's where the top people are". All but one of the staff moved to London to work there because "that's where the top jobs are" The proportion of their business that's actually in London is less than 5%.

so, what's the capacity of the existing brum/london rail link, and the demand on the same link?

anyone got any numbers?

Check the [url= http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/west%20coast%20main%20line/westcoastmainlinerus.pdf ]Route Utilisation Strategy[/url], a few years old now, but has everything you need to know, and more, about the WCML. Section 3 has demand/capacity stuff.

molgrips - Member

What we really need is a complete network of high speed trains. And you do have to start somewhere, don't you?

yes, so why not start somewhere where there are currently enormous holes in the network, where some infrastructure spending / digging might even be welcome?

However, in your example, the money is already moving out of London, because your colleagues are earning it in London and spending it in Birmingham instead.

Well yes, but it's a patently ridiculous solution to encourage people to live hundreds of miles away from their workplace. There are other issues at play than simply economic factors such as climate change and other environmental considerations, and the socially destructive effect on communities, families and society at large of people having to spend hours each day travelling to and from work instead of being at home or in their local communities.

People are already prepared to live X hours away from London. All this does is extend how many miles you can travel in that time.

why not start somewhere where there are currently enormous holes in the network

A fair question - where would you do it?

So if more office space hadn't been provided, rents would go up, and soon it stops being so desirable to be in London

Yeah, so they move to Paris, Madrid, etc etc.

They're based in London because "You need to be in London in our industry because that's where the top people are"

Yes, but they all need to be in the SAME place. So if the pressure wasn't on London it'd have to be on some other city. Having everything in one place is actually MASSIVELY useful from a business point of view.

molgrips - Member

Yeah, so they move to Paris, Madrid, etc etc.

Because London is the only city in the UK 🙄 And if you can't do business there, you might as well not bother being in the UK at all. What nonsense. As for "They all need to be in the SAME place", that's nonsense as well, most large businesses are distributed and in any case that's only an argument for a single business, not for an industry.

molgrips - Member

A fair question - where would you do it?

the Liverpool+Manchester+Leeds+Hull arc mentioned above sounds bloody clever.

or, if HS2 has to go ahead, then it seems obvious to me that it needs to link up to Scotland, via Newcastle, via Edinburgh, ending in Glasgow.

That would be awesome, but they need to start digging yesterday. in multiple locations, Just F'ing get on with it.

if you're going to do something for 50billion, then do a really good job and spend 100billion.

if you're going to do something for 50billion, then do a really good job and spend 100billion.

Think you're being a bit optimistic there 😆

As a resident of Sheffield, being able to get to Leeds in less than 40 minutes or Manchester in the same time (currently it can take an hour and a half on the train, similar in a car given the pathetic roads around Glossop/Milnrow) every day would make much more of a difference to me- opening up more job opportunities etc- than getting to London half an hour quicker for our annual visit to see some of the wife's mates, who, thank the lord, have now moved out of London anyway.

Sheffield is one of the worst connected cities in the north, and connecting it to London rather than other northern cities is a waste of time.

dazh - Member

Think you're being a bit optimistic there

when it comes to engineering, i'm an optimistic kinda guy.

mostly, when you give engineers a realistic challenge, they'll do a fantastic job.

I thought london was one of the richest cities in the world

It contains some of the most deprived areas in the UK as well....

Ignore the list (that's just out of London places), look at the dark blue areas:
[img] [/img]

mostly, when you give engineers a realistic challenge, they'll do a fantastic job.

Not disagreeing with that as I work for a major engineering consultancy 😉 However as we all know with projects like these it very rarely gets left to the engineers to sort out.

We desperately need good and fast transport links between the major cities of the north (Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield).

Getting between all 4 is currently an absolute pain in the arse.

Top of the absolute farce list is the link between Manchester and Sheffield. You can either get the train, which meanders through the peaks at no great speed, stopping frequently . . .

. . . or you can start off on the M67, a fast, modern, 3 lane motorway which after about 4 miles drops down to 2 lanes, and after another couple of miles ends in a roundabout. If this isn't bad enough it then drops down to a single lane and a 30mph limit, passes right through a housing estate and gets properly snarled up by a set of traffic lights at a crossroads junction. Who ever planned this needs dragging outside and shooting!

Who ever planned this needs dragging outside and shooting!

Having suffered the crawl through Mottram on countless occasions I'm inclined to agree. However if they have this much trouble putting a railway through some farmers fields in the home counties, I doubt they have the wherewithal to plough the M67 through the middle of the the country's most popular National Park.

Again, Molgrips:

" I had to laugh a bit at you suggesting it's all because of Canary Wharf - London's dominance goes back a lot further than that. They had to build that because the City was short on office space."

I didn't suggest that at all. But the recent growth in the financial sector, and its focus on London, was started by tax concessions and incentives given to redevelop the East End, ie London at the expense of the North. They didn't "have to" build there at all, but it was made financially attractive.
They didn't have to build the Docklands Railway either, but that was put in before there was demand, to stimulate the development of the area.

As another example of SE-centricity, the Diamond JEt was built in Oxfordshire and scientists moved from the existing Rutherford labs near Warrington, in a purely political move.

agent007 - Member

Who ever planned this needs dragging outside and shooting!

well, the 'plan' was for a motorway through the peak district, directly linking the motorway ringroads of Manchester and Sheffield.

in terms of motorway infrastructure, the plan was great!

only, sheffield's motorway ringroad never got built, nor did the rest of the M67.

(a friend of mine has an odd fascination with the details of motorways that didn't happen)

There is very little point in a high speed link which allows me to get to London 30 minutes quicker when it still takes me anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour to get 10 miles across Manchester. As for the Manchester-Sheffield issue, again, it takes over an hour to travel 30 miles, then you hit the traffic...

All HS2 will do is move the commuter towns which supply London another 50 miles northwards, bringing commuting misery and higher house prices...

We had a purpose built link all electrified between Sheffield and Manchester called the woodhead route, now closed dismantled and used by natioanl grid and the water companies for a cablee pipe run,

We also had fast DMUS, running liverpool to hull, now we have slower dmus, running to leeds and stopping everywhere, no expresses.

We need better direct links from North Wales to South Wales, links accross the country to Norwich and east anglia

and lots more and a lot cheaper than hs2.

We had a purpose built link all electrified between Sheffield and Manchester called the woodhead route, now closed dismantled and used by natioanl grid and the water companies for a cable pipe run,

See:

http://savethewoodheadtunnel.blogspot.co.uk

We need better direct links from North Wales to South Wales,

We do? Why?

project - Member

We had a purpose built link all electrified between Sheffield and Manchester called the woodhead route, now closed dismantled and used by natioanl grid and the water companies for a cablee pipe run,

We also had fast DMUS, running liverpool to hull, now we have slower dmus, running to leeds and stopping everywhere, no expresses.

We need better direct links from North Wales to South Wales, links accross the country to Norwich and east anglia

and lots more and a lot cheaper than hs2.

See East West Rail...

The whole structure of the rail system has been concentrated around London since Beeching: there is not even a direct line between Oxford & Cambridge any more. A dozen years ago there were plans to reinstate the dozen missing miles around Buckingham, but those plans were cut.

The Cross-Country lines are too slow. It takes 4 hours for the 220 mile from Bristol to York, as opposed to 3 hours for the (really good) 200 miles from London to York.

Electrification of the Liverpool Manchester chat moss line is on the go

using second hand life expired units from down south,also there are capaicty issues at lime street, and manchester.

for anyone that missed it there was quite an interesting 2 part series on BBC2 called "mind the london gap" - researched and presented by Evan Davis. It's still on iPlayer and in it he made the case for a three things:

1. London is a "superhub" - much of the investment it attracts would go to other global superhubs if we didn't have it - not elsewhere in the UK. So we need to service the demand it creates (jobs, transport connections etc.) or lose it altogether (financial services contributes 2/3 of the cost of the NHS each year in employment and corporation taxes) so the sums involved aren't trivial. That means investment in transport infrastructure at a faster rate than the rest of the country (though seeing as most stamp duty is collected in London this seems fair enough).

2. Even though we have a superhub, we still need a national hub as well - a super size city that drives growth outside of London. In the programme he explored the possibility of creating fast links between Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield and creating a single corridor of faster growth

3. Economic growth is driven by fast transport connections / interconnections and scope for co-locating with competitors as well as other industries.

Following the logic in the programme, HS2 seems a bit of a no-brainer as a way of evening out growth and allowing the North West to attract inward investment. In the big scheme of things the £36B capital cost (net of the £14B contingency) is chump change when spread over 20 years and similar to the capital profile of Crossrail which is already showing that development happens right across the length of new transport connections, not just the London end... just the same as the Jubilee Line Extension in the late 90's.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03xhcjg/Mind_the_Gap_London_v_the_Rest_Episode_1/

robdixon - Member

1. London is a "superhub" - much of the investment it attracts would go to other global superhubs if we didn't have it - not elsewhere in the UK. So we need to service the demand it creates (jobs, transport connections etc.) or lose it altogether

That's a hell of a logical leap- yes some business is naturally drawn to these hubs, but the reason London's excessively large (and the other cities of the UK excessively small) isn't down to that- it's down to other industries which could be more distributed, not being distributed.

Now imagine a London where, let's say a million people and an equivalent proportion of these non-central jobs have relocated elsewhere. It's still a superhub- Greater London would still be the second biggest urban area in Europe, frinstance, and still the most concentrated urban population in western europe. But you relieve a lot of that pressure on services, accomodation, and human capital. So London becomes a better place to live and do business in many ways.

Meanwhile the other cities that benefit from this relocation will be stronger, lifting the country as a whole which in turn benefits London. The world bank says doubling the size of a city increases its productivity by 3-8%- and doubling the size of Birmingham wouldn't require you to halve the size of London. Over a longer timescale, it doesn't really require you to do anything to London- it just requires that we stop treating half the country as a feeder for the big smoke.

robdixon talks sense to me...and evan davis.
we have ancient infrastructure in this country and it's about time we stepped up as a country and invested in it further. there will be northern links in time, and vince cable was saying at the weekend that these should be brought forward. again, i agree with that.
lots of nimby-ism when the channel tunnel and CTRL were proposed, but there's no doubt what a good thing it was, is there?

[i]mostly, when you give engineers a realistic challenge, they'll do a fantastic job.[/i] Absolutely, & well within budget. 🙄

So how many actual people NEED to travel between london & birmingham as quickly as HS2 promises? & are the NEEDS of those commuters worth the ££££'s quoted? Seems too simple to me.

It seems the only objectors I've seen are the NIMBY brigade.

That's because you have ignored all the people objecting for other reasons 🙄

Hope that helps clear up your confusion.

fatmax - Member

we have ancient infrastructure in this country and it's about time we stepped up as a country and invested in it further.

True- so why start by duplicating existing decent links, at vast cost? I don't see anyone here saying "We shouldn't improve infrastructure"

so why start by duplicating existing decent links

To increase capacity and reduce travel time.

As for relocating businesses outside London - I can't see a way to do this. Letting it happen naturaly by not investing in London would be very damaging. Businesses would hang on until conditions were intolerable, so London would be full of businesses working at the limit of difficulty. Not conducive to productivity.

Anyway - there has been migration out of London for years. Down the M4 and M3 for example. Why do businesses go there? Because the transport links to London are good!

Why do we need fast links up here?

To get to retail centres quicker?

To get to boom-build high clusters of flats?

Engineering/manufacturing arent that close to train lines.

I went to a presentation by the Chairman of HS2. He admitted to us that it's being marketed all wrong.

The main need for it is the lack of capacity on the existing rail network. The WCML is already one of the busiest rail routes in Europe and demand is growing. The existing infrastructure can't easily be expanded due to platform lengths, bridge widths etc.

HS2 will provide a huge amount of increased capacity to some of the busiest rail network. In turn this will free up the existing lines for increased freight and local services.

It's HS2 because you might as well build high speed if you are going to build brand new hey!?

Agreed ^^
HS2 is about creating capacity, and not about speed. Do you really want to have another debacle like WCML upgrade?
How many years late? How many £Bn over budget?
I'd have thought all you leased silver German car drivers would be completely supporting HS2 as one of the things it'll do is encourage goods vehicles off the roads.

Shame they've forgotten about the NE again meaning industry will move else where resulting in job loses. Still as long as the London and the South is Ok that's all that matters.

The WCML is already one of the busiest rail routes in Europe and demand is growing.

It can't be, they haven't built anything yet!

(According to this thread, anyway - people are claiming demand follows capacity not the other way round......)

Mollie - the first section of rail now used by WCML was opened in 1837...
The biggest problem with current rail expansion is that there's little capacity left and almost no resilience. Surely anything that adds to both results in improvements to all?
And I'm not even working on HS2... Must phone a couple of people...

I know, aP, I was being sarcastic. People are claiming that HS2 is going to create demand that's not currently there - I'm saying (as are you) that demand is already there.Our parents did it like the clappers.

If you consider HS2 alongside HS3, 4, 5, 6 etc then it makes more sense. A new national transport backbone is needed.

Ah! You might need to smillie then 😉

molgrips - Member

To increase capacity and reduce travel time.

That's an answer to a different question than I asked, but thanks. Why improve infrastructure? Yes to increase capacity (travel time should be a much lower priority than volume). But why improve this part of our infrastructure in particular?

True- so why start by duplicating existing decent links, at vast cost? I don't see anyone here saying "We shouldn't improve infrastructure"

The problem with this is that upgrading existing routes would necessitate 15-20 years of closures every weekend and still wouldn’t create the same capacity that HS2 will bring on stream.

The UK population is due to rise by 50% over the next 30 or so years so we really need to start building out new capacity now just to meet the known future demand. The experience with Crossrail is that by the time it’s open, the capacity needed to serve 1m extra Londoners by the late 2020’s will immediately be consumed as the population has grown much faster than expected so the “unknown” growth in the population already necessitates Crossrail 2 being built.

The planning for Crossrail started in the early 1990’s which perfectly illustrates why the UK really has a problem – particularly so when compared to the likes of France who started to build a new high speed route from Paris to Bordeaux 3 years ago and are expecting to open it in 3 years time (similar length of track to HS2 but 1/3 of the time to build it).

The planning cycle means that much of the cost of infrastructure isn’t soaked up with concrete and steel but in endless consultations that just delay the inevitable and create years of misery for people who are stuck in houses they can’t sell until the details of compulsory purchase are agreed years later.

It’s fair to say that delivering a green field infrastructure project is much more efficient than trying to upgrade existing infrastructure – so with the team delivering Crossrail due to roll off in 3-4 years time it’s a perfect time to do HS2.

Assembling the combination of skills and working relationships needed to take on that sort of project and deliver it to time and budget takes years and in some cases decades of advance planning – so the UK has a relatively short window to make our mind up on HS2 - or risk the cost going up and delivery time slipping if we prevaricate as seems quite likely based on the intellectually retarded King Canute like position the likes of Ed Balls have taken to date.

Still as long as the London and the South is Ok that's all that matters.

Do you want some vinegar for that chip on your shoulder? How will a London-Birmingham/Manchester rail line benefit the South?

We're going over old ground here, but people don't invest in the NE because it's miles from anywhere and the links to London are poor, you can get to Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam/Munich etc etc quicker. HS2 will improve that situation, but the case for a 2 hour direct link to South Shields is pretty weak.

The issues we have are:

- the marketing aspect as said, HSR is about capacity as much as speed, we've got to do something
- our geography isn't really suited to HSR. We have one huge city, with a lot of much smaller cities, with good sized intermediate towns in between. HSR works so well in France (for example), because they have a number of large outlying cities with absolutely nothing between them. Lyon - Paris is a whisker under 300 miles, so about the same as Newcastle - London. The vast majority of TGVs don't stop, there are a couple of very small stations, but that's it. The ECML route to Newcastle goes through a lot of towns that folk would want trains to stop!

robdixon - Member

The problem with this is that upgrading existing routes would necessitate 15-20 years of closures every weekend and still wouldn’t create the same capacity that HS2 will bring on stream.

The UK population is due to rise by 50% over the next 30 or so years so we really need to start building out new capacity now just to meet the known future demand.

London commuter routes aren't the only place you can lay new lines, though, so again that's an argument for new lines rather than an argument for HS2.

But you make the more important point yourself- the population's due to rise all over the country, not just where HS2 is going to service. Trying to make London bigger won't accomodate that need- and as you say, increasing the ability to flow people into London just increases London's appetite further, it is just supply and demand.

It's all going to become like the Hunger Games; massive community of affluent city dwellers serviced by poverty stricken regions via high speed rail links.

London commuter routes aren't the only place you can lay new lines, though, so again that's an argument for new lines rather than an argument for HS2.

But they're (in the main), by far the busiest, why would you build routes which are already under utilised?

The UK population is due to rise by 50% over the next 30 or so years

Is it?

Trying to make London bigger

That's not what they are trying to do though. That's not what this is about.

Anyway njee20 speaks sense (as usual). The UK is a geographical oddity because the distribution of business activity is so uneven. And it always has been ever since Roman times.

maybe they're 'under utilised' because they're crap and slow.

?

if the trainline between townA and townB was improved, reducing journey times from over an hour, to 20mins, would you be surprised to see more people travelling on it?

Does anyone know how much money has been spent on invading Afghanistan,Iraq,Iran,Syria,Libya in the last few years?
I'm sure you could go Lands End to John o Groats up and down easily so money is not an issue. If the government want to find it they will