You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Bit of an analogy - imagine you have a house - decent enough place, bit rough around the edges in places maybe. You know that at some point in the next few years, granny is going to have to come and live with you, you're planning on another child too and the place needs some improvements.
You could tinker around the edges putting a bit more shelving in, moving a wall here or a bathroom there but that'll take forever and be really messy. So you decide to build a really nice new extension, top of the range. The garden is going to get absolutely trashed while you build it cos of all the machinery but that can be replanted and the rest of the house remains fairly functional while it's being built.
Once it's built you've got space to move/expand into while the rest of the house gets a makeover, granny will have a nice place, the kids have space to grow etc.
But then you keep changing you mind about the extension and the design, keep making unreasonable requests on the poor workmen who consequently start charging you more then you re-scope to "save costs" but it doesn't actually save you anything, just extends your repayment period. Meantime, the garden is a wreck, the extension is useless and there's no economic benefit to anyone.
The original idea was very sound. The implementation and management of it has been terrible.
It would be nice but we have fast modern trains (ish)
I was quite surprised at how long it took to get from Glasgow to Edinburgh that one time.
@tjagain do you actually want a high speed rail network? Like say the French have?
I was quite surprised at how long it took to get from Glasgow to Edinburgh that one time.
New trains since then 48 mins now which is OK at 60 mph average incuding stops tops out at 100 mph. Northern England needs something similar
Yes I would like high speed rail - but its way down the priorities. Before that we need a 20th century rail network across the north of england. dual lines on the highland lines. Electrification of all lines etc etc. Plenty to do. And of course this is pretty useless as a high speed line - outskirts of london to Birmingham
Yes I would like high speed rail – but its way down the priorities. Before that we need a 20th century rail network across the north of england. dual lines on the highland lines. Electrification of all lines etc etc
That's basically the same thing. As said, upgrading the existing lines is extremely difficult as well.
And of course this is pretty useless as a high speed line – outskirts of london to Birmingham
It's the first part... Thing is you can criticise the implementation, for sure, but make sure you are doing that and not the actual concept of a modern rail network, which is what you want. For us to have a complete network we will need a new West Coast main line and that will require a London to Birmingham step.
If antis such as yourself keep up the pressure against it, then that's all we'll have. It'll get canned due to popular pressure, which is what we're facing now. On the other hand, if people campaign for a modern rail network, then this won't end up being the only bit and we'll get where we need to be.
48 mins to cover 48 miles isn't that quick.
I will never support this project. Its completely unneeded for a modern railway network indeed it makes it harder as its sucked up all the money. so we get 21st century trains on 70 miles (???) and 19th century infrastructure on most of the the rest.
Other projects would have gone further to your goal of a modern railway network with fr greater benefit for the cost. this was never about anything but politicians bragging rights and increasing the size of the london comutter area
What is needed is modern signalling and electrification and updating northern rail network. Not this. I want a modern rail network YUK wide not a commutter line
Hows your trains in Wales MOlgrips?
It’s the first part…
HS2
Its completely unneeded for a modern railway network
Since when are you an expert on rail though, seriously?
so we get 21st century trains on 70 miles (???) and 19th century infrastructure on most of the the rest.
But you have to start somewhere, don't you?
Hows your trains in Wales MOlgrips?
Being upgraded as we speak but what's that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting I campaign to link Carmarthen and Aberystwyth directly, or take an hour off the time from Cardiff to Caernarfon because it's of greater benefit to the nation than linking the biggest and second biggest cities?
May I remind you that Birmingham and London between them have around three times the population of Wales and 30 times the population of Cardiff. London is nearly a thousand times bigger than Caernarfon 🙂
I'm against the project, especially so with the ever rising costs going into the realm of beyond ridiculous (a tenth of a trillion??). There are valid arguments on both sides but I just don't believe it's the right thing to prioritise now.
As has been said time and time again, *most* people in Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle etc and the surrounding areas want to be able to travel between those places more efficiently and if there is only enough political will to spend on doing that or on building HS2 at one given time, I think most would say they'd rather have improved local links *first*.
Some of the mistakes HS2 Ltd have made are embarrassing and naive, things like forgetting that 6 miles of tightly packed underground pipework, cabling, networks, water and gas supplies under West London would need moved first to build the tunnel section. It can be tens of millions just to redirect one major fibre optic cable in a densely populated city like London.
Things like passing risk onto contractors therefore getting very high prices back for work packages then realising it was better to take the risk off them but only years into the project.
Failing to appreciate that house and land prices rise over time and not compulsory purchasing everything on the route as soon as possible has meant the cost of that has risen astronomically.
Since when are you an expert on rail though, seriously?
since when do you need to be an exper4t to state the obvious. In the north of England they have pacer trains doing 45 mph on victorian lines. thats where the most bang for the buck is
I have also listened a lot to folk who know
the point is that once again Londonand its commuters get all the infrastructiure and no one else in England gets any.
If they wanted to build a modern railway for the UK lets have 100 mph trains in the north of England first please. East west links first then the north south lines working from manchester north and south
this is nothing to do with gaining a modern railway in the UK - its a vanity project for politicians to preen over
I'd like to see far more investment in rail - in the places its actually needed
HS2 may be a total waste of money, according to Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said he wishes that it had never got under way in the first place.
Speaking to Times Radio, Johnson said:
This whole thing, it just makes me want to weep. It just makes me despair. I mean, the original sin, as it were, was agreeing to do it in the first place.
It was obviously going to be hugely expensive, with relatively little gain from it relative to pretty much anything else you could have done with the railway or transport system, whether that’s making rail connections across the north vastly better or actually building a bunch of bypasses and improving the roundabouts in the road network. And we knew that this was not the best way you could spend that amount of money. We also know how difficult we find it to build these projects.
I just, as I say, wish it had never happened in the first place.
It rather looks like we’re going to totally waste the money on this in producing a rail at a cost of tens of billions which will get you from Birmingham to central London less quickly than you can do at the moment.
I've just found myself in the terrifying predicament of agreeing with John Redwood 😳
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1705829699190927650?s=20
HS2 was always financially marginal, and for those asking the doubters to think about the freed up capacity, well that should have been in the calculations (and let's face it, the promoters would have thrown in any benefit they can think of to help make the case). So we shouldn't be surprised to find a shift in the variables has tipped this one into the red. Despite the money spent already it's probably best to stop, to literally throw away the spade. As a lifetime southern commuter who has made the occasional foray to the north by rail, the chronic inadequacies of the trans Pennine are there for all to see and surely must represent a better bang for our buck.
since when do you need to be an exper4t to state the obvious.
'We're sick of experts' 😂
If you're going to spend tens of billions, carve up the countryside, suburbs and inner cities, and displace thousands of people who live or work on the route then you absolutely need to be an expert to make that decision. And not just one expert, but dozens/hundreds of them because no single person has the knowledge or experience to make the decision on their own. Have you any idea how much work goes into getting to the point where the decision can be made? They should have just given you a call rather than spending millions doing research and commissioning reports. 🙄
If a project is going over budget, change the way it's used. Don't just can the whole thing - that will waste even more money.
If the project management is crap, then it would be just as bad on any other rail project...
It's also not a choice between HS2 and 'something else'. We can have both.
It’s also not a choice between HS2 and ‘something else’. We can have both.
Really? Where is the plan and the funding for northern rail? Start date? HS2 has sucked up billions of public money that could have been spent far more wisely for greater benefit for more people
When youhgave limited funding then its one or the other
Wasnt this fundamentally about capacity, the West Coast mainline is maxed out, the only option was a new route, the speed bit was just a bonus. Its been politically mismanaged from day 1 and Sunak sees scrapping it as a win to appease the Nimbys who ironically still get London to Birmingham.
Anyway scrapping this wont free up money for trans pennine services.
It’s also not a choice between HS2 and ‘something else’. We can have both.
It is a choice between though, otherwise we would just do everything we need for the next fifty years all at once.
It would be interesting to know how much of HS2 spend is because we have gone for the gold plated super high speed option rather than a very useful and efficient modern option. But the cost of re-engineering is probably too high at this stage.
extra capacity can be gained by modern signalling. but that does not give a nice big mega infrastructure project for politicians to preen in front of
Really? Where is the plan and the funding for northern rail? Start date?
It's already happening. They're spending 3bn on the Transpennine Route Upgrade. I've told you this before but you're not listening. It's only one part of what is required but it's a start.
It is a choice between though
The choice is mostly driven by the capacity of the engineering and construction industry to deliver it. Cost is not really an issue.
It’s already happening. They’re spending 3bn on the Transpennine Route Upgrade. I’ve told you this before but you’re not listening. It’s only one part of what is required but it’s a start.
Happening or someone has said it will? Its a tiny part of what is needed anyway.
Happening or someone has said it will?
Happening right now (for the past few years in fact). Either that or I've just imagined the 100 or so engineers in my office who are working on it. Yes it's a small part, but probably the most significant and desperately needed. You have to start somewhere, and you can't do everything at once because there aren't enough engineers and contractors to design and build this stuff. I think you massively underestimate the scale of these projects.
As has been said time and time again, *most* people in Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle etc and the surrounding areas want to be able to travel between those places more efficiently and if there is only enough political will to spend on doing that or on building HS2 at one given time, I think most would say they’d rather have improved local links *first*.
All of the improvements in the north were entirely predicated on having HS2 in full.
Northern Powerhouse Rail ("HS3" if you like) doesn't work without it. The runs out of Manchester and Leeds relied on HS2 infrastructure because the existing routes out are already at (and often over) capacity. You cannot improve that - there isn't the space to do so. It absolutely needed new lines and platforms dedicated to HS so the freed-up capacity could then accommodate more local / regional trains.
ALL the "levelling up" stuff for the north was already mostly hot air but any last remnants of it will be dead and buried if HS2 doesn't go to at the very least Manchester.
You mean they have started digging? Its going to provide 100 mph trains from Liverpool to hull with branches to other cities?
Yes it’s a small part, but probably the most significant and desperately needed. You have to start somewhere, and you can’t do everything at once because there aren’t enough engineers and contractors to design and build this stuff. I think you massively underestimate the scale of these projects.
You said in an earlier post that HS2 was essential to keep those civil engineering skills as the northern stuff was not big enough. Make your mind up.
For example, we could properly tax Oil and gas company profits over the last year, instead of letting Shell/BP off the hook. There's a bit of revenue for public transport projects. Or a tax on pollution, there's a bit more. Or a tax on getting rich.
HS2 is not a business proposal, it's public spending. That's what the govt should be doing. Rishi Sunak needs a slap for not getting involved and examining why it's costing so much. Abandoning something 1/2way through is just the wrong answer.
Never mind duelling the north Scottish lines (HGL, ANI, WCK, OBN, I'll leave KYL and TSO out) what they need to do is stick in loads of access gates and cut the veg back oh and places to cross the line. I'd be happy with that. So much of my job is hampered by not being able to walk lineside but not on or near the line.
Tangent over.
You mean they have started digging?
Yup, initial works have already started at the western end and the design is continuing on the later phases.
Its going to provide 100 mph trains from Liverpool to hull with branches to other cities?
It's electrifying the Manchester - Leeds - York line and widening it to provide crawler lanes for local trains so they don't hold up the expresses, along with station and signalling upgrades. Why are you fixated on 100mph? Manc to Leeds is only 30 miles, it's not required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpennine_Route_Upgrade
Make your mind up.
It's all needed. You can't do it all at once though.
sunk cost fallacy finephilly. why throw good money after bad? Why not cut losses?
Its was never intended to go anywhere near manchester.IMO. That was clear from the outset
It’s all needed. You can’t do it all at once though.
You said HS2 was essential for maintaining skills. You said northern rail was not a big enough project to do so. Now you state northern rail is too big to do at the same time. You cannot have that both ways
sounds good tho what is planned
100 mph trains is IMO the sign of a modern railway. Of course its good on Manc to leeds. Edinburgh Glasgow is only 45 miles ish - it has 100 mph trains now and anecdotally is used more than the old slower train
You said HS2 was essential for maintaining skills. You said northern rail was not a big enough project to do so. Now you state northern rail is too big to do at the same time. You cannot have that both ways
Give it up man. You're seriously all over the place on this, claiming nothing is happening when you don't even realise there's a 3bn programme being built right now to do exactly what you said isn't happening because of HS2. At the end of the day all you have to do is look at the current infrastructure, then look at a map, and start to join the dots. HS2 is needed, TRU and the IRP is needed, along with other future schemes, probably HS3 and 4 to take High speed to Glasgow, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh. That won't happen though if they cancel HS2 to Manc. It's a simple question of do we want to progress into the future, or be stuck in the past?
100 mph trains is IMO the sign of a modern railway.
In *your* opinion. Not necessarily in the opinion of industry experts though, although you've already said we don't need them.
NO - the question is - does HS2 move us towards a modern UK railway system? The answer of course is it does not in any significant way. the money could have been much better spent on other projects that would benefit far more folk. HS2 is a huge white elephant. always was going to be. It was never going to go north of Birmingham - that was obvious from the start
Now how about you wanting this both ways on the skills? Its you that is all over the place on this. Firstly claiming HS2 was needed to maintain skills and Northern rail projects were far too small now you claim Northern rail is so big it cannot be done at the same time. which is it?
although you’ve already said we don’t need them.
Stop making shit up - I never said that. will you answer whether northern rail is too small to keep the skills required as you said - or too big to do at the same time as you also said? Which is it?
Although it is Government spending as a taxpayer I certainly want to see some sort of cost benefit analysis for a capital project. Yep, the sunk cost fallacy should stop this thing now. But it really needs to be counterbalanced by an upgraded commitment to HS3. Can't we make HS3 the core commitment to our upgraded rail infrastructure - HS standard lines etc - from which we build on in future generations?
I do love this. According to Dazh 100 mph trains are not needed on northern lines 'cos the stations are not that far apart - but somehow 250 mph is essential for the short bit from london outskirts to Birmingham. which is under 100 miles
but somehow 250 mph is essential for the short bit from london outskirts to Birmingham. which is under 100 miles
Oh FFS TJ, are you being deliberately intransigent?! Actually, don't answer that, I already know...
To be fair, the whole thing started off badly when they insisted on 250mph trains - 200mph would have been fine and a lot cheaper because rail gets exponentially more expensive once you start going above about 180mph. It makes a lot more sense with a longer line too. Putting 250mph trains on a 100 mile track is like putting an F1 car on the shopping run. Makes no sense at all but if you've got a 300 mile journey up a motorway then I'll take the F1 car thanks!
For reference TGV and Bullet Train are both about 200mph "cruising" (although both capable of significantly more) so why the UK "needs" 250mph is questionable in the extreme other than the ability for some dickhead politician to stand up and say "world beating!" and "world leading!" Just "basically functional" will do just fine thanks...
Regional rail is difficult to get much above 100mph because of the short distances between stations although you can get a bit of extra speed by missing some out. Electrification helps with the speed because they can accelerate far quicker than diesel trains.
All that said - it is still desperately needed for all the reasons of capacity and future proofing and connectivity and reducing reliance on private cars. That doesn't alter the fact that, like almost everything else in this country it's been catastrophically badly managed, used as a political football and mis-represented, mis-marketed and mis-sold to the general public for decades. Hence people on here still banging on about "whY d0 I ne3d T0 geT t0 L0nDon 20 m1nutEs fa5tEr?!
Point well missed...
I can't believe we have two insiders actually working on this on the thread and TJ is still trying to tell them he knows best.
EDIT wait no I can
It’s alright anyway. Rishi has just been on the news. It doesn’t matter if the North gets no high speed rail, apparently they’re going to fix some pot holes.
Possibly…
They’ll probably cancel that too
Guys play nicely, everyone is entitled to their view...
MOilgrips - many agree with my points and nothing Dazh has siad about it all adds up. He is claiming HS2 is essential for skills retention - but northern rail is not as its too small a project. But northern rail cannot be done at the same time because of staffing issues - its one of the other. I am not arguing about the technical 0- but the political aspects of this. MOlgrips - how about you listen before dismissing - this is about the politics not the technicalitires
Crqzy legs agrees with me that the decision to make it high speed is political and not needed.
so why the UK “needs” 250mph is questionable in the extreme other than the ability for some dickhead politician to stand up and say “world beating!” and “world leading!” Just “basically functional” will do just fine thanks…
Crazylegs - yes of course they need to be electrified! glasgow / edinburgh is usually 3 or 4 stops in 45 miles and the modern rolling stock took a big chunk of the time off. I didn't say over 100 mph. I just suggested that as what modern railways should be capable of not 50 mph.
the issues with HS2 are NOT technical - they are political.
but northern rail is not as its too small a project.
Dont be daft I never said that. All this work is needed to keep the industry going. However HS2 provides the scale which enables companies like mine to recruit and train the best talent. Without it we simply wouldn’t be able to employ as many engineers, and then when projects like TRU come along, we wouldn’t have the skills base or the resources to do them. These large mega-projects sustain an entire industry, support the economy, and provide direct practical benefits (like better rail travel) once built.
You just repeat the sentiment in that post.
Iget you point but HS2 is not tbe only possible mega project. Lots of other large infrastructure projects needed.like 21st century rail in north of england
You have made twom utually wclusive claims. Both cannot be true
<span>they have pacer trains doing 45 mph on victorian lines</span>
Do keep up. The last pacer was withdrawn 3 years ago. Everywhere has Victorian lines. Some do run ay 45mph, in any part of the Country. Try the North London Line, takes 65 minutes to do he 18 miles from Stratford to Clapham, a 17mph average. London clearly getting all the money again to fuel their high speed North London Line.
Most rural and commuter lines are pretty slow as they stop at most stations. Main line trains are far faster, as they stop less frequently, and have the benefit of 125mph lines. Edin-Glas can be done in less than 40 minutes, but they invariably stop at Haymarket and Falkirk, increasing the time to 48 mins. It could be faster, but the amount of traffic on the line limits the high speed running.
See the link below for age of rolling stock. Note Scotrail does not look good as it bought a load of old HSTs (1976-83) for its Inter7city services, however the rest of its stock is pretty new. Merseyrail at the top of the list is having a totally new fleet either this year or next, so it will be at the bottom of that list next year. Northern is mid-table, and TPX is 6th, so ‘Northern’ trains are not too bad at all age wise. TfW is second worst, but, again, like Mersyrail, is having a wholesale change of stock, so will be near the bottom of the table next year or the year after. Trains are typically given a life of 40 years, they have at least one full refurb in that time, and get 3 maybe 4 mini refurbs where seats are changed etc.
tjagain
Full Member
Dazh – how much profit has ended up in the hands of tory doners? Thats the issue. Open your eyes man. Its all about lining the pockets of the rich
Okay - specifically how much has gone to which Tory donors? Don't pull an antivaxx "do your own research", TJ...
Balfour Beatty and Amey - two big contractors on HS2 are tory doners - and got contracts. Just the first 2 contractors on HS2 I looked at.. thats tories shovelling contarcts to their friends ie putting public money into profits for their doners
Balfour Beatty and Amey – two big contractors on HS2 are tory doners – and got contracts. Just the first 2 contractors on HS2 I looked at.. thats tories shovelling contarcts to their friends ie putting public money into profits for their doners
Or perhaps, if you remove the tinfoil hat, they're two of the biggest companies in the UK who provide construction/engineering/infrastructure services so there's a fair chance that they'll be the most suitable partners for HS2 to work with?
Not everything that happens can be put down to Tory corruption TJ, despite what you seem to think.
Aye right. Why do they fund the tories if not to their advantage? Everyone knows that if you want a public sector contract you need to bribe the tories - and thats what this is - bribes legalisi
A technical question folk on here should be able to answer:
I have red that signalling improvements can increase capacity. something about in cab signalling and dynamic track blocks ie its a safe zone around each train not one train per bit of track. Now obviously I do not know enough technically to assess this claim.
So is this bunkum? Or true but would only give marginal improvements or would increase capacity hugely?
All this work is needed to keep the industry going. However HS2 provides the scale which enables companies like mine to recruit and train the best talent. Without it we simply wouldn’t be able to employ as many engineers, and then when projects like TRU come along, we wouldn’t have the skills base or the resources to do them. These large mega-projects sustain an entire industry, support the economy, and provide direct practical benefits (like better rail travel) once built.
I still find it hard to understand why we should fund a complete industry which relies on being funded to be an industry, so that we have an industry.
As I have suggested before, would all the smaller projects not add up to also employing lots of people?
Should we at some point walk away from havign all these engineers who work on mega projects?
I rarely attempt to comment on threads that turn political but suspect I'm in a similar industry as dazh. We don't do much for HS2 but have seen a surge in speculative CVS from companies that do..
Also I'm pretty sure Crossrail sparked similar levels of rage and a huge amount of the early engineering and consultant spend was during a labour gov. Balfour were heavily involved on that as well so maybe it's more they donate to anyone who will give them loads of work? aka the gov.
As a country we are not great at big projects and I'm not sure that can be pinned on either party entirely (although it's fair to say the Tories have been in power longer so probably mostly there fault :))
Also... HS2 is a genuinely complicated project but anyone who thinks something like a trans Pennine equivalent would be cheaper is kidding themselves. No bloody coal measures to deal with down south at least (I'm ignoring kent sorry).
Our engineering sectors is generally paid worse than other major countries and in some area is facing a potential recruitment crisis with nobody coming through from the universities, so please tell me how canning any kind of big project is good? We need more of this kind of thing not less.
I think we should be doing the whole thing to be honest and also should have started from Manchester but hey.
Also… HS2 is a genuinely complicated project but anyone who thinks something like a trans Pennine equivalent would be cheaper is kidding themselves.
I don't think anyone is apart from Dazh who claims its too small to keep all the engineers see the quote above
Its just IMO that money would have been better spent on rail in the north of england
I think we should be doing the whole thing to be honest and also should have started from Manchester but hey
My view as well
Aye right. Why do they fund the tories if not to their advantage? Everyone knows that if you want a public sector contract you need to bribe the tories – and thats what this is – bribes legalisi
That's top level bullshit right there.
You really need to give your head a wobble.
A technical question folk on here should be able to answer:
I have red that signalling improvements can increase capacity. something about in cab signalling and dynamic track blocks ie its a safe zone around each train not one train per bit of track. Now obviously I do not know enough technically to assess this claim.
So is this bunkum? Or true but would only give marginal improvements or would increase capacity hugely?
Can anyone answer this for me? Its a genuine question where I have read conflicting stuff and do not have the technical background to assess what is correct
Lots of other large infrastructure projects needed.like 21st century rail in north of england
It's not just the north the trains are crap in the south and south west as well. It wouldn't surprise me if there are plenty of crap train lines in the south east and Midlands as well. It's not a north thing to have crap infrastructure, infact when I am in the north I tend to find the infrastructure better than most of the south and south west
Crossed - its how the tories operate - legalised bribery. some labour politicians as well. follow the money. Do not be naive. If you want a public sector contract you have to bribe the tories
Can anyone answer this for me? Its a genuine question where I have read conflicting stuff and do not have the technical background to assess what is correct
Signalling upgrades would give about a 20% uplift in capacity at best.
I'll find some figures shortly, I'm typing this on my phone.
As a country we are not great at big projects and I’m not sure that can be pinned on either party entirely (although it’s fair to say the Tories have been in power longer so probably mostly there fault :))
I would agree. Whoever is in power gets lobbied (make of that what you will) by the 'captains of industry' of that time. Deals are struck and projects agreed.
I dont know how you would do it any other way, at least politicians are listening to the experts rather than just make a decision in a darkened room.
My cousin has been to Downing St on a number of occasions to advise on green policy. He started off putting cleaning filters in ICI plants, then moved on to developing plastics from plants, all stuff he has had conversations with government about which direction to take. His personal politics is very social left wing, but he has hugely benefited personally from a conservative government, but also created and saved 100's of jobs.
Signalling upgrades would give about a 20% uplift in capacity at best.
I’ll find some figures shortly, I’m typing this on my phone.
Thanks - I don't need the numbers really - just an informed opinion. so 20% would be worth having but not a complete solution?
I dont know how you would do it any other way, at least politicians are listening to the experts rather than just make a decision in a darkened room.
Stop the legalised bribery and thus get a more objective decision?
TJ it sounds like if the only way to get a public sector project is to bribe a tory then nothing could get built under a labour gov. I am pretty sure that isn't what you mean right?
Could definitely argue that lobbying is perilously close to bribery but that applies to pretty much any party in power. When labour win the next election everyone will start trying to get into bed with them for whatever projects that want to green light which will hopefully be nuclear and massive power connection improvements.
Oh yes - some labourr politicians are equally corrupt. Our whole political system is. See Streeting and his paid for support for privitisation of the health service.
Its not lobbying - its outright bribery. Lobbying is presenting your case. Bribery is paying money to someone to get a contract. all we have done in the UK is legalise corruption
I still find it hard to understand why we should fund a complete industry which relies on being funded to be an industry, so that we have an industry.
Oh come on. Are you seriously suggesting that any developed nation can do without an engineering and construction industry? We're always going to need to build things. Roads, railways, power stations, resevoirs, pipelines, sewers, power grids, mains water, office buildings, homes, factories and everything else you see wherever you go. To do that we need an engineering and construction industry.
I don’t think anyone is apart from Dazh who claims its too small to keep all the engineers see the quote above
It's not an either/or. We need to be doing it all, but we can't do it all at once. For better or worse decisions were made to do HS2 first, the rationale being that would then boost the economic case for doing the rest of it. I wouldn't have had a problem with sorting out northern railways first but whether we like it or not, the economic case for doing that before HS2 probably didn't stack up and it never would have got the investment from central government.
The other thing to consider is that the people making the decisions about which projects to prioritise (ie politicians) need to accept the reality that they can't just build whatever pops into their heads at any one time. I have no doubt Boris Johnson probably thought we could build a tunnel to Ireland, and it probably is technically feasible (although probably not economically beneficial), but the people who know what they're talking about would have told him that it requires a decade of work before they get anywhere near spades in the ground and he'd have lost interest at that point.
One of the reasons HS2 probably (I'm speculating as I don't know the full history) went ahead when it did was because it was at a stage where it could be progressed, and the industry needed a large project to sustain it. That wasn't the case with northern powerhouse rail, so even if the politicians wanted to do that instead of HS2 it was nowhere near the stage where it could be prioritised.
We could start by running the railways they already have with some kind of efficiency. Even if they build this thing, how are they going to staff this extra capacity?
This thread popped up today, it's quite something, but apparently, it represents a relatively normal experience with some operators.
https://twitter.com/JamesNokise/status/1706433356186161479
Nothing works in this country now. Spent half an hour at a Berlin railway station recently, and watching their long distance trains all arrive metronomically on time, with no cancellations or delays showing on the board, was a disheartening experience.
Here we go:
https://twitter.com/Microlambert/status/1706431886296301906?t=A2cwRXfn4FJrYyfrvG47uw&s=19
The issue is not "the signalling" and "oh we should just upgrade the signalling".
It's not the lines and "oh we should just upgrade the lines".
It's a combination of absolutely everything. The existing lines and signals, the existing station and platform layouts, the areas surrounding stations, especially urban ones, and the fact that to "just upgrade" xxxx is years of disruption for little real world benefit.
Classic case is the Ordsall Chord "upgrade" that links Manchester Victoria and Piccadilly. To make it work, it needed 2 extra platforms but Chris Grayling, utter ****wit that he was, refused that "to save costs". So there are 4 lines converging on the only two through platforms at Piccadilly (platforms 1-12 are terminus, 13/14 are through). So it created more congestion...
Leeds, already over capacity, has an X shape in some of the lines leaving so trains going into/out of some platforms have to cross incoming/outgoing lines for other platforms which means they can't be used simultaneously - there's a 3 minute wait while a train crosses the line then the points are reset.
You can't really get around that without some wildly expensive and disruptive work to dig up everything and re-lay it all (while also rewiring, reconfiguring all the signals).
The basic answer is that a brand new HS rail line is needed to relieve all of that congestion. Nothing else works to anything like the same degree but it'd cost just as much as HS2 for less benefits and years of disruption to the existing railways and surrounding areas.
Other opinions are available. Opposite view also given in a grauniad article that I linked to
Ta for that Crazylegs
Going slower also increases capacity.
Going slower also increases capacity.
Yes and no. On motorways etc, absolutely.
On rail, if adequately segregated (ie the HS stuff is entirely separate), it actually makes little difference because everything is going at the same speed and you don't have the current mix of speeds as everything from Intercity to regional/local services to freight tries to use the same bit of line.
The problem is once again related to capacity. The capacity problem reduces speed which makes a separate HS line all the more worthwhile.
Currently the existing "fast" services are sandwiched in between stopping services. You can cure some of the problems by stopping all the HS services at Milton Keynes to open up the gaps a bit but that's not really a long term solution.
I live in France. I can get on a train that links my southernmost point of France with Paris (& therefore beyond) at 2-300km per hour. It means I can earn decent money as a consultant on an international level and spend it in my local economy.
I cry whenever I read a thread about HS2. It’s absolutely necessary to invest in better infrastructure in the UK properly and without half measures (ie not just HS2). Mainly to unlock the potential of the north but also so that the whole thing can work.
It means I can earn decent money as a consultant on an international level and spend it in my local economy.
I tried to point this out, that money and economic activity can flow both ways on transport links, but the antis didn't believe me.
<span>I have red that signalling improvements can increase capacity. something about in cab signalling and dynamic track blocks ie its a safe zone around each train not one train per bit of track.</span>
As stated above, it can increase capacity, however, it isnt a no-cost option, and doesnt give a massive amount of extra capacity. Making radio controlled in-train signalling fail proof is incredibly expensive. It is being installed and tested now on the southern 80 miles of the ECML. It isnt just the lineside equipment, every type of train has to have it tested, to ensure electrical systems on that train do not interfere with the signalling. The IeTs had to have modifications to their transformers when they were tested, as the transformers gave out some electricial feedback, which did interfere with other onboard systems.
Ta
its worth noting that the maximum a company can donate to all political parties in total is £25k/year. If anyone thinks that a £25,000 donation will result in a £25,000,000,000 contract they are being ridiculous.
I do wonder if theres a way of "starting from a clean sheet of paper" when it comes to signalling, capacity and so on. A bus can drive within 2 second of another bus, why do trains need 3 bloody minutes? if its just the stopping distance, would better brakes (rubber blocks directly on the track?) for use in emergencies, or fully automated driving (so the train behind slows down automatically when the one in front does, ala radar cruise control) sort it out?
I live in France. I can get on a train that links my southernmost point of France with Paris (& therefore beyond) at 2-300km per hour. It means I can earn decent money as a consultant on an international level and spend it in my local economy.
france has a much lower population density than we do, making it much cheaper to build tracks, and has a motorway system funded by tolls which (combined with the faster train times) push people onto the trains. I don't think its directly comparible
the other thing with france is its a thru route IE on the way to somewhere. Italy, Spain Germany. the UK is a dead end
why do trains need 3 bloody minutes?
I think reducing train safety as a way of increasing capacity is a non-starter, and that's putting it very politely. 🙂
the UK is a dead end
High speed rail can be justified wholly on the benefits to the UK population and economy. It simply doesn't require the extra justification of being a through route to somewhere else. Having said that though in the far off future maybe connecting Ireland via rail would be a beneficial thing to do. Not going to happen though if we don't connect our own cities.
OH its doesn't have to be justified as a thru route - its just a reason why UK trains are harder to build high speed lines because there is no thru routes