You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Most of the time I agree with Monbiot. My views on HS2 back when it announced were similar to those in the original article, and yes we suffer from a culture of clientelism in the UK. But short of having a revolution that's how the whole system works. Even under Corbyn/McDonnell it wouldn't have been any different. The reality is that govt decides what to do based on what experts tell them, and few of those experts are truly independent. When asking if we should build a high speed rail line, the govt will go and seek advice from industry leaders and civil engineers. Those people will them tell them to build it because funnily enough they're engineers and strangely supportive of building large infrastructure projects. I really don't see what's weird or corrupt about that. It's a bit like asking doctors if we should build more hospitals. 🤷♂️
It always amazes me that anyone takes Monbiot seriously.
I put him in the same category as Hugh Fearnly-****install and various other upper middle class idiots who loftily lecture everybody from their ivory towers about how to live their lives, while being utterly clueless about what life is like for most people or how the real world actually functions
Best to just ignore them
yes we suffer from a culture of clientelism in the UK
I think we are a lot less clientelistic than most countries. It's really difficult to eliminate any kind of personal relationship from business dealings. The public school old boy network is an issue, but that's ****ing Tories for you.
few of those experts are truly independent
Exactly - everyone has preferences. You may like a company's product, so you work with them, then you build a working relationship with them and you become professional friends with the people there you work with, and suddenly you're favouring your mates. Same way that people always recommend the bike they have.
I did like this from Monbiot though -
The case for HS2 always was a baggage train of bullshit.
Its true, the moment they cancelled the link from HS1 to HS2 it became a white elephant. An infrastructure project that would only go ahead because the politicians had tried so hard to convince us it was needed they couldn't row back on it. Lets not forget who was the chancellor when the real costs started rolling in.
Obviously once Brexit happened then the HS1>HS2 link was never going to be resurrected so then would have been the time to redraw the UK's transport map.
When asking if we should build a high speed rail line, the govt will go and seek advice from industry leaders and civil engineers. Those people will them tell them to build it because funnily enough they’re engineers and strangely supportive of building large infrastructure projects.
That's true to a degree, but there are always opponents and people "selling" competing solutions - more roads, more airport expansion, or doing nothing and spending the money on other stuff entirely - and there is economic analysis, so it's not like there is an unopposed lobby.
This on top of cancelling loads of other things, like new power stations, electrification of other rail lines (yep - hope you didn't buy £100m of electric trains on the promise of electrification that subsequently got cancelled) etc.
How to make Britain look even more clueless, short-termist and untrustable to every other country and potential investor in the world. Marvellous.
Edit - wrong Rishi thread
and suddenly you’re favouring your mates.
🤦
HS2 procurement is some of the most rigorous and transparent this country has ever seen. It takes literal years to develop bids for the larger packages. I'm not saying it's necessarily been great value as a result of the strategy and risk assignment. I'm also not saying that HS2 is cheap.
But anyone suggesting that major HS2 contracts were handed out on the basis of political donations or because Jenny at HS2 likes Nathan at Balfour Beatty just doesn't know what they're talking about.
But anyone suggesting that major HS2 contracts were handed out on the basis of political donations or because Jenny at HS2 likes Nathan at Balfour Beatty just doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Unless you could read the writing on the wall a decade ago and realise that there’s a brilliant option for development on 300 miles of compulsory-purchased land which is shortly going to fall back onto the market.
just to salt the earth.....
https://twitter.com/diamondgeezer/status/1709563902520869343?t=jAWJDIeetev2fVJJBs07vA&s=19
This guy will literally do anything to try and be popular.
Pathetic.
Money will be put to good use rather than HS2.
Starmer can now be the champion of HS2 ... LOL!
But anyone suggesting that major HS2 contracts were handed out on the basis of political donations or because Jenny at HS2 likes Nathan at Balfour Beatty just doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
That wasn't what I was talking about.
I really feel for the poor sods who've given up their homes just to see the land back on the open market. Christ, there must be so much anger and hurt.
Unless you could read the writing on the wall a decade ago and realise that there’s a brilliant option for development on 300 miles of compulsory-purchased land which is shortly going to fall back onto the market.
To be honest mate if there were property developers who could accurately predict the behaviour of this shambolic shower of ****s ten years in the future so that they foresaw the outcome today - they deserve the money.
I really feel for the poor sods who’ve given up their homes just to see the land back on the open market. Christ, there must be so much anger and hurt.
They won't be able to buy back at the same price they were compensated for anymore. Developers will move in instead.
Yup. Should be an automatic "right of return" from compulsory purchase but there's not.
Quick reminder that £2bn has already been spent on Euston, and that this is literally the 3rd redesign. It cost £200m just to put the project on pause- literally to stop doing anything. So the reduced plan is still going to cost more than the original budget, while delivering less, against a cut-down plan that no longer makes any sense. Hurrah.
Now if I read things correctly the suggestion is that the Manchester link cost is around £36 billion (that's the amount Rishi says will be saved by cancelling it). The government's own report said HS2 would be worth £24 billion a year to the economies of the North. So it pays for itself in 18 months.
On Saturday I used South Korea's high speed line (KTX) to get from Busan in the South to Seoul in the North, 400km so a touch more than the distance from London to Manchester.
It cost about £20Bn or so, about a decade ago.
It took us about three hours and cost about £30 each. Fastest journey time is 2h20.
Trains were leaving every thirty minutes, although it is a good idea to pre-book (you can't just walk on).
There were about 6 stops. The train was full but not crowded. It arrived a few minutes late.
It was a pretty nice experience. If I had to make one criticism, you can't buy tickets from the ticket machines with a non-Korean credit card.
On Saturday I used South Korea’s high speed line (KTX) to get from Busan in the South to Seoul in the North
I hope you're prepared for the return journey...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_to_Busan
hope you’re prepared for the return journey…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_to_Busan/blockquote >
Still looks better than the average Friday night Euston to Glasgow service.
Just to pour more scorn on the politics of it, selling the land back is very short-sighted. It won't raise much cash and really sabotages the route northwards if it's ever rekindled in the future.
Megaprojects (simon whistler) takes the piss out of the HS2 **** up
and really sabotages the route northwards if it’s ever rekindled in the future
That’s the plan.
There were two options.
- Put hanging the North out to dry (not just HS2 to MCR, but also HS2 to Yorkshire and the new East-West line that have all been abandoned since the Tories won elections promising they would be happening, not least Sunak campaigning in his constituency positively for them to win his own seat) into a manifesto, allowing opposition parties the chance to campaign against that move at a general election.
- Shelf all this while in office, going against your own wining manifesto, and then salt the earth along all three routes… knowing that it’s very difficult for opposition parties to campaign on reversing your decision as they have no idea ‘till they get into office (if they ever do) whether it’s still possible, at what cost, and at what new timescales.
I think re-selling the land miscalculates the benefit + support of HS2 going northwards.
It also had cross party support from the outset, so little political gain.
It would've been better to make planning permission easier to obtain. Make a better case for the environmental restitution afterwards (ie less tunnels) and manage the project more effectively.
Quite a good video above - the additional costs of adding a few miles 'whilst you're there' (ie going to MCR) are way lower than packing everything up and coming back another time. We do it with roads, why not rail?
I think re-selling the land miscalculates the benefit + support of HS2 going northwards.
They've already largely ****ed that by downgrading Euston from the originally proposed 11 platforms (10 in use, 1 contingency) to 10 (zero contingency) to 6 (far fewer trains altogether).
And then ensuring that Euston won't be operational for another decade and everything will be terminating at the not-a-terminus station of Old Oak Common.
[img] 
[/img]
Is it so bad if the terminus is at Old Oak Common? I mean obviously it would be better if there were a Zone 1 terminus but OOC is on the Lizzie Line and other lines.
I know this would cost hundreds of millions (and still be less than Euston) but could you have an HS2/Elizabeth Line junction so HS2 could run through Lizzie Line tunnel? Or is rolling stock, signalling, everything totally different?
Completely different trains and spec plus the Elizabeth Line is already running about 1 train every 6 minutes, maybe even more at peak times, there isn't the space to put anything else through that line.
It's already overcapacity as well, I think the forecast was something like 3m journeys per week average and the record on it so far is about 4.2m. It's performing way better than expected (although some of that has come from journeys being switched from Central Line).
Proof that if you build a decent new railway it'll encourage people to use it but...
This is the other problem - terminating at OOC forces anyone who wants to go into London to change onto the already packed Elizabeth Line. It won't cope with the extra passengers arriving off an HS2 service every half hour.
Bugger.
Well I never. Government in "doesn't have a clue" shocker.
Standard Tory - knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
We’re going to spend 100 billion quid on this thing!
Brilliant! What’s it for?!
Erm…. Dunno really. We’ll probably find some use for it though…. Possibly…
FFS.
It’s Amateur Night every time with these despicable morons.
I don’t want to make this into a re fighting of the Rishi Sunak thread, but did you see how stiff and wooden he was on that party political broadcast?
On the plus side, Manchester Mayor Burnham is generating support for some kind of additional rail link Manchester <--> Birmingham. This is on the basis that something is better than nothing.
Aye, I wonder if this is a gambit to force a government (or at least opposition) rethink.
Not wishing to support the Tory government, but they dont have much to do with HS2, apart from allowing them money. The Government have little to do with the planning, clearly they are in overall control, but they couldnt give a toss about it, so just sub it out to the Civil Servants in the DfT, who just havent got a clue, and then they advise the Government on what should be done. These Civil Servants will still be in their post when Labour get in, and still carrying on their useless management of the railways.
The problem with the northern sections of HS2 have been known for many years. The trains will be longer than current trains, the doors will be further apart, so it is not possible to use some current stations without either new stations, or extending existing stations. The longer coaches mean more people can fit in, but then it will take longer for them to get on/off, adding to extra platform time needed, thus delaying other services behind them, which means less trains, as they will be timetabled for 2 minutes in a platform rather then one minute. They wont have any tilt facility on the WCML, so will run slower than existing trains, adding congestion on the section north of Birmingham, and reducing the ‘paths’ available for existing trains. Add in the ridiculous requirements the DfT have made for the new build trains - fastest trains in Europe, but that will only be used between London and Birmingham and loads of other stupid price increasing things, and you can see a bunch of people without a clue have put this together without any thought of integration onto existing track which was always going to happen from day one, they were never going to build a new line to Edinburgh or Glasgow, which would have been the sensible option to reduce journey times for a decent distnace, not just the 120/200 miles to Brum/Manc.
And in a similar vein, have you wondered why your train is packed with double the amount of people on it that seats available. It’s because the DfT are trying to cut costs, so have withdrawn hundreds of trains. TPX is regulary packed between Manc and Leeds, yet they have withdrawn 13 full trains from that route last December. These trains are less than 10 years old, in great condition, yet are stored in sidings with no work. CrossCountry withdrew all of their HSTs last years, not through lack of demand or reliability of them, they were told by the DFT to get rid, and run their services with less trains. Of course, this hasnt gone well, and they cannot cope, so cancel services. Many of those trains are now either in service in Mexico, or on there way there, perfectly serviceable, but not wanted by the DfT here. Dont blame the train companies, they are told what to do by the DfT, who want to cut costs, yet there is now no capacity to increase passenger numbers, as we havent got any spare trains to carry them. It’s a farce from start to finish, which firmly stands at poor governance. TBH,this farce has happened for the last 20+ years, as the Rail Industry is never seen by any Government as something they can fix and run properly. For a depressing read, get the ‘Railway Magazine’ this month to read how badly this Government are doing, and their stupid decisions which are making things worse.
On the plus side, Manchester Mayor Burnham is generating support for some kind of additional rail link Manchester <–> Birmingham. This is on the basis that something is better than
Fingers crossed the gov don't sell off the already purchased land north of Birmingham. HS2 never made any sense if it didn't go north of Brum.
Fingers crossed the gov don’t sell off the already purchased land north of Birmingham.
You'll be totally unsurprised to hear it's already underway as part of their scorched earth policy before they're booted out
Government WILL sell HS2 land despite Andy Burnham's plan for a new line on it
I'm sure the land will end up in the hands of various Tory donors, who'll pay peanuts for it
And Starmer has already ruled out reviving the scheme:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-67924577
Difficult to see how he could commit to it, given the salting of the earth thats presently underway
The whole thing is an utter shambles! If it wasn't from its conception, then in its present state its just a complete white elephant
HS2 never made any sense if it didn’t go north of Brum.
HS2 didnt make any sense the moment it stopped connecting with HS1. At that point the London > Birmingham stretch should have been canned and a new (probably not called HS2) plan for Brimingham > north should have been devised.
HS2 didnt make any sense the moment it stopped connecting with HS1. At that point the London > Birmingham stretch should have been canned and a new (probably not called HS2) plan for Brimingham > north should have been devised.
None of it works if it doesn't connect to London.
Northern Powerhouse Rail worked well - at the initial stage when it would connect various Northern cities with Leeds and Manchester where the two spurs of HS2 would terminate (with options to extend up to Scotland and, from Manchester, across into North Wales).
Then Leeds got binned so NPR instantly lost a significant chunk of its Benefit:Cost Ratio (and there's a separate argument about why BCR is a terrible means of measuring massive and ultra-long-scale infrastructure projects anyway...).
Then Manchester got binned so NPR simply doesn't work in any meaningful sense at all other than the north desperately needs rail investment and improvement which is now being done piecemeal.
Connection of HS2 to Euston was the least worst option given that connection to St Pancras and HS1 was near impossible. Termination at Old Oak Common is a disaster because it'll overwhelm the already-at-capacity Elizabeth Line.
Whole thing has been an absolute shitshow overseen by a succession of Transport Ministers who have never cared in the slightest about anything other than cars
In what will come as a complete shock to absolutely no-one, it turns out that it costs more to cancel a scheme and end up with nothing than it does to proceed with the scheme and have a functional railway at the end of it all.
https://twitter.com/TransportXtra/status/1755517810216751192?t=ZNJGDEojFgeO_92gEmqC2Q&s=19
apparently hs2 "may" drop brum -> manc capacity by "up to 17%"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c725k6ynw7go
this seems on the face of it like a huge number - is it feasable or made up for a (political?) point? I'd imagine there's a bunch of trains between the two that wouldn't be replaced with hs2 trains (local runs etc) - and whilst the seat density of existing and new rolling stock may differ a little - 17% is a huge drop unless the trains are physically shorter?
Oh, FFS.
Reducing capacity to Manchester.
Slow hand clap.
Freight to be reduced on existing lines as well.
Just came to post that very same thing!
Cancelling the northern leg means the capacity on the southern leg has to be reduced.
The Tories properly completely screwed everything they touched didn't they?
Especially as the reasons that costs spiraled was due to over-specification to beat the foreigners, protection of special interests in Tory voting seats, and repeated delays for political reasons.
HS2 should have been started in the "north" and morphed into a general improvement in public and freight transport routes.
Mate in London can walk to several National Rail stations in minutes with more a bit further out. I can't find many more in the entire county, let alone alone walk to them
As well as the line going from a part of London nobody can find to a part of Birmingham nobody wants to be at, there's a second spur that's going to join the West Coast Main Line north of Lichfield, on the edge of Cannock Chase. And I've heard that because the trains will be non-tilting they will have to go slower than the current Pendolinos once they've joined the old bit.
Already seen suspiciously similiar FB posts blaming Labour for this, of course.
HS2 should have been started in the “north”
If you build a linear road/railway/metro etc in phases, you start by building the busy end, not the quiet end.
Which would you upgrade first then?
It's not an upgrade. It's a whole new line and for all of it to work effectively, all of it needs to be built.
It's like arguing which side of the river you build a bridge from - it usually helps if you build it from the side with best access to logistics but it still all needs building.
As well as the line going from a part of London nobody can find
I thought HS2 shared Euston with the west coast mainline?
I thought HS2 shared Euston with the west coast mainline?
In theory yes but Sunak decided not to fund it so it will only go ahead if the private sector decides to pay for it.
The main terminal whilst that was being decided was going to be Old Oak Common.
I thought HS2 shared Euston with the west coast mainline?
That was the idea.
The plan was to completely redevelop Euston - which was already in dire need of restoration anyway. HS2 would come in underground from Old Oak Common to an underground terminal with 11 platforms. 10 in use and one as "spare" / contingency.
Upstairs would be the existing WCML station but done up.
That then got downgraded to ten platforms which means you have zero extra capacity and can't run as many trains.
Then it got re-scoped again (each re-scope taking a year of design work, costing another £100m and causing huge delays and cost over runs in general...) and the terminal station plan got binned off for a through station at OOK and relying on the already at-capacity Elizabeth Line to get passengers into London. Which is sort of like landing 4 jumbo jets an hour at Stansted and then relying on 2 coaches to get everyone to London, it was only ever going to be a huge bottleneck.
They had similar arguments about Manchester. Wanted an underground terminus station at Piccadilly (yet another place in dire need of renovation), then offered a surface station, then finally said bollocks to it, you're not getting HS2 at all.
HS2 should have been started in the “north”
If you build a linear road/railway/metro etc in phases, you start by building the busy end, not the quiet end.
It’s not an upgrade. It’s a whole new line and for all of it to work effectively, all of it needs to be built.
It’s like arguing which side of the river you build a bridge from – it usually helps if you build it from the side with best access to logistics but it still all needs building.
It isn't about about where you stack your bricks by convention, it's about the project's principles. It must: stand the test of time; be the right strategic answer; be integrated with existing and future transport services (David Higgins (2014))
In 2013 Prof. Paul Salveson from the University of Huddersfield said, "I would like to see high-speed rail serving the north. But we can get much more for the same (or less) money through a revised scheme which provides much improved connectivity across the north rather than just the main centres."
When HS2 was reviewed by David Higgins in 2014 for the Government, he identified a lack of connectivity in the north as one of the two main issues that HS2 could address and proposed accelerating phase 2 (Birmingham northward) and a new hub at Crewe
Unfortunately it was a rushed mess by the Blair-Brown Government, badly tweaked by later Conservative governments
Well, Andy Burnham is angling for building another line Birmingham - Manchester anyway. This is not a bad idea as it would give lots of extra capacity and capitalise on the abandoned section of HS2. Would be expensive, given the UK's ****wittery in realising large projects.
Maybe something more realistic is to focus on upgrading the existing network - welded rail everywhere, automatic signalling and modern stations (platforms).
Whichever option, we need to stick with it and realise there are pros and cons, no matter what.
Well, Andy Burnham is angling for building another line Birmingham – Manchester anyway. This is not a bad idea as it would give lots of extra capacity and capitalise on the abandoned section of HS2.
Surely given the amount of planning, design & property purchased it would be just as cheap to plough on with HS2 as already devised, maybe with a slower speed designation to reduce the costs but build the station shells so the line & stations can be easily extended further north in the future.
piemonster
Full MemberI thought HS2 shared Euston with the west coast mainline?
Yeah but the thing is, literally everything at the euston end was absolutely deranged, as crazy-legs mentioned. "First we'll dig a massive hole in the ground and disrupt everything around it, trash the local area... and THEN we'll decide what to build. And THEN we'll decide what to build again. And THEN we'll decide not to build it unless someone else pays for it for... some reason.
It’s the BLAIR card!
FFS not a sod was turned under Labour, this sits squarely with the Tories and their 14 years of chaos and 7 SoS for Transport
I think that it's reasonable for the incoming government in 2010 to rely on what was the current report, which was Labour's 2010 High Speed Rail report, and Labour's appointed company, HS2 Ltd.
The 2014 review by David Higgins, the new conservative-appointed chair of HS2 Ltd, identified various issues^^ with Labour's approach. What's the phrase? P-Poor Planning...
I think that it’s reasonable for the incoming government in 2010 to rely on what was the current report, which was Labour’s 2010 High Speed Rail report, and Labour’s appointed company, HS2 Ltd.
The 2014 review by David Higgins, the new conservative-appointed chair of HS2 Ltd, identified various issues^^ with Labour’s approach. What’s the phrase? P-Poor Planning…
That was mostly political.
2009, DfT (under Labour) created HS2 Ltd to assess a second HS line (originally with intentions to connect to HS1, the St Pancras - Dover Eurostar line). In 2010, there was a Con-Lib coalition Government which promptly started messing around with things and it's all fallen apart since then with progressive reviews, reviews of the reviews, "cost-cutting" and downgrading.
In 2010, there was a Con-Lib coalition Government which promptly started messing around with things and it’s all fallen apart since then with progressive reviews, reviews of the reviews, “cost-cutting” and downgrading.
The whole thing should have started anew and that is the fault of the conservatives. More analysis and some debated options, an understanding of the details before inviting tenders, etc.
Just reducing the speed of the trains from 400kph would have led to huge savings and reduced engineering problems, but these decisions need to be made at the beginning
A major infrastructure project report dashed out for the general election in 2010 was never a good place to begin, especially as initial cost estimates are wildly optimistic for most government projects
especially as initial cost estimates are wildly optimistic for most government projects
Contractors are forced to do this though because if they don't massage the numbers their competitor will, and win the bid. This is the problem with focusing on cost so much.
Just reducing the speed of the trains from 400kph would have led to huge savings and reduced engineering problems, but these decisions need to be made at the beginning
Absolutely this ^^.
It never needed 400kph trains. 300 would have been fine and dramatically cheaper. But Government wanted the gold-plated, "world leading", best in class option - another political own goal just to say we had a faster train than the French / Spanish / Japanese.
Problem is that for every 10% faster you go than 300, costs of building and maintaining track, trains and infrastructure increases about 40%. It becomes uneconomical to try for much above that, even though many HS trains are designed and tested (on special test tracks) for 400kph.
Normal operating speed of the French TGV is 300 with sections at 320 although I think it's supposed to be future proofed up to 350.
Euston - last news I had was they were starting preliminary work on the tunnels from West London to Euston, as they realised, finally, that Old Oak would not work as a terminus. Loads of simple reasons that should be obvious, but werent to the idiots who were planning it (making it up as they went along, as they were mates of the Government, and didnt have a clue aboyt the requirements).
As for the overall scheme, its just a complete cock up from start to finish. Initial wants were the fastest rail line in Europe. When thought about sanely, this was a stupid requirement that was not needed, and added, probably, 50% to the construction phase, as everything had to be made to very high standards, rather than the usual rail standards (which are high anyway). The tunneling cost a fortune, and viaducts in lots of places added more to the cost, these were planned as NIMBY would object to any surface lines in many areas.
Cutting back the Northern section is completely stupid, but hopefully Labour will reverse that decision, and continue with both northern legs, which will help a lot with reduction of congestion on lines around the south and Midlands. Currently the rail lines north to south/VV are pretty much full, making it difficult to add new services, and even harder for freight trains, which is the big move we need now to get trucks off the roads.
As it is, there will be a shuttle service to Birmingham, and some other trains will continue on the current lines North. Its a total bodge, and will not add much capacity to the system, at an extortionate cost. There is still time for them to see sense, and get the other bits added back in, to make it a good addition to the network.
I’m ambivalent about hs2
but, in the meantime, they could use that money to add new stations on existing lines.
theres a Trainline that goes through Kirkintilloch.
adding a station there would improve access and improve house prices.
the revenue from these new train stations could be ploughed back into hs2, or other projects.
if the govt wants to meet its housing targets, they’re going to need these ‘bridgeheads’ to establish new towns.
“theres a Trainline that goes through Kirkintilloch.
adding a station there would improve access and improve house prices.”
That’s a Scottish Government decision and cost. Get onto your MSP. Scotrail does have a reasonably good record with openings and enhancements, certainly in the central belt, maybe not so good in more rural areas. Many people in Stranraer are still fuming about having no trains for 9 months (started again a few weeks ago I think).
adding a station there would improve access and improve house prices.
Sounds like you need to watch "letters to a president" to get your wish.
theres a Trainline that goes through Kirkintilloch.
adding a station there would improve access and improve house prices.
You've got Lenzie station just down the road, and it's on the Glasgow to Edinburgh mainline?
Apparently the plan to salt the earth didn't come to fruition, so land purchase shouldn't be a barrier to reinstating
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz4725118r5o.amp
Turns out the Tories are actually not the party of the economy, business, infrastructure etc. Who'd have thought it?!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/29/hs2-costs-rishi-sunak-chief-executive
You’ve got Lenzie station just down the road, and it’s on the Glasgow to Edinburgh mainline?
I think he means the old line running through Lennxtown. Which would be a line to nowhere, there are plenty lines needing improving or restoring before that.
Kilmacolm, the old Paisley Canal join onto the Ayrshire line (which would fix capacity issues between Gilmour Street and Central), double track the Largs line, send a service to Ayr, finish electrifying the Kilmarnock line, send more services to Ayr. I'd even say the Stranraer to Dumfries spur would be more viable, maybe the Dunblane - Crainlarich route via Doune and Callander. And more bike trains!