HS2 - Birmingham to Manchester scrapped.

One of the main reasons for HS2 to be built was to increase capacity, yet the minister of transport, Grant Shapps, this morning on BBC, when selling the benefits of the investment into local train lines, told us capacity will be increased because of upgraded digital signalling
So what he's actually said without saying it is there was no need at all for HS2
 
Laos new HS silk road rail link is now fully running fromChina across the nation to the capital and the next phase to go from vientienne to bangkok set to be complete in 4 years



Started in in 2016, 4 years after HS2 was signed off, it was completed in 4.5 years while we cannot even finish the first phase.

We are a joke of a nation at times
 
Last edited:
ganganvince said:
Debate due 13th Sept Personally hope it's binned.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The HS2 rail link should be scrapped, senior Tories say

The future of the HS2 rail link is due to be discussed in the Commons on September 13 after more than 155,000 people signed a petition calling for it to be axed.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

at the moment it would be nice to return to 3 trains an hour on the existing line.

1 train an hour between london and Manchester is just bollox
 
Announced today that HS2 is being delayed north of Birmingham. For delayed read mothballed and then scrapped.

This is to suposedly to save costs, on a project that has more than doubled since conception. How a delay of several years reduces overall costs, im not sure. Better to complete ASAP thus reducing costs and then spread repayment out over a longer period. Unless you just want it scrapped.

Should have started in the north and headed south. They would have never dared to finish at Birmingham or Oxford and not complete it at London.

Good old levelling up at work. Expect a 100m sop for the north and a couple of small tram extensions for Manchester and Sheffield announced near the next GE.
 
dickie davies said:
One of the main reasons for HS2 to be built was to increase capacity, yet the minister of transport, Grant Shapps, this morning on BBC, when selling the benefits of the investment into local train lines, told us capacity will be increased because of upgraded digital signalling
So what he's actually said without saying it is there was no need at all for HS2
Click to expand...
Grant Schapps is just another clueless tory lackey.
You surely don't expect him to actually know anything about railways....
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Announced today that HS2 is being delayed north of Birmingham. For delayed read mothballed and then scrapped.

This is to suposedly to save costs, on a project that has more than doubled since conception. How a delay of several years reduces overall costs, im not sure. Better to complete ASAP thus reducing costs and then spread repayment out over a longer period. Unless you just want it scrapped.

Should have started in the north and headed south. They would have never dared to finish at Birmingham or Oxford and not complete it at London.

Good old levelling up at work. Expect a 100m sop for the north and a couple of small tram extensions for Manchester and Sheffield announced near the next GE.
Click to expand...
It was never needed in the first place. That wasted money would have been much better spent improving rail links between northern citys.
 
They should rename such ‘flagship’ projects as ‘Mary Rose‘ projects; hugely expensive and ultimately underwhelming.
 
Rochdale Blue said:
It was never needed in the first place. That wasted money would have been much better spent improving rail links between northern citys.
Click to expand...
Increase in train capacity is needed. If you are doing that the argument has always been spend a bit more and get high speed.

I'm massively disappointed tbh. Linking the north west and Manchester with HS2 would have brought jobs and further investment to the City.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Increase in train capacity is needed. If you are doing that the argument has always been spend a bit more and get high speed.

I'm massively disappointed tbh. Linking the north west and Manchester with HS2 would have brought jobs and further investment to the City.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of capacity on existing lines
An example being that when the operators increase the costs for "rush hour" travel, the trains immediately before and after are jam packed, where as the "rush hour" trains have plenty of space
And as I said earlier, the government admits upgraded signalling and the technology surrounding that would increase capacity
Also, studies on french high speed rail show that the major benefactor of HSR is Paris
People move away and commute in. It brings very little economic benefit to the regions
The money should have been invested in modern technology, not 40 year old tech

But please feel free to tell me why getting from London to Manchester 45 minutes quicker would bring jobs and investment
 
What's the main reason for the cost overspend... The route through the home counties which is mostly in tunnels, because it was OK to demolish houses and construct viaducts in the North but far too unsightly in the South. The tunnel through the Chilterns was extended even further than was originally planned because of objections.
Secondly the whole system of letting contracts in the UK for infrastructure is fucked. Too much fragmentation with loads of contracts to manage, armies of lawyers, commercial managers, project managers and all the other hangers on that add no real engineering value.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Increase in train capacity is needed. If you are doing that the argument has always been spend a bit more and get high speed.

I'm massively disappointed tbh. Linking the north west and Manchester with HS2 would have brought jobs and further investment to the City.
Click to expand...
If we had anyone in any government providing the service before most of us are long in the ground. It would probably be a service that was still second rate to the improvements being developed in more forward looking countries. Governments anyway will be discouraging ordinary people from travel by pricing us out, so those able to afford travel won't be out off by spending a few minutes more on a train.
 
Kompany Car said:
What's the main reason for the cost overspend... The route through the home counties which is mostly in tunnels, because it was OK to demolish houses and construct viaducts in the North but far too unsightly in the South. The tunnel through the Chilterns was extended even further than was originally planned because of objections.
Secondly the whole system of letting contracts in the UK for infrastructure is fucked. Too much fragmentation with loads of contracts to manage, armies of lawyers, commercial managers, project managers and all the other hangers on that add no real engineering value.
Click to expand...
It was never costed correctly from the start and even when the costs rose to an estimated £100B it still didn't include the fucking trains
 
dickie davies said:
There's plenty of capacity on existing lines
An example being that when the operators increase the costs for "rush hour" travel, the trains immediately before and after are jam packed, where as the "rush hour" trains have plenty of space
And as I said earlier, the government admits upgraded signalling and the technology surrounding that would increase capacity
Also, studies on french high speed rail show that the major benefactor of HSR is Paris
People move away and commute in. It brings very little economic benefit to the regions
The money should have been invested in modern technology, not 40 year old tech

But please feel free to tell me why getting from London to Manchester 45 minutes quicker would bring jobs and investment
Click to expand...
You're not wrong, they should have rolled out ERTMS which allows trains to run much closer together. If they had implemented that on the West Coast Mainline and East Coast they could have increased capacity by a good 30% at much lower cost.
 
Kompany Car said:
You're not wrong, they should have rolled out ERTMS which allows trains to run much closer together. If they had implemented that on the West Coast Mainline and East Coast they could have increased capacity by a good 30% at much lower cost.
Click to expand...

Lol....We still use fucking Semaphores on some of my lines.
 
dickie davies said:
It was never costed correctly from the start and even when the costs rose to an estimated £100B it still didn't include the fucking trains
Click to expand...
To be fair the trains are only around £2Bn including ops and maintenance. Im not sure what the arrangements are for ownership as most trains in the UK are owned by banking institutions and leased by train operating companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top