Should HS2 (and 3) continue or be scrapped?

[towny44]

OK so changing the discussion again to something with very little connection to Brexit.
What do we all think about HS2, is it needed, will it have any impact on the economy other than during the building phase, will it be a blight on the landscape and a total white elephant.
My vote will be to scrap it, its too expensive and unlikely to do much to the economy in the long term, better to spend much less money on improved east west motorway links, especially in the north.

[Not so ancient mariner]

I do not accept this 'need for speed' London to Birmingham is a fraction of the distance from (say) Paris to Nice, so the time savings made will be minimal.

[oldbluefox]

I can see better ways of spending so much money which will save so little time on a journey into London but could save substantially more if spent on upgrading the transport infrastructure in other parts of the country.
I see no point in developing one section into the 21st Century when other areas are still struggling with road and rail links established, and unchanged (apart from minor tinkering) for the past 50-100 years.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I do not accept this 'need for speed' London to Birmingham is a fraction of the distance from (say) Paris to Nice, so the time savings made will be minimal.

HS2 is not really about the speed from London to Birmingham, that's a side effect. It's about increasing the capacity of the network and getting the fast trains off the local network to create more space for the other trains.

[barney]

WE have HS1 down here and I must admit that it's pretty impressive.

The disruption while being built was considerable, but now, you wouldn't know it's there.

Ebbsfleet to London is 12 minutes. You don't even need to sit down it's so quick.

Whether an HS2 would benefit the North, I don't know.
What I do know is that the original went well over budget and time.

[david63]

Isn't this a case of the Government "being dammed if they do and damned if the don't"?

Surely part of this is to build/replace part of the rail infrastructure for the future rather than wait until it collapses before doing something about it.

[sunseeker16]

I can see better ways of spending so much money which will save so little time on a journey into London but could save substantially more if spent on upgrading the transport infrastructure in other parts of the country.
I see no point in developing one section into the 21st Century when other areas are still struggling with road and rail links established, and unchanged (apart from minor tinkering) for the past 50-100 years.

In agree

[Mervyn and Trish]

Surely we should be doing both? We certainly need to upgrade east to west transport links in the north, both road and rail, but we need to get on with it all. If we do one project at a time they'll have perfected the Star Trek "beam me up Scottie" machines before we achieve them and all other transport will be redundant!

[daib GC]

I do not accept this 'need for speed' London to Birmingham is a fraction of the distance from (say) Paris to Nice, so the time savings made will be minimal.

HS2 is not really about the speed from London to Birmingham, that's a side effect. It's about increasing the capacity of the network and getting the fast trains off the local network to create more space for the other trains.

Also and possibly more importantly, it has the short term benefit of boosting the economy by employing thousands to do the work.

Standard economic theory, Keynes. Use public infrastructure building to boost the overall economy.

[daib GC]

I do not accept this 'need for speed' London to Birmingham is a fraction of the distance from (say) Paris to Nice, so the time savings made will be minimal.

Speed has little to do with it. The railway is full. I fact both East and West coast main lines are near or over capacity. Building the new line will free up much needed capacity.

More people are using the railway than ever in its history and the extra capacity will help the economy.

[oldbluefox]

Double decker trains as they have in the States and on the Continent as a solution............................ But we can't because it would mean they couldn't get under the Victorian bridges built over a century ago. Can you believe the A1, which is a main arterial route from London up to Scotland is still two way in parts?
Vast lengths of the A66 and A69 cross country roads to Newcastle are still two way at the Cumbrian end and there are dozens more roads in the country which, in this day and age should have been upgraded long ago. This impacts on local economies which rely upon a modern road system to move their goods around the country and detracts from companies wishing to invest where there is plenty of labour but poor access.

[qbman1]

I do not accept this 'need for speed' London to Birmingham is a fraction of the distance from (say) Paris to Nice, so the time savings made will be minimal.

HS2 is not really about the speed from London to Birmingham, that's a side effect. It's about increasing the capacity of the network and getting the fast trains off the local network to create more space for the other trains.

Also and possibly more importantly, it has the short term benefit of boosting the economy by employing thousands to do the work.

Standard economic theory, Keynes. Use public infrastructure building to boost the overall economy.

Maynard.....or Milton ?!

[Mervyn and Trish]

I do not accept this 'need for speed' London to Birmingham is a fraction of the distance from (say) Paris to Nice, so the time savings made will be minimal.

Speed has little to do with it. The railway is full. I fact bothEast and West coast main lines are near or over capacity. Building the new line will free up much needed capacity.

More people are using the railway than ever in its history and the extra capacity will help the economy.

You can ask poor Mr Corbyn about that. Even the floors are getting crowded!

[towny44]

Scrapping HS2 seems to be more popular than Brexit was, should we suggest a referendum?

[Honk honk]

I drive High speed trains for the day job.So,I suppose I know a bit about the subject.
Scrap the plans. A monumental waste of money.Invest some of the funds in existing railways and other public projects. With a spot of timetable alterations and proper regulation of the trains time savings can easily be made

[barney]

Well said.
The voice of reason.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I drive High speed trains for the day job.So,I suppose I know a bit about the subject.
Scrap the plans. A monumental waste of money.Invest some of the funds in existing railways and other public projects. With a spot of timetable alterations and proper regulation of the trains time savings can easily be made

Fair points from an informed source. But if it's that easy, why haven't the train companies done it? More capacity means fewer complaints and more income so surely they should just get on with it.

[towny44]

I drive High speed trains for the day job.So,I suppose I know a bit about the subject.
Scrap the plans. A monumental waste of money.Invest some of the funds in existing railways and other public projects. With a spot of timetable alterations and proper regulation of the trains time savings can easily be made

Fair points from an informed source. But if it's that easy, why haven't the train companies done it? More capacity means fewer complaints and more income so surely they should just get on with it.

They probably want to but I doubt it figures high on the RMT agenda.

[Not so ancient mariner]

The ex Great Central line into London, built to the larger Berne loading gauge, but closed in the 1960s is largely still there, and reinstatement (including alternative routes for the sections where it has been built upon) would be significantly cheaper than building HS2.

[Silver_Shiney]

Fair points from an informed source. But if it's that easy, why haven't the train companies done it? More capacity means fewer complaints and more income so surely they should just get on with it.

too much like commonsense...