The LNER Encyclopedia

The new 'High Speed 2' railway from London to Birmingham has been given the go ahead.

I'm a great supporter of railways, but I have to say what a waste of money this white elephant will turn out to be! The money would be far better invested in other projects, both railway and non-railway orientated. As someone who regularly spends time om New Street Station, whilst the early morning and late afternoon Euston services are well patronised, outside of these peak times the trains are relatively poorly loaded, and I really wonder where the supporters of this scheme, largely business men, immersed in self interest get their facts from. To me the business case for going ahead is seriously flawed. It's about time self interest was put to one side and the interests of the majority were taken into account.

Unfortunately, as seems to be the modern way, its a case of as long as profits are going up, damn the rest. It's about time the share holders, to whom we are all sacraficial cows, reflected on who earns them their disproportionate ill gotten gains!

I haven't really followed it, but isn't it intended as the first leg of a true high speed network - ie. heading northwards to Manchester (or Leeds/Sheffield) and Scotland?

With high traffic on the new HS2 there might be space for more ECML and WCML steam charters in the timetables

Yes Richard I think there are plans to then extend it to Leeds from Birmingham.

The plan is said to be to have it London - Scotland, with a 'branch' off to Leeds.

I think I'm with Stirling O on this, I really can't see a positive cost-benefit on this one. The money could more usefully be spent on upgrading other aspects of the transport system, including the railways. How about building a second Welwyn viaduct for starters? Then in Yorkshire, electrifying the Transpennine route via Huddersfield, reinstating the Colne-Skipton line, electrifying Leeds - Harrogate with a new link to Leeds-Bradford airport. Other areas would also have their own 'pet' projects.

Rebuild the original HS route from St Pancras to Manchester via Woodhead,going North from Sheffield to the ECML, quadruple track from the Vale of York to Newcastle and upraded track from Newcastle to Edinburgh. Alternate version north from Manchester to Carlisle then a much realigned and upgraded Waverley to Edinburgh. Better still build it all

Autocar: I thought the Transpennine electrification got the go-ahead a month or so ago, with the recent news that the Leeds-York link would be done at the same time (a rather obvious segment to do if you're going to do Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester!). I think there were calls to follow that with York-Scarborough and Leeds-Hull. The Transpennine is definitely one where once you've got the central bit electrified, you can have a rolling programme of doing the various adjoining segments.

I'm for it simply because only in this country is there this habitual negativity to new projects like this. The argument is always based on cost and indicates the classic English fixation with cost to the detriment of value.
It's no wonder we're thirty years behind everyone else when it comes to rail infrastructure.
Therefore, I'm supporting it as a matter of principal.
Just in case you've been taken in by the propaganda, the £32bn figure relates to the entire project including Leeds and Manchester extensions, not just the Birmingham section.

Dave.

Ay up!

I dunno - HS1's a bit of a white elephant in itself.

Personally I reckon the money'd better spent improving the remainder of the railways such as decent signalling, qualdruple tracks and such like.

I also think we should be putting more freight on rail. Should hit the greenhouse gas emissions!

Deleted

We may be thirty or more years behind with our rail development - but then we won the war - and did not have to rebuild!

HS2 is a terrible waste of money at a time when we need to be as frugal as possible; almost as much of a waste as the Olympics, and we have yet to know the full cost of that!

Any way, how many people actually want to get to Birmingham in 50 minutes?

Deleted

Blink Bonny wrote:Ay up!

I dunno - HS1's a bit of a white elephant in itself.

Is 9 million passengers a year really a white elephant?

Deleted

Blink Bonny wrote:Ay up!

I dunno - HS1's a bit of a white elephant in itself.

I can assure you, having used it, that it is anything but a white elephant. 9 Million passengers a year can't all be wrong!

I do find it hilarious that people are now knocking what has to be one of the most sensible, useful railway engineering projects completed in this country in the last century as an argument for not building the next one.

The capacity argument makes perfect sense to me and the idea that simply modernising the existing infrastructure in terms of signalling will remove all of the other problems such as bottlenecks, curvature of line preventing higher line speeds, and then a question of rolling stock to go on it is also pretty laughable.

HS2 is necessary and is forward thinking. Why is it always a case of "we don't want it now" as opposed to "we will need it tomorrow" whenever any major engineering project of any kind gets announced?

Funnily enough, it seems a similar argument against the QE2 bridge at Dartford was in place prior to its construction. Now that bridge sees over 150,000 vehicles a day crossing it. No one would argue now NOT to build that bridge with rising vehicle and traffic numbers.