Will come back to you on that one when I have stopped laughing.
Growing rat food to then nuke it, is no more work than it is public good.
HS2 phase 2 cancellation ?
- Thread starter Clive
- Start date
Will come back to you on that one when I have stopped laughing.
Growing rat food to then nuke it, is no more work than it is public good.
ollie989898
Member
I don't know what or where the HS2 is being cancelled but you can bet your bottom dollar the government will take every effort to ensure that their decision can never be reversed and allow anyone else, blue or otherwise, to reverse it and make political capital out of it.
Hinkley C is basically on track (pardon the pun). Should get on with Sizewell C, Wylfa and come back for Hinkley D. Then get started on the national spent fuel repository up north somewhere.
Hinkley C is basically on track (pardon the pun). Should get on with Sizewell C, Wylfa and come back for Hinkley D. Then get started on the national spent fuel repository up north somewhere.
It's nothing personal. It's just that you are brazen enough to put your head above the parapet so you can take the flack. We have all seen the video of Janet at Groundswell. Ultimately it's her fault for falling for it.
i’m confused now about just where the work will stop ?
maps and news suggests it joins west coast mainline just north of my home town Lichfield
BUT. bbc midlands today news just featured a farm from Wood end lane Fradley. ( before the connection with WCML ) celebrating that they would no longer loose their farm ?
passing the massive work area on the a38 today it looked quiet and like a lot of kit was gone already
confused !
maps and news suggests it joins west coast mainline just north of my home town Lichfield
BUT. bbc midlands today news just featured a farm from Wood end lane Fradley. ( before the connection with WCML ) celebrating that they would no longer loose their farm ?
passing the massive work area on the a38 today it looked quiet and like a lot of kit was gone already
confused !
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Are you sure?
- Location
- Scotland
Why not have the spent fuel repositary down south somewhere?
- Location
- S. Staffs
Reported today that HS2 will connect to main west coast mainline at Handsacre as original plan
that’s my understanding yet Midlands today just featured Wood end farm north of Lichfield ( which is near the sprint track i think ?) apparently saved from destruction ? that’s before Hansacre ?
That would be daft. No trains innit.
- Location
- S. Staffs
Like everything else with hs2 , total confusion!
Was in that fount of al truth, the mail it would continue to Handsacre.
Was in that fount of al truth, the mail it would continue to Handsacre.
Farfrae
Member
- Location
- Pontargothi, Carmarthenshire
A not unreasobable article on how bonkers the whole idea was anyway.
"There has been an awful lot of heat and noise, but very little light, as various politicians and pundits and other gravy-train riders reacted with predictable confected fury to the Government’s decision to scrap the northern leg of the HS2 train. One of the many complaints is that, if Britain is to be a modern economy, then we should have loads of high-speed trains just like France and Germany. Unfortunately, those making this argument seem to have forgotten what little they may have learnt in their O Level geography.
Now let me explain why it is totally ludicrous to have high-speed trains in a tiny country like England.
France is a big country – about 640,000 km². Germany is quite a big country too – 357,592 km². The U.K. is a small country – about 242,000 km². England is an even smaller country – 130,000 km². So, France is five times the size of England and Germany is almost three times as large as England. Both France and Germany have extensive high-speed rail networks. It makes sense to have high-speed trains in a large country. It doesn’t make sense to have high-speed trains in a small country.
Now let’s go a bit deeper. The French train route from Paris to Lyon to Marseilles can probably be seen as comparable to the U.K. train route from London to Birmingham to Manchester in terms of how it connects major cities. But the differences in distances are huge. Paris to Lyon is 292 miles, whereas London to Birmingham is only 128 miles. And Lyon to Marseilles is 488 miles, whereas Birmingham to Manchester is a mere 86 miles.
Or if we take Germany, the route from Berlin to Frankfurt to Munich could also be compared to HS2’s London to Birmingham to Manchester. The distance from Berlin to Frankfurt is 341 miles – much more than London to Birmingham’s 128 miles. And the distance from Frankfurt to Munich is 244 miles – considerably more than Birmingham to Manchester’s measly 86 miles.
The much greater distances in France and Germany justify high-speed rail networks. But squandering over £100bn on cutting just a few minutes off the train time from London to Birmingham and then even fewer minutes off the train journey from Birmingham to Manchester is utterly ludicrous. And I won’t even mention the fact that HS2 might not even ever get to Euston station.
There never was and never will be any need for a high-speed train network in England. The distances are simply too short. On the now-cancelled Birmingham to Manchester leg, the train would hardly have enough time to get up to speed before it had to slow down. Why the political, bureaucratic and engineering geniuses who planned the whole thing couldn’t see this more-than-minor geographical problem defeats me.
This matters because building a high-speed line is much more expensive than building a traditional (say Intercity 125) line. The track has to be much higher specification to support the higher speeds and the line has to be much straighter than a conventional line meaning there is less flexibility to go round geographical hindrances like hills. So, if Britain really needed extra capacity on the London to Birmingham to Manchester route, we should have just built a much cheaper traditional rail line. Or even cheaper still, just upgraded all the signalling to allow more trains per hour on the existing track.
One other argument for building HS2 that has surfaced more recently is that some people are now using the environemental excuse for the thing. They claim the line will provide more capacity for freight trains thus reducing the number of lorries on our roads and helping to ‘save the planet’. But if carrying freight is the priority, you don’t need a high-speed line or even an Intercity 125 line. Most freight doesn’t mind if the train travels at just 50 or 60 mph.
I hate to be positive about any politician, but Sunak has made the right decision by scrapping the Birmingham to Manchester 86-mile section. I find it more than slightly surprising that during all the furious arguments about the decision nobody, as far as I know, has mentioned the utter stupidity of having high-speed trains in a tiny country like England. But maybe this is to be expected as we now live in an age of unreason where opinions matter much more than facts."
"There has been an awful lot of heat and noise, but very little light, as various politicians and pundits and other gravy-train riders reacted with predictable confected fury to the Government’s decision to scrap the northern leg of the HS2 train. One of the many complaints is that, if Britain is to be a modern economy, then we should have loads of high-speed trains just like France and Germany. Unfortunately, those making this argument seem to have forgotten what little they may have learnt in their O Level geography.
Now let me explain why it is totally ludicrous to have high-speed trains in a tiny country like England.
France is a big country – about 640,000 km². Germany is quite a big country too – 357,592 km². The U.K. is a small country – about 242,000 km². England is an even smaller country – 130,000 km². So, France is five times the size of England and Germany is almost three times as large as England. Both France and Germany have extensive high-speed rail networks. It makes sense to have high-speed trains in a large country. It doesn’t make sense to have high-speed trains in a small country.
Now let’s go a bit deeper. The French train route from Paris to Lyon to Marseilles can probably be seen as comparable to the U.K. train route from London to Birmingham to Manchester in terms of how it connects major cities. But the differences in distances are huge. Paris to Lyon is 292 miles, whereas London to Birmingham is only 128 miles. And Lyon to Marseilles is 488 miles, whereas Birmingham to Manchester is a mere 86 miles.
Or if we take Germany, the route from Berlin to Frankfurt to Munich could also be compared to HS2’s London to Birmingham to Manchester. The distance from Berlin to Frankfurt is 341 miles – much more than London to Birmingham’s 128 miles. And the distance from Frankfurt to Munich is 244 miles – considerably more than Birmingham to Manchester’s measly 86 miles.
The much greater distances in France and Germany justify high-speed rail networks. But squandering over £100bn on cutting just a few minutes off the train time from London to Birmingham and then even fewer minutes off the train journey from Birmingham to Manchester is utterly ludicrous. And I won’t even mention the fact that HS2 might not even ever get to Euston station.
There never was and never will be any need for a high-speed train network in England. The distances are simply too short. On the now-cancelled Birmingham to Manchester leg, the train would hardly have enough time to get up to speed before it had to slow down. Why the political, bureaucratic and engineering geniuses who planned the whole thing couldn’t see this more-than-minor geographical problem defeats me.
This matters because building a high-speed line is much more expensive than building a traditional (say Intercity 125) line. The track has to be much higher specification to support the higher speeds and the line has to be much straighter than a conventional line meaning there is less flexibility to go round geographical hindrances like hills. So, if Britain really needed extra capacity on the London to Birmingham to Manchester route, we should have just built a much cheaper traditional rail line. Or even cheaper still, just upgraded all the signalling to allow more trains per hour on the existing track.
One other argument for building HS2 that has surfaced more recently is that some people are now using the environemental excuse for the thing. They claim the line will provide more capacity for freight trains thus reducing the number of lorries on our roads and helping to ‘save the planet’. But if carrying freight is the priority, you don’t need a high-speed line or even an Intercity 125 line. Most freight doesn’t mind if the train travels at just 50 or 60 mph.
I hate to be positive about any politician, but Sunak has made the right decision by scrapping the Birmingham to Manchester 86-mile section. I find it more than slightly surprising that during all the furious arguments about the decision nobody, as far as I know, has mentioned the utter stupidity of having high-speed trains in a tiny country like England. But maybe this is to be expected as we now live in an age of unreason where opinions matter much more than facts."
ollie989898
Member
If you had put it like that at the start I'd have said it was mental and told them to spend 100 billion reopening the branch lines.
The argument for HS2 is about capacity by relieving the strain on the WCML. I don't think you can have a sensible discussion about the pros and cons of HS2 by just focusing on speed of the trains.
For me the most egregious thing is not putting this into a manifesto and testing it with the public. Multiple elections have had the delivery of HS2 in manifestos and a PM who can't even win the vote in this own party has decided to scrap it all on the back of a spreadsheet financial analysis.
For me the most egregious thing is not putting this into a manifesto and testing it with the public. Multiple elections have had the delivery of HS2 in manifestos and a PM who can't even win the vote in this own party has decided to scrap it all on the back of a spreadsheet financial analysis.
This runs near to us , took 3 years to complete
The €7.8bn ($10.06bn) project involved construction of a new 302km high-speed link between Tours and Bordeaux, as well as 38km of connecting lines to the existing rail network along the corridor. The line passes through Centre, Poitou-Charentes, and Aquitaine regions, as well as through six departments of France
The €7.8bn ($10.06bn) project involved construction of a new 302km high-speed link between Tours and Bordeaux, as well as 38km of connecting lines to the existing rail network along the corridor. The line passes through Centre, Poitou-Charentes, and Aquitaine regions, as well as through six departments of France
ollie989898
Member
It's pish easy in France though. Post-war, all their bridges and major infrastructure was destroyed so they had a clean slate. It is also a vast country where you won't get people moaning and putting in planning impediments.
I see in Devon some poor bloke has been stopped by planners for wanting to build 4 holiday lodges and a riding centre. The planners gave their reasons that under their net zero policy they had to turn it down as it would have involved people driving to the location. You can't do anything in the UK unless you are the government who just rides over everything and fudge the lot of it.
Need to be crafty and lean on nearby by national cycleway routes and include an EV charger!
- Location
- Limousin
There seems to be a whiff of more Tory corruption with the sale of HS2 land and property starting at the same time that they are still compulsory purchasing it! 
TheTallGuy
Member
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
The thing is that when first touted HS2 was going to be £32bn for the whole thing - I seem to recall Adonis declaring that it wasn't going to cost a penny more, even when the treasury upped the budget to £50bn as a contingency. As ever it's crept up over time such that it became a £100bn cut back scheme. One of the biggest issues is that railway people aren't allowed to get on with building and running the railways without interference - take a look at the HS2 board and how many have a railway background, look at how much money has been spent on "consultants", surely they should be employing people in house who can do the job.
BR came in for a lot of flack, but when you consider that they ran on something like a quarter of the equivalent subsidy & passengers paid a lower portion of the fare costs - yet BR still managed to develop the HST, the finest roling stock ever produced in the Mk3 carriages, the much derided Pacers that kept services running when there wasn't money for something better, Sprinters, Solid State Interlocking, East Coast Electrification on a shoestring budget.... the headline train times in many cases are no better now than back in BR days and in many cases worse despite the billions of pounds "invested" since privatisation!
BR came in for a lot of flack, but when you consider that they ran on something like a quarter of the equivalent subsidy & passengers paid a lower portion of the fare costs - yet BR still managed to develop the HST, the finest roling stock ever produced in the Mk3 carriages, the much derided Pacers that kept services running when there wasn't money for something better, Sprinters, Solid State Interlocking, East Coast Electrification on a shoestring budget.... the headline train times in many cases are no better now than back in BR days and in many cases worse despite the billions of pounds "invested" since privatisation!
- Location
- Limousin, France
Yep, all the tunnels, Pyrenees, Alps, Dolomites, from France to Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Germany. The sound you here is their Engineers laughing.
Overall their costs are way smaller. Open, Fixed Public contracts.
