Benefits of High Speed Rail project exaggerated, secret report reveals

You spend £100- 200 billion and you can travel from London to Manchester 20 minutes faster.
( Not exactly correct but when I first heard about this bullshit Project, it is sort of what they were trying to achieve )

Whoopie ******* do.
I could think of far better things to spend that money on then, and can now.
 
Gen question

How has HS1 panned out

Anyone got any experience (It's not my neck of the woods)
 
Gen question

How has HS1 panned out

Anyone got any experience (It's not my neck of the woods)
One thing of note is HS1 cost four times as much per mile than a near identical line built by the French between Paris & Strasbourg at pretty much the same time.

UK taxpayers ripped off, whoda thunk it...
 
Last edited:
At a slight tangent, The Daily Telegraph today reports;
"The crisis-hit Crossrail project has been delayed indefinitely as bosses warn that the project could require an extra £1.7bn funding injection, according to transport executives and politicians."
Cigars and trebles all round!
 
Gen question

How has HS1 panned out

Anyone got any experience (It's not my neck of the woods)
I've been using HS1 daily for the last 8 years; it's an excellent service which suffers very few disruptions, and I believe is very profitable for South Eastern Railways.
 
One thing of note is HS1 cost four times as much per mile than a near identical line built by the French between Paris & Strasbourg at pretty much the same time.

UK taxpayers ripped off, whoda thunk it...
From your posts on here, it appears that the only thing which will satisfy you is a massive investment in rail in the north (to the detriment of the south). I don't know if that is your view, but that's how it reads. That's not at all likely to happen. Looking at the reality, HS2 is the only large scale investment the railways are likely to get any time soon; the chances of swapping out HS2 like for like with a load of smaller rail projects elsewhere are non-existent - the funding will be drained away into the ever hungry maws of the NHS and other social services.

As I've said previously, large scale infrastructure projects tend to be over budget and in the short term unprofitable. But what they do have in their favour is the creation and long term availability of a new asset, which will be there long after you and I are pushing up daisies.
 
From your posts on here, it appears that the only thing which will satisfy you is a massive investment in rail in the north (to the detriment of the south). I don't know if that is your view, but that's how it reads. That's not at all likely to happen. Looking at the reality, HS2 is the only large scale investment the railways are likely to get any time soon; the chances of swapping out HS2 like for like with a load of smaller rail projects elsewhere are non-existent - the funding will be drained away into the ever hungry maws of the NHS and other social services.

As I've said previously, large scale infrastructure projects tend to be over budget and in the short term unprofitable. But what they do have in their favour is the creation and long term availability of a new asset, which will be there long after you and I are pushing up daisies.
I've no idea why you think that, as I've never advocated anything like.
The regional railways ARE a bloody disgrace & the commuter lines into most cities in no way adequate for the ever increasing number of passengers projected.
Tell me again how HS2 will help as people are pushed to stop/priced out of using private vehicles...
 
Chap on Radio 4 a couple of days back was saying that we don't need to be faster than the French TGV as the UK is smaller than France.

Doing this could save up to 30% on the HS2 budget.

The thought occurred to me that if the train's were as 'slow' as the TGV wouldn't we lose the 20 minute time saving?

The HS2 will go on to the bitter and expensive end; too many politicos have their names tied to it to do otherwise.

It's only taxpayer's money versus my reputation after all.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Chiltern Line seems to run a pretty efficient train set.
Chilterns had the benefit of a light timetable with a newly resignalled terminus when it opened. They have helped fund massive investments on the route under project evergreen. Most of it was to remove the crippling restrictions made by the accountants when BR was in the chair and the stuff was just about good enough for the traffic it ran.
Chilterns was also the last major national route (GCR) into London (a very strange railway for many reasons) and the cost cutting as it ran through the Chiltern hills towards the end of its build are evidenced by the poor quality of embankment and cutting work.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
One thing of note is HS1 cost four times as much per mile than a near identical line built by the French between Paris & Strasbourg at pretty much the same time.

UK taxpayers ripped off, whoda thunk it...
Totally different type of line despite the superficial similarities. The engineering challenges and land grabs on HS1 were greater than any TGV
 
I've no idea why you think that, as I've never advocated anything like.
The regional railways ARE a bloody disgrace & the commuter lines into most cities in no way adequate for the ever increasing number of passengers projected.
Tell me again how HS2 will help as people are pushed to stop/priced out of using private vehicles...
It won't. HS2 might be of some very limited advantage to the fortunate few who are able to use it. It will be of no benefit at all to the majority who live in the areas it passes through, who will be unable to access it as there will no intervening stopping points. Any capacity that is freed up on the WCML will not be optimised as all available investment potential will have been used up for the forseeable future on the HS2 project.

Will the slower Chiltern Line route to Birmingham (which serves many intervening areas en route) be viable any more?
 
the UK is smaller than France.
And therein lies a lot of the problem We area small overcrowded island.The current rail network is trying to work in between buildings and using existing Victorian engineering solutions to the problems they had 100 years ago.
Short of scrapping the whole lot and starting from scratch I don't see an easy solution.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
And backed to the hilt by Cameron at a time of deep austerity.
It is a long held political and economic truth that pending on big infrastructure projects during global austerity works. Hoover Dam, Autobahns etc. What actually works is cheap labour and construction supported by Govt supported loans and guarantees.
Depends if you are a Keynesian or not and also if you can see that the projects usually complete after austerity and deliver those benefits?
 
Chilterns had the benefit of a light timetable with a newly resignalled terminus when it opened. They have helped fund massive investments on the route under project evergreen. Most of it was to remove the crippling restrictions made by the accountants when BR was in the chair and the stuff was just about good enough for the traffic it ran.
Chilterns was also the last major national route (GCR) into London (a very strange railway for many reasons) and the cost cutting as it ran through the Chiltern hills towards the end of its build are evidenced by the poor quality of embankment and cutting work.
The Chiltern Line route only now follows the old GCR route as far as Aylesbury. The main Chiltern Line to Birmingham follows the old GWR route.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top