High Speed Links

[WebDude]

It has been given a fairly large amount of coverage, with criticism that it does not link with Heathrow.

Travel times would be reduced :-
London to Birmingham would be about 50 minutes (not 90 minutes).
Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester could be within 80 minutes of London (up to 130 minutes).

Scotland times would reduce from approx 4.5 hours to 3.5 hours (because only part of the journey would be at higher speeds, existing tracks would be used north of Manchester/ Yorkshire for West or East coast lines, respectively.

Euston station would need to be rebuilt, and while I have not taken in the full details, it looks like the Ibis (one of the nearby hotels) might need to be demolished for it to all fit in...

The RAC Foundation, a motoring think tank, is critical of the decision that no new motorways would be built.

There are also questions over whether / how much freight will go by rail - and considering how there have always been problems about taking larger freight containers from the continent through the older sections of the UK railways, it doesn't make sense to keep these new tracks for passengers only.

So - what do you think - will the money proposed (30 billion estimate at present, perhaps pushed up by the time it comes to start building, plus money for inquiries, compulsory purchase, etc) be worth spending on helping a minority get to/from London a bit faster ?

I have not added links to this - sure many people will have read / seen / heard about it, and I'm still digesting the information from the DfT site - they're releasing a CD of all the documents. The BBC web site included links to maps of various places from Birmingham towards London, which look as if everything has already been decided - seems a little premature without having had public discussions - but I guess it's been a very expensive 'feasibility study' to see that if they can force purchases of land and properties, this might be achieved.

Finally, to put some of my cards on the table - I'm far from convinced this is anything more than a costly attempt to play 'catch up' claiming Britain is overshadowed by others in Europe - seems a bit too much like being part of the high-speed trains 'set'. Sure railways are important, but invest in existing routes and services before pumping billions into cutting some times for some major cities (and sticking two fingers up at the people near the route who cannot use these trains).

I question the benefit of cutting the journey times from Birmingham and the other named cities. Yes, there may be a greater case for travel to/from Scotland, but we are in a teleconferencing age, and if we moved to better 'virtual reality' systems, we could have 'conferencing' which could remove the need for so many face-to-face meetings... and the cash could pay for the fibre to make it possible, far faster, and without needing to demolish homes and change the countryside.

We know that what have been classed as 'developing' countries are overtaking us on mobile phone and internet services because they had no existing infrastructure, so jumped to the latest technology where we spent time 'upgrading' 50 and 100 year old technology, and cannot work as well as the latest methods.

Wembley should have been built in the midlands where it's fairer for all sets of supporters instead of London clubs having it on their doorstep. If you support a successful side travelling to London 2-3 times a year is a financial strain that could be eased by having the venue in Birmingham.
As for the transport link proposed?
Is it going to cost a small fortune to use like the rail service is now?

Victorialucas this is my concern - that shortening the journey time between London and the Midlands is actually just going to suck investment and jobs into London, not the other way round. Someone described it today as effectively expanding the London suburban area.

edam I too have lived with the embarrassment of the "Thameslink 2000" programme for the last few years (live in St Albans). No discernible improvement yet in the pathetic standard of service provided by First Crapital Connect.

It is a disgusting assault on what little countryside we have left in this country. In this age of skype, internet and video conferencing we should not be encouraging home working, not travel! No one give a t*ss about the environmental impact..

As I think one of the most fundamental problems our national economy faces is the uneven way in which industry and commerce is distributed around the country, I'm fully in favour of any measure that makes it easier for people and organisations to get out of the over-crowded, over-priced South East of England and take prosperity to the regions.

This is my own transport policy:

Keep existing roads in good repair but don't build new ones.
Ditto for railways.
More trams in cities.
Send all the freight by canal.
Renationalise the railways and bus services.
Free bus tickets round town. More buses. Smaller minibuses.
One fare for train tickets, based on the cost per mile, not the time of the journey. (No-one would choose to travel at rush hour if they could avoid it - our incredibly complicated rail fare structure is just a way of making profit out of people who have to travel to work).

How would we pay for it? By not building any High Speed Links.

That's what the government would do if they were at all interested in protecting the environment.

Trams-lol- have you not heard about the Edinburgh fiasco?

Here is my 2p about everything.

1: Who cares about the countryside it's not beautiful, it's not nature it's a manufactured environment, the green farmers field lined by hedges are about as natural and attractive as a tarmacked road lined by trees, nature is forest and heathland etc, not a landscape that looks like a chess board in various shades of green, it's absolutely absurd that anyone living in such areas of cultivation should moan about new endeavours such as wind farms and train lines etc, it's just carrying on what was started many years ago, farming = the start of industrialisation.

2: What do we need a train line for? I don't see anyone moaning about the time the trains take to get somewhere, they moan about the ridicules cost of a ticket, which is more then it costs to fly, the amount of cancellations, the fact a single snow flake can shut the whole thing down, the amount of delays etc.

3: in this day and age whats the point? is it so the people of Birmingham can come down here and find we haven't got any jobs too?, I doubt the work will make any jobs they will probably give all the work to migrants, who will take the money home with them, just as they give the contracts for building new trains to Germany so hows that going to help the economy?.

4: why are people moaning about Wembley?, HS2 is going to be in Park Royal (looks like it's going to be round the wasteland next to Diageo so I'll be watching it out my kitchen Window), Wembley is a long walk, you have to walk to Hanger Lane and then follow the road up thru Alperton and on to Wembley high road, takes about an hour, doubt anyone taking that train to here would be confident enough to try and find a short cut thru the industrial estates.

True, Victoria. These projects always cost us so much more money than is estimated at first. I wonder why.

Solo, in my experience govt projects are poorly defined, poorly managed and overly bureaucratic.

I remember one govt project I was seconded to. The customer (DWP) had engaged us to build them a big computer system. So we built a big team. Virtually every one of us had a DWP counterpart. In other words 2x everyone. Now consider this. If you want to go to get your haircut, do you employ a hairdresser to ensure the hairdresser who's cutting your hair is doing it correctly? The result is you just waste time and money bickering.

Multinational's also tend to stuff as many 'consultants' onto a deal as possible. This was easy in the Labour hey-days as cost was rarely a big issue. Each one would charge a daily rate of £1k+ a day.

Inevitably the govt at some point would move the goalposts, change directions or just realise the folly of their original request. That's when companies really make their money. Cos you can pretty much disregard the original contract now. Keep billing those consultants to manage the change. The govt for political reasons wont make a big fuss and has the deeper pockets than any private firm would ever.

Lastly, our biggest competitor was also responsible for the day to day running of their IT systems. We were trying to develop a big system. Naturally we had to liase with our competitor.......who had absolutely no interest in helping us (understandably) and tried their best to undermine/block us (so they look good). The end result is even more delays. Whilst we of course protested....i'm guessing the powers that be weren't too fussed as each day that goes by that we can't work, we can still bill the govt for all our consultants without having to deliver squat.

niceguy back in 1993 I was a lawyer working on the Crossrail project. The firm I worked for - big City law firm - was raking it in. And that was one of many, many City institutions involved. I later worked on lots of PFI deals relating to hospitals and elderly care, and here we are nearly 20 years later, with lots of my concerns about finance in the future now a reality.

Oh and remember the huge IT project related to NHS records? A friend of mine spent 12 years on that project, as a consultant. Not for the company implementing the work, or for the company supervising them - but for the company supervising the supervisor. Honestly, you couldn't make it up.

So government departments are inept and consultancies are opportunistic, greedy and unprincipled. What can be done about it? Why do they rip us off when they are, presumably, tax payers too? Or is it because they are mulitnationals, based elsewhere?

I don't mean that your company has done anything wrong, Niceguy. Your posts and Shredmejillian's were very illuminating.

Because basically a fool and his money are soon parted. The idea is basically if we didn't do it, someone else would. So why not have the money in our pocket instead of our competitors?

The real question is why are government departments so unable to control a subcontractor and so inefficient? I cannot think of any private company which would hire a company to "...supervise the supervisor". If we did that, we'd get fired straight away.

Another classic example of government being totally stupid was the ID card scheme. We were going to spend BILLIONS on a biometric ID system which was going to be FOOLPROOF. Except for one small little flaw which they didn't publicise for obvious reasons. And that was the costs had got so high, they'd decided not to buy the biometric readers. So thats right. We'd have spent billions on putting your biometric data into an ID card which then couldn't be read when you went into your bank.

Can you imagine the banks putting the chips on your credit cards then deciding not to buy readers. No, that would be insane. But when it's the government it barely even makes the mainstream news.

A moany Bucks resident here , I think the entire plan is not only a complete waste of money this country can ill afford but an absolute environmental disaster. The countryside they are ploughing through is some of the most beautiful in England and supposedly protected from development - until the government decides it wants to.

I'm annoyed that NIMBYism is sneered at and seen as a bad thing. Of course you are going to be unhappy if your living environment is turned upside down and thousands of pounds (effectively your savings) is wiped off the value of your house.

Our money grabbing neighbours tried to sell off their land and build a housing estate in our back garden. The residents opposed the plans and we were sneered at by the property developer at the planning meeting as NIMBYs. Yes we were NIMBYs and I was proud to call myself one, what did they expect us to do roll over and let our neighbours make a fast buck at our expense? Thankfully after three sets of amended plans which were all rejected they gave up.

I don't think now is the time to be building a new high speed rail link when the country is in a state. If it's decided in the future that it is for the greater good they must ensure that all those residents affected are adequately compensated but I'm sure that won't happen.

Who can afford to use the railway anyway? 10 years ago I was attending a last minute business meeting in Blackpool as it was last minute I wasn't able to book the ticket from our travel company. I turned up at the station and handed my credit card over and was shocked when they asked for £278!

Nowadays I wouldn't even need to physically be there teleconferencing has cut out the need to pay excessive travel costs.

Terrible for people who live in certain parts of the Chilterns. How the government can think it is ok to build such a train line through an area of oustanding natural beauty is beyond me.

It is also awful for people within the M25. I know people who live there who don't know what to do. Houses that back on to the route are blighted and it will spoil beautiful villages in Bucks etc.

People who live in the Chilterns often came from my area but moved out to live somewhere more rural. It is rotten and it makes their houses unsaleable.

a few years' ago they were going to make this a line to put lorries on but it was quoshed but it has reared its ugly head again.

Loads of people signed the petition but the government do what they want to do.

It doesn't really help people along the route as it doesn't stop anywhere apart from London or Birmingham.

I agree that this very likely to just expand the London suburb up to Birmingham.

York has always been something of an outer suburb of London with very very high house prices near the station because it is possible to commute to London, especially if you only go a few days a week. I think this is what will happen in this case.

I think the money would have been far better spent on upgrading existing track, signals and rolling stock.

As a regular train user, I still really don't see the point of HS rail in the UK - we're such a small country, you really can't compare to Spain for example.

Surely the money would be better spent on upgrading and increasing the number of standard trains (and where necessary the number of carriages) running on existing lines to deal with overcrowding. That could include double decker trains of course on some of the really overstressed lines.

Also, it was mentioned in one of the papers this weekend that the disruption (and we're talking huge) at Euston station would go on for nine years. Nine years.

I have to travel from there (no choice) and it's bloody awful at the best of times. Can you imagine the horror of trying to get to/from work with 40% of the already-creaky domestic commuter services possibly being unavailable, and none at all on bank holidays and at some other times - which is what they're talking about - for nine years?

This is without even starting on the desecration of the countryside on the route, which will be appalling.

My own belief is that the eventual fares on this ludicrous vanity project will be so immense that no-one, save expense-account-funded business people, will be able to afford them. Has anyone in favour of HS2 looked at how much ordinary fares from London to the north currently cost? I mean ones that you don't have to book a month in advance? £200, £300 for a crappy Virgin train, usually with no hot drinks because of the permanently 'broken boiler', and the vile toilets out of order. You can bet that HS2 would be way, way more than that.

But I guess if you're a self-regarding business traveller who thinks it's vitally important for you to shave a whole 30 minutes off your trip, and who hasn't twigged that phones, email and Skype also exist as ways of conducting meetings, you won't care.

Meanwhile, as billions are washed down the drain for their benefit, all our existing dire transport services will just become ever more shambolic.

Can you tell I'm not in favour?

Well said, salt

I think that's what annoys me Takver, they refer to other countries that have the high speed trains but this country is tiny and it doesn't take long to get anywhere really, is this disruption and expensive really worth shaving half an hour off a journey for a tiny minority of the population?

The issue of frequency vs speed is one I've just come up against in Spain, interestingly.

I want to go from Madrid to a city in the south that doesn't have a HS link, so the train takes 6 hours (as opposed to 2.5 hrs to Malaga on the AVE , which is a trip of the same distance). But the killer isn't the travel time, but the fact that there are only 2 trains a day, neither at particularly convenient times. (In fact it is easier to travel to Malaga then drive the 4 hrs on to my final destination.)

Its the same coming out to West Wales - its not the rattletrap trains that are the real problem (though an extra carriage would be nice), its the fact that if you miss your connection there is a 2 hr wait for the next train.

I live just north of Birmingham. The extension will come within 400 yards of my house. Mthe main link will merge with the west coast mainline 3 miles away from me. However we will not benefit from it as we will have to go into Birmingham to use it - a one hour journey by train from my local station. I can use a London Midland service from the station 1/4 mile away which takes 2 hours to London and costs just £13 return. I am not prepared to pay the £80 return it costs to get to London from Stafford station for the virgin train which takes about 1 hour 30 minutes. That's an advance ticket.

It may increase house prices up here as more commuters move out of the usual commuter belts around London. I can't see it bringing more business to anywhere north of Birmingham.

Seems a waste of £30 billion pounds just for a maximum of 20 minutes saved.