[HN Gopher] More delays for Euston's HS2 station
___________________________________________________________________
More delays for Euston's HS2 station
Author : edward
Score : 51 points
Date : 2024-07-24 05:44 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ianvisits.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ianvisits.co.uk)
| Yeul wrote:
| I was reading the newspaper a few weeks ago and there were two
| articles that amused me:
|
| The first one was about Dutch high speed trains having to reduce
| speed to 80kph because the construction company fucked up the
| bridge construction. The second article was about the new high
| speed train in Indonesia.
|
| Every once in a while you're reminded that this is Asia's
| century.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Unlike HS2, the Indonesian high speed train does not attempt to
| go to the city center. Instead, there is a slow feeder train to
| get to the terminal on the outskirts of Bandung that takes
| almost as long as the high speed train itself. So, Asia has not
| solved this particular problem either.
|
| The main problem with HS2 is that it goes underground through
| rural areas for political reasons.
| f_allwein wrote:
| High speed trains in France, Germany, Italy, ... all usually
| go to the city centres as well.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > in France
|
| Not really. They can, but mostly only do so at end
| stations. The network is built with excentered, specific
| stations meant to avoid the slow-down caused by merging
| into normal train traffic, with slow, crowded track
| sections.
| brnt wrote:
| If you are talking about the stations at Lyon Exupery or
| Disney: what I really like about the SNCF is that they
| offer you the choice. There definitely are trains that go
| through the center of Lyon (Part Dieu) if you want, but
| if you want to pass around (and then take the tram/bus),
| you can too. I never had to choose one of those out-of-
| town stations if I didn't want to.
|
| If you are talking about Ouigo, yes, but you get a low
| price in return. And it's not your only option.
| panick21_ wrote:
| In Germany usually they go to the normal network, they
| don't have a direct high speed connection to the city
| center.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| The downside here in Germany, the trains are very fast but
| then slow down to go to the city center (Munich, Leipzig,
| Hamburg + also too many stops in general for political
| reasons) - so it still takes a working day to travel
| around.
|
| As Amdahl's law applies here, newer high speed trains in
| Germany are no longer as fast, because if you have these
| slow passages / many stops, there is no difference between
| 250 and 300 (there are some prestige 300km/h lines).
| chgs wrote:
| I couldn't believe how slow trains in Germany were last
| month, even before the inevitable delays. Berlin to geneva
| averaged 70mph. Brussels to Leipzig was scheduled even
| slower and ended up 2 hours late.
|
| Even the train I took from Geneva to Paris crawled for the
| first hour.
| brnt wrote:
| Indonesia's HSR stations are so far out of Jakarta/Bandung, the
| trips there and back are almost certainly going to be the
| majority of your trip. People complained about Euston not
| linking up well, imagine if you'd have to first go to Milton
| Keynes.
|
| The Netherlands are having to build track over bog. It can't
| sink, it can't vibrate too much. It's hard to get right.
|
| The Chinese can build track through your living room if they
| want to. Plus, they have accidents and structural failures all
| the time too.
| kalleboo wrote:
| > _The Chinese can build track through your living room if
| they want to_
|
| They actually can't, leading to some pretty hilarious
| situations of lone houses in the middle of roads
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china.
| ..
| brnt wrote:
| There the infra is only technically not through their
| living rooms, for all practical purposes those buildings
| are no longer usable.
| crote wrote:
| If we're talking Dutch high-speed rails, don't forget the Fyra!
|
| It was a high-speed train plagued with so many issues it was
| returned to the manufacturer. To give an example: one day 85%
| of the trips had to be cancelled due to defective trains, with
| one of those which _did_ run losing parts(!) at high speed; the
| train wasn 't water-tight; the brakes were designed for 160km/h
| despite the train itself going 250 km/h; a train horn which
| couldn't handle snow; batteries in the passenger compartment
| catching fire; doors opening at full speed; and of course
| software issues. Mind you, this is just _some of_ the issues -
| the full list is a lot longer.
|
| They were returned to maker AnsaldoBreda, and now seem to be
| operating well enough in Italy and Greece.
| ak_111 wrote:
| Note that Indonesia's high speed rail is being built by China,
| so it is more accurate to remind everyone that this is China's
| century. On the other hand, for the sake of balance it is also
| important to remember that the grass is always greener on the
| other side, and in particular the famous saying about fascists
| (more accurately Mussolini) "they made the trains run on time."
| willyt wrote:
| They didn't make the trains run on time they just said they
| had made them run on time and they controlled the media so it
| was impossible to know otherwise.
| te_chris wrote:
| They could not have fucked thus up more, really.
| dazc wrote:
| Given more time, the may well do so.
| tuukkah wrote:
| With the new government, it's not the same _they_ anymore.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Laber needs to get off its ass and reorganize this. The way the
| whole HS2 thing is organised is braindead.
|
| Throwing all the costs for everything from stations to trains
| into the same semi-private company. Not learning best practices
| from Japan rail station operation. Building way to many tunnels
| because of a few braindead Nimbys.
|
| Simply recreate BritishRail, make the railroad public, including
| things like rolling stock as well. Put HS2 into BritishRail.
|
| Then create a long term rail 2050 plan. HS2 should be fully done,
| with the original route. This will allow a massive reorganisation
| of the rest of the network.
|
| Common labor, this are the 5 years to prove yourself.
| esskay wrote:
| In fairness to them they've only just taken control, and have
| already said they are reforming British Rail, and are reviewing
| HS2. It's not a click of the fingers thing to fix.
| Angostura wrote:
| One problem that Labour face is that the contracts are already
| signed. So, for example - a report just out from the Audit
| Commission says it will be cheaper to build platforms in
| Birmingham that will never be used, than to not use them.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Source?
| Litost wrote:
| It might be this [1] which says "According to the report,
| the decision was made by officials to continue to build the
| Birmingham Curzon Street Station to its full specification
| because it was cheaper than trying to cancel part of the
| scheme. "
|
| "that the project will plough ahead with building a seven-
| platform station at Curzon Street, despite just three being
| required for the reduced HS2 line."
|
| Unfortunately inews doesn't seem to quote the original NAO
| report, just linking to a list of NAO news items on inews
| :(?
|
| [1] https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-waste-new-
| birmingham-s...
|
| [EDIT] So the ft does actually link to the report [2] from
| this page [3] saying "The watchdog said scrapping the
| northern leg of the flagship high speed rail link would
| take three years and cost up to PS100mn, and that some
| platforms would still be built even though they would never
| be used."
|
| [2] https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/07/hs2-update...
|
| [3] https://www.ft.com/content/ecde4265-0269-4169-ac0e-1799
| 38667...
| dagurp wrote:
| Nationalising the rail is one of their targets.
| https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/24/labour-prom...
| panick21_ wrote:
| Their program is pretty weak sauce to be honest.
|
| Not clear message of recreating BritishRail outright. They
| should go back to full uniform marketing strategy.
| NetworkRail should be rolled back into BritishRail.
|
| Their proposal is mostly adding more unneeded stuff, to the
| complex organizational chart. You don't need a 'Passenger
| Standards Authority', what you need is a public rail company
| that works for the public and has good funding.
|
| The rolling stock companies are literal cancers, the need to
| be burned down. In fact they should be disowned, the profit
| they made over the last decades should be removed from the
| price. They basically got a sweetheart deal and profit off
| the public since then. Its almost as fucking stupid as
| Chicago selling its own roads, almost.
|
| They also promised very little beyond that. Britain
| desperately needs a rolling electrification program and a
| rolling station access compliance program. No commitment to
| anything other then just 'nationalization' as a pretty
| abstract thing.
|
| There is no commitment to roll HS2 into BritishRail either.
| graemep wrote:
| Bear in mind that the rail system is already part
| nationalised everywhere (the rails were nationalised more
| than 20 years ago) and some of the train operating companies
| are too - so many rail journeys already take place entirely
| in a nationalised system.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| They've been in charge for about 3 weeks. Did you want them to
| come up with plans for a national strategy on rail for the next
| 25 years within the first 3 weeks?
| chii wrote:
| Why werent they thinking about this for the past 10 years
| when they're not been in power?
| zimpenfish wrote:
| You can think about it for the past 10 years but since your
| thinking is reactionary to the incumbent government (who
| had a propensity for random decisions!), you might as well
| have the most basic of plans until you've got a chance to
| sit down and ponder without interference.
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| You can think about it, but then have to deal with the
| reality of finances etc once actually in power. Back seat
| driving is a different game.
| barnabee wrote:
| You don't have the money nor the armies of civil servants,
| nor access to all the details when you're not in
| government.
|
| Probably the best that they can do for anything this
| complex is headline policies and high level plans.
|
| Now they are in power it's probably only 10-20% about
| having the right policy and 80-90% about execution being
| competent, consistent, and quick.
|
| They need to be given time to do the right thing, but not
| too much time.
| DrBazza wrote:
| The opposition always have 100% access to all Government
| spending. It is publicly published. It's pathetic
| Westminster politics and Parliamentary privilege that
| allows both sides to make lies like 'it's worse than we
| thought'.
| barnabee wrote:
| > [you don't have] access to all the details when you're
| not in government
|
| When I wrote this I was not talking about _accounting
| details_ , though I am not sure whether all of those
| details are really publicly available once you get down
| into the delivery organisations and projects that
| inevitably get set up for something like HS2.
|
| What I was getting at is that this kind of project is
| hugely complex, and develops fast both as delivery
| progresses (or doesn't) and as decisions are made. Anyone
| who can't be in the room for those decisions and isn't
| managing the relationships and receiving the day to day
| reports is going to be at a big disadvantage if they are
| trying to make major changes.
|
| You can stand on the sidelines and set how you would do
| things differently, but I don't think you can credibly
| turn up with a detailed plan that's ready to go on day
| one for something like this.
| DrBazza wrote:
| Agreed. Cabinet (and other) meeting details are generally
| private, and an FoI request rarely gets anything that's
| not redacted. There is a vast amount of information in
| the public domain regarding HS2, and 'vast' is the
| problem to both the last Government and this one.
|
| Which single person can read and be fully clued up a
| modern UK infrastructure project? Our infrastructure
| planning needs an overhaul.
|
| The Lower Thames Crossing is worse than HS2, far worse,
| and it's not much more than 10 miles.
|
| https://www.cityam.com/lower-thames-crossing-planning-
| applic...
| n4r9 wrote:
| They were. Corbyn announced a nationalisation plan in 2015.
| But Labour is not a monolith, and Starmer has decided to
| distance himself from anything that smells vaguely
| Corbynish.
| chgs wrote:
| And in 5 years, or at most 10, the tories will be back in and
| destroy that future plan
|
| We had a future plan, it was called hs2. They were far to slow
| getting the diggers out, so it was cancelled for spite.
| stirlo wrote:
| "Currently, all the costs fall on HS2, whereas the profits from
| the oversite development go to the Treasury. So although both are
| effectively arms of the government, the Treausry's desire for a
| larger oversite development piled costs onto HS2 that it is not
| able to offset from the extra property sales."
|
| Remarkable how rules accounting rules like this can derail a
| project. Clearly any foundational costs for commercial
| development should be billed out of the profits coming from said
| developments.
|
| It's beaurocratic bullshit like this that results in short term
| thinking with any attempt to build a better more profitable
| staion being expressed as a project overun and resulting in
| cancellations or scale backs of critical features.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| _Remarkable how rules accounting rules like this can derail a
| project._
|
| Almost as though it was done on purpose in order to derail the
| project . . .
| bananapub wrote:
| > Remarkable how rules accounting rules like this can derail a
| project.
|
| it's only remarkable in the sense that British politicians
| allow government to be like this. the PM can tell the Treasury
| and Chancellor to fuck off and account for things in a more
| useful way, but they simply don't.
| alias_neo wrote:
| I read an article[0] just this morning (dated yesterday), that
| due to reduced seats on HS2, passengers may need to be
| "encouraged" to NOT travel by train at certain times "if at all".
|
| With the war on drivers, and years of trying to convince us to
| travel by train, despite ludicrous prices and appalling service,
| they're now going to tell us _not_ to travel by train?
|
| Complete and utter insanity, I mean seriously, the plot has
| thoroughly been lost.
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c725k6ynw7go
| andrepd wrote:
| >war on drivers
|
| I guess it's true what they say: for those accustomed to
| privilege, equality is aggression.
| alias_neo wrote:
| Nice attack there, if a little ignorant.
|
| The only people being forced of the road are the under-
| privileged, those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ,
| those who can't afford maintenance with poor roads,
| skyrocketing insurance, high fuel prices, ever increasing
| taxes, unfair parking charges for those using polluting
| Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few
| short years ago, and those who rely on them for their work or
| trade.
|
| The only people who _won't_ be forced off of the road, are
| the privileged.
|
| We'll all by walking and cycling around outside of London
| where the infrastructure continues to suffer after all of the
| public funds have been pocketed by the privileged for
| improved transport that was never delivered, while the roads
| are lined with processions of Chelsea tractors ignoring 20mph
| limits.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ
|
| I wonder if you're doing this on purpose, or if you are
| genuienly unaware of ULEZ compliance conditions? ULEZ only
| requires your car to be Euro 4 compliant for petrol cars,
| and Euro 6 for diesels. Most(if not all) petrol cars that
| are younger than 20 years old are Euro 4 compliant, and any
| diesel made in the last 10 years should be Euro 6 compliant
| too. You are making it sound like you have to buy an EV to
| be ULEZ compliant, which is absolutely not true.
|
| >>for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and
| subsidised to buy them a few short years ago
|
| Well, you can't reverse decisions from the past - you can
| only improve on them. And ULEZ is one of the best decisions
| made anywhere in this country, its impact on pollution
| within London is undeniable, I wish every single city in
| the UK had a ULEZ zone.
|
| >> and those who rely on them for their work or trade.
|
| Funny, but this exact same argument was being used when
| leaded petrol was being phased out. And yet I can't imagine
| anyone would look back at that time and say it was a
| mistake to get rid of it.
|
| >>skyrocketing insurance
|
| That is one thing I 100% agree with you on - insurance
| industry is just a giant cartel right now, and they keep
| charging more and more despite skyrocketing profits. Their
| own numbers about increased cost of repairs doesn't line up
| with the increases in premiums across the board, it's all a
| scam.
|
| >> high fuel prices
|
| Fuel prices have been going down every year, even if the
| price of fuel has increased in absolute terms. Thank
| inflation for that one.
| alias_neo wrote:
| > I wonder if you're doing this on purpose, or if you are
| genuienly unaware of ULEZ compliance conditions?
|
| I'm well aware; I picked the extreme condition (EV) to
| make my point, bit naughty, I'm sorry, but sure, a Euro 6
| vehicle can still cost you PS10k if you want something
| clean and that isn't going to immediately be a
| maintenance burden, heck, let's say PS5k, PS3k, PS1k? The
| older/cheaper you're going, the more you're subjecting
| yourself to in maintenance costs, and higher road tax, so
| let's say they opt for something about to enter MOT-
| requirements, 3 years, by scrapping an existing junk-car,
| one which they only have because they can't afford a
| better one, we're easily talking thousands of pounds.
|
| I assume these people aren't driving old, non-compliant
| cars because they can afford a better one and just choose
| not to.
|
| > Well, you can't reverse decisions from the past - you
| can only improve on them.
|
| Fair, I can't argue with that, but I hope you can see how
| that might be quite aggravating for someone who bought
| into it at that time, whose vehicle is now non-compliant
| because of its age, and perhaps can't afford to replace
| it.
|
| > its impact on pollution within London is undeniable
|
| I agree, for London, but ULEZ doesn't just affect London,
| it affects much of the area within the M25 now, much of
| which is poorly connected or subject to appalling rail
| operators, they're treated the same way as those living
| within central areas and there's nothing "equality" about
| that. I'm not sure if it was yourself or another
| commenter who mentioned NIMBYs, and I know a lot of the
| reasons parts particularly south of the river are poorly
| connected is due to NIMBYism, but this whole discussion
| is over not worrying about the feelings or well-being of
| minorities; if it was for the greater good, it should
| have just been done. Were people not forced out of there
| homes for HS2? Look where that got us.
|
| > I wish every single city in the UK had a ULEZ zone.
|
| I wish every city in the UK was as well connected as
| London, then it would be reasonable and fair to have a
| ULEZ in them.
|
| > Their own numbers about increased cost of repairs
| doesn't line up with the increases in premiums across the
| board, it's all a scam
|
| Hear hear.
|
| > Fuel prices have been going down every year, even if
| the price of fuel has increased in absolute terms. Thank
| inflation for that one
|
| Yes, alone the affects due to inflation are (perhaps)
| unavoidable, but it's another expense, and even if you
| _could_ afford an EV let's say instead, the prices to
| charge away from home (or if there's no possible way for
| you to charge at home), are ridiculous anyway. Let's also
| not forget greed and record profits.
|
| Back to the original commenters point, and mine, to which
| you replied; this isn't about privilege at all, I'm
| privileged, I can afford to run a car or two, buy an EV
| etc, have a leisure vehicle, I (we?) are the ones _not_
| negatively affected by any of this, it's easy for us to
| sit here and say, this is better for everyone, but in the
| ham-fisted way it has been handled, while billions in
| public funds have been wasted on the likes of HS2, while
| not delivering, and pocketed by the privileged, in times
| were we're talking about a "cost of living crisis" is
| not.
|
| I think being _able_ to prioritise the environment, one's
| health, the greater good etc is itself a privilege, and
| being able to be ignorant of that is too (I'm not
| suggesting you are; just making a general comment).
| __alexs wrote:
| ULEZ is a London specific thing where you have already
| admitted there are great alternative transport options.
| alias_neo wrote:
| It's not though, it also affects those who live anywhere
| within the M25, which would be generous to call "London",
| particularly the more neglected parts, in public
| transport terms in the south and south-east.
| harry_ord wrote:
| What parts are you talking about? Most areas in the m25
| is part of a London Borough. Watford isn't but has decent
| rail connections and has tfl bus routes ending there.
|
| There are some parts of rural Enfield and Barnet which
| aren't so great for public transport connections
| admittedly.
| alias_neo wrote:
| I mean, pick basically anywhere east of centre, or
| anywhere served by Southern or Southeastern, some of the
| worst rail operators, or anywhere more than ~20 minutes
| walk from a station. Being a London borough doesn't mean
| much in some parts, other than being subject to the will
| of London, despite a very different landscape.
| andrepd wrote:
| So your conclusion is not "we should invest in transit to
| those neglected areas", it's "let's subsidise driving
| everywhere". Interesting.
| andrepd wrote:
| >attack
|
| Damn, what a way to prove my point! Even opinions in an
| online forum are "attack" :)
|
| The simple fact is that
|
| (1) Drivers are subsidised by the state and by all of us,
| directly through such freebies as road construction and
| maintenance (which is horrendously expensive) and
| indirectly through such nice externalities that society
| must bear, such as the tens of thousands of deaths yearly
| (2-3 million worldwide) from crashes, pollution, etc.
|
| (2) Driving is _the_ mode of transportation that is taken
| as default and that everything else must bow to: roads are
| first-class, then sidewalks, bus stops, cycle "lanes",
| etc, are an afterthought that must bend to the car traffic
| space, if they exist at all
|
| (3) Past a certain density it's literally physically
| impossible that people move around in automobiles
|
| Look I don't want to "defund roads", I'd already be happy
| if a tiny fraction of the money and attention that goes to
| driving would be devoted to other forms of transport.
| bmoxb wrote:
| There was never a 'war on drivers' - just empty rhetoric that
| Sunak clung on to after the Uxbridge by-election.
| alias_neo wrote:
| You just have to look at the state of transport for those
| outside of London, even within the M25 to see this has
| nothing to do with rhetoric.
|
| Sure "war on drivers" may be the wrong phrase, but there is
| nothing being done to encourage those who are not privileged,
| or live in London where transport is excellent, to use
| alternative means.
|
| ULEZ, high insurance, fuel, tax, neglect of infrastructure,
| unfair parking charges for old/non-electric vehicles, etc,
| for those who can't afford electric vehicles or for whom
| they're not practical, who have older vehicles because that's
| what their budget allows for, and who require them for their
| trade, or because they have to travel further to find work,
| those for whom it's cheaper to drive than pay exorbitant rail
| fairs, at the cost of their time due to greedy rail providers
| with poor services, I'm sure for them it can feel like a war
| against them.
|
| It's easy for those who live in London, or are able to cycle
| or walk everywhere they want/need to say; I lived in London
| for ten years and never needed to own a car; but for those
| out in the rest of the country, who have a family, have a
| disability, work in different locations day to day, or a
| plethora other reasons, that's just not reality.
| harry_ord wrote:
| What you're describing isn't a war on drivers just poor
| infrastructure and bad decisions. For all these issues no
| alternatives have been made no ones benefiting.
| alias_neo wrote:
| I've already pointed out that may have been the wrong
| phrase, but, I'm not suggesting anyone's winning, but
| plenty are losing by stupid decisions consistently being
| made, that disproportionately affect the under-
| privileged.
|
| I'm not talking about drivers vs cyclists, or whatever,
| I'm talking about people who _need_ to drive for their
| livelihood; it shouldn't be reserved for those of us who
| can afford the annual insurance increases, nice new or
| electric cars and what-not, UNLESS something is being
| done to replace the need to drive, and it just isn't.
|
| I'm not pro-driving and drivers, I'm pro not making
| stupid moves from a position of privilege while others
| are left in the dirt. "War on drivers" was just the
| catch-phrase that came to mind, and I failed to elaborate
| my point, that was my mistake, but it seems everyone has
| latched onto those three words and missed the forest for
| the trees, or just made some other assumption like I'm
| hating on cyclists or something that is sometimes
| associated with that phrase.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>With the war on drivers
|
| The government literally allocated tens of billions for
| drivers(including 8.3 billion taken from HS2 funding directly),
| and zero for cycling or other infrastructure. The whole idea of
| "war on drivers" is complete and utter nonsense - I'd actually
| risk saying that no group of people anywhere in this country is
| as well looked after and invested into as drivers.
|
| And ironically, HS2 would have improved driving conditions in
| this country, because currently our rail system is at a
| capacity - so bulk non perishable goods are going by road
| instead of shipped by train - it's completely insane. It
| increases congestion as well as damages our roads further - but
| of course media presented it as some lavish extravagance to
| decrease travel time from manchester by 8 minutes, which it
| absolutely isn't about.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| To be honest I think with a lot of policy issues in the UK at the
| moment you need to just give the government a bit of time to
| breath. Sunak's decision making on HS2 was bizarre bad long
| term/short term/pragmatic/polcitical. It was just one of those
| bizarre moments where he had sort of a correct aim and then
| changed that aim into "How can I cause as much damage as
| possible". So the current policy is extremely expensive, makes
| rail infrastructure worse and leaves even the things that remain
| in plan, largely poorly planned.
|
| But we don't seriously beleive the labour government agree with
| this plan. We know it's going to change. So at some point in the
| next 12 months you can pretty much guarantee that a new rail
| strategy is going to be unveiled, and until that point there
| isn't really a whole lot worth talking about with the current
| strategy. The only thing to say is that I doubt HS2 is going to
| be a core part of the strategy going forward, you're more likely
| to see some big plans for regional rail and the details on HS2
| will likely be "Well let's just tidy up this mess and draw it to
| a close".
| goodcanadian wrote:
| I would love to see HS2 reinstated, but I agree that it is not
| likely at this time. There are likely higher priority projects
| that should go ahead first (some form of Northern Powerhouse,
| for example). At a minimum, though, I do hope that they protect
| the route for HS2 north of Birmingham even if construction is
| indefinitely deferred. It is going to be needed eventually.
| panick21_ wrote:
| HS2 is by far the most important transportation project, it
| massively impacts the whole rail system. HS2 connects North
| and South like never before. And it massively improves what
| you can do with regional and local trains on the rest of the
| network.
|
| And its pretty much ready to go. Work is lined up and planed.
| All it needs is political support and funding.
|
| Other projects should be done, but they should be planned in
| the understanding of how the whole network is reworked with
| HS2.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> And its pretty much ready to go. Work is lined up and
| planed._
|
| Is it? Or does the plan need a bunch of revisions, to
| restore the link to Euston and address the cost over-runs?
|
| We all know there's not much money left. And politically
| speaking, Labour needs to give the north of england a fair
| deal on infrastructure spending, to shore up wavering
| support in red wall seats.
|
| HS2 is an exciting project that a lot of work has already
| been done on, it'd be totally cool if it did go ahead - but
| I'm not holding my breath.
| panick21_ wrote:
| There is quite a lot of work left in terms of detailed
| track planning. People that were working on that were all
| taken of the project. But this can be restarted, these
| projects are on-ice, not dead.
|
| Its certainty more ready then any potential large scale
| project in the North only.
|
| > We all know there's not much money left.
|
| Not sure what that means.
|
| > And politically speaking, Labour needs to give the
| north of england a fair deal on infrastructure spending
|
| HS2 is the best thing that can happen to the North, far
| better then any other possible prject. I'm not sure why
| you are not seeing this.
|
| Express trains to London are ruining all the local
| network on the traditional main lines, and thus all
| connected branch lines.
|
| HS2 will put all the express trains onto HS2. Meaning all
| of a sudden all the other lines have massive amounts of
| utilization free that can finally be used for regular
| regional and local travel.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> > We all know there's not much money left.
|
| > Not sure what that means._
|
| What it means is:
|
| 1. The UK national debt is high, about 7% of public
| spending is on interest payments. The debt-to-GDP ratio
| is the worst it's been in 60 years.
|
| 2. The current overall tax rate is the highest it's been
| since the 1960s. We might be able to get some extra money
| by going after tax cheats and suchlike, but it's probably
| not going to be easy; we don't have the money yet.
|
| 3. Previously we've tried cutting back on public services
| to get the debt down - "austerity" as it was called - and
| it was not regarded as a big success.
|
| 4. In fact, there have been loads of strikes and a long
| period of under-investment in public services. So we
| could probably spend quite a chunk of money just stopping
| the roofs falling down on the schools we've already got,
| to say nothing of building anything new.
|
| 5. Previous attempts to move public debt off the books,
| like PFI contracts, turned out to cost the taxpayer more
| in the long term.
|
| 6. Truss attempted to spur GDP growth to improve the
| debt-to-GDP ratio, and it went terribly.
|
| 7. Individuals aren't any better, with the high levels of
| mortgage debt and student loan debt, rising fuel bills
| and a cost-of-living crisis.
|
| We're a hardy nation, we've dealt with worse and we'll
| get through this - but the reality is Starmer doesn't
| have a lot of cash to splash around.
| smcl wrote:
| So what do you do in times like this? Do you continue
| austerity and cutbacks - something that has worsened the
| UK economy over the last 14 years - or do you invest in
| public infrastructure - something which is near
| universally accepted as improving the health of an
| economy?
| willyt wrote:
| [delayed]
| DrBazza wrote:
| The old HS1 boss, said the main problem with HS2 goes was the
| government publicly announced the budget for each contract and
| the bidders bid... you guessed it right at the maximum of each
| contract.
|
| HS1 never announced any budget for any contract, so lots of
| bids came in way under what the government was prepared to
| spend, hence came in well under budget.
|
| I seem to recall that was also due to infrastructure
| 'transparency' and government 'openness' from the 00s.
|
| It got off to a bad start under Andrew Adonis in the dying days
| of the Blair/Brown administration, but people forget that.
|
| "Adonis himself is openly regretful. "HS2 should stop at Old
| Oak Common," he told me, "interchanging with Crossrail there.
| We should leave open the question of going further into
| London." As head of the Cameron's national infrastructure
| commission, Adonis makes many speeches on these subjects. He
| nowadays lauds HS3, and lauds Old Oak Common as London's
| greatest development opportunity. I have yet to hear him laud
| Euston. That station, he says, "is the poison at the heart of
| HS2. I bitterly regret not stopping it before I left office"."
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/hs2-the-zomb...
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hs2-rishi-sun...
|
| > Mr Holden also said HS1 was successful because the true
| budget was known to just "a handful of people", while HS2
| contractors inflated their prices once they saw the latter
| project's true budget.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| The problem with stopping at Old Oak Common is that it would
| likely worsen end-end journey times for the many passengers
| travelling to destinations not well served by Crossrail.
|
| Euston/Kings Cross/St Pancras are all next door to each other
| and collectively busier than any other rail station in the
| country. They are not connected to Crossrail so anyone
| connecting on from there (Eurostar, east coast mainline, west
| coast mainline) would be required to make two additional
| changes, a pain with luggage. And anyone going to Norh or
| South London on Thameslink, Northern or Victoria lines would
| have to make an additional change.
| chgs wrote:
| Why would a hs2 user be connecting on from Euston? Or
| indeed from St Pancras (other than maybe Kent and Europe)
|
| But walking with a suitcase from Euston to KGSP isn't
| exactly easy anyway.
|
| Only benefits to Euston are easy to get to the Victoria and
| northern lines. Whether that outweighs crossrail is a
| septye wuruain, maybe for north-south journeys, but
| probably not for "to London".
| Theodores wrote:
| I have a relative working on HS2. During the pandemic he was on
| zoom calls with five thousand people, none of whom were
| 'navvies'. He is car dependent, never uses the train and that
| money spent on HS2 to hire him has been spent on German cars
| and airline flights.
|
| If I was in charge of HS2 I would get the thousands that
| shuffle spreadsheets to get pickaxes out and build the whole
| thing going all the way to Birmingham and beyond to Manchester,
| Leeds and Glasgow.
| smcl wrote:
| How on earth did Sunak have "sort of a correct aim" on HS2?
| He's taken an infrastructure project which would have increased
| capacity north-to-south once _all_ of it was delivered, which
| was heavily criticised for being "only a way to get to London
| slightly faster" ... and cancelled enough of it so that it
| _reduced_ capacity and then _became_ only a way to get to
| London slightly faster but from ultimately quite a nearby city.
| All that for a fairly sizeable chunk of money, enough that they
| might as well complete it.
|
| He was desperately searching for a way to maybe gain votes that
| didn't _cost_ any extra money, and took a punt on axing half of
| HS2. It wasn't a carefully calculated strategy, it was an
| attempt at a cheap vote-grab that was ultimately fruitless and
| will cost the UK public dearly in the long run.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| I run past the building works at Old Oak Common quite frequently,
| it's been quite incredible seeing such a large infrastructure
| project happening that'll have such a limited impact.
| ionwake wrote:
| I dont understand how HS2 is not the number 1 priority to link
| the dying cities of the north to london, its important to have
| good communications, its such a tiny island anyway. Get a grip,
| and make the line extend to the northern territories, that was
| literally the whole point.
| graemep wrote:
| Britain is not a tiny island. its the ninth largest in the word
| and is a lot bigger than Java (population of 156m BTW) and is
| only a little smaller than Honshu.
|
| The cities of the north are not dying. Some are doing badly,
| some are doing well. its not a given that what they need most
| is better links to London- better links between northern cities
| might do more.
| rwmj wrote:
| It's good that you compared us to Honshu because the Japanese
| have managed to build a high speed line connecting both ends
| of that island, with a lot less drama. Whereas we have a high
| speed line that doesn't even go to the centre of our capital
| city.
| ionwake wrote:
| lmao
| ionwake wrote:
| Interesting points thanks, I still disagree on your final
| point, however I agree more train links needed.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Several of the better links between Northern cities were
| dependent on HS2 -- either directly, by providing rail links
| where none currently exist, or indirectly, by freeing up
| space on existing lines to allow more local and regional
| services.
| switch007 wrote:
| Such as?
| chgs wrote:
| Manchester to Liverpool and Birmingham, Birmingham to
| Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle
|
| All relied on phase 2 though, freeing up capacity through
| Stockport and winsford, adding it for man-
| Liverpool/glasgow, freeing up the painful cross country
| services from Leeds, etc
| switch007 wrote:
| Whitehall doesn't believe in ROI in the north and it's been
| that way for decades and decades. Well, that's they excuse they
| use anyway
|
| Birmingham got lucky as it's just feasible enough to turn it in
| to a commuting city for London but other cities are too far
| thebruce87m wrote:
| Note: even though the article is from an .co.uk and talks about
| the UK government, when English people talk about the "north"
| they implicitly mean "north of England", not the north of the
| UK, even when talking in the context of the UK.
|
| This comment even talks about the "island", but is implicitly
| talking about the centre of the island when referring to the
| "north".
| Animats wrote:
| Well, looks like the rebuild of the Euston Arch will be delayed
| again.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-24 23:07 UTC)