New high speed rail link ...is it worth it ?

[Pierre]

We need to drag our infrastructure into the current century.

It's a good idea, let's get on and build it and expand it.

I'd love to see a HS line into every major city.

[danielf]

As a country that practically invented the railways we would do well to go with the times rather than rely on antiquated and underfunded infrastructure.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

As a country that practically invented the railways we would do well to go with the times rather than rely on antiquated and underfunded infrastructure.

I would question how a couple of high speed lines built at enormous expense would achieve that over a more widespread modernisation and upgrade programme.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well.

I would expect the train driver/bus driver to know the tactical impact of issues (slow trains, hold-ups and delays), but not the strategic reasons for them (major infrastructure refreshes required, the difference in costs between upgrading/making do/completely rebuilding), or the political, economic, and social impact of any of those options, and the prioritisation of those.

It can often cost more to try and upgrade existing lines, with the impact on services whilst those upgrades are happening, than to build new. For instance, we just had to decide between refreshing/upgrading a 12 year old datacentre, or outsource, or build new (we actually built new, and it was cheaper than refreshing, without the risk of the centre upgrade negatively affecting existing systems and services - now we have implemented this, we can refresh the old one for Disaster Recovery).

I see the HS2 as the equivalent of the Motorway system - most people said we didn't need it, but where would we be without it now?

I could buy into that point of view Hugh if there was a feasability study done to say that is the case it may well be,if there is the government should publish and we could make our own minds up,i do buy the point of view its sometimes cheaper to build from new then upgrade all i am concerned about is this is done properly before any digging up of the area concerned takes place.

And if there is another way explore it at the moment we still live in a green and quite pleasant land and i would hate that to change unessasarily, before all options are sounded out.

I might even be persuaded if it would halve journey times but to just shave a few minutes off makes me hope the government will at least take a fresh look Hugh.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I would question how a couple of high speed lines built at enormous expense would achieve that over a more widespread modernisation and upgrade programme.

To be honest, I haven't looked into the details of this. I just think it's a pretty sad state of affairs that the UK has pretty much the most expensive railways in the world, and just one puny high speed rails link when the French, Spanish and Germans have no problems building a high speed rail network. You'd think we could take a bit more pride in our rail network, instead of underinvesting for years and then having to pay megabucks for cobbled together maintenance and 'upgrades'.

[Osem]

I think many years of sad decline have put our once great network in a state not disimilar to our Victorian sewers and therein lies the problem. If the investment had been put in over the decades since the war we'd already have a much better network and there'd be no need to commit what's now a vast sum in one hit as it were to build this one new route.

Yes it'd be great to have a shiny new rail link but we are where we are both historically and financially however so, on balance I tend to think the money would be better spent improving what we've got which we all know still needs investment badly and already costs a packet to use.

One thing's for certain and that is that if this thing is built it is going to cost a fortune to run and maintain so if it doesn't make a profit (and I don't think any national networks do) it's going to cost the taxpayer a fortune forevermore and could well have an adverse effect on investment in the rest of the rail network.

Originally Posted by danielf

To be honest, I haven't looked into the details of this. I just think it's a pretty sad state of affairs that the UK has pretty much the most expensive railways in the world, and just one puny high speed rails link when the French, Spanish and Germans have no problems building a high speed rail network. You'd think we could take a bit more pride in our rail network, instead of underinvesting for years and then having to pay megabucks for cobbled together maintenance and 'upgrades'.

I totally agree.During the construction of this link (should it go ahead) i fear that more people will be put off rail travel because of high costs and low quality and only lowering prices to such an extent as to not be profitable will temp them back leaving the new link under used and un profitable

Duncan Barkes now debating this on LBC radio with the tag line 32 billion to save 23 minutes on a journey,which he reakons will be nearer 40 billion with the usual over runs.

Originally Posted by richard1960

Duncan Barkes now debating this on LBC radio with the tag line 32 billion to save 23 minutes on a journey,which he reakons will be nearer 40 billion with the usual over runs.

Which is, of course, entirely to miss the point.

Birmingham - London is the foundation of a wider national high-speed rail system. The Preston Bypass achieved little by itself but these days it's right in the middle of the M6. It proved the concept, it set the standards and is today a vital part of our national transport infrastructure.

Originally Posted by Chris

Which is, of course, entirely to miss the point.

Birmingham - London is the foundation of a wider national high-speed rail system. The Preston Bypass achieved little by itself but these days it's right in the middle of the M6. It proved the concept, it set the standards and is today a vital part of our national transport infrastructure.

Well the debate on the radio is expanding for those that care to listen.

In times of austerity when we are told there is no money where is 32-40 billion coming from surely there must be better things.

Also the butchering of the chiltern countryside.

It will cost many billions for HS2 to be part of any national infrastructure .

Like the present railway system it may never pay for itself due to cost and the taxpayer may for ever more be liable for huge subsidies is a major fear also on this one and the expense of a ticket may mean few will use it..

Originally Posted by Chris

Which is, of course, entirely to miss the point.

Birmingham - London is the foundation of a wider national high-speed rail system. The Preston Bypass achieved little by itself but these days it's right in the middle of the M6. It proved the concept, it set the standards and is today a vital part of our national transport infrastructure.

I think it is the point .Should we use all the money and have one link between London and Birmingham taking 15-20yrs to complete leaving the rest of the network to run into disrepair or do we spread the money over the existing network achieving similar if not better results .I see no point in having a super dooper high speed link between 2 cities if the rest of the network is rubbish

It's not either/or....

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's not either/or....

actually your probably right ,if the new link doesn't get the go ahead the money will be diverted and not into the existing network

Originally Posted by martyh

actually your probably right ,if the new link doesn't get the go ahead the money will be diverted and not into the existing network

I think thats probably the top and bottom of it.

Although if we have no money i wonder where it was coming from in the first place.

Originally Posted by richard1960

Well the debate on the radio is expanding for those that care to listen.

In times of austerity when we are told there is no money where is 32-40 billion coming from surely there must be better things.

Also the butchering of the chiltern countryside.

It will cost many billions for HS2 to be part of any national infrastructure .

Like the present railway system it may never pay for itself due to cost and the taxpayer may for ever more be liable for huge subsidies is a major fear also on this one and the expense of a ticket may mean few will use it..

Does it have to pay for itself? Does the road network pay for itself? The point of State-sponsored infrastructure developments is their wider enabling effect on the economy, not that they should be profitable in and of themselves.

Originally Posted by martyh

I think it is the point .Should we use all the money and have one link between London and Birmingham taking 15-20yrs to complete leaving the rest of the network to run into disrepair or do we spread the money over the existing network achieving similar if not better results .I see no point in having a super dooper high speed link between 2 cities if the rest of the network is rubbish

I'm not certain that a convincing argument has been made that spending money on HS2 means not spending it on the existing WCML.