• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

Status
Not open for further replies.

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
I think some get it and some don't. The biggest mistake in the history of HS2 is not calling it something like the "West Coast High Capacity Project" or somesuch.

Agreed but maybe a bigger mistake was announcing it as one BIG project
If they had the "bug picture" but only announced phase 1, when half way through started on phase 2 a etc so it was just 30 b here, 20 b there it would kep the
See my question above - why does HS2 get the special massive low interest loan? Why can't we do that for other projects?

I am pro-HS2, but the answer "the money is only for HS2" doesn't really address the underlying crux of the thing.

Presumably it is seen as a priority?
Anyway, the government is only weeks old and who is to say what projects might be brought forward over the next 5 years ? HS2 phase 1 is shovel ready whereas most others will take years of planning.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
The money is borrowed for HS2 and HS2 only

HS2 gets a bottomless pit of money but the T&W Metro has to grovel for new trains?

See my question above - why does HS2 get the special massive low interest loan?

Because the multinational construction companies will only lobby for HS2. Why? Because they know they'll get to rinse us on the contracts.

The whole thinks stinks like a rotten corpse.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
And the reason people don't shop in city centres for their weekly shop is nothing to do with buses or trains

Who mentioned supermarkets?

People don't shop on high streets because they don't work on high streets. They don't work on high streets because out of town business parks are accessible in a way city centres aren't.

Most people don't need to go to London. They need to go to work.
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
See my question above - why does HS2 get the special massive low interest loan? Why can't we do that for other projects?

I am pro-HS2, but the answer "the money is only for HS2" doesn't really address the underlying crux of the thing.
I totally agree but the impression by some is the money is there and can be used to fund other things. It cant - it's for HS2 only - that does not stop the UK from agreeing for a new loan to be used for other projects. In fact, we should be doing as much as we can while interest rates are so low.
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
HS2 gets a bottomless pit of money but the T&W Metro has to grovel for new trains?.
That's a political decision and nothing to do with HS2 - If HS2 didn't happen do you think T&W Metro would still have to grovel - yes. They have been groveling long before HS2 - as has many areas. Your argument is fundamentally flawed


Because the multinational construction companies will only lobby for HS2. Why? Because they know they'll get to rinse us on the contracts.

The whole thinks stinks like a rotten corpse.
Citation needed
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,046
The money is borrowed for HS2 and HS2 only - it is not sitting there waiting to be spent - it can't and the agreement by the treasury won't get used for anything else other than HS2 - any other projects would need separate funding released by the treasury.
That will change in an instant if they decide that it's politically expedient to use a portion of it to ameliorate the North of England.
 

cosmo

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2018
Messages
135
Location
North East England
That's a political decision and nothing to do with HS2 - If HS2 didn't happen do you think T&W Metro would still have to grovel - yes. They have been groveling long before HS2 - as has many areas. Your argument is fundamentally flawed

I think what TT was trying to say is that when a project like HS2 is costing upwards of £100bn and rising by the day, then £500m (Nexus' bid for funding) a fleet of new trains is a drop in the ocean and Nexus weren't even given that in the end (only 80% or so of it).
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
That will change in an instant if they decide that it's politically expedient to use a portion of it to ameliorate the North of England.

And in reality, those who push this idea will be sorely upset by realising that they were wrong all along.

It won’t be released for anything else as it’s already been ringfenced for HS2.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
Contrary to what Barclay says, it will not "level up" anything it will simply bring more towns into the London commuter belt.
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
Contrary to what Barclay says, it will not "level up" anything it will simply bring more towns into the London commuter belt.
In your opinion, others (me included) disagree. It will release capacity on the existing network to allow a better, more frequent service to placed passed by the current trains to London
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
I think what TT was trying to say is that when a project like HS2 is costing upwards of £100bn and rising by the day, then £500m (Nexus' bid for funding) a fleet of new trains is a drop in the ocean and Nexus weren't even given that in the end (only 80% or so of it).
That has nothing to do with HS2 - that's the government being the government - there is no reason for doing so nor should places have to beg for improvements in public transport. But again that is not an issue with HS2 - it's historic and wrong. Scrapping HS2 will not change this.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
Well I posted it so it must be my opinion.

I get the impression too many on here are treating HS2 like a 6 year old wanting something for Christmas beyond their parents means?

I'm not opposed to HS2 in general, just the stupid cost and the way construction is being planned
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Well I posted it so it must be my opinion.

I get the impression too many on here are treating HS2 like a 6 year old wanting something for Christmas beyond their parents means?
Do you have evidence to back up your opinion?

If you have read any part of this thread, you'll see explanations of why people support HS2. If, again, you could point to specific posts that add to your opinion that "many on here are treating HS2 like a 6 year old wanting something for Christmas", I'll be interested.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
You have to look at this project from the perspective of people who never go near a train, either by choice, or because they live 20 miles from the nearest station.

The projected cost is more than £1,650 for every man, woman and child in the country. That is an astronomical amount of money.
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
One point not so often talked about is human resource capacity. Does the country have enough people skilled in all the different disciplines from designing, planning, building, starting-up railways to keep HS2, which must be using some proportion of these people on a project that will deliver nothing for the next 7 or 8 years (and then only between Brum and London) and increase workload on NPR (another long term project) as well as the many projects that will make a difference much more immediately like Trans-Pennine Route upgrade, Castlefield corridor, Bristol Metro, etc... and many others less well progressed so far or not even started?
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
You have to look at this project from the perspective of people who never go near a train, either by choice, or because they live 20 miles from the nearest station.

The projected cost is more than £1,650 for every man, woman and child in the country. That is an astronomical amount of money.

You could raise that argument about almost any public spending. There are people who have never used the NHS or never driven a car. But we recognise that both the NHS and the road network are nonetheless benefiting them by the fact of their existence. It's a public good. The same goes for the rail network.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Contrary to what Barclay says, it will not "level up" anything it will simply bring more towns into the London commuter belt.

You sound very sure of that - what is the basis for your statement?

HS2 does not provide significant capacity for commuting in and of itself. Its capacity into London is 20000 passengers per hour, a tiny fraction of the London commuter numbers, and even then only Birmingham and possibly East Midlands would be within reasonable commuting times.

The main benefit for commuter services, as has been repeated ad nauseam for years on this forum, is the capacity freed up on existing lines, so Watford, MK, Rubgy, Stevenage, Peterborough etc. can get a much higher frequency of fast trains to London, as opposed to trains passing through non-stop. In the past couple of decades the only place to have this level of fast service has been Reading. And sure, it's a big commuter town, but also a commuter destination in its own right due to businesses relocating there. And that's the fundamental flaw in your argument, assuming that a town "levelling up" and being commutable to London are somehow incompatible - they're not!
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
You have to look at this project from the perspective of people who never go near a train, either by choice, or because they live 20 miles from the nearest station.

The projected cost is more than £1,650 for every man, woman and child in the country. That is an astronomical amount of money.

That’s 100BN spread over how many years of the HS2 project though? 20? Then it’s complete and we hopefully reap the economic and social benefits for the next century, or however long the line or alignment is in use.

Rightly or wrongly the foreign Aid budget is £14BN a year, every year, we seem to be able to afford that.
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
You have to look at this project from the perspective of people who never go near a train, either by choice, or because they live 20 miles from the nearest station.

The projected cost is more than £1,650 for every man, woman and child in the country. That is an astronomical amount of money.
To use an analogy -
I don't use busses, why should I pay for them
I don't use schools, why should I pay for them
I don't use my local library, why should I pay for them
I don't ... I could go on,.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
To use an analogy -
I don't use busses, why should I pay for them
I don't use schools, why should I pay for them
I don't use my local library, why should I pay for them
I don't ... I could go on,.

Quite, but the public in general don't think this way. Also the government tend to view things from a viewpoint of getting re elected.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
Quite, but the public in general don't think this way. Also the government tend to view things from a viewpoint of getting re elected.

They’ll be the same people that gaze in amazement an the infrastructure in other countries then complain how ****e it is here when the come home...
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
You have to look at this project from the perspective of people who never go near a train, either by choice, or because they live 20 miles from the nearest station.
That's a great argument for never building anything. Most infrastructure is only used by a minority of the population.

The projected cost is more than £1,650 for every man, woman and child in the country. That is an astronomical amount of money.
It really isn't. Crossrail is costing £2,280 for every man, women and child in London. China is spending $100billion a year on high speed rail. Now that's astronomical!

Of course the government isn't asking every man, woman and child to shell out £1,650 to pay for this. It will be financed by a very low interest loan, repaid by greater tax revenue due to the economic gains of the project. It's called investment. Big outlay, yes, but big returns.

You're also conveniently ignoring that the money is being spent over many years. It works out at about 20p a day over the duration of the project. I'm about to go out and buy a sandwich for lunch; I'm not going to spend vast amounts of time agonising over whether to spend £2.50 or £2.70 on it.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
You have to look at this project from the perspective of people who never go near a train, either by choice, or because they live 20 miles from the nearest station.

The projected cost is more than £1,650 for every man, woman and child in the country. That is an astronomical amount of money.

Given that 15% of people live outside of settlements with a population of now than 10,000 people the number of people who are beyond 10 miles of a train station is likely to be fairly small, especially given that there's quite a few places which are smaller than 10,000 people with their own station.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,537
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Given that 15% of people live outside of settlements with a population of now than 10,000 people the number of people who are beyond 10 miles of a train station is likely to be fairly small, especially given that there's quite a few places which are smaller than 10,000 people with their own station.

Though many of those smaller stations don't have a useful service for whatever purpose. A few trains a day often won't work for commuting to a city, for example. Or if you've only got a daytime service as Kirkby-Wigan used to have (a bit better now I think) no use if you have to work late. Or (and this is probably the worst one) no Sunday service means it's not useful for a weekend away.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
That's a great argument for never building anything. Most infrastructure is only used by a minority of the population.


It really isn't. Crossrail is costing £2,280 for every man, women and child in London. China is spending $100billion a year on high speed rail. Now that's astronomical!

Of course the government isn't asking every man, woman and child to shell out £1,650 to pay for this. It will be financed by a very low interest loan, repaid by greater tax revenue due to the economic gains of the project. It's called investment. Big outlay, yes, but big returns.

You're also conveniently ignoring that the money is being spent over many years. It works out at about 20p a day over the duration of the project. I'm about to go out and buy a sandwich for lunch; I'm not going to spend vast amounts of time agonising over whether to spend £2.50 or £2.70 on it.

Exactly.

Other countries seem to be able to progress with similar projects without the wailing and hand wringing that always seems to accompany capital spending in the UK.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
See my question above - why does HS2 get the special massive low interest loan? Why can't we do that for other projects?

I am pro-HS2, but the answer "the money is only for HS2" doesn't really address the underlying crux of the thing.

I hadn't been aware that it is getting a super-low-interest loan. Is it?

But if it is, one obvious reason why HS2 will find it easier to attract loans than other infrastructure projects is that, once it's open, HS2 is very likely to be extremely profitable - far more so than most railways. In general with railways, the faster the train travels, the higher the profits - because at higher speeds, people are paying more for each minute that they are on the train and therefore using the infrastructure. That's why what was Virgin West Coast was very profitable, but most metro services require subsidy. HS2 will further benefit financially from longer trains carrying more passengers each than most trains - and this will add up to a very, very, profitable operation, and therefore something that is pretty safe to lend to from the point of view of lenders.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Though many of those smaller stations don't have a useful service for whatever purpose. A few trains a day often won't work for commuting to a city, for example. Or if you've only got a daytime service as Kirkby-Wigan used to have (a bit better now I think) no use if you have to work late. Or (and this is probably the worst one) no Sunday service means it's not useful for a weekend away.
True. Now if only there was a way of freeing of capacity on existing lines so these stations could be better served...
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I think some of the issue that people have with HS2 isn't necessarily the fact that it may cost £2X billion, but that it was previously only going to cost £X billion. They would (quite rightly) want to know the cause of this increase.
On a side note, how much of the potential £106 billion cost of HS2 is optimism bias? Shouldn't the optimism bias have (mostly) covered the recent cost estimate increases? Or [conspiracy alert!] is optimism bias' only purpose to tell contractors how much they can charge above the "true" cost of a project?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top