Glenn1969
Established Member
Is there still a chance that the decision could come this week?
these construction companies cleverly donated money to the only one of the three main political parties that was expressing a possible desire to cancel HS2 - and then proceeded to lobby that party to adopt the same support for HS2
Can you confirm though actual facts your theory on the rail freight market is more or less dead in your words?
So, since you seem to be arguing that providing more services to places like Milton Keynes and Huntingdon is a bad thing
Non-coal rail freight has remained static but coal freight has dropped off a cliff, so the net mileage is massively decreased.
I think it unnecessary as both already have excellent rail links with spare capacity and- crucially- the stops add no extra capacity to the network.
Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?
If HS2 was going to cost £30bn- as they said it would- I'd probably not be opposed to it.
I think it unnecessary as both already have excellent rail links with spare capacity and- crucially- the stops add no extra capacity to the network.
Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?
Non-coal rail freight has remained static but coal freight has dropped off a cliff, so the net mileage is massively decreased.
20% drop in five years.
I think it unnecessary as both already have excellent rail links with spare capacity and- crucially- the stops add no extra capacity to the network.
Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?
If HS2 was going to cost £30bn- as they said it would- I'd probably not be opposed to it.
Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't, it depends what you do with the "classic" expresses.
As for increased passenger paths, HS2 won't increase paths elsewhere. It might result in the existing "classic" expresses making more station calls at places like MK or Huntingdon, (after all, slowing the "classic" expresses is the way to "persuade" people on to HS2) but that really isn't the same thing at all.
Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?
With that in mind, my finger-in-the air answer to "when is it probably too expensive" is when the BCR drops below about 0.5.
Cost is only one side of the equation.
I think it unnecessary as both already have excellent rail links with spare capacity and- crucially- the stops add no extra capacity to the network.
Nobody anywhere seems to want to critique the cost of it ("£110bn is fake news!" seems to be the gist of it). Genuine question: is there actually a cost limit above which you would also say "you know what, this is a bit pricy for what it is, maybe we should think again"?
If HS2 was going to cost £30bn- as they said it would- I'd probably not be opposed to it.
Regarding the cost, personally no. It’s a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project that, unless we invent teleportation, will still be in use many centuries in the future.
I’m simply going to say that there are a number of genuinely legitimate reasons to criticise HS2, but claiming it won’t free up paths is not one of them.
Try getting on the 0755 MK-Euston one morning.
I lived in Hemel and even on the busiest trains there was plenty of room if you boarded in the rearmost set (unless LM/LNR short formed).
If you listen to Berkeley, we're pretty much there already.
I'll take that as "no, I'll support HS2 regardless of cost" shall I?
Indeed, the Lower Thames Crossing, at only 13 miles, has almost as much of an ancient woodland take as HS2.
The Green Party has, of course, not said a single word about this road project.
17 November 2018
Today, Saturday 17th November 2018, the Eastern Region Green Party, including Councillor James Abbott and members of the Essex Green Parties, voted unanimously to oppose the proposal for a new crossing of the Thames by road.
...
The meeting voted unanimously that the Eastern Region Green Party could not support the proposals in its current form due to the following three considerations which it believes are inexcusable:
...
3. The Destruction of the Green Belt land, wildlife, and biodiversity.
With such a massive infrastructure project, many environmentalists have pointed to the irreparable damage the scheme would have to wildlife and surrounding natural areas.
...
The destruction seen in such a project would be inexcusable. The loss of green belt land through five ancient woodlands, protected areas designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the permanent effect it would have on our natural world and its ecosystems and wildlife has not been considered.
The reason they can't is the timetable not allowing it. They would coin it in with extra stops.The reason why Virgin/Avanti don't stop at MKC is purely commercial.
Genuine question... Is that relevant to Milton Keynes? I don't live along that line so I'm not familiar with the timetable or commuting patterns, but I would have guessed that the trains most commuters will be trying to board at Milton Keynes will be fast-ish ones that won't stop at Hemel Hempstead?
Berkeley, and the "dissenting report" from a single known sceptic of the scheme.
They would coin it in with extra stops.
The reason they can't is the timetable not allowing it. They would coin it in with extra stops.
If you listen to Berkeley, we're pretty much there already.
The reason they can't is the timetable not allowing it. They would coin it in with extra stops.
I think that's a reasonable answer, although railways only stay in existence if they serve a purpose and make money. The GCR cost £1.3bn in today's money and lasted 50 years because it served no purpose, which should act as a bit of a cautionary tale.
It won't free up many paths, and certainly not for freight. You can run more trains if they are slower, but not significantly more.
This took me a few seconds to find, and directly addresses the issue.
Disclosure: I am not a Green Party member and have not (yet) voted for them, but when I saw your post I immediately thought they would surely be official opposed to such a proposal.
https://southeastessex.greenparty.org.uk/news/2018/11/17/green-party-against-lower-thames-crossing/
That's at present because there's only one route that has to carry the fastest Avanti trains along with the LNRs (I.e. their fasts which are intermediate services if they are considered in passenger terms). Once the fastest trains are removed, the ability of expresses to call at MK without destroying paths will allow better long-distant journeys for those passengers not starting/finishing at one of the locations served by HS2 stations.Not really, for many reasons:
First, they are focused on providing the fastest services possible to further distances from London, and wouldnt sacrifice journey time to add an MK stop on let's say, a Manchester service.
Also, as we see in the evening peak, they already skip MK or have it as pick up in the contra peak direction as they dont want MK commuters filling the trains up fron Euston.
Probably some here will call it 'fake news'.Very interesting item on YouTube regarding HS2 by a qualified rail engineer, putting some of the anti propaganda to bed.
One of Concordes basic problems was a lack of range. The Atlantic was pretty much maximum, it couldn’t cross the Pacific without refuelling. LHR to Sydney required to stops for gas iirc.
Regarding paths I think we’re going to have to agree to strongly disagree.
If we look at the example of the Woodsmith Tunnel.
It's only a conveyer belt, but given its 20+ miles long the ~2 year construction period is still quite impressive.
Even if rail tunnels take double or treble the time to build, we still save decades in theplanning process
Noone really cares if a tunnel goes under their feet.
Noone will fight an act of parliament vesting the land below a certain depth in the hands of a state body.
You can run 4 at 100mph for every 3 at 125mph, if memory serves me right (happy to be corrected)