SkyscraperCity Forum banner

HS2 General Thread (all phases/discussion)

4M views 32K replies 616 participants last post by  passiv 
G
#1 ·
Just thought I'd see if anybody thinks about this subject as much as I do and if anyone had ideas as to what they'd like to see under this name.

I think the best place for it's London terminus will be St Pancras but how I wonder.

Can see two options possible:

1) an annex on the west side of the existing station

Advantages being more platforms but high speed trains would be blocked from easy interchange with the Eurostars by the Midland Mianline tracks acting as a kind of barrier.

2) an annex on the east side

Infinitley more difficult but with the advantage being Eurostars and domestic HST's would be in the same area of the station.

As for the line itself, the seemingly obvious place to start is using the North London line for relatively low speed running (say about 160-220km/h) through urban London. Although I'm not sure if that single track connection from HS1 would end up being a problem capacity wise.

There would need to be another line going under the current St Pancras-NLL chord and onto the NLL. Think of it like the soon to be opened St Pancras-HS1 layout with the two running tracks going over/under each other.

A station at Willesden Junciton (see my other thread) would be good I reckon and from here the line continues at classic line speeds to Denham before the new High Speed formation breaks away.

Then to get a bit more basic from here the line should go to Coventry Parkway-Birmingham International-Lichfield Trent Valley-Stoke-Stockport-Manchester Eastlands-Preston-Carlisle.......then up to a triangle junction in the Scottish Central belt with links to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Obviously there would be branches to Liverpool (from Stoke), Leeds (from Manchester) and Derby, Sheffield, Doncaster, York, Teeside & Newcastle (from Birminghm International).

Sorry to go on but it would be good to hear what others think, it might be an irrelevant discussion knowing this Government but it's always interesting to talk about it.
 
See less See more
#7,681 ·
It's a shame Adonis isn't making more noise at the moment.

Incredibly articulate and very knowledgeable.

If he ever expressed doubts about HS2 we'd have to call it a day.
Such a brilliant politician and it's unfortunate he couldn't have done what Seb Coe did and become drop his MP role to become the figurehead for the project. As for Darling, much like meddling Mandelson (can't believe I've had to type that awful man's name), he's yet another opportunist twit....

I heard an funny comment that made me chortle. I was chatting on the tram about HS2 to someone and they said they were against to because "people will be paying for it for generations to come.." I pointed out the irony in his statement when I had to tell them that this project has to last for 100 years....

One thing I've thought about that reinforces the need for HS2, in a roundabout sort of way, is that huge new container port opening outside London. If the governments of tomorrow wish to encourage more rail use for freight, and this facility adds to this demand, then HS2 is a no-brainer if we have to use the existing network. I can see DIRFT getting much more busier in future. HS2 isn't simply about speed -or capacity -for passenger traffic. Freight is an important aspect to consider too.
 
#7,682 ·
An excellent article by the always sensible Will Hutton, lambasting the UK's short-termist approach to major infrastructure investment.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/24/will-hutton-hs2-infrastructure-investment

I heard an funny comment that made me chortle. I was chatting on the tram about HS2 to someone and they said they were against to because "people will be paying for it for generations to come.." I pointed out the irony in his statement when I had to tell them that this project has to last for 100 years....

One thing I've thought about that reinforces the need for HS2, in a roundabout sort of way, is that huge new container port opening outside London. If the governments of tomorrow wish to encourage more rail use for freight, and this facility adds to this demand, then HS2 is a no-brainer if we have to use the existing network. I can see DIRFT getting much more busier in future. HS2 isn't simply about speed -or capacity -for passenger traffic. Freight is an important aspect to consider too.
Everyone riding on a train in the UK today (except on HS1) owes a huge debt of gratitude to those in the 19th Century who designed, invested in and built the railway network we know today. Had the Victorians adopted the Nimby mindset and never sought to improve communications and transport our country today would be a lot poorer - indeed without our Victorian railway system we simply could not have survived World War 2.

The point you make about freight is spot-on. There are huge UK port developments happening (or planned) which in time will greatly increase the amount of container traffic that has to be moved. Without HS2 it is unlikely our existing rail network could hope to win this extra traffic as there would not be enough capacity (freight train paths) on our mainlines. Building HS2 is therefore imperative in preventing a large upsurge of HGV traffic on England's roads.
 
#7,684 ·



"How to discredit an unwelcome report:

Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).​

Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).​

Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:
1. 'Not really a basis for long term decisions'.
2. 'Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment'.
3. 'No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy'.
4. 'Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice'.​

Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off the record) that
1. He is harbouring a grudge against the Department.
2. He is a publicity seeker.
3. He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship.
4. He used to be a consultant to a multinational.
5. He wants to be a consultant to a multinational."​

"To suppress an internal government report, rewrite it as official advice to the Minister. Then it is against the rules to publish it, so you can leak the bits you want to friendly journalists."
 
#7,686 ·
More bad press from IoD report...
From short-termist pennywise pound foolish British directors that lack vision past next week or the next financial year. Why can't we be more German?... :( :(

Still, it re-iterates my point.... There's no such thing as a good British CEO.
 
#7,687 ·
More bad press from IoD report...
This is what happens if spurious figures don't get nailed quickly. They get treated as if they're true. To hear the IOD talk, anyone would think only businessmen would use these trains.
 
#7,688 ·
From short-termist pennywise pound foolish British directors that lack vision past next week or the next financial year. Why can't we be more German?... :( :(

Still, it re-iterates my point.... There's no such thing as a good British CEO.
If there is anything like a British disease, it is short-termism and a fear of anything new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vulcan's Finest
#7,689 ·
It's yet another prime example of another group stating that costs must be controlled.

I see Maria Eagle was in The Sunday Times saying Labour still back the scheme but repeats that no cost increase will be permitted or that support goes.

So we have the HS2 financial bill passing through parliament stating the line must serve Leeds, South Yorkshire, East Midlands, Manchester, Birmingham and London and will soon have the hybrid bill stating the same - scope cannot be cut.

We also have Labour saying that they will not support an increased bill, this ties in with many other recent responses from all sorts of other areas like the treasury - if the cost rises the dies.

I've had the usual suspects on ignore now for about a month and other than the odd occasion when someone has quoted their posts I've not seen what they've been saying, I do hope the penny has dropped for them by now, HS2 phase 1 & 2 are pretty much set now.

The consultation will no doubt deliver the odd minor change here or there that adds no extra cost.

There is zero hope whatsoever that the plans will see any significant change now, certainly not anything that'll add cost.

Ultimately support or otherwise for the scheme will be based on what we have today, not some wild ideas that were never deemed financially viable.

Those responding to the consultation will recognise this and will almost certainly frame their response with this I in mind.
 
#7,690 ·
An excellent article by the always sensible Will Hutton, lambasting the UK's short-termist approach to major infrastructure investment.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/24/will-hutton-hs2-infrastructure-investment



Everyone riding on a train in the UK today (except on HS1) owes a huge debt of gratitude to those in the 19th Century who designed, invested in and built the railway network we know today. Had the Victorians adopted the Nimby mindset and never sought to improve communications and transport our country today would be a lot poorer - indeed without our Victorian railway system we simply could not have survived World War 2.

The point you make about freight is spot-on. There are huge UK port developments happening (or planned) which in time will greatly increase the amount of container traffic that has to be moved. Without HS2 it is unlikely our existing rail network could hope to win this extra traffic as there would not be enough capacity (freight train paths) on our mainlines. Building HS2 is therefore imperative in preventing a large upsurge of HGV traffic on England's roads.
Brunel had to face nimbyism in building the Great Wester railway, coming up against landowners and other vested interests, and faced an 11-days grilling in Parliament before the bill to build the GWR received Royal Assent.

And that article is spot on. Its money-no-object when it comes to fighting wars. Afghanistan £40 billion, Iraq at least £20 billion, Libya at least £2 biillion, and Cameron is desperate for a pre-Election showdown with Syria. Every Prime Minister wants to be remembered as a war leader like Churchill, and look at the cost over the last 12 years. £60 billion plus, hundreds of troops killed and maimed, the smashed gravestones of our World War II fallen, and for what? Libyans, Afghans and Iraqis aren't grateful for our interventions, and neither will the Syrians if Cameron gets his way. And yet a new railway line is a waste of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashtonian
#7,691 ·
Couldn't agree more.

We waste tens of billions on stupid wars and yet throw a hissy fit when it comes to spending large amounts of money to invest in our own future. I wish Cameron would spend less time worrying about what's happening in Syria and more shoring up support for the biggest infrastructure project this country has seen for along time.
 
#7,692 ·
Couldn't agree more.

We waste tens of billions on stupid wars and yet throw a hissy fit when it comes to spending large amounts of money to invest in our own future. I wish Cameron would spend less time worrying about what's happening in Syria and more shoring up support for the biggest infrastructure project this country has seen for along time.
Cameron sees Syria as an opportunity to masquerade as Churchill with a General Election just 19 or 20 months away. If it all goes wrong, he'll merely pass the buck. And why are we helping the sort of people with the same mindset as those who carried out the 9/11 atrocity? And that is who we will be helping, for there are Al Qaeda terrorists fighting against Assad. There is an inherent risk of a massive Middle East war.
 
#7,694 ·
Clearly the figures are going to come under intense scrutiny, what's the bullet points of how the cost/benefit ratio has been decided?

This is/was always going to be ultimately attacked, it's the culture that we have because we've given the accountants too much influence over us. The mindset is risk adverse, short termist and therefore lacks vision to allow us to consider more indirect benefits/intangible wealth being created instead of supposedly measureable data.
 
#7,695 ·
The IOD spokesman is doing the rounds saying the same money should be spent on hundreds, if not thousands of smaller projects.

We come back to the same basic issue of none of them being able to address where they think the extra capacity we need is going to come from.
 
#7,696 ·
if the surveys and research from these think tanks is anything like the surveys and research carried out by companies looking to lead a new advertising campaign then it will be highly dubious with leading questions and interesting use of statistics.

Just wish media outlets wouldn't just reprint them as filler with no questions asked.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...fluential-institute-of-directors-8785139.html

HS2 is a 'giant folly' and should be scrapped, warns influential Institute of Directors

“We agree with the need for key infrastructure spending, but the business case for HS2 simply is not there. The money would be far better spent elsewhere and in a way that will benefit much more of the country. Investment in the West and East Coast main lines, combined with a variety of other infrastructure projects, would be a far more sensible option.”
 
#7,697 · (Edited)
Clearly the figures are going to come under intense scrutiny, what's the bullet points of how the cost/benefit ratio has been decided?

This is/was always going to be ultimately attacked, it's the culture that we have because we've given the accountants too much influence over us. The mindset is risk adverse, short termist and therefore lacks vision to allow us to consider more indirect benefits/intangible wealth being created instead of supposedly measureable data.
We should be getting (probably not bullet points, rather a forest of paperwork) the new CBR in the next couple of months.

The next critical time for this in my opinion.

Of course no western democracy dues anything fundamentally differently when judging what to build, just allocate different amounts of money to achieve the goals.
 
#7,698 ·
The war on terror has cost us a lot more than a couple of trillion. Not billions (sorry to be partially pedantic).....

(At least you know why no one has any money...)
 
#7,700 ·
From short-termist pennywise pound foolish British directors that lack vision past next week or the next financial year. Why can't we be more German?... :( :(

Still, it re-iterates my point.... There's no such thing as a good British CEO.
Germany spent a lot of time and money preparing a super advanced high speed line. And then they ditched it on account of costs.
Currently I dont think they have anything that goes as fast as HS2 nor are they planning to get it. If HS2 is scrapped, it will be just like Germany.
And they probably dont have anything close to as big a project as cross rail.

I think its silly to just start talking about costs of wars or whatever. Talk about apples and oranges. Costs cant be ignored.
Capacity is needed but if its true that the whole thing becomes significantly more expensive just because it must be able to run at 225 mph in stead of 190 mph then surely that is something to consider.
 
Top