HS2 Given Govt Approval

[Jordy]

I'm not sure this is the best to approach building a high speed railway, the route is a bit dubious, I'd be tempted to go through Heathrow or something but a line needs to be built anyway.

The current West Coast mainline (Virgin and London Midland) will of reached capacity in just 10 years time, it's practically at it now. They'll be over-crowding on every train, the economy will no doubt suffer seeing as prices will rocket even further (Demand will far outdo supply). I'm yet to see a credible alternative to building a new railway between London and Birmingham, all I see is criticism of the current scheme, no solutions (Much like Labour attacking the coalition over the economy). Additional capacity is the main reason it is being built, not to shave minutes off the journey time.

[Mathew]

Additional capacity is the main reason it is being built, not to shave minutes off the journey time.

Surely they'd be better adding additional train carriages and increasing the length of train station platforms if that was the case? I'm sure that wouldn't go anywhere near £34 billion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not sure this is the best to approach building a high speed railway, the route is a bit dubious, I'd be tempted to go through Heathrow or something but a line needs to be built anyway.

The current West Coast mainline (Virgin and London Midland) will of reached capacity in just 10 years time, it's practically at it now. They'll be over-crowding on every train, the economy will no doubt suffer seeing as prices will rocket even further (Demand will far outdo supply). I'm yet to see a credible alternative to building a new railway between London and Birmingham, all I see is criticism of the current scheme, no solutions (Much like Labour attacking the coalition over the economy). Additional capacity is the main reason it is being built, not to shave minutes off the journey time.

If we need a HSR route then the private sector will build one, if not as is the case as it stands - then it points out that this is simply not economically feesible or sound in the slightest which is why this entire vanity project relies on taxpayer money because its essentially a white elephant (a big one at that, £40bn+).

all I see is criticism of the current scheme, no solutions (Much like Labour attacking the coalition over the economy)

Labour attack the coalition over the economy for party political gain, not because they disagree with one another.

Whatever 'the solutions' are, it certainly doesn't involve splashing out £40bn+ of taxpayer money on a vanity scheme which the wealthy will only be able to afford.

[efq]

I think people are getting too impatient.
And I don't think it's so hard to add a few carriages to a train so this is got me mind blown. :s

I really dislike how the government are forcing people to leave their houses so they can stick tracks there instead.


The UK is ****** up and we all know it. Well so is Europe so it's no biggy.

[Jordy]

Surely they'd be better adding additional train carriages and increasing the length of train station platforms if that was the case? I'm sure that wouldn't go anywhere near £34 billion.

Indeed this has been looked into and the line was upgraded in 2000 causing misery for years on the route at great expense and little improvement. Further improvements have been looked into, similar to you suggest (additional carriages and longer platforms) and that came out about £20 billion and wouldn't provide sufficient capacity at the end of it all unlike High Speed 2. There's all the studies out there and none of them seem to have another solution other than building a new line. Bare in mind practically all the railways in this country were built by the victorians, there's only so much you can upgrade them (and that's what we've been doing for the past century), it's old infrastructure.

If we need a HSR route then the private sector will build one, if not as is the case as it stands - then it points out that this is simply not economically feesible or sound in the slightest which is why this entire vanity project relies on taxpayer money because its essentially a white elephant (a big one at that, £40bn+).



Labour attack the coalition over the economy for party political gain, not because they disagree with one another.

Whatever 'the solutions' are, it certainly doesn't involve splashing out £40bn+ of taxpayer money on a vanity scheme which the wealthy will only be able to afford.

Not so sure this is a vanity project, as you pointed out, the public aren't exactly head over heels about High Speed 2 and it was actually a Labour initiative continued by the coalition so it'd be them getting the credit anyway. By the time it's built in 15 years time anyway no one will be praising David Cameron for it, the person who began the project will be long forgotten about, I can't even remember if the project was began under Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. It's hardly doing the Conservatives much favours either as it's running through many of their key constituencies.

I really do feel its a project of necessity and to allow economic growth in the future, the infrastructure needs to be up to it, not over-crowded like it currently is across the network in a situation bound to get only worse. I really don't see any other decent solution to the over-crowding issue between London and Birmingham. It's the old railway infrastructure and lack of investment which means rail fares are so high yet still overcrowded, the demand well outstrips supply.

Edit: How come spaces are removed between words whenever I make posts on HxFs these days, swear it's not just me?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not so sure this is a vanity project, as you pointed out, the public aren't exactly head over heels about High Speed 2 and it was actually a Labour initiative continued by the coalition so it'd be them getting the credit anyway. By the time it's built in 15 years time anyway no one will be praising David Cameron for it, the person who began the project will be long forgotten about, I can't even remember if the project was began under Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. It's hardly doing the Conservatives much favours either as it's running through many of their key constituencies.

Labour also started the white elephant that is the Olympics, but that didn't stop Dave cashing in on the hype..

I really do feel its a project of necessity and to allow economic growth in the future, the infrastructure needs to be up to it, not over-crowded like it currently is across the network in a situation bound to get only worse. I really don't see any other decent solution to the over-crowding issue between London and Birmingham. It's the old railway infrastructure and lack of investment which means rail fares are so high yet still overcrowded, the demand well outstrips supply.

And again, why is there lack of investment? because there's nothing profitable to invest in. If there was such a bright future predicted for these rail systems then private firms would invest in them because they would recieve a return on their investment. But as with everything government does, if the 'investment' fails (as it always does under government) then who picks up the tab? the taxpayer.

Private investors and firms won't touch this with a barge pole, and rightly so. But the taxpayer hasn't a choice.

[Jordy]

Labour also started the white elephant that is the Olympics, but that didn't stop Dave cashing in on the hype..





And again, why is there lack of investment? because there's nothing profitable to invest in. If there was such a bright future predicted for these rail systems then private firms would invest in them because they would recieve a return on their investment. But as with everything government does, if the 'investment' fails (as it always does under government) then who picks up the tab? the taxpayer.

Private investors and firms won't touch this with a barge pole, and rightly so. But the taxpayer hasn't a choice.

No business could ever raise £32bn to invest in a project, regardless of what it was. Only a few firms in the world have that sort of money lying around and you needn't think you could borrow/raise anywhere near such a colossal sum of money, especially in this economic climate (Although even in good times, £32bn is ambitious). It's simply too big of a project for the private sector, I'd be interested in seeing examples where a business (or group of them) have invested such large sums of money. Major infrastructure should be down to the government, otherwise it won't exist.

Virgin Group did offer to turn the East Coast mainline into a high speed railway if it won the franchise but it was rejected. No doubt would of been a much smaller project but still likely to be around £5 Billion, just to show the willingness for business to invest in High Speed Rail, but obviously like I pointed out, this is out of the private sectors hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-sp...ns.27_ECML_bid

[-:Undertaker:-]

No business could ever raise £32bn to invest in a project, regardless of what it was. Only a few firms in the world have that sort of money lying around and you needn't think you could borrow/raise anywhere near such a colossal sum of money, especially in this economic climate (Although even in good times, £32bn is ambitious). It's simply too big of a project for the private sector, I'd be interested in seeing examples where a business (or group of them) have invested such large sums of money. Major infrastructure should be down to the government, otherwise it won't exist.

I'm not talking about one firm financing the entire route as that is obviously unviable if not impossible. If any of the rail links or portions of the proposed track are viable economically, then the private sector can step in and put their money where their mouth is and invest (like the example you've given below) in High Speed Rail. It is immoral and wrong to force the taxpayers of this country to commit to building a rail track which is not economically viable and which I assume is later going to be turned over to private firms (along with constant subsidy by the government to pay them to manage the rail line).

Even if the scheme was deemed viable I would still be against any government funding, but thats another issue altogether.

Virgin Group did offer to turn the East Coast mainline into a high speed railway if it won the franchise but it was rejected. No doubt would of been a much smaller project but still likely to be around £5 Billion, just to show the willingness for business to invest in High Speed Rail, but obviously like I pointed out, this is out of the private sectors hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-sp...ns.27_ECML_bid

Virgin however has shown that the scheme appears viable by the fact it is or was willing to invest in High Speed Rail on that route, the same cannot be said for HS2 because it is unviable. If it were viable for arguments sake, then Virgin along with the other rail companies (or even general investors) would look at the project and go ahead with it. But as I keep saying, as its not viable thats why it hasn't happened - and thats why as usual, the taxpayer is forced to put their money at risk in a game they will surely lose in as they always do. In other words; the cow with the never ending supply of milk.

Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted the Dome should have paid for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted to lengthen the lifespans of our bankrupt banks (aka the bailout) should have paid for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted the Olympics should pay for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who want HS2 should pay for it themselves.

As it turns out, none of them are ever willing to put their money on the line for the simple reason that they know the chances of a profitable return are nil.

[RyRy]

Why the **** they have done this I have no idea. Invest in the current rail system, and maybe invest in some roads and buses as well, perhaps even make transport a bit more affordable instead of creating a ****** city link between Birmingham & London which yeah sure people will use but come on, how much time will it shave off? I mean they're probably paying 1bn per minute cut yano?

But even then, what about all the unemployment going on? I wonder how many jobs that'll make, or better yet I wonder whether the company making the track will even be British, bet it's just another ploy to invest more money into another country eh?!

[Jordy]

I'm not talking about one firm financing the entire route as that is obviously unviable if not impossible. If any of the rail links or portions of the proposed track are viable economically, then the private sector can step in and put their money where their mouth is and invest (like the example you've given below) in High Speed Rail. It is immoral and wrong to force the taxpayers of this country to commit to building a rail track which is not economically viable and which I assume is later going to be turned over to private firms (along with constant subsidy by the government to pay them to manage the rail line).

Even if the scheme was deemed viable I would still be against any government funding, but thats another issue altogether.



Virgin however has shown that the scheme appears viable by the fact it is or was willing to invest in High Speed Rail on that route, the same cannot be said for HS2 because it is unviable. If it were viable for arguments sake, then Virgin along with the other rail companies (or even general investors) would look at the project and go ahead with it. But as I keep saying, as its not viable thats why it hasn't happened - and thats why as usual, the taxpayer is forced to put their money at risk in a game they will surely lose in as they always do. In other words; the cow with the never ending supply of milk.

Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted the Dome should have paid for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted to lengthen the lifespans of our bankrupt banks (aka the bailout) should have paid for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who wanted the Olympics should pay for it themselves.
Those customers and thus large corporations who want HS2 should pay for it themselves.

As it turns out, none of them are ever willing to put their money on the line for the simple reason that they know the chances of a profitable return are nil.

The scheme has been deemed viable and economic, hence why they are going ahead with it (Rather than so called vanity reasons which don't stack up). Realistically I cannot see how a £32bn railway project could be funded by the private sector, no matter how it is divided up between firms and financed by various banks, the money just isn't there. I personally doubt a project of this scale has ever been carried out by the private sector for the reasons I've outlined. The government has to build some major infrastructure as otherwise it simply won't come about, infrastructure is vital to the economy after all. That is why even the French and Japanese high speed rail systems which have shown to be great successes have not been funded by the private sector either.