24-01-2020 8:52 PM - edited 24-01-2020 8:56 PM
The cost of the HS2 white elephant vanity project that makes no economic sense just keeps going up...
The Chinese built a 1200 miles long railway from China to Tibet through Himalayas, highest point
over 16,000 feet cost US $ 3.5 Billion, carriages are pressurised like an aircraft, quite a lot of the
line is built on permafrost, with long tunnels.
In UK we propose to build a line 120 miles long with highest point a few hundred feet above sea level and it
costs £110 Billion, what on earth is happening - has this just got completely out of control and nobody is
controlling the costs, has anyone done a proper cost / benefit study ?
This railway was proposed by EU in around 1996 as part of the high-speed rail through member states directive,
drawings were made showing the route even down to the 'Y' where line splits to Manchester and Leeds.
Surely now we are leaving EU we can knock this on the head and spend the money more wisely.
High speed trains across the vastness of China makes perfect sense, plus there is little people can argue with if that's what their government want to do - unlike here now and in the past when the powers that be have to jump through hoops in order to get things done plus of course, this is Britain and not China - so not a fair comparison?
It has though become a complete and utter farce and time to put a stop to what has become a circus with only clowns performing.
Said it before, let's get back to steam trains! 😃
this is Britain and not China - so not a fair comparison?
China is like Britain in the Victorian era, they said they were going to do something and did it - simples
Majority of railway mileage in UK was built between 1830 and 1850 - the country has been
discussing HS2 longer than that already and not a metre of track laid yet.
I be most of the money spent on HS2 so far has gone to consultants and bureaucacy - peoples land has
been compulsoraly purchased but they have not been paid yet and they cannot use the land - that is
scandalous.. people banned from using their own land and unable to access it..
The money wasted on HS2 should have been spent on upgrading / fixing the complete rail network, not some unwanted white elephant.
This is the key paragraph from the article in my second link in opening post .... so now we are leaving we are under no obligation to build it - is the conspiricy theory that we kept delaying it until outcome of 2016 referendum was implemented ( or nearly not as the remainers would have had it ).
'However, following the European Commission’s proposals of 2011, Britain has no choice but to build the HS2 and then to bear the costs. Along with all the other Trans-European Networks, it is no longer a voluntary programme, but is obligatory'.
25-01-2020 3:10 PM - edited 25-01-2020 3:16 PM
I saw a very brief clip of that which flashed up during the BBC TV news yesterday.
It looked like they were clearing the site / starting groundworks but what was astonishing was the sheer number of excavators involved, they hardly had room to swing a
cat bucket - there must have been a hundred in close proximity to each other.
Edit: Video added ...
Not HS2 related, but the Chinese are building a hospital over the weekend, to be opened on Monday. Couldn't see that happening here!
@Marksfish I have problems with the ease with which comparisons are made with China; how much fasfer, cheaper they get things done. Just look at their government system; how is it able to quarantine cities (mega ones by our measure), or construct that hospitla in a week.
Their freedom is limited severely. Non conforming can be risky. And labour is cheap.
Back on track.... or not as it happens as far as HS2 in concerned.
It seems to me that rather than spend even more millions, would it not be better put that money to better use by making our existing trains more comfortable with better timetables and making them more efficient. Passengers are probably more concerned with that and high speed broadband on trains being faster than high speed arrivals not going anywhere at all at the moment... or for the forseeable future.
26-01-2020 12:07 PM - edited 26-01-2020 12:09 PM
@Minivanman The biggest problem is land. In China they say they will have that piece of land and that is it. Here? how much can we pay you for it. Costs some. Yes, some could argue it will be a white elephant but then that is what was said in Japan when they first started to build their first high speed rail system. Flying is fine but is it sustainable? It certainly isn't fast by the time you include getting to the airport etc. Land based vehicles can be electric powered by renewables etc. Even Diesel powered trains are invariably Diesel Electric. Lifting an aircraft full of batteries does tax the imagination somewhat. We have to improve the infrastructure at some point and it will cost. Currently, going across the country in the North, the only real option you have is go by car.
Fastest travel to London from my part of the world is 2 hours. Train, and that includes it stopping at 4 stations going on down to London. Car going to London takes over 3 hours (140 odd miles) and I feel knackered when I arrive. Then I have to find a place to park it. Looking at a map, the East of England is pretty poorly served at the moment. I don't go visiting my sister very often for that reason. She lives 125 miles away (should take a couple of hours at most) but it takes well over 3 hours to do. Train takes 5 hours! No decent train, road links at all. Which is strange when you look at how close the East of England is to the EU. And yet they'll gladly spend £17.6 billion on an area that is already well connected - i.e. London Crossrail.
Crossrail (or something similar) is needed to take the strain off the hugely overcrowded underground system, and by extending it into Berkshire and Essex it will also take some of the passengers currently using other railway services. Although modernisation will enable the underground to run trains closer together, that alone won't provide the capacity needed in order to carry the ever increasing number of passengers. Making the trains longer is not an option since extending the platforms in the tunnels would mean shutting down a large section of a line for an extending period.