The Indy publishes LD data suggesting that Chesham & Amersham could be competitive – politicalbettin

BigRich said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.

If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?

Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.

Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.

I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.

It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.

Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.

How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?

A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.

Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.

But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.

Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.

Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.

Just make up a number and spend that much.

It would make far more sense than HS2 👍

The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.

So why are the government not doing it then ?

If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?

Mostly because of fear of the green lobby, and bad media coverage that may come form it.

But also, because all the money has been spent of HS2 and other ;green' projects.

ManchesterKurt said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.

If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?

Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.

Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.

I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.

It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.

Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.

How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?

A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.

Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.

But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.

Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.

Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.

Just make up a number and spend that much.

It would make far more sense than HS2 👍

The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.

So why are the government not doing it then ?

If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?

The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.

Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.

The government have an 80 seat majority.

They can do what they wish.

williamglenn said:

No surprise:

ydoethur said:

What’s rather depressing about the debate on here over HS2 is that even intelligent and well informed posters are engaging on the basis of what they want to be true rather than what’s likely to happen. So we have Foxy’s suggestion that trains will be slower on the classic network. Well, yes, as Sandy and I have discussed some current very fast services will have a slightly reduced speed due to the withdrawal of tilting trains, but most services will be unaffected, and more frequent. Or the suggestion from Philip that motorways are cheaper. Well, no, not really, and they cause problems of their own, plus they take up more space. Or Richard Tyndall banging the Berkeley drum and refusing to engage with the evidence presented by Oakervee, because Berkeley criticised HS2 and Oakervee recommended the green light.

I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.

And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?

It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.

Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.

And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

HS2 however is central to reducing local journey times as well. In particular, the faster trains across the north can’t realistically be delivered without it.

If it was just a high speed line operating in isolation, I would concede your point. But it isn’t. The key argument for HS2 has always been that it’s the easiest, cheapest and least disruptive way to increase capacity - and if we’re building a whole new line anyway, why not make it high speed?

Because there are better ways that the money can be spent on the rail network which would deliver much better, more cost effective and more needed improvements.

Yes, if we want to develop smaller towns then we need trains that serve intermediate stations rather than speed by at 200mph from one metropolis to another.

I am not affected by HS2 and cannot see a reason to ever use it. My main concern is that lines like MML which I do use, will be starved of resources in order to pay for it.

It is absolutely pathetic for anyone to suggest high speed rail does anything for towns that are pretty much entirely serviced by roads, not high speed express trains speeding through them without stopping.

Motorway, where people can get on or off at any junction they choose, do far more for the local economy than any high speed rail.

How many miles of new motorway could have been built for £150 billion instead of one HS2 line?

A fraction of that could have dualed the A1 in Northumberland to the Scottish Border, which is STILL single carriageway in many places despite around 40 years of promises.

Precisely. £150bn on road upgrades would have been really transformative and a real levelling up.

But no, religious-like dogma of the London-based civil servants who think "cars are bad" despite the rollout of zero-emission vehicles means that only rails ever get a look in.

Add £150bn to the road budget and you'd get not just one project but hundreds of projects done that would have a real impact on people's lives as opposed to a decades old white elephant.

Why not spend £300bn on roads if it makes sense.

Just make up a number and spend that much.

It would make far more sense than HS2 👍

The entire road budget combined is less than HS2 - but far more transport is done in cars than rails.

So why are the government not doing it then ?

If it makes so much sense to spend £300bn what is holding them back ?

The Civil Service has a quasi religious devotion to public transport and a notion that roads are bad for the environment.

Primarily by people who spend all day living and working in and around London that think the Tube is the way to live and don't realise that most people in this country drive.

Actually, £150 billion being invested in charging infrastructure would go a long way to making electric cars and motor scooters more viable. It is range anxiety that is the biggest reason that puts people off electric vehicles.

In an electric car world, roads are not so bad for the environment.

ManchesterKurt said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ManchesterKurt said:

another_richard said:

ManchesterKurt said:

another_richard said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Stuartinromford said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

I respectfully disagree

The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services

Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer

not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit

It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.

If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.

Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.

No you will not have to change.

HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.

Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.

To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.

And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.

There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.

But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.

As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.

Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.

If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?

Don't get it.

As an observer of HS2 from day one

Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?

Yes

And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.

The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.

They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.

But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.

It's like you have not been paying attention.

HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.

Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/high-speed-2-costs

The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?

The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?

The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?

That Berkeley review?

Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.

Of course not. You would rather believe the claims of those who actually have a massive financial interest in making sure the project goes ahead - HS2 themselves. And yet even their estimates have now more than doubled.

I would rather believe the claims of those who use actual evidence to support their statements. As Berkeley does not.

They may be wrong. However, so may Berkeley be, and given he’s been wrong all the way through and clearly has the largest of ideological axes to grind he has the bigger credibility gap.

Well the Institute for Government - whilst pointing out some areas they think Berkeley may be wrong - are happy to include his estimates.

Meanwhile HS2 themselves have now doubled their estimates.

Please provide any links to show that HS2 think that costs have doubled on their estimates,

£46bn the original P95 is more than half of £86bn, the current P95.

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

What’s rather depressing about the debate on here over HS2 is that even intelligent and well informed posters are engaging on the basis of what they want to be true rather than what’s likely to happen. So we have Foxy’s suggestion that trains will be slower on the classic network. Well, yes, as Sandy and I have discussed some current very fast services will have a slightly reduced speed due to the withdrawal of tilting trains, but most services will be unaffected, and more frequent. Or the suggestion from Philip that motorways are cheaper. Well, no, not really, and they cause problems of their own, plus they take up more space. Or Richard Tyndall banging the Berkeley drum and refusing to engage with the evidence presented by Oakervee, because Berkeley criticised HS2 and Oakervee recommended the green light.

I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.

And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?

It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.

Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.

And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.

Not all roads need to be motorways. How many miles is HS2 covering for over £100bn?

The £27bn road scheme is covering work on 4000 miles of roads: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/11/chancellor-announces-27bn-for-roadbuilding-in-budget

Not all of that will be new roads, some of that will be fixing potholes etc but that's still valuable work.

I don't believe for one second that £100bn in roads would have provided less of an impact than £100bn for HS2 - but HS2 is shiny rails to play with, while roads are considered dirty but are the arteries of how the nation lives.

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

What’s rather depressing about the debate on here over HS2 is that even intelligent and well informed posters are engaging on the basis of what they want to be true rather than what’s likely to happen. So we have Foxy’s suggestion that trains will be slower on the classic network. Well, yes, as Sandy and I have discussed some current very fast services will have a slightly reduced speed due to the withdrawal of tilting trains, but most services will be unaffected, and more frequent. Or the suggestion from Philip that motorways are cheaper. Well, no, not really, and they cause problems of their own, plus they take up more space. Or Richard Tyndall banging the Berkeley drum and refusing to engage with the evidence presented by Oakervee, because Berkeley criticised HS2 and Oakervee recommended the green light.

I can see why Joe Rukin made a good living out of being the head honcho at Stop HS2, during which time he never knowingly told the truth. There are too many people deeply invested in stopping the project at all costs, because they dislike it for more or less visceral reasons.

And yet, it is by far the most effective way to solve a huge problem - how do we create capacity on the WCML and particularly at crunch points such as Birmingham New Street, Stafford and Rugby, that are throttling the railway network?

It’s also quite instructive, as I noted above, to compare them to the arguments advanced against the London and Birmingham, the Great Western Main Line and indeed the North Eastern Railway, nearly strangled at birth by Lord Howick because he wanted it to be nearer his house. I begin to understand more clearly the fierceness of the debates over the issue.

Ultimately, the arguments however passionately advanced are moot. HS2 is going ahead in its entirety. My guess is it will eventually run 12tph at around 190 mph, and allow an extra 10-15 tph on the WCML, meaning overall around 43 tph instead of the 16 at present. Which should help freight and passenger numbers and give the antis plenty of ammunition to say it didn’t achieve what it was supposed to. Again, like every railway ever built.

And on that cheering thought that everyone might get what they want, good night.

The problem you have is that 5 or 6 years ago we were all on here arguing about whether the costs would be £50 billion as the supporters claimed or £80 billion as the detractors claimed. Now a few years later with the programme under way even the HS2 chairman is estimating the costs at over the £80 billion which all the supporters said was scare mongering.

So why should we believe that Berkeley is wrong in his £110 billion claims?

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

Casino_Royale said:

IshmaelZ said:

Casino_Royale said:

I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.

It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.

You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.

The evidence going back hundreds of years is hundreds of years out of date, is your problem. And the fact that we have now deindustrialised. Back then there was a point to ports like Liverpool and Manchester and Glasgow; now there isn't.

I think people like you start from the fact you don't want HS2, and work backwards from there.

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

Pro_Rata said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Did I get the wrong night? I thought tonight was the screening of Starmer's massive mega jar dropping interview with Piers Moron? Nobody seems to be talking about it on here, no mention on the front pages of the newspapers, can't see it trending on twitter.

Tuesday 9.30pm.

IshmaelZ said:

Casino_Royale said:

IshmaelZ said:

Casino_Royale said:

I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.

It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.

You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.

The evidence going back hundreds of years is hundreds of years out of date, is your problem. And the fact that we have now deindustrialised. Back then there was a point to ports like Liverpool and Manchester and Glasgow; now there isn't.

I think people like you start from the fact you don't want HS2, and work backwards from there.

I genuinely can't think of a subject on which I am more neutral.

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.

It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.

You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.

Except that's a falsehood.

The motorways, A-roads etc are what is actually used by 90% of the country.

The rails are what is used by about 10% of the country, and apparently about 5% of freight.

Yet the London-based people think the best way to level up the north is not to improve the heavily congested roads etc that are actually used, but instead to take decades to build shiny new express rails to get to London.

How about upgrading or improving the M62? Or building new equivalents? I bet you far more people in the M62 corridor and far more freight from there too is moved on the M62 than will ever be moved on HS2.

Don't rip up the motorways that are actually used, expand them and improve them. You can improve London by upgrading the Tube network, you can improve the North by improving its road network.

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.

It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.

You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.

Except that's a falsehood.

The motorways, A-roads etc are what is actually used by 90% of the country.

The rails are what is used by about 10% of the country, and apparently about 5% of freight.

Yet the London-based people think the best way to level up the north is not to improve the heavily congested roads etc that are actually used, but instead to take decades to build shiny new express rails to get to London.

How about upgrading or improving the M62? Or building new equivalents? I bet you far more people in the M62 corridor and far more freight from there too is moved on the M62 than will ever be moved on HS2.

Don't rip up the motorways that are actually used, expand them and improve them. You can improve London by upgrading the Tube network, you can improve the North by improving its road network.

Why can’t they do both? What is the roads budget being used for?

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

tlg86 said:

Interestingly, I noticed a Tory MP asking a question at PMQs last week about the viability of East-West Rail:

https://www.anthonybrowne.org/news/minister-confirms-covid-impact-tests-anthony-asks-prime-minister-east-west-rail-review

The PM was insistent that commuting will come back and that "it needs to come back".

Although it appears that the Govt have just stumbled upon a wizard idea to “solve” their dilemmas over June 21st. Ie. Open up everything, but don’t change the guidance on home working... (which may well be the real driving force behind the apparent popularity of lockdowns...)

It’s amazing how many scientists the Guardian can dig up from Britain, and now the wider world, who believe that the U.K. is on the brink of a catastrophic third wave as a result of its incautious reopening plans, but apparently the US and the rest of Europe have got it licked.

That's a very sensible compromise.

Eliminate all legal restrictions but advise that where its possible to work from home then do so.

Especially for those who are currently unvaccinated, if they're fine to work from home why should they be compelled back early?

But let those who want to live as normal eliminate all social distancing mandated by law. Let distancing instead be a choice.

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

I hear a lot of strange arguments that infrastructure like HS2 will "drain" more investment into London from the provinces.

It's a weird one. On that basis you'd rip up all the existing motorways, A-roads and domestic aviation links on the basis they did too.

You build better communications and infrastructure around a country to link it up, allow it to partake in the wider economy, and facilitate future investment. There's evidence going back hundreds of years on this. Otherwise, we'd never have industralised.

Except that's a falsehood.

The motorways, A-roads etc are what is actually used by 90% of the country.

The rails are what is used by about 10% of the country, and apparently about 5% of freight.

Yet the London-based people think the best way to level up the north is not to improve the heavily congested roads etc that are actually used, but instead to take decades to build shiny new express rails to get to London.

How about upgrading or improving the M62? Or building new equivalents? I bet you far more people in the M62 corridor and far more freight from there too is moved on the M62 than will ever be moved on HS2.

Don't rip up the motorways that are actually used, expand them and improve them. You can improve London by upgrading the Tube network, you can improve the North by improving its road network.

Why can’t they do both? What is the roads budget being used for?

I would assume there's not enough money to do both, and for as long as there is not hundreds of billions available for roads I can see absolutely no justification whatsoever for hundreds of billions for rail.

The Government’s always got money for genuinely effective long term Investments of capital.

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

MaxPB said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.

It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

There is a review of some of those options here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480372/HS2-HS1_report.pdf

Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.

I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?

rationalplan2 said:

Nimbys raise there head again. The MP questioning the need of East West Rail because of the pandemic , is just trying to find an excuse to cancel the final phase of the scheme for linking Oxford to Cambridge. The first two phases involve refurbishing/rebuilding the original route. They cant do that for the bit between Sandy and Cambridge because the rail line has been built on. A new line is needed.

Not because of overcrowded existing rail lines, but because of overcrowded roads and this area of England (ROSE or Rest of South East England) has long been one the highest areas of population growth. The line is not about avoiding going into London, but is about connecting existing towns and allowing greater links between them and the people who want to travel between them.

It is expected that several million more people will move to be near Oxford, Aylesbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge in the coming decades, all high tech growth zones.

The new east west expressway has been given the chop (well the bit between Milton Keynes and Oxford, though the weasel words alternative schemes were used, so expect more expensive widening schemes that increase capacity less and several new dual carriageways that don't link up into one scheme, that people will bitch about in decades to come.

The new stretch of railway is proposing to demolish a hundred or so house inBedford to allow it be six tracked through the town and the line would swing North East and Then East to Cambourne (one of Cambridges main housing growth areas and then south around to approach to cambridge to the South allowing it to connect directly to the newly proposed Cambridge South and the Biomedical cluster there. Cambridge is the countries top high tech growth cluster and needs to be expended rapidly to allow it to grow. It needs a lot of infrastructure.

MaxPB said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

There is a review of some of those options here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480372/HS2-HS1_report.pdf

Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.

I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?

Northern line, surely. Circle and Met are Euston square which is in the wrong direction.

It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.

ManchesterKurt said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ManchesterKurt said:

another_richard said:

ManchesterKurt said:

another_richard said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Stuartinromford said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

I respectfully disagree

The East and West coast mainlines are at capacity and HS2 will enable far more local traffic and services

Furthermore, in the age of climate change we could follow France and ban all internal flights of less than 2 and a half hours as HS2 would be the perfect answer

not if you live in Scotland , as usual we pay for it and get zero benefit

It would reduce journey times from London to Glasgow by around an hour. Edinburgh, as the ECML is quite a bit faster than the WCML, is less impressive, saving half an hour.

If it is ultimately extended to Glasgow (as it should be) or even Carlisle those times become still quicker.

Not sure how you figure that given that the trains won't go as far as Scotland and it would therefore need a change somewhere along the way to connect to the non HS system. It is unlikely that the delay caused by such a change will be less than the time saved using the HS2 to get to that point.

No you will not have to change.

HS2 was first announced 13 years ago and people with strong opinions on the matter still have not got the faintest idea about what is happening.

Glasgow and Edinburgh will get high speed trains from the day services reach Brum.

To be fair, most of us don't have the faintest idea about most things.

And if that's true for people on PB.com, think how that extends beyond the population of politics geeks with time on their hands.

There's a reason that events don't cut through to the polls immediately, and most don't cut through at all.

But I do not understand, I really do not understand how people can take such an opinionated position on something that they have so limited knowledge on.

As an observer of HS2 from day one it is very very very apparent that those opposed to the scheme never ever bothered to take the time to really get to understand what and critically why it was getting built.

Those opposed were opposing something that was never planned and it was totally clear at every stage it would never be cancelled given the reasons for it happening have literally never been challenged, after 13 years.

If something really matters to you then why not take the time and effort to genuinely get to understand what and why it is being planned?

Don't get it.

As an observer of HS2 from day one

Was that when HS2 was going to cost £30bn and be finished by 2030 ?

Yes

And no doubt as someone interested in the scheme you are able to understand the reasons those early estimates were so far from the reality and so far from being problematic to the scheme proceeding.

The reason why they were wrong being the same why they are so often wrong on any big government scheme.

They are deliberately underestimated and after approval is given they are steadily increased because governments almost never pull the plug.

But again, you are showing your ignorance as to the reasons for those increases.

It's like you have not been paying attention.

HS2 themselves estimate that scope changes such as the Chiltern tunnelling increased costs by £1 billion.

Meanwhile the estimated cost for HS2 has increased from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £110 billion in the Berkley Review in 2019.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/high-speed-2-costs

The Berkley (sic) Review run by a long standing and vocal critic of HS2?

The Berkley (sic) Review written by a man ho resigned from the Oakervee review because he didn’t like its conclusions, but was unable to show where they were wrong other than to make vague statements that he believed Oakervee was too conservative in his estimates?

The Berkley (sic) Review that said the solution was to upgrade existing infrastructure, which actually forgot we had recently upgraded the WCML at vast expense and enormous disruption while signally (😀) failing to achieve a single one of the objectives of the upgrade?

That Berkeley review?

Because I’m not altogether sold on its accuracy.

Of course not. You would rather believe the claims of those who actually have a massive financial interest in making sure the project goes ahead - HS2 themselves. And yet even their estimates have now more than doubled.

I would rather believe the claims of those who use actual evidence to support their statements. As Berkeley does not.

They may be wrong. However, so may Berkeley be, and given he’s been wrong all the way through and clearly has the largest of ideological axes to grind he has the bigger credibility gap.

Well the Institute for Government - whilst pointing out some areas they think Berkeley may be wrong - are happy to include his estimates.

Meanwhile HS2 themselves have now doubled their estimates.

Please provide any links to show that HS2 think that costs have doubled on their estimates,

£46bn the original P95 is more than half of £86bn, the current P95.

MaxPB said:

isam said:

MaxPB said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.

It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.

When I was 19, I worked at Cannon St and went for a drink after work in a bar called Deacons. My then girlfriend worked at Marble Arch and got the Central Line to Bank, walked to monument, then got the District Line one stop to Cannon St to meet me!

Lol, that's got to be a longer walk than just walking past Mansion House.

MaxPB said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.

It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

Don't agree. I'm really annoyed I can't get to, say, Orange without having to stop in London and get out and lug all the luggage. Utterly barbaric.

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

There is a review of some of those options here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480372/HS2-HS1_report.pdf

Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.

I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?

Northern line, surely. Circle and Met are Euston square which is in the wrong direction.

It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.

As a ucl alumnus I’ve always found it strange and annoying that euston square isn’t linked to euston, and you have to cross the road to euston square to get the circle line

It’s a bit like the cosmic weirdness around the various stations, lines and alternatives at shepherds bush. Omfg

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

There is a review of some of those options here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480372/HS2-HS1_report.pdf

Seems like the hybrid bill design made a lot of the options for airport terminal style connection not feasible, without major redesign. Instead it looks like they are going for an option of planting a few shrubs on the walking route (and maybe making it easier to cross the roads?) If Crossrail 2 ever happens it looks like it would involve a new station in between Euston and St Pancras, so maybe then something a bit better would be worked out, linking the whole caboodle together.

I think it's a shame that they haven't done something specifically to create an attractive alternative to taking the circle line for 1 stop, which seems like a mad option, but one that they are encouraging with providing step-free access to the circle line at Euston. Why would you want to clog up the circle line with international passengers dragging loads of luggage around?

Northern line, surely. Circle and Met are Euston square which is in the wrong direction.

It just seems like they're half arsing it and spending a lot of money to do so.

As a ucl alumnus I’ve always found it strange and annoying that euston square isn’t linked to euston, and you have to cross the road to euston square to get the circle line

It’s a bit like the cosmic weirdness around the various stations, lines and alternatives at shepherds bush. Omfg

isam said:

MaxPB said:

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Leon said:

Northern_Al said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

As well as pushing against Boris' Brexit in the 55% Remain area, the report also says the LDs are pushing a NIMBY agenda hard.

'In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers.

“Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.”

Clearly there has been a swing to the LDs there but the Tories should hold on unless the LDs can squeeze the Labour and Green vote to near zero

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chesham-amersham-byelection-libdems-davey-b1856301.html

Isn’t HS2 likely to be an issue still as well? Especially given it’s finally under construction.

And Shapps just announced it is to go to Leeds

It is not going to be cancelled and they have started tunnelling in the Chilterns

That is good news, I hadn’t seen that. Although it looks as though they might be reducing the top speed a bit.

But I was thinking that the construction process itself will be disruptive and unpleasant. Lots of extra traffic, road closures, noise and pollution therefrom, etc.

Lines are never popular when being built (just look at how tough it was to build the original Grand Junction and Great Western mainlines, even including mustering private armies to confront recalcitrant companies).

It is really good news for the levelling up process and I agree there is going to be considerable disruption, indeed three years tunnelling under the Chilterns, but that is the price we have to pay to provide a modern high seed railway and at the same time allow the existing East and West coast mainlines to concentrate on more stopping services and services to local communities

It will do absolutely nothing for the levelling up process or the North South divide. Making it quicker to get from the Midlands to London does nothing to help employment or investment in the North. The EU knew this more than 20 years ago when they commissioned an in depth report into the effects of high speed rail links on the provinces, notably in France. All it did was draw more investment away from the regions into Paris.

So what would make a difference then?

Ooh. This is my special subject.

The research seems to suggest:

1. Devolution of powers and tax base
2. Local / public transport infrastructure designed to reduce commuting times and enable a larger commuting catchment pool
3. Local skills development
4. Thriving local chamber of commerce with participation in local economic planning
5. Policies in support of industrial clustering; university/business partnerships; investment financing.

@Richard_Tyndall is correct that high speed rail etc tend to strengthen existing imbalances.

Indeed, is there any evidence that the long established TGV network has helped the old coalfields of Picardy? Or has it just whizzed people through it, going from metropolis to metropolis?

As I mentioned, the EU published a paper about 2 decades ago on this which showed that the TGV system in France has served to suck GDP away from the regions rather than increase it. There was a very small attributable increase in overall GDP for France but the TGV increased the imbalance between Paris and the TGV destinations compared to those regions not served by the system.

I'm sure you're right. But TGV is great. Paris to Montpellier (465 miles) in a little over 3 hours is a journey we love, upstairs on the double decker trains. And it's civilised and quiet - nobody uses their mobile phones in the carriages. And they don't constantly make banal announcements over the tannoy. We should be aiming for something similar in the UK.

But there is nowhere in the UK where significant population centres are separated by 465 miles, unless you want to build HS2 from Penzance to Portree

France is more than twice the size of the UK - France arguably NEEDS high speed trains

We are a much more compact nation, where almost all our major cities are within 2-3 hours of each other. This is an advantage. We don't really need HS trains

Talk to me about increasing commuter capacity into Leeds, Brum and Manc without HS2.

Why, in 13 years, has no one opposed to HS2 come up with a better alternative given the main reason it's being built ?

Either there is no better way or those opposed have still not worked out why it is getting built.

Yes, I get that argument. As I say below. I just don't think the "high speed" by itself is a justification. We don't need it.

Anyway, thank fuck they killed the Camden Spur

What was the problem with the Camden Spur? (Apart from those who happened to have properties where it would have been built).

It meant a huge, decade-long ordeal of demolition and disruption across some of the priciest/most profitable resi and business property in north London, to achieve about 3 trains a day which might go straight from Birmingham to Paris etc

Fuck off, Brummies, northerners and Jocks. Walk from Euston to St Pancras. It's about 300 yards. Sorted

I liked the underground walkway idea that could connect them in the same way airport terminal buildings are. Not sure why they didn't do it in the end.

It's not much further than between the RER and metro platforms at Châtelet–Les Halles in Paris.

It's a shorter distance than Bank to Monument I think.

When I was 19, I worked at Cannon St and went for a drink after work in a bar called Deacons. My then girlfriend worked at Marble Arch and got the Central Line to Bank, walked to monument, then got the District Line one stop to Cannon St to meet me!