New high speed rail link ...is it worth it ?

Originally Posted by Hugh

Unlikely, unless you live in Birmingham City Centre, as you still have to get to the Railway station.....

AFAIK the terminal is going to be nearer the NEC/airport/International station than New Street. Much easier to park and ride.

[Alan Fry]

Any news of any extensions of HS2 to Scotland and the North East?

---------- Post added at 09:49 ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 ----------

High Speed 2 could be coming to Scotland

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transpo...link_1_2049049

---------- Post added at 10:00 ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 ----------

I think we will be be using this train on HS2:

This is the only trian that can reach the required 250mph speed on HS2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro

[Ravenheart]

Terminal in Brum will be on the site of the original Curzon Street station in the Eastside part of the city with footbridge links to Moor Street and New Street stations, they're also planning an expansion at Birmingham International to tie in with the NEC and Airport.

New St Station is currently being redeveloped, to improve it from the black hole it's been while everything around it has changed, but it has been struggling with capacity for over 20 years, as has the line between Coventry and Birmingham, which handles all the Birmingham-London services as well as the Cross country trains down to Oxford/Reading and Bournemouth as well as the local services.

I just wish they'd get started on it, starting at both ends like they did with the channel tunnel, and use the French/German way of doing things making sure British companies get the contracts and start the planning for the extension on to Manchester/Leeds and Scotland

[Alan Fry]

I bet Sutton Coldfield property price will rise, since via HS2 it is only up to 90 minutes from london

A very interesting piece here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...uction-of-hs2/

One of my tasks way back when as a still relatively young financial journalist was to follow the tragicomedy of Eurotunnel ... It was always a complete mystery to me as to how private investors and bankers were so easily persuaded to part with their money, but no doubt a large part of the explanation was the brute determination, and frequently bullying tactics of the then chief executive, Sir Alastair Morton.

...

During one of the interminable refinancings, I wrote a piece saying investors would be mad to throw any more of their money into the tunnel. The numbers simply did not stack up.

...

I duly received a call ... inviting me to lunch to "talk me through" the numerous "errors" I had made in my analysis. Since it was obvious I was being summoned for a ticking off, I only agreed to go on condition that Sir Alastair wouldn't be there, as I knew what a monster he could be ... The lunch preceded in good spirit, and I duly took my correction. Then, as the coffee was being served, Sir Alastair suddenly appeared, as if from under the table, and proceeded, as I feared he would, to give me an almighty *******ing.

Listen, he said, we all know that the prospectus is a complete fiction ... but the important thing was to get the tunnel built, in the national interest. He knew, he told me, that I believed in the project as much as he did.

...

In the fullness of time, it wouldn't matter how much private investors lost on it all, the important thing was to get it built. The wider economic dividend would be immeasurable. He concluded by telling me it was my duty, as a British citizen, to support whatever needed to be done to ensure its completion. If Japanese bankers were being hoodwinked, so be it. I exaggerate only a little. This really was the gist of what he said ... by the way, sadly, Sir Alastair is now deceased, so I can write this recollection without fear of being sued.

With HS2, the criticism is not so much that it will cause untold misery for those that live in its path, or indeed that it will spoil great tracts of the English countryside, but rather that it is a white elephant in the making. The money could be much better spent elsewhere. I can't agree. At every stage in its construction, it will be castigated as a complete waste of money, and no doubt it will run hugely over budget – though interestingly, the high speed rail line linking the tunnel with inner London did not.
Yet once it's up and running, we'll wonder what all the fuss was about, and indeed how we ever managed without it. The UK needs a first world infrastructure to survive ... it also needs the jobs in construction and engineering that projects like this create. Would that Sir Alastair was still around to get it built.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

A very interesting piece here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...uction-of-hs2/

So what would you do if you were asked to spend up to £65 billion (posible cost of HS2 if it reached scotland) on transport only!

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

So what would you do if you were asked to spend up to £65 billion (posible cost of HS2 if it reached scotland) on transport only!

I'd point out that spending on HS2 is going to run at the rate of less than £2 billion per year, which is rather less than the total amount the Government spends across all departments (£710 billion this year alone).

Part of the problem we have here is that people either can't, or won't, stretch their minds to consider that we're talking about long-term investment spending, over an extended period of time, and not splurging a vast amount of unbudgeted cash right here and now. Some also don't seem to be able to hear the word 'billion' without immediately thinking 'massive waste'. The fact is, our national budget is chopped up by the billion and it won't be many years before the total runs well past a trillion. In terms of the budget of one of the biggest economies in the world - which we are - a billion is not a vast sum.

I don't think people realise how good that Channel tunnel is. You can get from the centre of Paris to the Centre of London in under 2:30 hours, it's perfectly connected to the respective cities' train and metro/tube services.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'd point out that spending on HS2 is going to run at the rate of less than £2 billion per year, which is rather less than the total amount the Government spends across all departments (£710 billion this year alone).

Part of the problem we have here is that people either can't, or won't, stretch their minds to consider that we're talking about long-term investment spending, over an extended period of time, and not splurging a vast amount of unbudgeted cash right here and now. Some also don't seem to be able to hear the word 'billion' without immediately thinking 'massive waste'. The fact is, our national budget is chopped up by the billion and it won't be many years before the total runs well past a trillion. In terms of the budget of one of the biggest economies in the world - which we are - a billion is not a vast sum.

I would agree!

[Stuart]

I have to admit, I don't think the government have made an adequate for the rail link. Let me explain that. I am not against it. On the contrary, I think it could be a good thing.

However, the government are telling us that we need to spend nearly £40 billion just so people can shave 20 minutes off their journey to Birmingham. At least HS1 shaved a lot of time from the journey, and relieved congestion on some of the busiest track in the country.

I suppose I just want to know why we are paying so much. It does seem as though starting a major project in Britain adds at least 3 extra 0s to the number of millions something will cost.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

A very interesting piece here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...uction-of-hs2/

Listen, he said, we all know that the prospectus is a complete fiction ... but the important thing was to get the tunnel built, in the national interest. He knew, he told me, that I believed in the project as much as he did.

...

In the fullness of time, it wouldn't matter how much private investors lost on it all, the important thing was to get it built. The wider economic dividend would be immeasurable. He concluded by telling me it was my duty, as a British citizen, to support whatever needed to be done to ensure its completion. If Japanese bankers were being hoodwinked, so be it. I exaggerate only a little. This really was the gist of what he said ... by the way, sadly, Sir Alastair is now deceased, so I can write this recollection without fear of being sued.

So why then are the planners seemingly unable to put a number on the wider economic dividends? I applaud investment in proper infrastructure (which I think the UK does far too little of), but basically going "we've plucked some numbers out of thin air, but just trust us, it'll work out in the end" doesn't sound very convincing.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think people realise how good that Channel tunnel is. You can get from the centre of Paris to the Centre of London in under 2:30 hours, it's perfectly connected to the respective cities train and metro/tube services.

I feel that the high speed London to Paris link has done wonders for UK-France Trade and tourism!

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I have to admit, I don't think the government have made an adequate for the rail link. Let me explain that. I am not against it. On the contrary, I think it could be a good thing.

However, the government are telling us that we need to spend nearly £40 billion just so people can shave 20 minutes off their journey to Birmingham. At least HS1 shaved a lot of time from the journey, and relieved congestion on some of the busiest track in the country.

I suppose I just want to know why we are paying so much. It does seem as though starting a major project in Britain adds at least 3 extra 0s to the number of millions something will cost.

As pointed out earlier, the cost will be £17 billion for London-Birmingham.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I have to admit, I don't think the government have made an adequate for the rail link. Let me explain that. I am not against it. On the contrary, I think it could be a good thing.

However, the government are telling us that we need to spend nearly £40 billion just so people can shave 20 minutes off their journey to Birmingham. At least HS1 shaved a lot of time from the journey, and relieved congestion on some of the busiest track in the country.

I suppose I just want to know why we are paying so much. It does seem as though starting a major project in Britain adds at least 3 extra 0s to the number of millions something will cost.

It not just about speed, it is also about capacity! Along with connecting the North of England to the European High Speed Network!

---------- Post added at 15:10 ---------- Previous post was at 15:08 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

As pointed out earlier, the cost will be £17 billion for London-Birmingham.

But it will £32 billion for both London to Birmingham and Birmingham to Leeds/Manchester sectors and possible double that if it is to reach Edinburgh and Glasgow

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

But it will £32 billion for both London to Birmingham and Birmingham to Leeds/Manchester sectors and possible double that if it is to reach Edinburgh and Glasgow

I know that. I was just pointing out that it's not £40 billion to shave 20 minutes off London-Birmingham, as was stated. The £40 (or rather £32) billion includes the Manchester and Leeds extensions.