HS2

whats everyone’s views on the project?

Personally I am in favour and don’t see the delay- we’re already behind on this compared to other countries, as we are with our hub airport Heathrow.

We’re going to struggle after Brexit regardless of which way it goes - let’s just get on with things and bypass some red tape which escalates the costs !

It needs cancelling.

Danny said:

It needs cancelling.

Click to expand...

Why?

Me and m'lady are the only people in my whole town that are FOR it. We have to hide this fact.

I'm against it as it should be nowhere near the top of the list of priorities of things to spend a hundred billion pounds on. If other basic things were working properly in this country and we weren't already hundreds and hundreds of billions of pounds in debt I might just accept that it's needed at the moment. It's not worth it. Not interested in a debate at all about it, but you asked what people thought about it

I mean, I'd prefer them to spend the money on some kind of trans-sonic hyperloop maglev, but this is better than nothing...

I think the money spent on HS2 could be better spent on making the current railway system more reliable.

The priority should be making transport in the north better. There are still un-electrified routes with cast off rolling stock that need serious investment; not knocking an hour off a journey to capital.

Its needed to increase capacity on WCML and eventually certain XC routes from Birmingham, but the way the project is being handled is atrocious with money wastage.
Like everything recently it needs more effective planning and usage of funds.

Danny said:

The priority should be making transport in the north better. There are still un-electrified routes with cast off rolling stock that need serious investment; not knocking an hour off a journey to capital.

Click to expand...

Cast off stock sucks, especially the older diesel crap up north, I hope knock on effects of more people using branch lines to connect with HS2 hubs will prove more to the government that improvement is needed up north, although its good to see new stock coming in for transpennine services soon!

Let's be honest here, this is about London and London is where the money gets spent. In my opinion it should be built but with the connection into HS1 so the North can be more connected to the Continent. If this takes the majority of Birmingham and Manchester to London express services then there will be more capacity to run services to more local stations and allow more connections.

Yes I would like to see HS2 built, and I'd like it extended further and connected to HS1. Rail usage is growing and we need the extra capacity. I also feel faster rail is important for reducing domestic flights. It currently takes over seven hours to get from Aberdeen to London by train, I'd like this to be faster. There is no evidence that cancelling HS2 would lead to more spending on local lines.

The reality is it will make no difference to flights as flights are considerably cheaper than rail travel - especially over long distances. Why on earth do people even bother getting the train when it's outrageously expensive and takes much longer - unless they're deathly afraid of flying?

speedy said:

Yes I would like to see HS2 built, and I'd like it extended further and connected to HS1. Rail usage is growing and we need the extra capacity. I also feel faster rail is important for reducing domestic flights. It currently takes over seven hours to get from Aberdeen to London by train, I'd like this to be faster. There is no evidence that cancelling HS2 would lead to more spending on local lines.

Click to expand...

I don't see the need for a HS1-HS2 connection, the London termini are a 10 min walk or 2 min tube ride away, any hypothetical funds they'd spend on the link would be better off invested elsewhere up north

They did have plans to link it to HS1, but they got quietly scrapped early on. It's daft. You can't have a network of two seperate lines.

alee298 said:

I don't see the need for a HS1-HS2 connection, the London termini are a 10 min walk or 2 min tube ride away, any hypothetical funds they'd spend on the link would be better off invested elsewhere up north

Click to expand...

True, but the break of journey will put some off. I know it's unrealistic, but sleeper services from north England/Scotland to Europe would be fantastic. If we're serious about tackling climate change, more convenient long distance rail services are essential.

Perhaps you and me may have no problem with changing station, but it makes life much more difficult for the disabled, elderly and foreigners who are unfamiliar with the area

Alastair said:

The reality is it will make no difference to flights as flights are considerably cheaper than rail travel - especially over long distances. Why on earth do people even bother getting the train when it's outrageously expensive and takes much longer - unless they're deathly afraid of flying?

Click to expand...

If aviation fuel was taxed at the same rate as road vehicle fuel, air ticket prices would become far more expensive, and the duty would quickly cover the cost of HS2, HS3 and HS4!

The real cost of cheap flights is chronic pollution and climate change.

It should have been years ago and we should be on HS4 at least, but sadly this country cared about the railways from the 60s to the turn of the millennium as much as Merlin care about their parks. We're left in a situation where you at least 3 entire regions with lacklustre rail services and are only now playing catch up. Even as someone who lives in London I always hated the favouring of the City against places in the North, other countries on the continent have great rail services in their 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc cities, but the likes of Birmingham just feel so poor in comparison.

Alastair said:

The reality is it will make no difference to flights as flights are considerably cheaper than rail travel - especially over long distances. Why on earth do people even bother getting the train when it's outrageously expensive and takes much longer - unless they're deathly afraid of flying?

Click to expand...

I went to Stuttgart from London and back in July which takes about 6 hours by train vs the 90 mins of flying and I chose getting the train for various reasons. Some reasons why people prefer getting the train as follows.

1. While flying is quicker, you spend a lot more time going through security at airports and boarding procedures on planes is takes a longer time than just simply boarding a train and that's it.

2. At the other end you still have to go through border controls and get another local train or bus into the city, which eats up more time. With the train you will arrive smack in the city centre and once you're off the train, that's it (for certain countries anyway).

3. With most airlines, the flight itself may be cheap but you may have to take in considerations such as baggage which adds on to the cost, whilst with trains it's free.

4. You have the freedom to move about on trains. I think in some cases if the train is standing at the station for a while you can have a quick smoke on the platform where it's still legal.

5. It's less physically daunting. By that I mean people can get sick on planes, but very rarely you hear about it on trains.

6. On trains you can pass some beautiful scenery and people take the train purely for this reason alone. On planes you're lucky if it's not even cloudy.

7. It's far more friendly for the environment compare to flying and considering the scares these days, it's understandable why people go for the rails instead.

8. People just like the experience! There's something really cool about breezing through countries by trains getting to see a lot of new places up front even by just passing through

Ted said:

I went to Stuttgart from London and back in July which takes about 6 hours by train vs the 90 mins of flying and I chose getting the train for various reasons. Some reasons why people prefer getting the train as follows.

1. While flying is quicker, you spend a lot more time going through security at airports and boarding procedures on planes is takes a longer time than just simply boarding a train and that's it.

2. At the other end you still have to go through border controls and get another local train or bus into the city, which eats up more time. With the train you will arrive smack in the city centre and once you're off the train, that's it (for certain countries anyway).

3. With most airlines, the flight itself may be cheap but you may have to take in considerations such as baggage which adds on to the cost, whilst with trains it's free.

4. You have the freedom to move about on trains. I think in some cases if the train is standing at the station for a while you can have a quick smoke on the platform where it's still legal.

5. It's less physically daunting. By that I mean people can get sick on planes, but very rarely you hear about it on trains.

6. On trains you can pass some beautiful scenery and people take the train purely for this reason alone. On planes you're lucky if it's not even cloudy.

7. It's far more friendly for the environment compare to flying and considering the scares these days, it's understandable why people go for the rails instead.

8. People just like the experience! There's something really cool about breezing through countries by trains getting to see a lot of new places up front even by just passing through

Click to expand...

I appreciate and agree for the most part with all of those reasons, but until the cost of trains is consistently lower than equivalent air fares to/from the same places they won't be appealing for most people in terms of long-distance travel. I mean, even from Manchester to London I've on occasion found that flying is cheaper than Virgin's offering - particularly when making bookings at the last minute.

@Alastair Yeah I do totally get why people further North would find flying a lot quicker and cheaper. I'm going back to Stuttgart next year but I'll be taking the plane oddly enough

Very true, @Ted.

What you have to look at is not the time you spend on the train or plane, but your total journey time from leaving your house to getting to your final destination. Add on all the airport faff, and trains will still win for most trips.

I like flying. But I hate airports. If I ever travel to anywhere in the France / Germany / Benelux area, flying doesn't even cross my mind.

Now of course, I have the advantage of living a bit closer to HS1 than you lot do But I also live half a mile from a major HS2 construction site. The London tunnel will emerge above ground just down the road from me. Everyone else round here's only concern is that the noise might affect house prises. Even though it will be running alongside existing tracks. And modern electric high speed trains make far less noise than the DMUs that currently work the Chiltern line, or the clanky old Central line!
... The morons! As far as I'm concerned, house prices NEED to come down! (But that's a different rant...)

The Victorians had the right idea if you ask me. "Your house is in the way. GET OUT! Progress needs to happen!"
OR, if you are feeling a bit more logical, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."