An overview of Britain's HS2 high speed rail project

[BlackDiamond]

This video gives a good overview of the project plus a discussion of the various controversies over its construction, the cost overruns, politics, and questions as to the recent scaling back of the project as to whether it will truly benefit the North of Britain as was originally intended. Overall the video leans toward a positive view of the project.

 

[caravanman]

We have to keep in mind who makes Youtube videos. This channel seems to "love construction", so maybe not totally unbiased?
It is good to shine a light on all the complications involved in such a major project, everything in life has a trade off of benefits and drawbacks.
What seems "reasonable" on day one can get overtaken by events, but it takes a brave politician to stand up and say it needs to stop, and all the public money spent so far is wasted...
For my 10 cents worth, it seems a silly project at such a cost. If people travel from Birmingham to London, will saving 30 mins journey time be worth the £Billions and £Billions and £Billions and etc...?

I am glad I don't have to be the person to say yea or nay though...

 

[cirdan]

For my 10 cents worth, it seems a silly project at such a cost. If people travel from Birmingham to London, will saving 30 mins journey time be worth the £Billions and £Billions and £Billions and etc...?

I think it's not just about journey times but also capacity. The WCML is pretty much close to capacity on its southern portion, and the number of trains is set to grow further.

You can't just add further tracks alongside the present line as it cuts through so many built up areas and the costs of acquiring all those houses would be astronomical.

So a new line seems the only reasonable solution.

If you're going to build a new line anyway, you might as well make it high speed.

 

[jiml]

As an outside observer, the recent decision to terminate the project at Birmingham instead of continuing all the way to Manchester seemed certain to raise more questions than it answers. Would it be accurate to presume that the bulk of the work thus far is on the lower segment?

 

[caravanman]

I think it's not just about journey times but also capacity. The WCML is pretty much close to capacity on its southern portion, and the number of trains is set to grow further.

You can't just add further tracks alongside the present line as it cuts through so many built up areas and the costs of acquiring all those houses would be astronomical.

So a new line seems the only reasonable solution.

If you're going to build a new line anyway, you might as well make it high speed.

I do wonder if the need to add "extra capacity" is actually real, are not more people working from home these days?
What are the costs of a conventional new line compared to high speed?
I hope I am not just being a Luddite here, but 100 £Billion is a lot of cash for a 100 or so miles of new track?

 

[BlackDiamond]

I do wonder if the need to add "extra capacity" is actually real, are not more people working from home these days?
What are the costs of a conventional new line compared to high speed?
I hope I am not just being a Luddite here, but 100 £Billion is a lot of cash for a 100 or so miles of new track?

I suspect some of the expensive bits such as the tunnel under the old growth forest would be needed anyway even with a more conventional railway.
You might be able to get away with more curves if you were building to a top speed of 200 kph/ 125 mph especially with modern tilting equipment such as Pendolino. I don't know how that might have affected the cost.
Don't forget that the GBP 100 billion also includes new stations such as the expansion of Euston which I'm sure was more than a few bob.

 

[cirdan]

I do wonder if the need to add "extra capacity" is actually real, are not more people working from home these days?
What are the costs of a conventional new line compared to high speed?
I hope I am not just being a Luddite here, but 100 £Billion is a lot of cash for a 100 or so miles of new track?

In view of saving the planet, it is really important to get as many people out of cars as possible and that means a good many of them need to shift to trains.

Infrastructure being built today will still be in use decades from now.

It would be catastrophic to penny pinch now, the result of which would inevitably be that the money gets put into adding highway capacity instead.

 

[MARC Rider]

I do wonder if the need to add "extra capacity" is actually real, are not more people working from home these days?

They may be working from home, but they're also out and about traveling. At least here in the States. I just spent yesterday driving around in traffic that seemed to be heavier than pre pandemic. This was the middle of the day, so it wasn't commuters. Of course, things may be different over in Britain.

 

[caravanman]

They may be working from home, but they're also out and about traveling. At least here in the States. I just spent yesterday driving around in traffic that seemed to be heavier than pre pandemic. This was the middle of the day, so it wasn't commuters. Of course, things may be different over in Britain.

Honestly ! It's people like you, driving around in traffic, you should be setting an example by riding the trains... (just my little joke!)
Maybe people are just pretending to work from home, and instead are going out and enjoying themselves, by riding around? (another joke attempt...)
I am 100% for saving the planet, shame our UK govt. are not, but are issuing more oil drilling permits and rolling back electric vehicle initiatives.
I was imagining that the 100 £Billion might instead fund a few hospitals or such, but you are probably right, it would go on roads...

 

[jiml]

We have to keep in mind who makes Youtube videos. This channel seems to "love construction", so maybe not totally unbiased?

I can see where you might draw that conclusion and it would be tough to be objective when one's own tax money is going to fund the project, however the report seemed surprisingly balanced.