UK Green Lights HS2 High Speed Rail Line

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Green Lights HS2 High Speed Rail Line

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday January 11, 2012 @08:01PM from the rollin-all-night-long dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The United Kingdom has given the green light to the first phase of its proposed High Speed Two train line. In response to environmental concerns, the route for HS2 will now include extra tunneling in the first 90 miles, so not to disrupt the natural beauty of the English countryside. The first phase will connect London to Birmingham and could be functional by 2026."

11 of 329 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:A good start, but... by Dominic · 2012-01-11 20:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Unlikely, seeing as the three largest parties don't support renationalisation of the trains.
Re:Pffft, natural beauty. by Chrisq · 2012-01-11 20:33 · Score: 3, Informative

You probably haven't been to much south of Manchester either. There's the peak district, dartmoor, norfolk, The chilterns (the ones that the HS2 protesters worry about), and the south downs to name just a few.
Not just railway lines by Kupfernigk · 2012-01-11 20:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes, the HS2 tunnels are an expensive sop to rich Conservative donors. But the idea has history. On its way through Bath, the Kennet and Avon Canal is hidden away as much as possible so that the Jane Austen crowd didn't have to look at the grubby people who brought their coal in. The railway followed the same route. And the main road from Bath to the M4 has a hideous cutting which is visible from the city, but was built purely for the benefit of a pair of BBC journalists who lived on the hill opposite. Millions were wasted...
Which is why it is funny in a way that Lord Astor has suggested that HS2 is unnecessary and an improved Internet backbone for better video conferencing would be a more sensible use of the money. The fibre link from London to Birmingham could easily be laid along the existing railway or canal network.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
1. Re:Not just railway lines by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 22:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  1hr 30min down to 49 minutes.. Seems like they shave 40 mins off, not 20.
2. Re:Not just railway lines by philcowans · 2012-01-11 23:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Am I not right in thinking that the reduction in time also represents a significant increase in capacity? It seems like you'd be able to run almost twice as many trains on the new lines.
The problem with our railways is not speed by Chrisq · 2012-01-11 20:49 · Score: 4, Informative

Its capacity and cost. A return from Leeds to london tomorrow will cost £123 off peak. That's just under 200 miles so its chaper to drive. If you want the chapest travel then you would go by coach for £9.50. It seems to me that for the same or less than HS2 they could have longer platforms, double decker coaches (like in France) and get the cost down. I would rather have a 2 hour service for about £30 that I could actually use than a 50 minute one for £200.
1. Re:The problem with our railways is not speed by dkf · 2012-01-11 21:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It seems to me that for the same or less than HS2 they could have longer platforms, double decker coaches (like in France) and get the cost down.
  Longer platforms are coming, where possible and sensible, but double decker coaches aren't. The problem is that the standard size of space for a train (i.e., the size of tunnels and bridges) is enough smaller in the UK that there's not enough room to put a double decker coach through it. Moreover, the UK uses bridges very heavily by comparison with much of the world.
  
  I would rather have a 2 hour service for about £30 that I could actually use than a 50 minute one for £200.
  Yes, but if you go two weeks further out (and are willing to travel outside peak times) there's a fare on the same route for £22.60. (I'm not sure if that's a return or a single; the website's interface isn't quite as clear on that as I would want.) Booking at the last minute is costly, but booking well ahead is pretty cheap.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:14 years?? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2012-01-11 21:15 · Score: 5, Informative

It took only six years for the greatest mobilization in world history to defeat the Axis.
Yes, well this time you don't have Russians doing the bulk of the dirty work for you.

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Re:14 years?? by TheLink · 2012-01-11 21:31 · Score: 3, Informative

19 years is very long. Is the 19 years for all 7 towers? The Burj Khalifa, Taipei 101 and Petronas Twin Towers all took about 6-7 years, and they cost less than USD2 billion.
Not expecting it to be this fast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdpf-MQM9vY
But if it's 19 years for one or two towers, it is crazy.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:14 years?? by Gordonjcp · 2012-01-12 00:48 · Score: 4, Informative

Well yes, of course - once the US stopped handing vast amounts of machinery and oil to Germany, beating them was easy. Glad you guys finally decided to come on side once the difficult bit was done, though.
St Margarets to Buntingford by Kupfernigk · 2012-01-12 02:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Yup. They cut it to save £6000 of loss, and then lost £24000 of income on the main line because the accountants were too stupid to understand that just about every single passenger was going on to London. Now, in 2012, that would be a very profitable line through expensive Hertfordshire villages.
British accountants frequently combine arrogance with ignorance; their inability to understand how businesses really work has been one of the reasons for failure of UK PLC.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."